Brainless environmental policy damaging the economy

[TimG]

How about economists, where do they set the believeability bar in the scheme of the things they prescribe?

Future predictions by climate science have no more credibility that future predictions by economists.

[TimG]

So anything Joe Oliver says on this topic (it will cost us a TRILLION dollars) is immediately suspect.

Why is that any different from the alarmists who claim that not acting will cost trillions of dollars? In fact you can make almost any claim you want by manipulating the starting assumptions which is what alarmists do when they need scary predictions. That is why I think all predictions of the future are suspect. Edited September 15, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

Why is that any different from the alarmists who claim that not acting will cost trillions of dollars? In fact you can make almost any claim you want by manipulating the starting assumptions which is what alarmists do when they need scary predictions. That is why I think all predictions of the future are suspect.

I ignore them too...

For future predictions, we have to rely on the experts. Your mantra of "all predictions are bad" leads to complete inaction. If the experts said inaction was fine, then that's the direction we should go... but they are clearly not saying that.

[TimG]

For future predictions, we have to rely on the experts.

What experts? Climate scientists certainly don't qualify because future predictions require an understanding of economics, technology and demographics. And even then, climate scientists are hardly a unbiased source of information given they benefit personally from an environment where climate change is seen as an existential threat (trusting predictions the effects of CO2 by government funded climate scientists is like trusting claims of the effects of smoking by tobbaco company funded scientists).

Your mantra of "all predictions are bad" leads to complete inaction.

Not at all. It is an argument for measured approaches that focus on local problems that can be measured such as bolstering flood defenses rather than abstract goals like reducing CO2 emissions for the sake of reducing CO2 emissions. Whatever policy we adopt we must assume it could turn out to be a complete waste of resources and limit our investment accordingly.

[The_Squid]

What experts? Climate scientists certainly don't qualify because future predictions require an understanding of economics, technology and demographics. And even then, climate scientists are hardly a unbiased source of information given they benefit personally from an environment where climate change is seen as an existential threat (trusting predictions the effects of CO2 by government funded climate scientists is like trusting claims of the effects of smoking by tobbaco company funded scientists).

Most of these scientists would receive funding regardless of their findings... your comparison between independent scientists and tobacco company "scientists" is completely asinine.

Of course, you are also ignoring that many of these predictions do take all of the things you listed into account and aren't just being done by climate scientists, but economists, geographers, physicists, biologists, etc, etc, etc...

[TimG]

Most of these scientists would receive funding regardless of their findings...

Not true at all. Governments have limited funds to spend on research. The scientists must compete for this funding and often do this by creating public interest in their field. One way to create public interest is to tell people that the world is going to end but more research is required. You are extremely naive if you do not understand how the need to compete for funding introduces biases into government funded science. There is absolutely no difference between a scientist working for the government and a science working for the a private company because both need to convince their sponsors that they are worth funding. Denying the bias is asinine.

but economists, geographers, physicists, biologists, etc, etc, etc...

And how much credibility do you place on the predictions of economists when it comes to questions like the minimum wage, free trade or any number of other policies which are rooted in the science of economics? Edited September 15, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

It is definitely not a rational viewpoint that "all scientists are the same as tobacco scientists". What utter nonsense. You wouldn't say that about any other field, except the field where the vast majority of the scientific consensus just happens to contradict your ideological viewpoint.

[TimG]

It is definitely not a rational viewpoint that "all scientists are the same as tobacco scientists".

I laid out a rational argument for why I think the biases introduced by government funding are a serious concern. Instead of responding to my rational argument you dismiss it as nonsense. The only one being irrational is you.

Here is a link to a rational discussion of biases in government funded science:

https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/

Of course, I doubt you will read it because you are too committed to your ideologically driven view that government funded science is somehow not biased but corporate science is despite the fact that the same types of humans work within both systems.

A little hint: scientists who cannot secure funding for their next project starve. It is simply irrational to assume that the need to secure funding for the next project does not affect how a scientist spins the results for their current project.

Edited September 16, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I laid out a rational argument...

No you haven't. I can tell you from personal and experience because I have done government-funded research. They don't have any say whatsoever over your results. That's not how government funding works. The Tri-Council grant you the funding then allows you to do what you need to do with it. There's rules about spending the money but literally none of them have to do with your results. There isn't some team of thoughtpolice controlling your every move. More importantly, researchers who don't get government funding will apply elsewhere and barring that, they're still usually employed by an institution that literally pays them to do research.

[TimG]

They don't have any say whatsoever over your results. That's not how government funding works.

You have completely missed the argument. I am not saying that the outcome of any given study is controlled by the government. I am saying that scientists first have to convince the government to fund their study and then have to think out how they are going to get funding for their next study. That means they have to produce results which have attract interest. This is most easily done by exaggerating the significance of any conclusions and by creating "scary narratives" that attract media attention. The robot scientist that you describe does not exist in the real world.

More importantly, researchers who don't get government funding will apply elsewhere and barring that, they're still usually employed by an institution that literally pays them to do research.

Only if they demonstrate an ability to produce results which are of interest to that institution. Scientists that attract funding have to be sales people that can spin a good story. If they can't do that they have to find another job. There are many scientists who left the field simply because they could not find a sponsor. Edited September 16, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

It is completely irrational to think that all scientists are just like the ones who work for tobacco companies. That argument is sheer idiocy. And your linked blog article certainly didn't make that claim whatsoever!

Discussing bias in science is fine.

What you are doing s pure hyperbole and that's where you go off the deep end.

[TimG]

It is completely irrational to think that all scientists are just like the ones who work for tobacco companies.

You have not presented any argument that they would be different. You can't argue that the company controls the results because no scientist gives corporate sponsors a control over their research. The most a corporate sponsor can do is keep the research secret. The only incentive a scientist has to manipulate the results to suit the company is because that scientist wants more work from the company. This is the exact same motivation which I say drives government scientists to exaggerate the significance of their research and create "scary narratives".

Now if you have a rational response to that argument then lets hear it.

So far all we have seen is childish foot stomping while screaming 'it aint true'.

Edited September 16, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

You have not presented any evidence that they would be different.

You made the claim... Prove it.

You obviously can't because the argument is so bat-shit crazy that the only cites you would be able to provide is of the Breitbart variety.

But you should try.... It should be funny.

Edited September 16, 2016 by The_Squid

[TimG]

You obviously can't because the argument..

I just provided the argument above. You ignored it because it does not conform to your myopic ideology.

Your childish foot stomping is getting tiresome. Are you even capable of offering a rational response?

Edited September 16, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

Tim says : Obama is mind-controlled by aliens.

Response from a rational person: No he isn't, that's silly.

Tim says: Prove that he isn't then!

[TimG]

Tim says : Obama is mind-controlled by aliens.

Reductio_ad_absurdum

As I explained above:

You can't argue that the company controls the results because no scientist gives corporate sponsors a control over their research. The most a corporate sponsor can do is keep the research secret. The only incentive a scientist has to manipulate the results to suit the company is because that scientist wants more work from the company. This is the exact same motivation which I say drives government scientists to exaggerate the significance of their research and create "scary narratives".

You seem to think it is "obvious" that scientists paid by tobacco companies cannot be trusted. That is an ideologically motivated assumption. You need to explain why you think that is a reasonable assumption and explain why those same problems don't exist for government science. I have already explained how the 'X controls the results' argument is fallacious and the only possible way to control the results is to deny further funding to the scientist.

You keep stomping your feet like a child instead of addressing that argument.

Edited September 16, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Only if they demonstrate an ability to produce results which are of interest to that institution. Scientists that attract funding have to be sales people that can spin a good story. If they can't do that they have to find another job. There are many scientists who left the field simply because they could not find a sponsor.

I'm sure you've heard of tenure, so why pretend like it doesn't exist? You know professors aren't glorified high school teachers, right?

[TimG]

I'm sure you've heard of tenure, so why pretend like it doesn't exist? You know professors aren't glorified high school teachers, right?

Having tenure does not guarantee any scientist access to research funding. All it does is ensure the scientist will keep his/her teaching job. If anything the ability to attract research funding is one of the things that gets a professor tenure in the first place. Also a lot of research is produced by researchers without tenure so your argument does no apply. If anything the large number of 'hope to get tenure' scientists introduces yet another bias into government research because scientists looking for tenure can't risk annoying existing professors which discourages research goes against the currently accepted paradigms.

The fight for funding is an unavoidable aspect of government research. It is pointless to pretend that this has no impact on the end results.

Edited September 16, 2016 by TimG

[Derek 2.0]

Canadian governments are embarked on an ambitious scheme to waste tens of billions, even hundreds of billions on worthless environmental schemes that sap Canada's economy while doing nothing to improve the environment.

Likewise the Trudeau Government's support of the Site C Dam, in BC's Peace River, is but a scheme to spend waste billions on "green energy" that will devastate not only the natural environment of Northern British Columbia, but also destroy farmland that could feed one million+ people.......to say nothing of a land grab from local First Nations, land that includes several burial sites.........

The irony, this mega "green project" isn't needed for BC's power needs and several proposed wind farms (including one in the Peace River) could generate an equal amount of energy, at an actual cheaper rate then Site C...

Furthermore, Trudeau's own Minister of Justice, when she's not charging taxpayers for expenses to Liberal fundraisers, actually protested the Site C mega project several years ago.....and now, stands silent.

In one fell swoop the Trudeau Government went back on the Paris agreement and its many promises to First Nations.........I would argue the current Federal government doesn't actually have a "environmental policy"....

.............

I wonder if the pressures (and guilt) of being the Minister in charge of granting Federal approval of Site C help contribute to Hunter Tootoo's personal problems earlier this year.....it seems at least one Liberal MP is breaking ranks with the Trudeau Liberals over their double dealing with the environment and First Nations.......

[TimG]

The irony, this mega "green project" isn't needed for BC's power needs

Hydro, like nuclear, is one of the only CO2 free sources that are worth building. It also makes no difference that BC does not need the power, if it can be exported to Alberta and allow them to close down a coal plant then it will be a net reduction in CO2 which will reduce the cost of Paris promises. Even if you ignore the CO2 benefits, Hydro, like oil, is a resource that generates a profit and adds to the economy. Governments should not be leave hydro resources idle anymore than they should leave fossil fuel resources idle. Edited September 16, 2016 by TimG

[Derek 2.0]

Hydro, like nuclear, is one of the only CO2 free sources that are worth building. It also makes no difference that BC does not need the power, if it can be exported to Alberta and allow them to close down a coal plant then it will be a net reduction in CO2 which will reduce the cost of Paris promises. Even if you ignore the CO2 benefits, Hydro, like oil, is a resource that generates a profit and adds to the economy. Governments should not be leave hydro resources idle anymore than they should leave fossil fuel resources idle.

Outside of the actual construction, no, they don't produce Co2, they produce "high levels of methane as the water levels lower and rise behind them"....with methane being far worse than Co2.

And how is it going to be exported to Alberta? Who is building and paying for the new transmission lines? Site C won't benefit the economy, as its not needed in British Columbia, it's intended purpose (LNG) is all but dead and the power it does produce is expensive, so much so British Columbia would be better off with a combination of smaller green projects and further conservation efforts........the farmland that will be displaced by Site C is also a resource that generates profit and adds to the economy........

The BC Government isn't leaving LNG idle, the world market is.....ergo there is no need for Site C to generate the power needed by an LNG industry, and as noted, BC itself doesn't need the power it will generate...exporting the energy produced is a self-licking ice cream cone economically....BC taxpayers will either be subsidizing American/Alberta energy needs or attempting to sell it at a price per kilowatt far more then if said markets built their own gas plants.......Site C is akin to a Soviet Hero Project and makes zero economic sense.

Site C Dam is bad public policy, at both the Provincial and Federal levels, and a huge waste of taxpayer's dollars........my question, leaving aside how the majority of the third party review board are former employees of the company building the dam, is what reason do the Trudeau Liberals have to support the Site C Dam Hero Project??????

[TimG]

British Columbia would be better off

The analysis is not particularly useful since it assumes that all power sources are equal. Wind and solar are not dispatchable and therefore cannot be an alternative to hydro. Only natgas, coal and nuclear are alternatives to hydro. They suggest that numerous smaller projects would be better but with hydro the ROI goes down pretty quickly as the size of the project decreases so it would cost a lot more that $10 billion to build out the same capacity in smaller projects.

As for farmland: site c will flood 30,000 acres of farmland. The total farmland used for crops in BC is 1.5 million acres which means we lose about 2% of the productive capacity. The dollar value of the lost crops will be fraction of the value of the electricity produced.

Any industrial development that far north will require infrastructure to be built (moving crops requires roads). Building new powerlines should be included in the cost. Once the power is connected to the grid it can sold as needed. Hydro is actually a very good source of power to use for export because it can be adjusted quickly to take advantage of peak pricing (solar and wind power often has to be dumped at a discount). So the fact that BC does not need the power is irrelevant. It is still a valuable resource that brings money into the economy if it is sold.

[Derek 2.0]

The analysis is not particularly useful since it assumes that all power sources are equal. Wind and solar are not dispatchable and therefore cannot be an alternative to hydro. Only natgas, coal and nuclear are alternatives to hydro.

It doesn't mater if they're not dispatchable, as BC won't need the power produced by Site C for decades......with that, hydro power itself isn't fully dispatchable as its reliant on water levels, ergo dry summers reduce the amount of water to produce power. With regards to Solar/Wind etc that too doesn't have to be dispatchable when BC already has a large natural gas plant in Port Moody, a plant that isn't currently on the grid and can produce nearly the same amount of power as Site C is suppose to......and of course BC taxpayers already own the Port Moody thermal plant.

They suggest that numerous smaller projects would be better but with hydro the ROI goes down pretty quickly as the size of the project decreases so it would cost a lot more that $10 billion to build out the same capacity in smaller projects.

Smaller plants are better when built closer to the end user and don't suffer as much technical losses through transmission over longer distances........in the case of Site C, the assumption that this Hero Project is going to supply the major growth centers in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island (or Americans) is laughable, as the distances involved would result in upwards of nearly 25% of the power generated by Site C being lost through electrical resistance.

As for farmland: site c will flood 30,000 acres of farmland. The total farmland used for crops in BC is 1.5 million acres which means we lose about 2% of the productive capacity. The dollar value of the lost crops will be fraction of the value of the electricity produced.

British Columbia has a finite amount of arable land, but plenty of land on which we could build (green) power generation projects....projects built closer to the end users, well not wiping out acres of farm land and old growth forest.

Any industrial development that far north will require infrastructure to be built (moving crops requires roads). Building new powerlines should be included in the cost.

What industrial development? LNG is dead........I stand to be corrected, but new transmission lines to Alberta aren't included in the estimated cost of Site C.

Once the power is connected to the grid it can sold as needed. Hydro is actually a very good source of power to use for export because it can be adjusted quickly to take advantage of peak pricing (solar and wind power often has to be dumped at a discount).

Hydro might very well be a "good source of power" for export if it wasn't in the middle of nowhere and then required expensive transmission lines combined with the realization that we would loose nearly 25% of the power generated over such distances to electrical resistance.

So the fact that BC does not need the power is irrelevant. It is still a valuable resource that brings money into the economy if it is sold.

Its not irrelevant, BC Hydro is owned by British Columbians.......Hydro hasn't sold Site C to the people that will pay for it, as a means to subsidize the electrical needs of Alberta and Washington State......I suspect if it did it would be even more unpopular.

Site C is a electoral millstone around the necks of Premier Clark and Prime Minister Trudeau......they now own it.

[Smallc]

The Conservatives were for it. Did you lose your talking points?

[Derek 2.0]

The Conservatives were for it. Did you lose your talking points?

Your distraction aside, the Trudeau government could have rescinded the permits issued by the previous Government and then not issue the next phase of permits that will allow irreversible construction to take place......at the very least Trudeau could have hit the pause button until after the local First Nations court challenge was completed.