Jump to content

Climate Change?


Recommended Posts

Glasgow gives us green hyperbole, rising costs and instability 

Something’s got to give. Carbon dioxide emission cuts, income growth and population growth: you get to pick two of the three

A video is going around showing President Biden nodding off during the opening speeches at COP26 — the United Nation’s latest big climate conference. As the speaker, perhaps having just flown in on one of the 400 private jets that filled the Glasgow skies, pleaded for “action to stop the destruction of this magnificent planet” and warned this “conference is one of the most important meetings in history,” Biden shut his eyes and fell asleep. Personally, I’d have rolled my eyes, not shut them, but it comes to the same thing. The proper response to this sort of apocalyptic hyperbole is to tune it out, especially when it’s a replay of the same inane rhetoric of the previous 25 such meetings.

Biden’s nap was interrupted by an aide arriving to whisper something in his ear. Perhaps it was a reminder that OPEC rejected his plea to increase oil production, a request he might want to renew considering all the gasoline he used cruising around Rome in an 85-car motorcade . Or maybe it was to explain that the White House’s pleas for increased output from the U.S. oil industry were at odds with the decision to cancel all those drilling permits, or to warn him that U.S. coal stockpiles are at a two-decade low and suppliers are already reporting being sold out through 2022 , which will limit the power grid’s ability to offset the coming price shock from rising natural gas prices.

The idea that Biden might have spent his time at COP26 worrying how to boost fossil fuel supplies and prevent the energy crisis now gripping Europe and Asia from hitting the United States is not farfetched. Words, actions and beliefs rarely overlap on the climate issue. Indeed, the more unhinged our leaders’ climate rhetoric gets the less likely even they are to believe any of it.


For instance, our own prime minister and his radical Greenpeace activist-turned-environment minister have declared they will set a hard cap on oil and gas sector greenhouse gas emissions, which will then be ratcheted down aggressively in the years ahead. Which confirms that, despite all their claims, they never believed carbon taxes work. If they had, they would know that with one of the most aggressive carbon-pricing systems in the world now in place, such a policy is unnecessary and will wreck what little efficiency remained in the carbon-pricing system after all the other ad hoc initiatives, including the Clean Fuel Standard, electric vehicle boondoggles and so forth.


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland on Nov. 2, 2021. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland on Nov. 2, 2021. PHOTO BY SEAN KILPATRICK/THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES

Likewise, it shows they don’t believe in their immigration goals. Or maybe they do but they don’t yet see how they contradict their climate goals. Carbon dioxide emission growth is determined by the sum of population growth, income growth and changes in the emissions intensity of GDP. The latter goes down steadily each year at a rate largely determined by technological progress and the turnover rate of the capital stock. Income — GDP per person — goes up a per cent or two each year, or at least the government hopes it will. And population is set to grow more rapidly as immigration numbers are boosted. Taken together these goals imply carbon dioxide emissions will grow over the next decade — but the government says no, they have to fall dramatically.

OK, something’s got to give. Carbon dioxide emission cuts, income growth and population growth: you get to pick two of the three.

At the local level we have seen gullible city councils in Ontario parrot activist demands for a phase-out of natural gas in electricity production. We use gas to manage peak system demand because, unlike nuclear, hydro and renewables, it can reliably be ramped up and down on demand. Without that flexibility we would face the risk of grid instability, blackouts during times of peak demand and even higher system costs than we already pay. So why are city councils calling for a ban? Because they like virtue-signalling and they don’t care about the suffering that would be caused if their grandstanding were acted upon.

Fortunately, the Ontario government has rejected calls to ban gas generation. The Ford government swept to power on a promise to fix Ontario’s electricity mess and get rates down. Giving credit where it’s due, had they not stood up to the activists on this one, they could never again claim to be champions of businesses and working people. Give in to the greens on banning gas in electricity production, and you’ll have to cave on demands to ban gas everywhere else. Then goodbye affordable energy and what little industry Ontario still retains.


Globally, the governments who speak most plainly on the subject of climate are China and Russia; unfortunately, we don’t seem to be listening to them. By this time surely our governments must see that crushing Canada under an ever-growing burden of inefficient climate policies will, by every expert’s reckoning, not change the rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere over the coming century but will hasten the buildup of global political and economic power in Beijing.

It’s probably not the case that environmentalists dream of a future where the world is under the thumb of the Chinese Communist Party and its coal-powered Belt-and-Road network, but that’s what their irresponsible and radical activism is bringing about.

People talk about Joe Biden’s catnap at COP26 as if it was a diplomatic faux pas. Personally, I wish our prime minister and other world leaders had slept through the whole thing.

Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics at the University of Guelph and a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute.


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


South Australia’s Solar Success Could Have Global Implications

Where do we go next with the global clean energy transition? One trend that has remained constant over the last several years is the world’s progress in replacing traditional fossil fuels with renewable alternatives. Despite the breakout of a global pandemic and subsequent economic shutdown for the large part of 2020, worldwide solar capacity soared by 45 percent, the largest annual rate of growth in two decades. Still, questions remain as some holdouts are unconvinced that traditional energy types will be phased out altogether in the coming years. 

The skepticism seems to be centered around the fear that fossil fuels and other environmentally damaging power sources will always be needed on a supplemental basis due to the perceived inconsistency of renewables. After all, an underground oil reserve generally continues to be accessible at all times, while all it takes is a cloudy day for an entire field of solar panels to be shut down entirely. Although energy generated from solar and wind can certainly be stored just like any other source, the prevailing notion from critics is that this inconsistency will prevent our infrastructure from generating enough power to keep up with annual worldwide consumption. 

y0skj15HIS9k8Ufk9niacsSsi7Z0Piyk0HIKPLh- Image courtesy of Jay Wennington

Recent developments like those seen in South Australia indicate that this fear is beginning to look more and more unfounded. The region has consistently produced substantial amounts of renewable energy. Over the past year, it has begun pushing the boundaries of what was thought to be possible. Much of this is likely due to the continent’s relatively unique exposure to the sun. The level of exposure to ultraviolet radiation in Australia has measured 10-15% stronger than elsewhere in the world. Beachgoers in the continent’s northern capital of Darwin can get a sunburn after less than twenty minutes outside. 

This combination of robust solar infrastructure and fortunate global position has allowed South Australia to set milestones not yet seen elsewhere on Earth. For a moment, in October of 2020, the region achieved a solar output that exceeded 100 percent of total energy demand in terms of wattage. The same has now happened almost a year later, but the surplus this time was higher and more sustained than ever before. While the record-setting peak of over 106 percent of total energy demand was only reached for a brief moment, the grid was able to sustain a capacity above 100 percent of demand for about an hour. The surplus was relatively short-lived because providers in places like Bungala and Tailem Bend began to limit their operations. Solar prices would actually turn negative for the grid to sustain an excess for a more extended period of time. 

WumG08GqRSlUDF9aBkqzzn5QHjblq-MUFn0GFpY7 Image courtesy of Jeremy Bezanger

The success of South Australia’s solar program could have significant implications for how countries like the United States handle their renewable situation. Those who argue that differences in demand between countries are missing the point – almost 1.8 million people live in the region, roughly the size of West Virginia and more than ten American states, including New Hampshire, Maine, and Delaware. It is true that the sun simply burns hotter in much of Australia. However, states like Wyoming certainly have a low enough population density for a large-scale solar panel rollout to be viable.

A growing subset of the academic world is now arguing that a full-scale global solar infrastructure is not only doable in the coming years but it would also provide energy returns similar to those seen in South Australia. A recent study by researchers at University College Cork in Ireland used a machine-learning algorithm to locate available solar space worldwide and found roughly 200,000 square kilometers of applicable rooftop area for solar panels. The area was enough to generate 27 petawatt-hours of energy, exceeding total energy demand worldwide for 2018. As long as global consumption doesn’t increase significantly beyond those levels, any additional need could be met through wind power alone, leaving fossil fuels a relic of the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the average annual temperature of Darwin has absolutely nothing to do with the success of their solar power.

What is the average minimum and maximum yearly temperature in Darwin?
Temperatures and Rainfall

Darwin's yearly average temperatures are 32°C (89.6°F) for the maximum, while the "minimum" average is approximately 23.2°C (73.8°F) - meaning that Darwin's minimum is often higher than the maximum of many other capital cities throughout Australia.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you said: 



South Australia’s Solar Success Could Have Global Implications

Here is the flip side that you should be more concerned with. 

Australia vows to sell coal 'for decades'

MON, NOV 08, 2021 - 1:19 PM
 UPDATED MON, NOV 08, 2021 - 1:24 PM

Monday it will sell coal for "decades into the future" after spurning a pact to phase out the polluting fossil fuel to halt catastrophic climate change. 


[SYDNEY] Australia said on Monday it will sell coal for "decades into the future" after spurning a pact to phase out the polluting fossil fuel to halt catastrophic climate change.

More than 40 countries pledged to eliminate coal use within decades during the COP26 UN climate summit in Glasgow, which aims to cap the warming of Earth since the Industrial Revolution to between 1.5 and 2.0 deg C.

Australia, along with some other major coal users such as China and the United States, did not sign up.


"We have said very clearly we are not closing coal mines and we are not closing coal-fired power stations," Australian Minister for Resources Keith Pitt told national broadcaster ABC.

Defending Australia's decision, Pitt said Australia had some of the world's high

Tell us what you think. Email us at btuserfeedback@sph.com.sg


"If we aren't to win that market, somebody else will," Pitt added.

"I would much rather it be Australia's high-quality product, delivering Australian jobs and building Australia's economy than coming from Indonesia or Russia or elsewhere."

Australia is one of the world's largest producers of coal and natural gas, but has also suffered under increasingly extreme climate-fuelled droughts, floods and bushfires in recent years.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison's government unveiled last month a 2050 net zero emissions target but the plan was criticised for lacking detail and relying heavily on as-yet-unknown technological breakthroughs.

The Minerals Council of Australia, which represents large miners such as BHP and Rio Tinto, has said a 2050 target is achievable through significant investment in technology.

Pitt said some 300,000 Australians' jobs were reliant on the coal sector. The Minerals Council of Australia itself says the coal industry directly employs 50,000 workers while supporting another 120,000 jobs.

Major mining groups such as BHP say they are exiting the most polluting fossil fuels.

In its latest divestment, BHP announced Monday it had sold its 80 percent stake in a metallurgical coal mine in the eastern state of Queensland to Stanmore Resources for at least US$1.2 billion.

"As the world decarbonises, BHP is sharpening its focus on producing higher quality metallurgical coal sought after by global steelmakers to help increase efficiency and lower emissions," BHP head of Australian mining Edgar Basto said in a statement.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lest we forget…this is just another TAX which will NEVER be rescinded.

“ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged all countries to agree to some sort of global price on carbon, a measure he says will dramatically curb the use of fossil fuels and level the playing field for countries like Canada that already impose a levy on emissions.

Speaking at a panel discussion organized by Canada on the sidelines of the COP26 summit in Glasgow, Trudeau said his government fought hard to impose its carbon tax policy over the opposition of political opponents in Canada, and now he wants to take that fight to the global stage.”




Edited by Jaydee
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One crisp winter morning in Sweden, a cute little girl named Greta woke up to a perfect world, one where there were no petroleum products ruining the earth. She tossed aside her cotton sheet and wool blanket and stepped out onto a dirt floor covered with willow bark that had been pulverized with rocks. “What’s this?” she asked.
“Pulverized willow bark,” replied her fairy godmother. 
“What happened to the carpet?” she asked. 
“The carpet was nylon, which is made from butadiene and hydrogen cyanide, both made from petroleum,” came the response. 
Greta smiled, acknowledging that adjustments are necessary to save the planet, and moved to the sink to brush her teeth where instead of a toothbrush, she found a willow, mangled on one end to expose wood fibre bristles. 
“Your old toothbrush?” noted her godmother, “Also nylon.” 
“Where’s the water?” asked Greta. 
“Down the road in the canal,” replied her godmother, ‘Just make sure you avoid water with cholera in it” 
“Why’s there no running water?” Greta asked, becoming a little peevish. 
“Well,” said her godmother, who happened to teach engineering at MIT, “Where do we begin?” There followed a long monologue about how sink valves need elastomer seats and how copper pipes contain copper, which has to be mined and how it’s impossible to make all-electric earth-moving equipment with no gear lubrication or tires and how ore has to be smelted to a make metal, and that’s tough to do with only electricity as a source of heat, and even if you use only electricity, the wires need insulation, which is petroleum-based, and though most of Sweden’s energy is produced in an environmentally friendly way because of hydro and nuclear, if you do a mass and energy balance around the whole system, you still need lots of petroleum products like lubricants and nylon and rubber for tires and asphalt for filling potholes and wax and iPhone plastic and elastic to hold your underwear up while operating a copper smelting furnace and . . . 
“What’s for breakfast?” interjected Greta, whose head was hurting. 
"Fresh, range-fed chicken eggs,” replied her godmother. “Raw.” 
“How so, raw?” inquired Greta. 
“Well, . . .” And once again, Greta was told about the need for petroleum products like transformer oil and scores of petroleum products essential for producing metals for frying pans and in the end was educated about how you can’t have a petroleum-free world and then cook eggs. Unless you rip your front fence up and start a fire and carefully cook your egg in an orange peel like you do in Boy Scouts. Not that you can find oranges in Sweden anymore. 
“But I want poached eggs like my Aunt Tilda makes,” lamented Greta.
“Tilda died this morning,” the godmother explained. “Bacterial pneumonia.” 
“What?!” interjected Greta. “No one dies of bacterial pneumonia! We have penicillin.” 
“Not anymore,” explained godmother “The production of penicillin requires chemical extraction using isobutyl acetate, which, if you know your organic chemistry, is petroleum-based. Lots of people are dying, which is problematic because there’s not any easy way of disposing of the bodies since backhoes need hydraulic oil and crematoriums can’t really burn many bodies using as fuel Swedish fences and furniture, which are rapidly disappearing - being used on the black market for roasting eggs and staying warm.” 
This represents only a fraction of Greta’s day, a day without microphones to exclaim into and a day without much food, and a day without carbon-fibre boats to sail in, but a day that will save the planet. 
Tune in tomorrow when Greta needs a root canal and learns how Novocain is synthesized.


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with electric cars

EVs should not be seen as some sort of panacea for dealing with climate change

Tue Nov 09, 2021 -  Financial Post
by Diane Francis



“In Norway, there are more EVs per person than anywhere in the world and studies show that people have two cars — a (subsidized) EV car to go `virtue signalling’ and the real car for use for real stuff,”

The hype and mythologizing over electric vehicles (EVs) afflicts policy-making and leads to costly subsidies that produce little environmental benefits, according to Danish climate expert Bjorn Lomborg.

“In Norway, there are more EVs per person than anywhere in the world and studies show that people have two cars — a (subsidized) EV car to go `virtue signalling’ and the real car for use for real stuff,” said Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus think tank and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, in an interview with the Financial Post. “Norwegians use the gasoline car a lot more and drive less in a green car. A new study from a select group showed they only drove 5,000 miles a year, on average. This estimate was based on their electricity usage.”

That’s because, while EVs are fuel efficient, they are not always practical. “The main problem is that they have to pay more to buy it, then sit around and wait 40 minutes when recharging it,” he said. “It’s great if you have a house and can get a high voltage hookup, but 40 per cent or more people live in apartment blocks.”

Nor should EVs be seen as some sort of panacea for dealing with climate change. “Even if everyone switched, it would solve very little of the problem regarding CO2 emissions,” Lomborg said. “The International Energy Agency (IEA) says EVs effectiveness depend on the power source as to whether they reduce emissions. In Norway (with hydroelectricity), they generate 24 per cent fewer emissions than a gasoline car, but in China they contribute more emissions because they run on coal power.”

The head of the IEA, Fatih Birol, famously said , “If you think you can save the climate with electric cars, you’re completely wrong.” China is the world’s biggest EV manufacturer — an industrial strategy designed to reduce its dependency on gasoline made from foreign oil. But around 60 per cent of its power is generated by burning dirty coal, which means that EVs driven in China are “coal” cars that contribute to the emissions problem more than gasoline cars.

Besides that, many countries suffer from brownouts or power disruptions, making EVs untenable. Norway’s power comes solely from hydroelectricity, but the country is wealthy mostly because of its fossil fuel exports.

“Subsidies to make EVs cheaper are not going to cut all that much CO2, according to the IEA,” Lomborg said. “This uses tons of financial resources to allow rich people to virtue signal: 75 per cent of all subsidiaries to green energy are given to the richest quarter of all people for EVs and solar panels.”

Lomborg cited numerous ways in which EVs lead to more pollution. “A U.S. study looked at what happens when you put extra one million EVs, hybrids, gasoline or biofuel cars. It turns out you get more air pollution from electric cars, because they use more coal-fired power. Biofuel cars generate a lot more air pollution, but the best thing you can do is build hybrids. They use less gasoline and re-use the power generated by its small battery to emit less. It’s smart and cheap and good for your wallet,” he said.

“Another belief is that all green products are good, but batteries are mostly made in China with lots of coal power generating lots of emissions there … and materials like lithium used in EV batteries are mined by young children mostly in the Republic of Congo.”

Despite the facts, some countries are planning to ban the internal combustion engine within the next couple decades. Canada’s Liberal government is looking to implement the ban by 2035. Instead of following the herd and paying excessive amounts to give wealthy people access to subsidized EVs that won’t have much impact on climate change, Canada should re-examine the facts and look to implement policies that have the largest impact on the environment, at the lowest-possible cost to taxpayers.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the same note. Airlines are more and more saying that they will be using "green fuel made from biomass", what no one is questioning is "since most arable land is already committed to raising food , where the heck is the additional land going to come from?

Here is a link 

The ‘Green Energy’ That Might Be Ruining the Planet - POLITICO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, deicer said:

Well, speaking locally, you lose arable land when your government commits to highways that will only benefit developers who will turn that arable land into subdivisions.

Once again you shift to make a Non Reply.   The question remains:


 "since most arable land is already committed to raising food , where the heck is the additional land going to come from?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the land that is currently committed to raising food in my province is rapidly being turned into parking lots by the current government.

The addition of two more highways will only lessen that committed land due to increased development.

Does it get any clearer for you?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, deicer said:

Well, the land that is currently committed to raising food in my province is rapidly being turned into parking lots by the current government.

The addition of two more highways will only lessen that committed land due to increased development.

Does it get any clearer for you?


You still have not answered the question. I asked where is it coming from in the future. Re the highways etc. Please exercise your rights and don't drive on them in your Electric powered vehicle (you do own one, right?}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what are you worried about?  Cities globally are building up to preserve green space and farmland. 

Not here though.  So with no new land being created, wouldn't you agree that we should preserve what fertile land we have instead of paving it over?  Or should it be dug up for oil?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, deicer said:

Well, what are you worried about?  Cities globally are building up to preserve green space and farmland. 

Not here though.  So with no new land being created, wouldn't you agree that we should preserve what fertile land we have instead of paving it over?  Or should it be dug up for oil?


You are still avoiding the question.......   So I guess youi don't have any answers or worries re the end result of using biomass to make green fuel.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stand your ground Dougie, if they're that good the market will take care of it.

Doug Ford says he won't give Ontarians rebates to buy electric vehicles, even though sales are lagging

B.C., Quebec both have substantially higher rates of electric vehicle sales, report says


Thu Nov 11, 2021 - CBC News

Premier Doug Ford is dismissing the idea of bringing back a rebate to encourage Ontarians to buy more electric vehicles, even though the province is lagging behind much of the country in sales.

"I'm not going to give rebates to guys that are buying $100,000 cars — millionaires," he said Wednesday, even though his own government says it's counting on rising sales of those electric vehicles (EVs) to help bring down greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2018, Ford's government cancelled the Electric and Hydrogen Vehicle Incentive Program brought in by the Liberals under Kathleen Wynne.

The Progressive Conservatives justified the move as a cost-cutting measure. It was just one of several changes they made to environmental policies since taking power. The PCs, however, insist they're serious about the environment and fighting climate change, and on Wednesday, Ford highlighted his government's commitment to manufacturing EVs and battery production. 

But now, a report from market analytics firm IHS Markit shows electric vehicle sales in Ontario were far behind that of other provinces offering incentives in the third quarter of 2021. 

Here's how Ontario compares to other provinces in the percentage of car sales taken up by EVs, according to the report:

B.C.: 13 per cent.
Quebec: 9.9 per cent.
Yukon: 4.7 per cent.
P.E.I.: 4.1 per cent.
Ontario: three per cent.

Municipally, Vancouver's adoption rate was 15.6 per cent, with Montreal following at 10.9 per cent. Toronto sat at four per cent. 

EV adoption 'won't just happen by itself,' advocate says 
The Progressive Conservatives say EV adoption is part of their plan to reduce emissions and reach the 2030 targets laid out in the Paris accord, the international treaty to fight climate change adopted in 2015. 

The Ford government's own Made in Ontario Environment Plan, released in 2018, projected "low carbon vehicle uptake" would account for 16 per cent (or a sixth) of the province's emissions reductions.

But at least one advocate says the province can't get there without offering incentives.  

"You just have to look at the stats to see the difference it makes," said Cara Clairman, president of Plug'n Drive, a non-profit organization committed to "accelerating electric vehicle adoption in order to maximize their environmental and economic benefits," according to its website. Clairman has been driving electric cars for a decade and has benefited from provincial rebates in the past. 

"There's an assumption we're going to have all this EV adoption. The province isn't doing anything to make that happen," she said.

"It won't just happen by itself." 

The province's EV target is a lofty goal, according to a 2019 report on the environment released by Ontario's auditor general. The report said the province assumed there would be 1.3 million electric vehicles on the road by 2030 and it pointed out that would be a "more than 3,000 per cent increase" from the 41,000 electric cars registered in Ontario in 2019. 

Following the cancellation of the rebate program, sales of EVs dropped by 50 per cent in Ontario. 

EV manufacturing
"The last time I checked my bank account, I'm far from being a millionaire," said Ontario Green Party leader Mike Schreiner, reacting to Ford's comments. 

"If Doug Ford was serious about making life more affordable … when it comes to transportation, we'd rapidly be supporting people to buy electric vehicles." 

Both the NDP and Green Party have released environmental platforms ahead of the June election detailing sales targets for electric vehicles by 2030, as well as incentives for buying them. The Liberals said they would restore incentives. 

Meanwhile, Clairman said the Ford government's plans for EV manufacturing and battery production are "really significant," but she added they will be a long time coming. 

"If you agree we're in a climate emergency, we can't wait until that happens," she said. 

"We need to be starting now." 


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...