Green Energy - will Trudeau and Canada be the "last man standing"?

[Centerpiece]

Subsidies have driven Solar and Wind projects all over the world. The bloom has been coming off the rose for several years as "Green Energy" has failed to deliver the expected (AKA propaganda) economic benefits. The subsidies are drying up and taking solar and wind projects with them. The eco-nuts and their media enablers have enjoyed shooting the messengers who tried to debate Climate Alarmism. It's getting exceedingly difficult to argue with the realities of economics. Hello coal and natural gas.

"The global-warming cause won’t be completely expunged, however, until its last man standing, heading the last politically correct government, leaves the field. That would be the world’s finest, if most retrograde, exemplar of the global warming orthodoxy: Canada’s own Justin Trudeau."

 

Quote

Now China has now begun to throw in the towel by cutting subsidies to renewables, an augur of the demise of investment in its renewables sector. With the cutting of subsidies to renewables in the EU, investment last year dropped to less than half of its peak six years earlier. Japan’s investment halved in just three years................................................China is boosting its reliance on coal by 25 per cent through construction of hundreds of new coal-fired generating plants. Once completed, its incremental coal capacity will be equivalent to that of the entire U.S. coal fleet. Coal aside, China this year will become the world’s largest importer of natural gas, both via pipeline (up by over 20 per cent) and by ship (up over 50 per cent). It is already the world’s largest importer of coal and oil.

Quote

Germany, another renewable-energy poster child, is following the same unwinding, cutting subsidies to wind developers while upping gas imports and local coal. To extract that coal, Germany has decided to expand an existing open-pit coal mine, Europe’s largest, by subsidizing the razing of a 12,000-year-old forest. To round out Germany’s retreat from the demands of the country’s green lobby, it is relaxing regulations that would have required automakers to produce low-CO2-emitting vehicles.

Quote

 

Japan plans to remove its modest renewables subsidies while aggressively expanding fossil fuels — it is adding 40 coal stations to its existing 100. The U.K. is likewise turning from renewables, where investment is expected to decrease by 95 per cent by 2020, in favour of the development of the country’s immense shale-gas resources. And Australia is ending its renewables subsidy program altogether by 2020, giving its abundant coal resources a major lift.

Quote

The most consequential change of all, however, occurred in the United States, where the Democratic Party — adherents to the global warming orthodoxy — first lost control of the Congress and then the presidency to the Republicans under President Donald Trump, an outspoken critic of the global-warming lobby. When Trump abandoned the Paris climate accord in favour of coal and other carbon-based fuels, the world’s leaders rose up almost as one in outrage. Today, with the U.S. having revived its coal industry, having become the world’s largest oil producer and having propelled its once-moribund economic growth rates past the others, those world leaders are following America’s lead while falling silent on Paris. The once-powerful United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, formerly a fixture in the news, is defanged and forgotten, having lost its U.S. funding and its relevance.

Link: https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-trudeau-stands-alone-as-canada-and-the-world-abandons-green-energy#comments-area

[taxme]

2 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Subsidies have driven Solar and Wind projects all over the world. The bloom has been coming off the rose for several years as "Green Energy" has failed to deliver the expected (AKA propaganda) economic benefits. The subsidies are drying up and taking solar and wind projects with them. The eco-nuts and their media enablers have enjoyed shooting the messengers who tried to debate Climate Alarmism. It's getting exceedingly difficult to argue with the realities of economics. Hello coal and natural gas.

"The global-warming cause won’t be completely expunged, however, until its last man standing, heading the last politically correct government, leaves the field. That would be the world’s finest, if most retrograde, exemplar of the global warming orthodoxy: Canada’s own Justin Trudeau."

 

Link: https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-trudeau-stands-alone-as-canada-and-the-world-abandons-green-energy#comments-area

Let me see if I have this right. Isn't CO2 suppose to be good for the environment? Isn't that how and why the earth is so green looking because of all that CO2 in the air? The more carbon in the air the more trees will grow. Right? 

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Subsidies have driven Solar and Wind projects all over the world. The bloom has been coming off the rose for several years as "Green Energy" has failed to deliver the expected (AKA propaganda) economic benefits. The subsidies are drying up and taking solar and wind projects with them. The eco-nuts and their media enablers have enjoyed shooting the messengers who tried to debate Climate Alarmism. It's getting exceedingly difficult to argue with the realities of economics. Hello coal and natural gas.

"The global-warming cause won’t be completely expunged, however, until its last man standing, heading the last politically correct government, leaves the field. That would be the world’s finest, if most retrograde, exemplar of the global warming orthodoxy: Canada’s own Justin Trudeau."

 

Link: https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-trudeau-stands-alone-as-canada-and-the-world-abandons-green-energy#comments-area

It’s a scary twist on the meaning of retrograde.  I promise you that the return to coal, especially from big countries like China and the US, will literally destroy air and water quality, raise temperatures, and push the planet over the safe limit for human habitation.  You can watch all the YouTube conspiracy videos that you want about evil globalists that contradict this, but science is science.  If global annual average temperatures rise by about 4 degrees, we’re fucked.  All the tax cuts in the world won’t save you.  

[Centerpiece]

16 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s a scary twist on the meaning of retrograde.  I promise you that the return to coal, especially from big countries like China and the US, will literally destroy air and water quality, raise temperatures, and push the planet over the safe limit for human habitation.  You can watch all the YouTube conspiracy videos that you want about evil globalists that contradict this, but science is science.  If global annual average temperatures rise by about 4 degrees, we’re fucked.  All the tax cuts in the world won’t save you.  

.....although I believe humans are adding to C02 - and C02 has  a yet-to be-determined incremental impact on warming, I think I'm pretty safe in predicting that it will be several centuries before we see an increase of 4 degrees in global temperatures. I'm also pretty sure that if the day does come, we'll have the knowledge - and technology to either overcome it - or adapt to it. The only thing that's scary is that there are still some people who think that Armageddon is just around the corner.

[Zeitgeist]

36 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

.....although I believe humans are adding to C02 - and C02 has  a yet-to be-determined incremental impact on warming, I think I'm pretty safe in predicting that it will be several centuries before we see an increase of 4 degrees in global temperatures. I'm also pretty sure that if the day does come, we'll have the knowledge - and technology to either overcome it - or adapt to it. The only thing that's scary is that there are still some people who think that Armageddon is just around the corner.

I vehemently disagree.  We have a short window in which to turn things around.  If all emissions stopped instantly, global warming would continue for some time due to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

This from nature:

After roughly 1°C of global warming driven by human activity, ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are already losing mass at an increasing rate. Summer sea ice is disappearing in the Arctic and coral reefs are dying from heat stress — entire ecosystems are starting to collapse. The social impacts of climate change from intensified heatwaves, droughts and sea-level rise are inexorable and affect the poorest and weakest first.

The magnitude of the challenge can be grasped by computing a budget for CO₂ emissions — the maximum amount of the gas that can be released before the temperature limit is breached. After subtracting past emissions, humanity is left with a ‘carbon credit’ of between 150 and 1,050 gigatonnes (Gt; one Gt is 1 × 10⁹ tonnes) of CO₂ to meet the Paris target of 1.5 °C or well below 2 °C (see go.nature.com/2rytztf). The wide range reflects different ways of calculating the budgets using the most recent figures.

At the current emission rate of 41 Gt of CO₂ per year, the lower limit of this range would be crossed in 4 years, and the midpoint of 600 Gt of CO₂ would be passed in 15 years. If the current rate of annual emissions stays at this level, we would have to drop them almost immediately to zero once we exhaust the budget. Such a ‘jump to distress’ is in no one’s interest. A more gradual descent would allow the global economy time to adapt smoothly.

Harness momentum

The good news is that it is still possible to meet the Paris temperature goals if emissions begin to fall by 2020 (see ‘Carbon crunch’).

Sources: Stefan Rahmstorf/Global Carbon Project; http://go.nature.com/2RCPCRU

And from Yale Climate Connections:

Like any goal, the 2 degrees C limit should be ambitious but achievable. However, if it is not met, we should do everything we can to meet a 2-1/4 degrees C or 2.5 degrees C goal.

These goals can be compared to the speed limits for trucks we see on a mountain descent. The speed limit (say 30 mph) will allow trucks of any type to descend with a safety margin to spare. We know that coming down the hill at 70 mph likely results in a crash at the bottom.

In between those two numbers? The risk increases – and that’s where we are with climate change. If we can’t come down the hill at 30 mph, let’s try for 35 or 40 mph. Because we know that at 70 mph – or business as usual – we will have a very bad outcome, and nobody wants that.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Centerpiece]

Blah, blah, blah. As you can see by the article - and many more supporting ones that are easily found........governments worldwide have been souring on the results of Solar and wind boondoggles.......and if you're as smart as you seem to think you are, you'll at least agree that glaciers have advanced and retreated before, the arctic has been ice-free before - and the planet has warmed and cooled many times without human-caused C02. But this topic is not about arguing the merits or demerits of the so-called "science" - it's about what is going on in the world and how it appears the pendulum is swinging away from alarmism and towards more pragmatic approaches.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

Blah, blah, blah. As you can see by the article - and many more supporting ones that are easily found........governments worldwide have been souring on the results of Solar and wind boondoggles.......and if you're as smart as you seem to think you are, you'll at least agree that glaciers have advanced and retreated before, the arctic has been ice-free before - and the planet has warmed and cooled many times without human-caused C02. But this topic is not about arguing the merits or demerits of the so-called "science" - it's about what is going on in the world and how it appears the pendulum is swinging away from alarmism and towards more pragmatic approaches.

The last time the Earth heated at this rate there were no humans.  That shit's science.  It's not about finding articles that are agreeable.  It's about facts. 

[Centerpiece]

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The last time the Earth heated at this rate there were no humans.  That shit's science.  It's not about finding articles that are agreeable.  It's about facts. 

Facts: a lot of money is fleeing the Green Energy market - AND the global warming alarmist scientific community - that's what this topic is about. The article gives a lot of clues as to WHY it's fleeing. Other than wringing you hands and crying that the world will end, do you have any pragmatic ideas/thoughts on how various countries will proceed? Ironically, the US has arguably reduced their C02 emissions more than any other country - even though Obama bragged that his administration built enough pipelines to circle the world - and then some.

You could rant on endlessly about "studies" and end-of-world scenarios but all that hand-wringing won't get you anywhere.

[Wilber]

15 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

.....although I believe humans are adding to C02 - and C02 has  a yet-to be-determined incremental impact on warming, I think I'm pretty safe in predicting that it will be several centuries before we see an increase of 4 degrees in global temperatures. I'm also pretty sure that if the day does come, we'll have the knowledge - and technology to either overcome it - or adapt to it. The only thing that's scary is that there are still some people who think that Armageddon is just around the corner.

You have no faith in our ability to  reduce the cause but do have faith in our ability to deal with the result even though you have no idea what that result will be. Very strange. Very Pollyanna.  Protecting the nearly 700 million people that live within 10 meters of sea level should be a piece of cake. Trying to slow that process down while we try and develop those technologies you have so much faith in also makes no sense to you. There is twice as much carbon stored in permafrost than there is presently in the atmosphere, as well as a massive amount of methane. If permafrost starts melting at a great rate, there is no telling what will happen when much of that is unleashed, including the possibility of a runaway climate. 

[Zeitgeist]

4 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Facts: a lot of money is fleeing the Green Energy market - AND the global warming alarmist scientific community - that's what this topic is about. The article gives a lot of clues as to WHY it's fleeing. Other than wringing you hands and crying that the world will end, do you have any pragmatic ideas/thoughts on how various countries will proceed? Ironically, the US has arguably reduced their C02 emissions more than any other country - even though Obama bragged that his administration built enough pipelines to circle the world - and then some.

You could rant on endlessly about "studies" and end-of-world scenarios but all that hand-wringing won't get you anywhere.

The US’s progress on reducing emissions is due to state policies and federal policies implemented prior to Trump that he is actively dismantling.  Trump is currently a menace to the climate.  It’s bad signaling to other countries and a disincentive to the renewable energy sector worldwide.  What a mistake to encourage more fossil fuel energy.  

[Guest]

22 hours ago, taxme said:

Let me see if I have this right. Isn't CO2 suppose to be good for the environment? Isn't that how and why the earth is so green looking because of all that CO2 in the air? The more carbon in the air the more trees will grow. Right? 

My God, that's right!  it's the same as water.  We can't live without it.  It makes you wonder what all those whiners in Indonesia are going on about after the recent tsunami.

Edited September 29, 2018 by bcsapper

[bush_cheney2004]

45 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The US’s progress on reducing emissions is due to state policies and federal policies implemented prior to Trump that he is actively dismantling.  Trump is currently a menace to the climate.  It’s bad signaling to other countries and a disincentive to the renewable energy sector worldwide.  What a mistake to encourage more fossil fuel energy.  

 

Sure...and Canada's epic Kyoto FAIL and continuing poor performance on climate change actions compared to the U.S. and other nations is just fine, right ?   That's not bad signaling at all...that is "Canadian values".

The United States never ratified the Kyoto Protocol and still did better than Canada.

 

[Zeitgeist]

19 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sure...and Canada's epic Kyoto FAIL and continuing poor performance on climate change actions compared to the U.S. and other nations is just fine, right ?   That's not bad signaling at all...that is "Canadian values".

The United States never ratified the Kyoto Protocol and still did better than Canada.

 

Again, you’re resting on the laurels of pre-Trump policies.  I’m not sure your states will be able to make up for bad new federal environmental policy.  

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Again, you’re resting on the laurels of pre-Trump policies.  I’m not sure your states will be able to make up for bad new federal environmental policy.  

 

Either way...still doing better than Canada...but that's not bad signaling, is it ?  

Canada is not a leader on the climate change file, except for whining so much about it.

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Either way...still doing better than Canada...but that's not bad signaling, is it ?  

Canada is not a leader on the climate change file, except for whining so much about it.

Canada was moving in the right direction on climate change.  Ontario, over 40% of Canada’s economy, was implementing cap and trade.  Now Ontario and other provinces are moving against emissions cutting policies in order to remain competitive with the US.  It’s a disaster for the climate.  Thanks Trump.  And you can bet the US won’t be accepting many climate refugees.  Take a dump and let everyone else clean up the mess. 

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada was moving in the right direction on climate change.  Ontario, over 40% of Canada’s economy, was implementing cap and trade.  Now Ontario and other provinces are moving against emissions cutting policies in order to remain competitive with the US.  It’s a disaster for the climate.  Thanks Trump.  And you can bet the US won’t be accepting many climate refugees.  Take a dump and let everyone else clean up the mess. 

 

Right...but that is not "bad signaling" from Canada, only the USA, which is actually doing better on climate change.

Love that kind of pretzel logic....

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Right...but that is not "bad signaling" from Canada, only the USA, which is actually doing better on climate change.

Love that kind of pretzel logic....

It’s quite the opposite.  Policy and messaging matter.  

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

It’s quite the opposite.  Policy and messaging matter.  

 

Nope....actions matter more than either of those....and Canada has failed compared to other nations....if it is so important to "save the earth".

Fun and games policy rhetoric does not reduce carbon emissions, but the alarmists love to pretend that it does.

Economics matters a lot more.

 

[Zeitgeist]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nope....actions matter more than either of those....and Canada has failed compared to other nations....if it is so important to "save the earth".

Fun and games policy rhetoric does not reduce carbon emissions, but the alarmists love to pretend that it does.

Economics matters a lot more.

 

Trump’s actions on climate and the environment are undoing America’s progress.  He set new policy and we’re already seeing the effects as countries throw in the towel on fighting climate change.  The big effects are down the road.  

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trump’s actions on climate and the environment are undoing America’s progress.  He set new policy and we’re already seeing the effects as countries throw in the towel on fighting climate change.  The big effects are down the road.  

 

Canada "threw in the towel" long before Trump ever became president...nice try.  

Epic Kyoto FAIL.    Why don't you have better expectations for your own government(s), instead of waiting for the Americans to lead on the "climate change" file ?

[Zeitgeist]

23 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Canada "threw in the towel" long before Trump ever became president...nice try.  

Epic Kyoto FAIL.    Why don't you have better expectations for your own government(s), instead of waiting for the Americans to lead on the "climate change" file ?

How much explaining do you need?  Being a big country with a big economy means having a big influence.  Take some responsibility.  It's harder for smaller powers to make the right moves if the bigger powers don't.  Otherwise you're no better than other big belligerent powers of the past.

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

How much explaining do you need?  Being a big country with a big economy means having a big influence.  Take some responsibility.  It's harder for smaller powers to make the right moves if the bigger powers don't.  Otherwise you're no better than other big belligerent powers of the past.

 

I need a lot more explaining because Canada hasn't led or followed on climate change based on actual emissions, failing miserably on Kyoto.

Canada has the 11th largest economy in the world, so that lame "smaller power" excuse won't work anymore.  Canada is also among the highest energy consuming nations in the world per capita. 

Pointing the finger at the United States does not make Canada a climate change hero, but it is a very typical Canadian thing to do.

 

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I need a lot more explaining because Canada hasn't led or followed on climate change based on actual emissions, failing miserably on Kyoto.

Canada has the 11th largest economy in the world, so that lame "smaller power" excuse won't work anymore.  Canada is also among the highest energy consuming nations in the world per capita. 

Pointing the finger at the United States does not make Canada a climate change hero, but it is a very typical Canadian thing to do.

 

Oh I'll throw Canada under the bus on this big time, but tell me how lowering emissions standards federally in the U.S., reducing EPA protections, and refusing to stay on in the Paris Accord is going to help both America and the world that it influences, whether you like the fact of this influence or not?  Are you really not interested in trying to lower emissions? Soon there may be no legislation compelling companies to cut emissions.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Oh I'll throw Canada under the bus on this big time, but tell me how lowering emissions standards federally in the U.S., reducing EPA protections, and refusing to stay on in the Paris Accord is going to help both America and the world that it influences, whether you like the fact of this influence or not?  Are you really not interested in trying to lower emissions? Soon there may be no legislation compelling companies to cut emissions.

 

But you didn't throw Canada under the bus, jumping immediately to the U.S. instead.

The United States has done a better job of lowering emissions than Canada, despite not being a party to Kyoto and leaving the Paris Agreement as soon as possible.

That's actual reductions, not BS feel good rhetoric, from a much larger emissions baseline.

The U.S. is "dying"...remember ?     Look for leadership from China instead, if Canada must be lead by another nation, lacking its own determination for such things.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

But you didn't throw Canada under the bus, jumping immediately to the U.S. instead.

The United States has done a better job of lowering emissions than Canada, despite not being a party to Kyoto and leaving the Paris Agreement as soon as possible.

That's actual reductions, not BS feel good rhetoric, from a much larger emissions baseline.

The U.S. is "dying"...remember ?     Look for leadership from China instead, if Canada must be lead by another nation, lacking its own determination for such things.

You don't seem to understand cause and effect.  You don't accept that it's largely because of policy that companies innovated.  It comes down to cost.  Oil companies receive many subsidies.  There have to be incentives to go green.  Only regulation/policy makes that happen.  The US federal government had progressive policy on emissions reductions until recently.  It's not worth discussing.  Keep calling black white if it makes you feel better.