Blue Like You

What I’ve been hearing an awful lot from the Liberal camp and apparent supporters of Dion’s Green Shift, is that at least he has a plan, so therefore it’s better than nothing, right?

But is it really?

The assumption with that logic is that no matter what we do to try to solve an existing problem, the effort to do so outweighs any tendency to sit back and study the problem further. In other words, the result doesn’t matter, as long as we’re doing something.

So if someone has a an infected finger, should we therefore chop it off instead of seeing if antibiotics might solve the problem first?

Perhaps this isn’t the best example, but the fact remains that many of the kneejerk reactions to AGW and climate change are proving to be ineffective and causing other problems. Biofuels spring to mind here because this was first seen as a panacea for our oil dependency, but now we’re seeing the effects which include higher food prices and increased world hunger due to crops and fields being converted to grow corn and other grains for fuel.

I just finished watching Stephane Dion being interviewed by Robert Fife on CTV’s Question Period. Dion was saying something to the effect that since almost half of all Canadian goods are exported, then the tax on carbon will be paid by both foreigners and Canadians, while the benefits would be enjoyed by Canadians alone in the form of tax deductions.

My question for Stephane Dion would have been to ask what happens when people in other countries stop buying our goods because they are too expensive? And what good is a tax deduction if you don’t have a job because the products you manufacture are no longer competitive in a global market? (You blew it there, Robert.)

Lorrie Goldstein points out the flaws in other so-called solutions, including cap-and-trade, carbon credits, carbon trading markets, etc. in today’s column, Carbon Credits’ dirty secret.

He mentions allegations of "corruption, profiteering and ineffectiveness" regarding Kyoto , and that it guarantees that "future emission increases, not decreases" - not exactly the result we’re looking for.

So I sent Lorrie an email asking him exactly what did he see as a viable solution to the problem of man made global warming?

In his very prompt and thoughtful reply, he directed me to one of his recent columns, Carbon Quacks - Canadian politicians in denial about real solutions to climate woes. The answer lies near the end of the column:

…Don’t you think that government would focus like a laser on the development of renewable and nuclear energy and carbon capture technology, which will reduce carbon emissions (and deadly air pollution, a separate issue), plus contribute to global stability by reducing the world’s reliance on Mideast oil, which happens to be located where most of the terrorists are?

Wouldn’t fiscally responsible politicians, instead of pretending a new tax or stock market will save us, finance this necessary research and development by redirecting to it the billions of dollars we’re wasting subsidizing mega-rich fossil fuel companies and disastrous ideas like bio-fuels?

They would … if they weren’t reality deniers.

In his email, Lorrie summarized by stating that "the only thing that will actually reduce carbon emissions is a massive and co-ordinated effort to develop nuclear and (practical, affordable, reliable) renewable energy, along with carbon capture technology."

"Last week’s column on politicians being in denial about global warming essentially said, in the negative, what I would do…

…Beyond that, responsible programs to encourage citizens to conserve fossil fuels (which I would do through financial incentives rather than higher taxes) should be expanded, instead of introducing new carbon tax and/or cap and trade carbon market, neither of which will do anything to lower carbon emissions…

He had some other great ideas too, but asked me to refrain from publishing them yet. You’ll just have to wait for one of his future columns! Ha-ha-ha!!!

I wish to thank Lorrie Goldstein for his continual mentoring on the issue of global warming. He has done an incredible amount of research. I find his columns to be very non-partisan, objective and educational.

* * * *

Somewhat Related : There is a new question up on my poll page - What is the most serious issue facing Canada right now? Your participation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Sunday Update: Lorrie Goldstein - The hole in Kyoto’s ‘cap’:

…The most gaping hole in the roof of Kyoto is that 143 of 180 member countries have no cap on their emissions until at least 2013 (if ever), including China, the world’s largest carbon emitter.

Only 37 countries, and, only a handful of major industrial ones, including Canada — but not the U.S., the world’s second-largest emitter, which has refused to ratify Kyoto dating back to when Al Gore was its vice-president — are required to reduce emissions by an average of 5% between now and 2012. (For us, 6%.)

However, as the Christian Science Monitor reported after researching the issue in 2004, up to 850 new coal plants planned by China, India and the United States alone over the next few years — none covered by Kyoto — will put up to five times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, than Kyoto is designed to remove, even if every country required to reduce emissions hits its targets. Many, if not most, including us, won’t…

Jack has an interesting poll going on at Jack’s Newswatch - Should Al Gore be sued by companies he is harming with his crusade?

This ties in with his post based on an article from Spiegel Online Killing Jobs to Save the Climate , which explains how the German carbon trading market is causing many industries to threaten to pack up and leave. And costs are only going to go up.

As one of Jack’s readers (L.G.) remarked, it’s like a spigot that once installed, can be opened up at a faster and faster rate. The analogy is quite worth reading.

Anyway, please read Jack’s post and related links and then check out his poll.

Oh yeah, and about those melting ice caps, Mr. Gore…

One other interesting tidbit here - What’s the point of a cure if the patient may not be sick? by Australia’s William Kininmonth:

…It is disingenuous to claim that carbon dioxide, an essential component of plant photosynthesis and necessary for life, is a pollutant….

…The public response seems to be almost a death wish; a lemming-like rush to reduce national carbon dioxide emissions at the expense of industries prospering on the basis of our national comparative advantage through fossil fuel resources…

That guy talks my language!

Stephane Dion seems to be basing his economic policy on the so-called irrefutable science of man-made climate change. While I totally agree with his concerns about pollution and the inherent need to clean up the environment for the health and safety of Canadians, I have a difficult time buying this line:

…Finally, we need to play a bigger role in the international efforts to solve the climate-change crisis. We need to participate in the setting of international goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and international rules to put a price on the cost of inaction. We cannot ignore the science of climate change simply because we don’t like what it forecasts . We need to work together to bring together the environment, the economy and social justice so we can lead the way toward a sustainable future…

Well, there are many scientific forecasts which seem to challenge Monsieur Dion’s unwavering belief system on climate change. Just today we have relevant editorials by Lorrie Goldstein and David Warren , and a piece here questioning NASA’s model.

So the fact is that the science is not clear. There are still many questions and obviously many mitigating factors that can affect trends and changes in the temperature of the earth. And as Fred points out, very little MSM coverage is given to events that appear to contradict the prevalent climate- change theories. One would almost suspect that it is a conspiracy of some kind. But hopefully the light of healthy skepticism will start to peek through the cracks of the cover-up.

So if Stephane Dion wants to follow Australia’s example and try to take advantage of the gullible, that’s his choice.

But don’t pretend that it is such a noble cause, when in fact it’s just an excuse for another burgeoning, money-sucking bureaucracy that will have the net effect of driving up the costs of goods that Canadians wish to purchase - including gas, and every commodity that relies on gas for transportation.

* * * *

Update: CBC’s At Issue addressed the issue of gas prices and politics this week.

Also worth watching is Rex Murphy’s take on ‘The End of the Ethanol Dream’ .

I can’t believe I just linked to CBC twice in one post!

The Maple Three - New Liberal Slogan: "Heating bills from hell are on the way. "  (One of my favourite Liblogs)

Sounds like Lorrie Goldstein gets more than his fair share of ranting emails from the Kyoto crowd.

In today’s column (Let’s clear the air here), Goldstein lays out his stance on global warming and climate change, which I find to be moderate, non-partisan and entirely reasonable:

For more than a year now, having done a fair bit of research about the issue on my own, I’ve been writing critically about global warming. During that time, I have stated the following:

That I accept the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Earth is warming unnaturally and that it is “very likely” human activity is the cause.

That, regardless of global warming, it’s important to conserve energy and to burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) as cleanly and efficiently as possible, not just for environmental reasons, but for geo-political ones. The less we have to rely on Mideast oil, the greater our security will be.

I’ve said Canada, as a resource-rich country, should be a leader in the responsible use of fossil fuels and government subsidies to the oil industry — unnecessary when oil costs more than $100 a barrel — should be re-invested into Canadian research and development of new sources of renewable energy and clean technologies.

I’ve said if Canada imposes a carbon tax, presuming a majority of Canadians favour this, it must be done in concert with the U.S. and our other major trading partners, so as not to damage our economy.
I’ve argued it must be truly revenue neutral, providing already overtaxed Canadians with realistic ways of moving toward a carbon economy…

Then he goes on to explain why he doesn’t support the Kyoto protocol which, as he agrees with Harper, really is a ’socialist, money-sucking scheme’. Worse, it is not realistically designed to lower man-made GHG emissions due to the exclusion of certain countries such as China and India, and the fact that the U.S. has not ratified the treaty “dating back to the Bill Clinton/Al Gore administration”.

Also:

…Climate hysterics, led by environmental radicals and opportunistic politicians, who screech that every time there’s an extreme, or even unusual weather event it’s “proof” of man-made global warming, don’t know what they’re talking about. They constantly confuse “weather” and “climate.”

They don’t understand the difference between man-made global warming and the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, which keeps us all from freezing…

…Kyoto isn’t an environmental plan. It’s a plan to transfer wealth from the First World to the Third and damage the American economy in particular…

As if we need that right now! As we can already see, a worsening U.S. economic situation can seriously impact our economy - especially in Ontario.

Please read the whole article. It’s a no-nonsense approach to a very highly-charged, political argument. Yet the emails still pour in calling him names for this moderate stance.

Maybe that’s because when they’ve run out of facts, then name-calling is the only thing left to fall back on.

Or is it?

They could always try locking him up.

This morning Lorrie Goldstein shows us the underlying contradiction in the recent report presented by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy’s (NRTEE) - Only one place for this report:

…Indeed, the NRTEE paper, Getting to 2050: Canada’s Transition to a Low-emission Future warns 10 times that its proposals won’t damage our economy only if the U.S. and our other major trading partners are simultaneously implementing similar measures. Its optimistic economic modelling is based on that.

And yet bizarrely, it also concludes, without qualification, that: “It is not the NRTEE’s view that any of this should be justification for not taking action now to either reduce emissions now, or put in place the most effective policy framework for deep, long-term reductions in the future.” Excuse us?

Exactly.

So while our own efforts alone would likely return negligible results on a global scale and would likely damage our economy if the U.S., China and others refused to join the cause, we should still soldier on with the proposals in the faint hope that everyone else will follow our example?

Well, here’s the problem. Not every country in the world has a Lemming mentality. If Canada’s economy is going down the tubes, that is of little concern for the rest of the world. In fact, it could be a plus for China, which is already getting the benefit of our collapsing manufacturing sector.

I see little incentive for the others to join our little march over the cliff.

Perhaps the environmentalists should follow their own advice and try to tone down the gaseous emissions rising from this pile of manure.

My heartfelt thanks to Helga Fischer of Kitchener for saving me the trouble of having to write to the Record about their idiotic Jan. 2 editorial, A year for saving the environment.

Ms. Fisher’s letter is much better than anything I could ever have composed - Weather is changeable:

…Whether it’s a period of a few months or many thousands of years, the weather keeps changing. Plate tectonics, the tilt of the earth and solar activity play the major roles in weather shifts. This seems not to concern you, but put a few SUVs on the road and you “warm mongers” see only catastrophe. I am asking you: How much more evidence do you need that climate change is normal . . . it’s been happening for millennia.

My favourite part of your rant is the second part of your question. The reference to “overstating” the warnings. Why can you not use honest language? The correct word is “exaggerate.” I have noticed that the word “overstate” is being used a fair bit by the “warmers” these days. If the word “exaggerate” scares you then little wonder you’re so “unnerved” by no snow until the middle of January last year.

Except for skiers and snowplow drivers, I heard very few complaints. If I were you I would be more intrigued by another “global warming” story . . . the one about how Al Gore went from a net worth of about $1 million seven years ago to a current estimated worth of over $100 million. I think it’s fair to say that global warming is the best thing that’s ever happened to him…

I love that last bit.

My personal feeling is that we don’t know exactly how much AGW is a factor in climate change, but to blame it on all man-made sources and say there can be no more discussion is quite disingenuous - although not surprising for an editorial board in the centre of Lemmingland.

Lorne Gunter is another columnist with a common sense approach on AGW similar to Lorrie Goldstein’s.

In “A warmer Arctic? Blame Mother Nature”, Gunter explains the reasons why we should keep an open mind on just how much man-made global warming there is vs. natural.

…My point is that coverage of global warming and climate change have become horribly one-sided. Every report about a disappearing tree tick or nasty bout of rainfall that seems to support the received wisdom is blared loud and wide, while stories that might undermine it are seldom given more than brief mention.

It the public is to make up its mind about climate change, it needs better balance.

Exactly.

And we are fortunate to have such talented Canadian columnists as Lorrie Goldstein and Lorne Gunter to point that out, and mitigate some of the hot air coming from other media sources.

As I mentioned in the previous post, with all the Kyoto misinformation being tossed about, it is refreshing to come across a voice of reason and healthy skepticism in MSM. Lorrie Goldstein has done a tremendous amount of reading on all sides of the debate, and provides a balanced, rational approach.

I asked him by email if he would sum up his position as being an “AGW believer; just not a Kyoto advocate in particular?”

His reply was as follows:

…I agree with the IPCC’s latest report that AGW is “very likely”, although I do not automatically dismiss anyone who disagrees with this theory as a “denier”.

I do not agree there is any scientific consensus on how fast it is happening, how dramatic the impact will be or, most important, what we should do about it, the latter of which is a political issue, not a scientific one.

I oppose the Kyoto accord for reasons I have highlighted in today’s column and many others.

I believe we should purse a made-in-Canada policy which emphasizes practical energy conservation, not just reducing GHG emissions, but air pollution as well, another byproduct of burning fossil fuels.

I would end public subsidies to the fossil fuel industry (how much subsidy do you need when oil is $100 a barrel and rising?) and earmark those funds for credible public and private sector research in Canada into ways of combatting pollution and global warming, including burning fossil fuels as cleanly as possible.

I would also invest money now going into public subsidization of the fossil fuel industry into credible public and private sector research and development of renewable energy resources, especially solar power, which I consider more potentially promising than wind.

I believe we should offer such technology to the rest of the world on fair and reasonable financial terms.

Finally I believe in the responsible use of nuclear power, the only practical man-made energy source we have right now that does not emit GHG or significant amounts of air pollution, to fill in the energy gap as we start to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

Makes sense to me. How about you?

Whenever I read anything on global warming, climate change or Kyoto, I am struck by how the whole topic of what should essentially be a scientific issue is often framed in terms of a belief system - much like a religion or faith.

People on both sides of the argument attempt to use their own biased data to attempt to convince others that they are right.

If that doesn’t work, then they try guilt and shame. (Ironically, these folks usually tend to be moral relativists in most matters, but when it comes to climate change, their position is ABSOLUTE TRUTH!)

In today’s Sun, Lorrie Goldstein attempts to shine a light of balance and reality into an otherwise murky, emotional debate - Skip the Kyoto Snow Job.

I trust and respect Lorrie’s work on this subject. After doing a great deal of reading and research, he seems to agree that there is some degree of man-made component to global warming (AGW), but remains skeptical of Kyoto as the means to accomplish any real results. That is a position with which I can support.

Kyoto was a seriously flawed treaty from the start in terms of credibility:

…Russia is in compliance with Kyoto and has billions of dollars of “hot air” credits to sell to countries like Canada — not because of its environmental policies, but because the base year for Kyoto was deliberately set at 1990, just as the economy of the former Soviet Union was imploding, causing the shutdown of many GHG-producing industries. Similarly, Germany and the European Union benefit from the collapse of the East German economy.

Kyoto envisions the First World paying billions of dollars to the Third in the faint hope the latter will use that money to reduce its rapidly-growing GHG emissions…

When some countries realize the economic reality that meeting the targets would entail, they often balk at the commitment. The Kyoto Kult activists use guilt as a weapon to try to shame them on the world stage (remember Bali?):

…we must ignore simplistic environmental rhetoric that portrays nations which meet (or try to meet) their Kyoto targets as “good” while those that don’t as “bad.” In reality, all countries act in their own perceived best interests.

China rejects GHG cuts (as has the U.S. through both the Clinton and Bush administrations) not because it favours global climate catastrophe several decades from now if Al Gore’s apocalyptic rhetoric is correct, which is unlikely.

It does so because it has more pressing problems, such as feeding its 1.3 billion people today.

It’s pointless to condemn China for acting in its own interests, just as it’s silly to portray Canada as an energy glutton, a favourite guilt-inducing tactic of environmentalists…

You see this guilt meme rise up often in global warming enterprises.

Scott Stinson of the National Post pointed out yesterday in “Buying your way out of carbon debt“, that the carbon-offset market is becoming big business.

Just how scientifically effective it is, however, is another matter:

…The carbon-offset market was non-existent just a few years ago, but it is big business now, with researchers estimating the activity in North America at more than $100-million last year. So, what are the buyers getting for all that offset money? At best, they are spurring investment in an enterprise that reduces greenhouse-gas emissions. And at worst, critics say, they are simply practising chequebook environmentalism, ­salving guilt by investing in a scheme whose benefits are negligible…

Here’s the inherent glitch:

…But in order for such a transaction to be truly “carbon neutral,” the seller would have to use the offset money to create an environmental benefit that would not otherwise have happened.

Robert Stavins, the director of the Environmental Economics Program at Harvard University, says that is the key problem with offset programs — that the companies that generate credits must do so by “doing something that they otherwise would not have done.“

“It is a comparison with an unobserved — and unobservable — hypothetical,” he said in an interview…

So it all boils down to faith. You are paying to assuage your guilt and look virtuous.

And here’s the kicker. In BS alert! BS alert!, Lorrie Goldstein discloses this little gem:

Finally, if idiot celebrities jetting around the world claiming they are “carbon neutral” because they buy carbon offsets understood the Kyoto Accord, they wouldn’t bother, considering what hypocrites they already are.

That’s because Kyoto doesn’t count GHG emissions caused by flying, although it’s one of the world’s fastest-growing sources of GHG.

Oops!

Goldstein ends today’s column with a suggestion that we skip the rhetoric and look for real solutions:

…Despite what Kyoto propagandists and opportunistic politicians pretend, this isn’t about making an easy choice between “good” and “bad.” It’s about making intelligent choices from the options we have, all of which have positive and negative consequences.

So let’s leave the morality rhetoric to issues of religion and faith.

Or perhaps we should all pray for Divine guidance.

Kudos to Jonathan Kay for diffusing some of the hot air emanating from yesterday’s Star.

Today’s National Post editorial focuses on the failures of Kyoto and the ironic hypocrisy of the upcoming Bali conference itself - Son of Kyoto:

…The UN is hosting a major conference this week and next in Bali, Indonesia, to negotiate a successor agreement to Kyoto. What lessons have the delegates drawn from the first treaty’s flaws? None, apparently. If anything, their proposals for a Kyoto II suggest an accord that would be worse than the original.

While nominally binding more nations to reduction targets, the UN in reality appears intent on making the same three dozen wealthy countries make the bulk of the sacrifices. At the same time, it would saddle them with an additional burden: sending hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to developing nations in order to ensure that what marginal emission reductions those countries are called on to make can be achieved cost-free.

The sheer size of the Bali gathering shows how the global-warming movement has become an industry unto itself. During their negotiations on emission reductions to save the planet, the 20,000 delegates and observers in Bali will generate a greater carbon footprint than all the residents of a city the size of Victoria, Halifax or London, Ont., would produce in a month. The Canadian Climate Action Network, which includes some of this country’s best-known eco-crusaders, boasted Monday that it was sending 60 participants. Flying those delegates and their confreres from around the world to the remote resort island will generate 110,000 tonnes of CO2, alone.

But then, this do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude should not be surprising: The most strident champions of carbon abatement are unaccountable NGOs and celebrity environmentalists who travel around the world feting one another, drinking their own green Kool-Aid…

Exactly. And if any of those eco-evangelists feel the need for a brief diversion, there’s plenty to atone for afterwards.

Cutting through the hype is a challenge for the average Canadian, but let me make this perfectly clear - It will affect your own bottom line. As Ultramar vice-president Louis Forget said of Quebec’s ‘green tax’, “Somehow, the consumers will pay for it.”

Oh yes, we will pay and pay and pay again.

Those of us who still have jobs, that is.