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.
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.
Australia was on track to meet its Kyoto target prior to signing. Signing Kyoto made no difference and it was sold to the electorate on that basis.
Australia met its Kyoto target for the same reason the UK met its target (the only other big economy that did) by a massive shift of electricity generation from coal to Natural Gas.
Australia and the UK complied with Kyoto because of an accident of geology, ie they found natural gas.
Otherwise, Kyoto has been an abject failure.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I hope they don’t give up. At their current rate it will take them more than 20 months to reach the pole. They might just appreciate a little global warming after that much time in freezing conditions.
@sod
“you can t use the petroleum use as an economic indicator, to contradict green ideas. that simply doesn t make any sense.”
Actually, using energy consumption, i.e. petroleum, is the perfect economic indicator. Unless you prefer to revert to “the good old days” of human muscle power (try pulling a plow yourself, and see how many acres you plow in a day). Or pull seeds from raw cotton with your hands, and see how many bales of cotton you produce in a day. Or, pedal a bicycle-style generator and see how many homes you can light and power.
Or, perhaps you prefer to revert to the wonderful, idyllic life of a pre-1900 farmer, using mules and oxen to provide work. How, exactly, are the millions of city-dwellers supposed to live in this manner? Would you put half of them to work bringing in feed for the animals, and the other half scooping their poop?
When fossil-based energy is used productively, as the western world has and does, energy consumption is a good measure of economic activity.
DJ
“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).”
Which published economic analyses in literature are you referring to? The ones from independent experts that analysed California’s AB 32 Scoping Plan? The ones that concluded that AB 32’s economic justification was completely false and hopelessly optimistic? Not a one concluded otherwise. AB 32’s Scoping Plan writers used as a basis that any cost for a mitigation measure was justified, no matter how small the greenhouse gas benefit.
When you paint with such a broad brush, saying “sceptics’ grasp of economics is worse than their grasp of climate,” you have targeted me, for I am a confirmed and avowed skeptic. I welcome your critique of my understanding of economics. Fire away.
Domingo Tavella (14:08:26) :
… educating the public is still an essential task. Once again, CO2 does not cause warming, it causes cooling.
Where have you been? C02 causes everything Bad. This is why it is considered “pollution” and must be banned. You can even see all the filthy C02 pollution belching from smokestacks and causing smog. Plus, Al Gore said it, so it must be true.
I am puzzled. Why are my comments being censored? I am doing my best to educate people into seeing that CO2 cannot possibly be a source of heating, it is a source of cooling.
Why would you use dry ice to keep things cold? Dry ice, used a lot in laboratories, stays at a constant -109 F. Dry ice is made of pure *concentrated* CO2. Doesn’t this tell you that CO2 causes cooling? The more concentrated, the colder.
If it were the other way around, as the extreme environmental lobby (which is heavily vested in Gore’s companies) would have you believe, you would use dry ice to ignite your BBQ, not to keep your ice cream super-cold.
You erased my comment on the power of prayer to change the weather. [snip]
Reply: Yes I did censor that, and your espousing of it again in this post, but I left enough for others to see what I was censoring. Calls to religion or religious discussions are prohibited. Your posts are really taking up an inordinate amount of moderator time. I still can’t figure out if you are a troll, joking, or serious, but at some point we have to draw the line. I can’t even begin to comment on your descriptions of the properties of C02. I would suggest you take them elsewhere. Further calls to prayer etc will result in entire posts being deleted. ~ charles the moderator.
DJ, re the “hide behind discount rates” issue.
In an environment where limited capital must be allocated amongst competing uses, one must strive to obtain maximum return on that capital. As I have written before, there are always many more potential projects than there are funds available to make them a reality.
Thus, a discount rate is one tool that is used to determine which projects shall receive funding. I am aware that some, perhaps many, environmentalists hold that a 2 percent discount rate, with a 30 or 40 year horizon, is appropriate for saving the planet because the cause is so worthy.
There are indeed some projects that are sufficiently worthy that no discount rate analysis is required, for example, a sewage treatment plant. Few would argue that the public health benefits justify the expenditures for such a plant. Others are fire stations and equipment, police stations and equipment, and public works such as roads, or dams to prevent catastrophic flooding.
Do you argue that cutting CO2 and other greenhouse gases, in particular methane, are in the same category as sewage treatment plants, fire stations, police stations, public roads, and flood-prevention dams?
Don’t feed the trolls…don’t feed the trolls…don’t feed the trolls…
Ahhhh crap…
/trollfood on
DJ, please stop making sweeping statements without offering any references to back them up (same game you play every time you come here).
Please give stats on Australia’s complaince with Kyoto goals and how “easy” it was to accomplish. Also, please explain why C02 continues to rise, while temps continue to fall. Since you’re an avid reader here, I’m sure you’ve seen the charts/graphs that point this out, many times in fact.
Apparently you disagree with the premise that if costs of energy go up, costs of goods and services will go up as well? If you do disagree with that, please explain how the increase cost of energy gets offset in your model.
Thanks.
Domingo, not sure why they continue to let you post, but they do, and so I guess you get your entertainment from it. Why try to walk the line like that?…why not just come out and say what you believe?
We know how a fire extinguisher works. We know how C02 in a can of sode work. We also have a pretty good idea of how controlling C02 going to impact the economy, which isn’t well. Do you disagree?
JimB
JimB
Reply: I try to keep the leash as loose as I possibly can. It gets tough. ~ charles the moderator
March 17, 2009
Y2Kyoto: The Snows Of St. Patrick
“No Guff” sends greetings from Vancouver Island.
Snows-of-St.-Pat.jpg
“We should have seen crocuses and daffodils by St. Pat’s, with a few cherry blossoms peeking out, too. Instead, we’ve had more than 3 months of unremitting snow on the ground – and I’ve been shoveling for the last three days to boot. Unheard of. So who are we going to believe? Al Gore? Or our lying eyes?”
Posted by Kate at March 17, 2009 7:29 PM
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/011000.html#comments
Anthony, Charles and the rest of the mods…
I just want to go on record as saying I think you all do a fantastic job of managing this site. You display amazing amounts of tolerance, and your efforts have created a forum where ideas can be readily exchanged. Much of the “pure science” is lost on me, but I always feel better off having read WUWT, several times daily.
Keep up the good work.
p.s. The trolls always get tired before we do ;)…although you folks tend to bare the brundt of that I think.
John in L du B (07:54:22) :
“How much CO2 would be produced making the resins to fabricate enough composite windmill blades to replace the energy loss from the annual reduction in fossile fuel energy needed to cut some 180 Mt of CO2 emmisions needed to meet our Kyoto targets?”
John,
If you take all the CO2 emissions to produce, transport and install a windmill you end up with a negative balance.
You also need a back up power resource (natural gas power plant), so people end up paying three times the price per Kw.
Horizontal axle wind mills were first applied in the year 1291 AD.
We used them to saw wood, grind corn and pump water.
They were replaced by steam engines because of higher output performance and reliability.
Modern wind mils propelling a turbine to generate electricity come with the same disadvantages as the old wind mill: low power output and lack of reliability.
Proponents sell the wind mill as high tech but in reality it is low tech.
When Western Europe was under influence of a high pressure are this winter that brought severe cold, the wind mills did not deliver any energy due to a lack of wind.
Do I have to say more?
I am not against an alternative energy resource to replace fossil fuels but only if this technology is able to compete in price and performance.
I am against any technology that lacks reliability and is pushed because our fossil fuels are taxed and the alternatives are subsidized.
In the end, as always the consumer pays the price for the folly of stupid and corrupt politicians, extreme environmentalists and ruthless entrepreneurs.
Domingo Tavella (14:08:26): “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.”
When I read this I almost passed out from lack of oxygen, as if someone had sprayed a CO2 fire extinguisher all over my face.
What JimB (16:21:57) said! You guys do a great job. I visit several times a day and enjoy both the posts and comments, although more “pure science is lost on me than on JimB. Thanks again.
Domingo is a troll. I have seen him on other blogs. He is well-spoken and is a critic of anyone who doubts AGW. His current persona reflects his misunderstanding of the thinking of AGW skeptics. He is hoping that someone here will agree with him.
Domingo Tavella (14:08:26) :
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?
Domingo,
CO2 released in our atmosphere does not cause heating nor cooling.
See: http://algorelied.com/?p=899
New Peer Reviewed Study:
In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.
That sucking sound you hear is all of the air and energy being sucked out of Al Gore’s global warming climate change climate crisis machine.
Source: Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics published in The International Journal of Modern Physics. Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Jennifer Marohasy notes that Michael Hammer previously reached a similar conclusion.
CO2 in a fire extinguisher is highly compressed and if applied it takes away the oxygen from a burning source thus killing the fire. CO2 is also used as an inert gas in fuel storage tanks to prevent ignition of fuel vapors.
Let us not swap one BS (Bad Science) for another.
You won’t have to worry about recovery if Cap & Trade gets going. There will be no recovery, as the costs of C&P will kill all growth.
The straw will break the proverbial camel’s back as follows:
Industry & Commerce will cut millions of jobs in order to absorb the outlay for C&P, and pass it along to the consumer who will capitulate by the millions.
Now, there’s a true feedback mechanism we have all seen at work (or laid off if you will).
I commend Charles the Moderator for his tolerance and good humor. I also find it advisable to distract the ardent from time to time.
I have been known to interject a folksy homily after as few as four ad hominems, or two references to religion, or curiously, even one mention of the word Foraminifera. But that’s due to a childhood trauma, which I don’t care to discuss while completely sober.
John Hawkins, writing on Townhall.com, said it as well anyone I’ve seen lately:
“There are few things stranger than watching a “debate” over global warming. One side constantly quotes scientific facts, makes logical arguments, and tries to appeal to reason. These people are called “anti-science” by the side that “argues” by comparing their opponents to Holocaust deniers, spins apocalyptic doomsday scenarios out of whole cloth, and is constantly dinged for stretching the truth on the few scientific facts they do talk about. These people are the ones who supposedly “put science first” in the debate.”
Well said!
One little understood consequence of Kyoto is that it has caused a massive increase in CO2 emissions (not to mention real pollutants like sulphate emissions) by transferring energy intensive industries like steel from energy efficient economies like Germany and Japan to energy inefficient economies like China and India.
It takes 50% more energy, and more than 50% more CO2 emissions, to make a ton of steel in China compared to Germany or Japan, and this ignores the cost of transporting a heavy material like steel half way around the world.
As a Canadian who thinks the Mackenzie Brothers were a perfect tummy chuckle, I’m still waiting for someone who is way smarter than I am (there have to be billions) to simply explain why a gas (CO2), that is scientifically classified as a ‘trace gas’ and is south of four hundred part per million in the atmosphere, is so vital to the degree of change in the planet’s climate as it is to the marvel of photosynthesis. I know it’s a greenhouse gas but it is so pathetically puny in this regard, and I know it’s supposed to be a ‘forcing agent’ but I would bet that Mr.Sun and Mr. Ocean have more to say on that subject. I have scoured the IPCC papers and the tomes and texts of the scientifically informed but have only found, by and large, opinion based on assumptions.
I propose that the Mackenzie Brothers get together and hold forth on this subject as their ‘Topic for the Day’, as in: ‘Proposed: Alarmists are Hosers Eh! At least it might bring some humour to a politically dour subject.
not specifically on Canada’s situation, but related (I am Canadian and applaud many of the thoughtful comments on this thread):
“Carbon Registry Opens
LONDON – The Voluntary Carbon Standard Association launched its global multiple registry system on Tuesday, but delayed a key component which will enable carbon emission offsets to be transferred across registries.
Offset companies and traders have been eagerly awaiting the new system, which will enable the transparent tracking and trading of offsets called Voluntary Carbon Units (VCUs).”
read the complete press release dated March 18, 2009 here:
http://planetark.org/wen/52084
sounds like empty turnover to me – or an invitation to corruption and further market distortion
Chas (17:36:02) :
“As a Canadian who thinks the Mackenzie Brothers were a perfect tummy chuckle”…
Near the end of my career, I was once asked, in spite of my prairie upbringing and my unanticipated professional accomplishments, what I felt I had missed. I was expected to discuss research, teaching, or experimental clinical practice. I told the audience, “ I miss Gilda Radner, and Freddie Mercury. And I want the Mackenzie Brothers back.” The university audience stood and applauded. Exit stage right.
Regards, Henry
My view on CO2 warming the globe, I don’t see that happening especially since it doesn’t seem like Global Warming will resume in the next few months if you factor in a month’s SST value affecting temperatures a few months later.
We did have the warmest Febuary on record here in Wichita by a whopping 8 degrees above the previous record, but UAH suggests it may have been a bit colder in other places. Strangely enough it may end up being we see the highest temp. we get for March being below the highest we got in Febuary if the long range forecast is close to accurate.
Very important to read this links:
Here is “study” that makes clear what the AGW freaks are really up to:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N11/EDIT.php
This is a proper response to this madness from Chris Horner:
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/17/just-enough-of-them
Any CO2 reduction legislation eventually will put a rope around our necks, ready for the lynching.
We better get rid of the AGW/ CO2 doctrine before real disaster start to happen.
http://green-agenda.com
If our preying/ praying troll on a motorbike is the Domingo Tavella that google came up with, then he has a Master’s in Financial Engineering.
Perhaps he has a little time on his hands now that the finances have all been engineered, and he can turn his able hand to winning friends and influencing people in the Skeptosphere.
If he’s some other Domingo Tavella, then there’s hope for the U of Cal. after all.
It’s interesting that he couldn’t bring himself to include a solecism or two, or at least a typo.
Hey Domingo, you got five minutes of my time, and I have to agree that CO2 does cool the atmosphere; even Al Gore knows that.