Photo: (not part of original article) bread lines of the great depression – coming again?
Climate change: Less CO2, less jobs. It’s that simple.
03-16-2009 NIGEL HANNAFORD
If you want to know what an economy that pumps out less carbon dioxide is like, look at Ontario, Quebec and Alberta. Factories closed, growing numbers of jobless, people driving less because they have nowhere to go, government deficits.
As it happens, it’s the U.S. debt crisis that’s done it to us. When the air comes out of the tires of your biggest trading, look out.
However, it’s also what a well-meaning climate-change lobby felt was pain worth risking for the sake of the planet, when it recommended a regimen of emission caps and/or carbon taxes to reduce C02 emissions in Canada.
How do you like it so far?
Not so much, at this desk.
This is not the whole story as it doesn’t include coal and natural gas, but there are some provocative specifics in a recent Statistics Canada document. The Supply and Disposition of Refined Petroleum Products in Canada, was published in November 2008, coincidentally a good month to review because it’s both the latest month for which figures are available and also the month when Canadians watching the American meltdown first noticed they might have a problem of their own. For, it was in November 2008 that retail fell off a cliff – especially car sales – joblessness started to climb, and the federal government was forced to revisit its economic forecasts. No more chat about balanced budgets, and so forth.
So, what do these numbers show?
Well, in Canada as a whole, domestic sales of all refined petroleum products were down five per cent in November 2008, over November 2007.
Refined petroleum products is a statistical category that includes gasoline, diesel, butane, petro-chemical feedstocks, asphalt, av-gas and a number of other things too numerous to detail. It’s not a perfect marker for industrial activity, because some industry runs off nuclear and hydro power, especially in central Canada. However, it’s good enough to indicate a trend: If there is less diesel being used, for example, there are probably less trucks on the road, because there is less reason for them to be there.
So, for Ontario and Quebec, it’s not good news that its fuel use is down slightly more than the national average in November, at 5.5 and 5.6 per cent reductions year over year respectively.
And it is especially not good news for Alberta, which is down more than seven per cent.
Ontario and Quebec are down because their manufacturing industries are in trouble.
But, what’s Alberta’s excuse? In some ways it would be a relief to spot some dramatic decline in a line item, thereby isolating the problem. Unfortunately though, the decline is across the board, suggesting a general slowing of the Alberta economy. Ouch.
All this is good news however, if you are part of the super-active climate-change lobby promoting the idea that human activity is generating so much carbon dioxide that the atmosphere is warming. (With the likely consequence of polar melting, rising sea levels and the widespread distress caused by human dislocation, etc.) A rough and dirty calculation of Canada using 445,000 cubic metres of various refined petroleum products less in November 2008, over 2007, is a reduction in CO2 emissions of 1.6 million tonnes. Annualize that kind of a reduction in fuel use and you’re looking at something like 20 million tonnes less C02 in 2009, if the recession doesn’t turn.
However, don’t cheer too quickly. In 2006, (Environment Canada’s most recent published figures,) Canadian emissions were 721 million tonnes of greenhouse gas equivalent. Take this hard-won 20 million tonnes of CO2 off the total, and it’s still just over 700 million tonnes. Meanwhile Al Gore’s true believers want to take it all the way down to Canada’s Kyoto target of 558.4 Mt.
We have a long way to go, then.
Point: If this is what an economy producing 20 million tonnes less of CO2 looks like, how prosperous will one be that contracts enough to shed a further 141.6 Mt.?
Happily governments of both parties have quietly acknowledged the suicidal nature of CO2 restrictions that actually produce significantly less CO2, (as opposed to simply making business pay carbon levies for the privilege of carrying on business-as-usual.) They have also acknowledged in their budgetary allocations, that so-called green industries are no compensation. One has to manufacture an awful lot of windmills to nudge the gross domestic product.
For that at least we can be thankful. The pity of it all however, is that when the history books of 2109 are published, their writers will express amazement that men ever thought their capacity to initiate climate change was greater than the natural forces that in the last 30,000 years first covered this continent with ice two kilometres thick, saw it recede, and allowed sea levels to fluctuate 100 metres.
If this recession does nothing else, it should bring home to all Canadians the supreme importance of not letting alarmists have their way with the economy.
This is what it would be like.
But, worse.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Many of us now refer to the ever slippery David Suzuki as Dr. Fruit Fly, in honour of what he has some knowledge about because when it comes to Climate he is big time Stuck on Stupid.
Its a long story, don’t ask. When we can actually figure out how many houses he owns and is his eco-greeny footprint is the size of PEI or Alberta, we might start to cut him some slack.
Meantime he continues to mine the very profitable Global Warming AHHHHHHHH we’re All Gonna Die” and gets richer and richer. He’s not nearly as good as Slick Al (aka Saint Gore, Bishop in Charge, Church of Global Warming Scientology) at raking in the green, but he’s trying to catch up
The article simply shows the “sceptics” grasp of economics is worse than their grasp of climate. The published economic literature is very clear that the costs of mitigation are small and much less that buisness as usual (unless of course you hide behind discount rates).
DJ:
The American capitalist model [pre-0bama] produced much better results using the free market than other countries produced with state socialism. China couldn’t care less about Kyoto, except for the fact that it received multi-$Billions in free carbon credits that it could sell while continuing to pollute. Other countries cashed in similarly. Guess who pays for those “credits”?
The U.S. and Australia did not sign the Kyoto protocol limiting emissions. But almost every other country signed the protocol. The results since Kyoto was signed a decade and a half ago:
Since the U.S. was clearly on the right path, and the countries signing Kyoto were going down the wrong path, why is the new Administration implementing cap and trade?
The answer is clear: the scheme will raise enormous amounts of revenue. It is a hidden new tax, pure and simple — and a really big tax. American families will pay those taxes through the much higher prices tacked onto goods and services by the cost of carbon credits.
To add insult to injury, cap and trade will do nothing measurable regarding emissions. We are already on the right track, as can be seen in the figures above. While adding over 20% to our population since Kyoto was ratified, our emissions only increased less than 7%.
Finally, anyone who expects the U.S. ruling party to ease the burden on workers is dreaming. Elimination of the the mortgage interest deduction is already being discussed, as is fully taxing Social Security income as wages. The IRA deduction disappears at $89K of income. Your retirement contribution credit goes away if you earn over $33K. Charging wounded veterans for VA hospital treatment is now being proposed.
This radical sea change from a “can do” nation to a country where fully half the population pays no federal taxes, and lives as dependents of the other half, was completely avoidable.
But voters were susceptible to the never ending media drumbeat of guilt, and they wanted to feel good about themselves. Well, now they’re not going to feel so good about their financial situation. And the fault can be laid almost entirely at the feet of this new confiscatory government.
I don’t for a moment believe that Prime Minister Harper believes in AGW catastrophism , but as head of a minority government, he has to play the politcal game. When your dearest neighbour and largest trading partner is ten times bigger than you are, you can make noises like a sovereign nation, but you are actually at the back of the bus with Obama at the wheel. When America says jump, we say “how high”. In Harper’s shoes, I would do what he appears to be doing. Pay lip service to the AGW faction and quietly go about doing as little as possible, hoping the whole thing dies an ignominious death before your government hits the fan.
Baaah, baaah, nope don’t feel like a sheep, lol, but I gotta say that McBugbear (10:02:23) : “Paying a carbon tax just means that the dead space in our economy will grow.” Ha ha ha. I almost fell on the floor.
Try this one for the size of the power change required to go from fossil fuels to less carbon intensive alternatives. Not gonna happen. We are going to use every speck of fossil fuel that we can find, well eventually, unless someone makes a breakthrough in cheap power generation.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/more-simple-energy-math-5063
Another additional cost
“China has proposed that importers of Chinese-made goods should be responsible for the carbon dioxide emitted during their manufacture. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7947438.stm
DJ (11:16:28) :
The article simply shows the “sceptics” grasp of economics is worse than their grasp of climate. The published economic literature is very clear that the costs of mitigation are small and much less that buisness as usual (unless of course you hide behind discount rates).
DJ, what are the costs of business as usual? Can you cite some sources to back this up (other than the fantastical Stern Report or others of it’s ilk). Even the AGW proponents acknowledge that Kyoto will accomplish nothing and is merely a grand gesture. (Or incredibly stupid gesture depending on whether you buy into AGW catastrophism.) I am curious. While the economics of CO2 reduction have not been of primary interest to me, I have yet to see any literature stating that the costs of substantially reducing CO2 emissions are small.
M White, fascinating article, thanks for linking to it.
But what else does anyone expect? China has been showered with free money via free carbon credits for simply being obstructionist. Since it paid off before, naturally China will continue demanding free Western money.
They learned by watching North Korea. The more the Norks cheated on every agreement, the more free money was shoveled into their pockets.
Bah. Link didn’t go through for some reason….let’s try again:
Iowahawk’s version
Slightly OT:
Cold reality of global warming efforts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7929174.stm
“1998 remains the warmest year on record, and since then there has been no
discernable upward trend. Last year saw a miserable summer in much of
western Europe, and the same countries are in the middle of a winter which
has been colder than for many years. For the average layman, global warming
remains a distant prospect. ”
Interesting. That’s not the BBC we have come to know?
Here in BC we pay carbon taxes and I’ll sit on sis-in-law’s deck and watch the coal trains pull in and fill up boat after boat. We’ll only kill the planet if WE use coal. We have another 2.5 cents per litre come July – unless we take a reltaively short term 4 year hit on the economy and get the New Democrats in power, there will be a total of 12 cents per litre come 2012 or something like that. You have no idea how much it pains me to say I hope the NDP win the election. They’ve been too loud about scraping the tax and implementing a Cap ‘N Trade to not follow through. The hope is they know how much a Cap ‘N Trade will kill jobs and they are just blowing out there . . .
I once heard our idiot premiere telling wine growers they are going to have to move their operations further north. I refer to Andrew Weaver, http://climate.uvic.ca/people/weaver/, his climate advisor as Grima Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings. Constantly whispering lies and deceipt in the premiere’s ear. Managed to get himself and plum position and a $90 million investment in U of Vic for climate research. He can now play with his useless models for years.
“The published economic literature is very clear that the costs of mitigation are small and much less that buisness as usual (unless of course you hide behind discount rates).”
When I read something like that, gullible and naive are the adjectives that immediately come to mind. It helps me understand how people can get sucked into the whole catastrophic AGW crap.
If one looks at the books of a lumber mill, or steel producer or any major mfr one realizes just how much power consumption takes off their bottom line. Usually #2 or 3 just behind labour and/or financing costs. Then take a look at the volume consumed. The sheer number of unreliable solar panels and windmills required makes it just stupid. Companies are constantly looking at ways to reduce power consumption or supply more cheaply. If alternatives were anywhere near realizable, they would have adopted them eons ago. Even with insane subsidies, they are economic. Once one does that and one starts to realize those authors, (Stern et al) have a green agenda, are ignorant or just plain stupid. I’d bet on the first.
Tony Blair wanted to replace all GB’s coal power plants with windmills . . . until he was informed he would need 30 million of them.
Refined petroleum products is a statistical category that includes gasoline, diesel, butane, petro-chemical feedstocks, asphalt, av-gas and a number of other things too numerous to detail. It’s not a perfect marker for industrial activity, because some industry runs off nuclear and hydro power, especially in central Canada. However, it’s good enough to indicate a trend: If there is less diesel being used, for example, there are probably less trucks on the road, because there is less reason for them to be there.
this is a pretty stupid approach. you can t use the petroleum use as an economic indicator, to contradict green ideas. that simply doesn t make any sense.
Emissions worldwide have increased 18.0%
Emissions from countries that signed Kyoto increased 21.1%
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%
Emissions from the U.S. increased only 6.6% [source]
you decided NOT to use per capita numbers. and yes, Kyoto allows some countries to catch up. this is a horrible analysis!
@ur momisugly Smokey (11:20:41) :
There you go again, letting facts get in the way of ideology.
sod (12:26:57) :
you decided NOT to use per capita numbers. and yes, Kyoto allows some countries to catch up. this is a horrible analysis!
Per capita numbers certainly aren’t going to help your argument here. When the averages from the non-signers vs. the signers are that far apart, there’s a problem. Yes, I guess it is a horrible analysis, because it makes Kyoto look bad, right?
Mark
new paper by Jones et all says that UHI influence on observed warming is on the same order of magnitude as true climatic warming over the same period, not an order of magnitude less than the IPCC has stated. too bad I only have access to the abstract…
Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009916.shtml
however, i take issue with the following:
We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time.
this assertion assumes that the data set has not been urbanized over time by rural station dropout…
another interesting abstract….
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
The article simply shows the “sceptics” grasp of economics is worse than their grasp of climate. The published economic literature is very clear that the costs of mitigation are small and much less that buisness as usual (unless of course you hide behind discount rates).
economics 101: when you restrict supply of something, the price goes up. Rationing carbon (the “cap” part of “cap & trade”) WILL, and necessarily MUST result in higher prices for energy.
This increased cost will be passed along as part of the cost of everything you live in, eat, wear and own. Companies, per se, do not pay taxes themselves, but pass along increased costs to the end users. That’s you, DJ. The “cost” of mitigation is NOT small. The cost of “business as usual,” or “adaptation” as I call it, is small. And it’s built in through improvements in efficiency and technology that will occur without legislation.
The really sad part, though, is that you don’t seem to understand the numbers. To take emissions down to the level where CAGW proponents “want” them would require lowering our standard of living to ~1900 standards. That’s right, we’d have to lower our energy consuption per person to 1900 levels.
Tell me, DJ, do you drive? have a washing machine? refrigerator? microwave? central air/heat? carpet? tv? Do you want to do without all these “luxuries” to revert to a ~1900 standard of living?
If yes, then feel free to move to some third world country. You’ll fit right in.
If no, then shut up.
DJ should have been a dentist: “This might cause a minor bit of discomfort.” And then the real pain begins.
In the photo, has anyone else contrasted the people on the billboard with the people in the line? It’s a juxtaposition with a message. Interesting photojournalism in itself.
I thought emissions are bad. If the purpose is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, why does Kyoto allow some countries to catch up? Is a molecule of carbon dioxide from an American SUV or private jet more potent than a molecule of carbon dioxide from an Indian cooking fire or a Chinese LCD factory?
“If you want to know what an economy that pumps out less carbon dioxide is like, look at Ontario, Quebec and Alberta.” My god, this passes for insight? The current drop in energy consumption is the result of the economic situation, not the cause of it. Might as well say that wearing looser clothes makes you thinner. Your premise is unsupported and completely irrelevant.
Smokey (11:20:41): You also know that emissions are effectively linked to economic output but choose to ignore that in your selected statistics, which actually compare the slower increase of relatively static mature economies to the faster increase of rapidly growing economies.
China has undoubtably been getting a free ride in all this, but that is the natural consequence of “capitalist” manufacturers seeking the lowest cost of production.
(Thanks for the laugh “Professor” Tavella)
sod (12:26:57) :
It is no secret that most of those who signed Kyoto have been unable to fulfill their obligations as per the agreement. Further EU members (and some others) have voiced that the Kyoto agreement was economically devistating to their countries. Meeting the Kyoto numbers was not possible, not realistic, and in my mind… unnecessary.
The largest issue is with CO2. Here is a graph of CO2 emissions per capita from 1997 to 2005 of the EU countries and the US.
http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/Misc/eu15us.jpg
Catch up? Let me ask. Why would countries in the EU be allowed to ‘catch up’ when countries like Kenya are not allowed to install a desperately needed coal fired power plant to help save millions of lives each year? That, in reality, is a reflection of how ‘green policies’ are, in part, a contributing factor in the deaths of millions each year. That is by definition…. democide.
Green policies, in regards to CO2, can and will destroy economies, lives, life, and not achieve any significantly measurable impact on the climate.
Should we be good stewards of the earth? Yes.
Should we have controls on “POLLUTION”? Yes.
Should we be stupid about it? NO.
>The American capitalist model [pre-0bama] produced much better results using the free market than other countries produced with state socialism.
Perhaps you are talking about another America than the one on planet earth.
AGW is a market failure. What you advocate is not free market – its freeloading and allowing polluters to pollute without consequences for the damage they cause. You are anti-capitalist and anti-free market.
>The U.S. and Australia did not sign the Kyoto protocol limiting emissions. But almost every other country signed the protocol.
Australia has signed and is on target to meet it’s target. It was pretty easy – broadscale land clearing in marginal farming areas was stopped.
[snip-no calls to prayer mmmkay?]
… educating the public is still an essential task. Once again, CO2 does not cause warming, it causes cooling. Why on Earth would you use an extinguisher with CO2 to stop a fire? Because it heats it up? No, you use a CO2-loaded extinguisher on a fire because CO2 lowers the fire temperature of the fire. Simple, yet hard to visualize, it seems.
Reply: Either this is really funny satire or really sad. Yet I cannot just let through without moderator comment as the criticism of such would be fodder for blog attackers ~ charles the moderator
DJ: “AGW is a market failure. What you advocate is not free market – its freeloading and allowing polluters to pollute without consequences for the damage they cause”
CO2 in not a pollutant, but you know that.