115 responses so far ↓

• 1 Bill // May 20, 2014 at 4:29 pm

  @MB #100

  “While I agree that markets respond innovatively to changing conditions, you downplay the role of every government that deals with energy through policy and investment.”

  Government policy was driven by the objective of reducing CO2 to arbitrary levels and was not driven by the goal of developing alternative sources of energy. Consequently overall strategy and investment decisions were made based on how much CO2 would be reduced which ignored the cost to the economy of using alternative energy sources. This policy objective was flawed whether or not AGW has the impact on climate alarmists believe since the major emitters did not sign on and so could not succeed.

  If the policy objective had been to develop alternative energy sources then the policies would have considered the cost of the energy produced by these sources. Well constructed incentives to the private sector may have been appropriate but the subsidies offered wind and solar producers were loaded onto consumers taking money out of the economy and making industry less competitive (see Ontario for a Canadian example). If the cost of solar energy is reduced by 200 times as you suggest then this just highlights the flaw in the policy objective. How much better off would the economies that invested early in renewables be if they had waited.

  The oil and gas industry is a good example of how government can responsibly direct investment in the energy sector. Accelerated depreciation only defers income taxes, freeing capital for investment while flow through shares reduces the risk of exploration and development. It does not saddle the economy with higher energy costs for the next 20 years.

• 2 gman // May 21, 2014 at 11:54 am

  Oh Frack !!!!
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOX5ehfFF7I

• 3 MB // May 21, 2014 at 12:55 pm

  @ Bill 101:

  Government policy was driven by the objective of reducing CO2 ….

  Yeah, like that’s been a worldwide success.

  Consequently overall strategy and investment decisions were made based on how much CO2 would be reduced which ignored the cost to the economy of using alternative energy sources … Well constructed incentives to the private sector may have been appropriate but the subsidies offered wind and solar producers were loaded onto consumers taking money out of the economy and making industry less competitive

  The cost of the hydrocarbon economy on society (not just from CO2) are becoming increasingly well known. These have been documented (in some cases for centuries) in the form of death, injury and disease rates from mining, particulate and chemical-ladden smog, ground level ozone, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, mercury, atomized polyaromatic hydrocarbons, dioxin, road accidents, and this

  http://montreal.rougefm.ca/Pics/Blogs/1003936/lacmegantic-011.jpg

  The economic costs of cleaning up oil spills and environmental damage are also well documented, and have shown that they are usually not fully recovered.

  Because theese aftereffects are classified as external costs, unlike renewables, they are not figured into the development calculations by private industry and their government supporters, both whom with a history of doing everything possible to transfer these costs onto public accounts.

  Directly closing carbon-based industries has not been in the policy purview of governments who have the foresight to establish renewables using feed-in tariffs right up front as one of many tools. Instead, their goal is to create new industries, not to wait several lifetimes for the other guy to fund the R&D.

  Their success has been far, far less costly to society than pushing off the inevitable waste from Dark Ages industries to the public sector.

• 4 Bill // May 21, 2014 at 3:12 pm

  @MB #103

  “The cost of the hydrocarbon economy on society (not just from CO2) are becoming increasingly well known. These have been documented (in some cases for centuries) in the form of death, injury and disease rates from mining, particulate and chemical-ladden smog, ground level ozone, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, mercury, atomized polyaromatic hydrocarbons, dioxin, road accidents,”

  Gee, I didn’t realize how serious this is. This must be dramatically shortening people’s lives and no doubt the costs are showing up in lower living standards. Wait a minute. Life expectancies have doubled in the last 200 years with incomes growing many multiples in the same period.

  There is a very interesting interactive chart at http://www.gapminder.org/ click on Home, Wealth and Health of Nations and you can chart life expectancy or incomes against factors such as CO2 emissions. Spoiler alert: as CO2 per capita emissions go up, so does life expectancy and incomes. I know correlation is not causation but I think most people would still choose the world we’ve got over the one that never had the benefit of hydrocarbons.

  As for your reference to the Lac Megantic tragedy it is just another reason why we need to get on with building the pipelines. There are 2.6 million miles of pipelines in the United States alone so I think we should be able to build Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan with the necessary environmental safeguards.

• 5 boohoo // May 21, 2014 at 3:28 pm

  @104

  No doubt we’ve benefited up to this point. But what’s the long term goal? It’s easy to ignore the future and keep plowing along with what’s ‘worked’, but is that smart?

• 6 Bill // May 21, 2014 at 4:29 pm

  @boohoo #105

  No, but it is a much different proposition to say we want to develop alternative energy sources from saying we want to reduce CO2 emissions which has resulted in a tremendous waste of resources worldwide.

  Saving the planet overrode all other considerations like cost but also the environment. If it wasn’t for the greater good of reducing CO2 do you think environmentalists would have stood by while the countryside was blighted by wind turbines not to mention the birds and bats that are chopped up?

  Innovation will occur in energy production just like it occurs in every other facet of our economy. Regrettably the actions of climate alarmists have distorted that process.

• 7 Chris Keam // May 21, 2014 at 6:46 pm

  “Wind myths: Turbines kill birds and bats”

  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-energy-myths-turbines-bats

• 8 Chris Keam // May 21, 2014 at 6:49 pm

  http://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf

  page 2 ‘Collisions’

  
  
  
  
  
  
  -
  :!:! –
  
  
  

   (–
  
  

  
  )
  )
  $;-
  
  
  

  ,

  
  $+;+
  –
  
  <
  
  -
  )
  -

  
  
  )
  
  
  .
  &
  
  
  

  
  –

  
  
  
  
  
  
  )
  
  )
  )
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  –
  
  
  -
  
  
  –

  
  
  
  
  
  

  % & 
  6
  -"
  
  
  
  -
  
  
  
  #!$
  –
  
  
   "
  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  -
  -
   (

  -
   +-
  
  
  
  -
  
  )–
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  -
  +++
  
  

• 9 Chris Keam // May 21, 2014 at 6:49 pm

  Sorry for the goofy formatting.

• 10 Bill // May 21, 2014 at 8:01 pm

  That’s ok it matches your goofy comments.

• 11 boohoo // May 21, 2014 at 9:11 pm

  @106

  See, now I struggle to understand your position when you agree what we’re doing is not smart, yet you advocate we continue to do it. How do you reconcile doing things you are know are not smart to spite those that would do other ‘not smart’ things?

• 12 Bill // May 22, 2014 at 10:30 am

  @boohoo #111

  Where did I say that what we are doing now is not smart? Only self-loathing eco fascists would not recognize that the current generations are the most fortunate people who have ever lived.
  Not only are we living better but with unprecedented personal freedoms and social mobility. Worldwide, poverty levels have been reduced dramatically. The fact that we enjoy the level of our standard of living with the impact we have on the environment is a testament to the progress through innovation we have achieved to date. There is no reason why this innovation will stop. So overall we have and are doing things smart but it doesn’t mean we can’t and won’t do things smarter.

  And just to make clear the point I made in #110 about wind turbines that has, like many things gone over the head of CK, it was not how many birds and bats that are being killed. In 2012 when 350 or so ducks died in a freak weather occurrence at the Suncor oil sands production facility this is what Greenpeace had to say:

  “Alberta’s weather changes all the time,” said Mike Hudema with Greenpeace. “If tar sands companies can’t ensure the safety of birds, animals and humans regardless of the weather, they should be shut down until they can.”

  This is why environmentalists are losing all credibility. They justify shutting down an oil sands facility because of the death of 350 ducks but rationalize killing 100,000’s of birds with wind turbines because it is a relatively small proportion of birds killed each year. It really isn’t about saving birds but is about stopping the development of the oil sands. Remember that when you read their submissions about the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.

• 13 boohoo // May 22, 2014 at 11:39 am

  @112

  My last sentence was

  “It’s easy to ignore the future and keep plowing along with what’s ‘worked’, but is that smart?”

  followed by you with:

  “No, but it is a much different proposition to say we want to develop alternative energy sources from saying we want to reduce CO2 emissions which has resulted in a tremendous waste of resources worldwide. ”

  Was that ‘no’ not answering my question?

  Also, you lose credibility by lumping anyone with concerns about these issues with the extreme fringe who share similar sentiments. Your constant passive aggressive ‘progressive’ insults are clear examples of your unwillingness to acknowledge the world is not black or white but infinite shades of grey.

• 14 MB // May 23, 2014 at 2:47 pm

  @ Bill 104:

  …as CO2 per capita emissions go up, so does life expectancy and incomes. I know correlation is not causation but I think most people would still choose the world we’ve got over the one that never had the benefit of hydrocarbons.

  Gee, I hadn’t realized that. Oh, yes, it’s the wealth generated by exploiting hydrocarbons that extends lives. This will continue for 500 years won’t it? Geological evidence is trumped by investment banks once again. Who cares what the price the commodity is?

  I’m set straight now. Fodssil fuels are good for human health. Thank you for that. I’ll know better when I see images on the news like these

  http://www.marketplace.org/sites/default/files/beijing-smog.jpg

  http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/china-smog-tiananmen-square-660.jpg

  It’s now painfully obvious that there is NO contradiction. The left images indicate massive wealth creation and enhanced health. The right images represent dire poverty and shorter lifespans. You can see them keeling over under those poisonous clear skies.

  And this image I realize now is just left wing marketing propaganda

  http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130131130754-01-beijing-smog-0131-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg

  While this one is a poster of a very healthy economy

  http://content.headlineasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/china-smog11.jpg

  It’s all clear now, Bill. Sorry to disturb you. You can now return to installing Eau du Hydrocarbon incense burners on your little shrine to Ian Plimer.

• 15 John W. // Jun 3, 2014 at 12:08 am

  The problem where I live is that we are near the health care corridor (10th to 12th Ave between Cambie and Oak) and have no signs, so the City Parking by-law “applies”. Actually, they have made the enforcement regulations so convoluted it is essentially impossible to stop health care workers from using our block as free workday parking. A neighbour submitted an application to start the permit parking process, being told there was a one-year wait. I talked to him after 15 months and he had heard NOTHING from City Hall. This “Greenest City” stuff is just BS as long as the City enables people to drive their cars to work because they can park for free in residential neighbourhoods.

  After three years of complaining and NO action, I am really fed up.