Sir, you conclude with, "... while it’s complicated, after a decade of trying, Canada’s actual emissions haven’t necessarily dropped."
Absolutely, it is complicated. Our worsers (definitely not our betters!) in Otterwer are, as you have pointed out, not particularly qualified in these areas but they - and so many others - keep parroting the line that "The science is settled!" when it clearly isn't. Truly, we don't really know how to ask the question, let alone determine if the answer has been "settled."
It is all well and good to be precautionary but so, so, so much of the "green transition" agenda is clearly composed of destruction of our existing economy for terrifically uncertain future non-benefits.
It would be one thing if the proponents said that we should take this "new path" out of an abundance of caution and we then debate on that basis but, no, they insist that "the science is settled" - a canard, to be certain - when it isn't.
We should be aiming to reduce GHG emissions per capita, not necessarily total GHG. GDP per GHG is where we should be optimizing. A more efficient economy is good for everyone.
And while "settled science" is bad...favoring contrarian positions just because it aligns with what you want reality to be is no better...and likely worse.
I very much support the precautionary principle and am happy to support the scientific consensus, recognizing that we never have enough good data and the science is continually evolving. What I do not support is poorly planned and poorly monitored public expenditure, like much of what you list. Big $$$ could be better spent.
The whole idea that we can have “low carbon” or “decarbonized” fossil fuels is another impossible bit of ideology. Hydrocarbons are energy dense precisely because of the energy locked up in the bonds between carbon atoms and other atoms. Unlocking those bonds eventually yields carbon dioxide. No way to get around it! The idea that we can extract hydrocarbons from the ground and then refine and transport them using only electric power is total fantasy. Every machine in the world is built using hydrocarbons and/or power generated using hydrocarbons. Even those “zero emission”vehicles contain a lot of plastic which comes from, you guessed it, hydrocarbons!
"it turns out that I’m not qualified to express an opinion here. After all, I lack the necessary combined expertise in natural sciences, applied sciences, social sciences, and so on."
Don't tell that to the musicians and actors (many of which never finished high school) who endlessly pontificate and scold whilst motoring off to Saint-Tropez in their palatial yachts.
It’s primarily based on an activist ideology and creating another level of bureaucracy in order to employ massive numbers of people in pursuit of alchemy. It’s an industry not unlike some other government (tax payer funded) industries whose goal is to disrupt.
Follow the money. What do the insurance companies who actually have to pay for bigger and more intense droughts, wildfires, floods, tidal inundations, heat domes, polar vortexes, expansion of tropical disease zones, hurricanes, tornadoes etc. have to say? Well gosh, they are warning that the capital cost of global warming is so rapid and severe in onset that insurers are starting to pull out of high risk zones — which are expanding — and that it poses an increasing threat to financial stability and ultimately to capitalism itself. When the actuaries start talking like this, maybe folks should listen.
It's remarkable to me how easy it's been to fact-cheque this apparently 'Critical Review': when I asked Google Gemini AI if climate change is leading to increased agricultural yields it gave a definitive 'no' and referenced 4 academic articles that acknowledge the benefits of a longer growing season but showed that the extreme weather events are doing far more harm than good.
When I asked it if the Great Barrier Reef is rebounding, I was given two academic articles out of Australia that showed this relief is temporary due to the cooling of the recent El Nina, and the beaching is expected to resume once the waters start warming again, which they inevitably will.
If one wants to focus on the economic impacts of climate change all we have to do is look at our own home insurance papers, which explain to us that the increase in our insurance rates is due to 'extreme weather events' - floods and fire - with some naming climate change directly. Again, AI helpfully gives several articles showing that home insurance in Ontario has gone up 80%; 90% in Alberta.
it is not 'no opinion' to uncritically share one perspective of an issue when quality information is so readily available. This is called confirmation-bias.
Your primary concern for financial accountability and responsibility in how our govt handles our money is fair and good. But anyone who handles any level of a budget knows that maintenance is cheaper than repair, and repair is cheaper than replacement. The sooner we invest in something the less it costs us. However if something is properly maintained, like a home, for example, then the naysayers will say that there was never anything to worry about in the first place. Unfortunately, regarding climate change we are long past the time of early maintenance, and the longer we delay the more it will cost us. And the cost will not only be financial.
It's interesting that you mention increasing "extreme weather events". Before publishing this post, I reached out to Princeton professor Gabriel A. Vecchi (https://vecchi.princeton.edu/people/gabriel-vecchi) to ask him if his 2010 paper on Atlantic storm events had been retracted (since it's been taken down from the NOAA site). He told me that he had no idea why the paper was taken down, but that his results were certainly still valid. He sent me links to half a dozen more recent papers all demonstrating an absence of increasing frequency or severity of Atlantic storms.
As much as I love and rely on A.I., it's always best to speak to the people involved. Here are those links:
Villarini, G., Vecchi, G.A., Knutson, T.R. and Smith, J.A., 2011. Is the recorded increase in short‐duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 116(D10). https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015493
Vecchi, G.A., Landsea, C., Zhang, W., Villarini, G. and Knutson, T., 2021. Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century. Nature communications, 12(1), p.4054. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5
Yang, W., Wallace, E., Vecchi, G.A., Donnelly, J.P., Emile-Geay, J., Hakim, G.J., Horowitz, L.W., Sullivan, R.M., Tardif, R., van Hengstum, P.J. and Winkler, T.S., 2024. Last millennium hurricane activity linked to endogenous climate variability. Nature communications, 15(1), p.816. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45112-6
There are undoubtedly better ways we could be spending money to improve energy efficiency, with lower living costs and reduced GHG emissions as substantial byproducts.
But science is all about probability based on objective evidence, which I thought you were all about, David. I'm curious why you appear to accept those statements you list from the US DoE as evidence that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong about them. And I laughed out loud when you held up Ross McKitrick - an economist, not a scientist, who is an avid climate change denier- as an example of the quality of this analysis? That only drives home the political nature of that document, casting further doubt on it's scientific credibility.
I really haven't "accepted" the DoE position above any other position - I'm genuinely not qualified to have an opinion. But, by that same token, I'm not about to accept media characterizations about what the "vast majority of climate scientists" might or might not believe as binding either.
Although I would argue that the input of economists like Prof. McKitrick is critical because identifying the impacts mitigation efforts can have would be impossible without macro economic insights.
Sir, you conclude with, "... while it’s complicated, after a decade of trying, Canada’s actual emissions haven’t necessarily dropped."
Absolutely, it is complicated. Our worsers (definitely not our betters!) in Otterwer are, as you have pointed out, not particularly qualified in these areas but they - and so many others - keep parroting the line that "The science is settled!" when it clearly isn't. Truly, we don't really know how to ask the question, let alone determine if the answer has been "settled."
It is all well and good to be precautionary but so, so, so much of the "green transition" agenda is clearly composed of destruction of our existing economy for terrifically uncertain future non-benefits.
It would be one thing if the proponents said that we should take this "new path" out of an abundance of caution and we then debate on that basis but, no, they insist that "the science is settled" - a canard, to be certain - when it isn't.
We should be aiming to reduce GHG emissions per capita, not necessarily total GHG. GDP per GHG is where we should be optimizing. A more efficient economy is good for everyone.
And while "settled science" is bad...favoring contrarian positions just because it aligns with what you want reality to be is no better...and likely worse.
I very much support the precautionary principle and am happy to support the scientific consensus, recognizing that we never have enough good data and the science is continually evolving. What I do not support is poorly planned and poorly monitored public expenditure, like much of what you list. Big $$$ could be better spent.
...Or *not* spent. Imagine generating that much less debt.
I wish they wouldn't call them "zero emission" vehicles. Or does upstream and downstream only apply to hydrocarbons?
The whole idea that we can have “low carbon” or “decarbonized” fossil fuels is another impossible bit of ideology. Hydrocarbons are energy dense precisely because of the energy locked up in the bonds between carbon atoms and other atoms. Unlocking those bonds eventually yields carbon dioxide. No way to get around it! The idea that we can extract hydrocarbons from the ground and then refine and transport them using only electric power is total fantasy. Every machine in the world is built using hydrocarbons and/or power generated using hydrocarbons. Even those “zero emission”vehicles contain a lot of plastic which comes from, you guessed it, hydrocarbons!
"it turns out that I’m not qualified to express an opinion here. After all, I lack the necessary combined expertise in natural sciences, applied sciences, social sciences, and so on."
Don't tell that to the musicians and actors (many of which never finished high school) who endlessly pontificate and scold whilst motoring off to Saint-Tropez in their palatial yachts.
It’s primarily based on an activist ideology and creating another level of bureaucracy in order to employ massive numbers of people in pursuit of alchemy. It’s an industry not unlike some other government (tax payer funded) industries whose goal is to disrupt.
Follow the money. What do the insurance companies who actually have to pay for bigger and more intense droughts, wildfires, floods, tidal inundations, heat domes, polar vortexes, expansion of tropical disease zones, hurricanes, tornadoes etc. have to say? Well gosh, they are warning that the capital cost of global warming is so rapid and severe in onset that insurers are starting to pull out of high risk zones — which are expanding — and that it poses an increasing threat to financial stability and ultimately to capitalism itself. When the actuaries start talking like this, maybe folks should listen.
It's remarkable to me how easy it's been to fact-cheque this apparently 'Critical Review': when I asked Google Gemini AI if climate change is leading to increased agricultural yields it gave a definitive 'no' and referenced 4 academic articles that acknowledge the benefits of a longer growing season but showed that the extreme weather events are doing far more harm than good.
When I asked it if the Great Barrier Reef is rebounding, I was given two academic articles out of Australia that showed this relief is temporary due to the cooling of the recent El Nina, and the beaching is expected to resume once the waters start warming again, which they inevitably will.
If one wants to focus on the economic impacts of climate change all we have to do is look at our own home insurance papers, which explain to us that the increase in our insurance rates is due to 'extreme weather events' - floods and fire - with some naming climate change directly. Again, AI helpfully gives several articles showing that home insurance in Ontario has gone up 80%; 90% in Alberta.
it is not 'no opinion' to uncritically share one perspective of an issue when quality information is so readily available. This is called confirmation-bias.
Your primary concern for financial accountability and responsibility in how our govt handles our money is fair and good. But anyone who handles any level of a budget knows that maintenance is cheaper than repair, and repair is cheaper than replacement. The sooner we invest in something the less it costs us. However if something is properly maintained, like a home, for example, then the naysayers will say that there was never anything to worry about in the first place. Unfortunately, regarding climate change we are long past the time of early maintenance, and the longer we delay the more it will cost us. And the cost will not only be financial.
It's interesting that you mention increasing "extreme weather events". Before publishing this post, I reached out to Princeton professor Gabriel A. Vecchi (https://vecchi.princeton.edu/people/gabriel-vecchi) to ask him if his 2010 paper on Atlantic storm events had been retracted (since it's been taken down from the NOAA site). He told me that he had no idea why the paper was taken down, but that his results were certainly still valid. He sent me links to half a dozen more recent papers all demonstrating an absence of increasing frequency or severity of Atlantic storms.
As much as I love and rely on A.I., it's always best to speak to the people involved. Here are those links:
Vecchi, G.A. and Knutson, T.R., 2008. On estimates of historical North Atlantic tropical cyclone activity. Journal of Climate, 21(14), pp.3580-3600. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/21/14/2008jcli2178.1.xml
Landsea, C.W., Vecchi, G.A., Bengtsson, L. and Knutson, T.R., 2010. Impact of duration thresholds on Atlantic tropical cyclone counts. Journal of Climate, 23(10), pp.2508-2519. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/23/10/2009jcli3034.1.xml
Vecchi, G.A. and Knutson, T.R., 2011. Estimating annual numbers of Atlantic hurricanes missing from the HURDAT database (1878–1965) using ship track density. Journal of Climate, 24(6), pp.1736-1746. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/24/6/2010jcli3810.1.xml
Villarini, G., Vecchi, G.A., Knutson, T.R. and Smith, J.A., 2011. Is the recorded increase in short‐duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 116(D10). https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015493
Vecchi, G.A., Landsea, C., Zhang, W., Villarini, G. and Knutson, T., 2021. Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century. Nature communications, 12(1), p.4054. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5
Yang, W., Wallace, E., Vecchi, G.A., Donnelly, J.P., Emile-Geay, J., Hakim, G.J., Horowitz, L.W., Sullivan, R.M., Tardif, R., van Hengstum, P.J. and Winkler, T.S., 2024. Last millennium hurricane activity linked to endogenous climate variability. Nature communications, 15(1), p.816. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45112-6
Have you talked with anyone about the increase in floods and wildfires? Or increased droughts, which is the agricultural industry's concern?
I haven't. But I'm sure the authors of the DoE report certainly did.
There are undoubtedly better ways we could be spending money to improve energy efficiency, with lower living costs and reduced GHG emissions as substantial byproducts.
But science is all about probability based on objective evidence, which I thought you were all about, David. I'm curious why you appear to accept those statements you list from the US DoE as evidence that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong about them. And I laughed out loud when you held up Ross McKitrick - an economist, not a scientist, who is an avid climate change denier- as an example of the quality of this analysis? That only drives home the political nature of that document, casting further doubt on it's scientific credibility.
I really haven't "accepted" the DoE position above any other position - I'm genuinely not qualified to have an opinion. But, by that same token, I'm not about to accept media characterizations about what the "vast majority of climate scientists" might or might not believe as binding either.
Although I would argue that the input of economists like Prof. McKitrick is critical because identifying the impacts mitigation efforts can have would be impossible without macro economic insights.