Moratorium on solar and wind projects ignores climate change issue
By Lethbridge Herald on August 16, 2023.
Editor:
Topsy-turvy. First, the UCP government suddenly imposes a six-month moratorium on wind and power projects over one megawatt (in other words, almost everything other than small private projects).
Instead of establishing a few needful regulations on the fly regarding wind and solar energy development, they propose to shut it down, which will in effect destabilize its recovery.
In short, they want to lolly-gag on energy changes that are essential to combat climate change and that require speedy development.
Secondly, Mr. Neudorf’s announcement (Aug. 3) also appears to admit the UCP and its predecessors formerly lolly-gagged their way through oil and gas regulations, and highlights their failure to demand that oil and gas consort to reclaim hundreds of oil and gas sites as required by law.
How about a six-month moratorium on oil and gas until they live up to their obligations?
Thirdly, there is an apple and oranges difference between the fossil fuel and sustainable energy industries in terms of environmental foot-print and damage.
Oil and gas not only mean carbon emissions, they involve toxicities of numerous and dangerous sorts.
One need only say – “Fort McMurray” – to suggest the size of their footprint. By contrast, even giant windmills occupy only a small, much more easily non-toxic reclaimable foot-print. Solar is even more benign.
The UCP announcement has one virtue: the need to preserve “scenery.” Wind farms blocking the view along corridors to Waterton Park, for example, would compromise the central reason for that park’s creation as a place where the prairies dramatically meet the mountains.
A few other similar cases undoubtedly exist elsewhere. A moratorium in such places should be imposed immediately.
The enormity of the climate change issue, however, must make us take stock of where we are and where and how fast we must go.
As a historian, let me suggest some uncomfortable truths in this regard.
First, looking at recent history, we have known about the elements of climate change for long enough to know that we must act now.
Almost all of the global predictions that began seriously in the late 1980s have proven true, and we know we have not responded quickly enough.
Secondly, considering the history of western civilization in the medium term (the 1600s forward), it is fair to say that political, social, and cultural conditions tend to stay much the same over long periods of time (even centuries), until almost everything changes radically and suddenly (e.g., revolutions). Climate change is a radical change.
Finally, and most worrying, we know that no world movement or actions by nation-states or groups of cultures and peoples around the world have ever successfully undertaken the kind of long-range, integrated planning — including everything from governance to technology to collective human will — that is essential to combat and mitigate something as large as climate change.
This historical truth is even more worrisome given that time is not on our side. Can we pull off a historical first?
James Tagg
Lethbridge
21-20
Well. Let’s start with the accuracy of predictions from the 80’s. Anyone who pays any attention at all knows that they were largely inaccurate and exaggerated – which is creating the problem of getting traction now on reasonable efforts to address climate issues.
No less than the executive director of the United Nations environmental program, Mostafa K. Tolba, predicted in 1982 that by the turn of the century (23 years ago) we would experience ”an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.” https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/11/world/un-ecology-parley-opens-amid-gloom.html
2000 came and went. And while the world has problems – including ongoing areas of famine and such, we certainly didn’t experience anything approaching a “nuclear holocaust.”. And it’s now 23 years after his dire prediction. And not only have we not reduced emissions since 1982, but in fact, C02 continues to be emitted at levels doubling those in 1982. (1982 saw global C02 emissions of 18.88 billion metric tons of C02 compared to 37.49 billion in 2022.) How is it, Mr. Tolba, that we have doubled C02 emissions but your dire predictions have proven, now, to be gross hyperbole?
Here’s the rub. Climate change is a “thing”. However, government and academia by exaggerating and lying about potential outcomes have made the public tired and distrusting of both government and science (witness the nightmarish response to COVID in Canada and elsewhere.)
Sadly, I think your prediction is likely true insofar as the most major emitters are not going to change drastically any time soon. Meanwhile, Canada will hamper the real challenges of the poor and lower middle class to house and feed their families in the purely symbolic effort to encourage the major players to change course.
People struggle with housing and feeding themselves so that Canada can make a climate “gesture.”
Taxes and costs to up to waste money on prevention when it’s almost certain that mitigation of impacts of change is where money should be going. Maui is the best example. The Hawaiian government spent over $100 million on combating climate change – including efforts to “integrate racial and gender diversity in developing environmental solutions to the climate crisis.” Meanwhile, they employ a maximum of 65 fire fighters at any point in time, to protect three islands – Maui, Molokai and Lanai. We saw the result of the result of the tragic Hawaiian response to climate change last week.
It’s time for sober, reasonable, discussion on climate change. We’re not stopping it. We can, however, adapt to it. And expansion of windmills and solar power are not part of that adaptation.
If wind and solar power “are not part of [the] adaptation, kindly support your assertion with examples of the kind of adaptation that will enable all living organisms on this planet the ability to survive.
The comments on these letters grow more embarrassing by the day. Your response to the true statement that the vast majority of climate models are accurate is a quote from one guy in the 80s. Nobody is saying that every statement ever made about climate change was correct – because that would be insane. Good job debunking the obviously insane claim though, gold star.
As far as major emitters go – they are in fact improving, much faster than we are. China is installing more renewables than the rest of the world combined. Canada is among the worst emitters per capita on the planet. Trying to pass the buck is childish and shameful.
Certainly it’s true that we can’t avert climate change completely – we’re already feeling the effects. Mostly because of people just like you spewing nonsense in the 70s and 80s preventing meaningful action then. But that doesn’t mean it can’t get worse. Every tenth of a degree we warm brings about new problems. Yes adaptation is necessary – but so is ramping up our mitigation efforts so that we don’t end up with a problem too big to adapt to.
And the idea of a moratorium on renewables is so ridiculous on the face of it, and so widely condemned by anyone who has heard of it, that I feel no need to add to it.
On the off chance you care to learn something:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66043485
https://open.substack.com/pub/public/p/renewables-mania-and-woke-dogma-behind?r=nlphz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
You suggest other countries, including China, are “getting better” but you ignore the reality that in spite of the billions being spent, C02 production has doubled since 1982.
Governance is about effective allocation of limited resources to accomplish the most positive outcomes for your citizens.
So – to begin with – I’ve acknowledged the reality of climate change. But no one discusses “what is the impact of Canada reducing its C02 production to zero tomorrow? No boats, trains, airplanes, 20% of electricity generation.. what is impact?
Nothing. For a century or more.
Meanwhile, homelessness and addiction expands. Crime expands. So many people need help. Now.
My question is not “is climate change real”, it’s accepting the reality how ineffective are efforts to reduce C02 compared to allocation of limited resources in a truly effective fashion to most effectively help Canadians.
Zero C02 is a massive expense for Canada with marginal climate benefit. The horse, unfortunately, is out of the barn.
All current models show no reversal of current trends for a century IF C02 reduces – which n/w/s all the hyperbole still isn’t happening and appears unlikely to happen
Time to shift gears. Allocate resources effectively for the needs of Canadians not for pointless gestures that might have had an impact 49 years ago.
A few points:
1) Appealing to Canada’s relatively small contribution is nonsense. If you split a problem into small enough parts, every individual one will be small. Imagine if we all littered because just my litter doesn’t matter. It’s childish passing the buck, nothing more. China and other large players, many less rich than us, are doing more than we are. Are they doing enough? No, obviously not, but they’re closer than us.
2) The idea of no impact is flat out wrong. We are unlikely to see improvements for 50+ years, but our efforts now affect how much worse it gets. So does it get a little bit worse and start improving, or does it get a lot worse, for longer, and then start improving? That’s what our actions now are deciding. It’s determining if adaptation is even possible, because “cheap” is off the table already.
3) You’re acting like addressing homelessness and addiction must be separate from climate change. That’s simple whataboutism and again has no place in a reasonable discussion. Many of the structural reforms that could help address climate change also help with structural issues. For example denser more walkable cities aren’t only more carbon efficient, they also make it easier to hold down a job without a car, and afford an apartment. And for those that are completely separate… well there are 38 million people in Canada, we can do more than one thing at a time.
4) The only thing you’ve gotten right is that we need to spend more on adaptation. We just also need to spend more on mitigation because the warmer it gets, the more expensive that adaptation gets. The problem is, and will continue, getting worse faster than we can adapt. We need both.
In short, people downplaying the problem for the past 50 years have already taken any easy solutions off the table. Easy isn’t an option. Anything we do now is expensive, politically difficult, and requires sacrifice by those of us somewhat well off. If your plan is to sit there and continue to downplay and point fingers, please do the rest of us a favor and shut up. You’ve done enough harm.
very good entry – thank you
From the number of down votes and the number of negative comments it is very apparent Rob, that the only opinion the climate cult wants to hear is their opinion coming out of your mouth. Facts and history do not matter
https://open.substack.com/pub/public/p/renewables-mania-and-woke-dogma-behind?r=nlphz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
while i certainly question the ucp motives, there are certainly issues around solar and wind that require consideration. do we know that the net outcome of solar is less destructive than fossil fuels – taking into account the energy required to manufacture, mine, implement, and dispose of needed materials? do we know as much with regard to wind? and, in particular with regard to the ugly wind farms (ok, they are less ugly than the likes of the toxic and horrid “tailings” ponds), they are an enviro nightmare as they kill an awful lot of life that flies through their blades. they also create issues for people that live nearby.
our primary issue is consumption, and not so much with necessities but with our endless wants. we can develop the cleanest, entirely enviro friendly sources of energy, but if we do pull back on population and consumption of wants, we are not going to change the course of our demise.
It’s a fair question, but thankfully we do have the answer. Renewables produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and it’s not even close. Each power plant is different of course, but over their lifecycle an average gas power station produces about 490 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh, while rooftop solar produces 41 grams, nuclear produces 12 grams, and onshore wind produces 11 grams. Life cycle emissions include the full deal from material acquisition to manufacturing to disposal.
Wikipedia has a good summary, but of course look at the sources if you want to be sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
Fully agree with your last paragraph – the most environmentally friendly energy is the energy we don’t consume in the first place.
thank you for your entries and your reply. to clarify, do your figures account for the entire process – mining, manufacture, maintenance, replacement, disposal (and whatever of any of these is reusable).
They sure do – that’s what’s meant by “life cycle emissions”, it’s the emissions of that power generation method from “shiny rocks in the ground” to “cleaned up and restored land”. Because of course for solar and wind the emissions from operation are 0 – so just looking at that number is unfair.
You can see the chart from the IPCC here, which in turn links to another annex which references dozens of scientific papers – there’s a reason these documents take teams of researchers years to put together.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf#page=7
The chart here breaks it down by direct emissions, infrastructure/supply chain, and methane emissions. It even includes how much extra sunlight is absorbed due to trees cut down to burn for biomass. It’s mostly what you’d expect – a gas powerplant produces about 1/10th the emissions of a wind farm to build, but then it produces a huge amount while running, while the wind farm produces none.
thank you again for taking time to provide food for thought. as for one of my issues with windmills, i sure wish they could construct them so that they do not ravage airborne life forms.
As others have pointed out, the lack of accuracy of previous predictions, including, but not limited to IPCC models and a whole host of environmentalist groups have turned out to be wildly inaccurate . A recent example was the PM’s comments about wild fires across Canada, calling them ” unprecedented”, when in fact forest industry records show the peak year for forest fires was 1989, and that the trend has been steadily downwards every year since, including this year. So cut the hype, and start using factual evidence. The media is largely responsible for the situation, and , of course, the federal government.
Yes indeed let’s start using facts. “ Canadian wildfire officials said Friday that the 2023 wildfire season is easily the worst ever recorded, with millions of hectares already burned — and they’re expecting “higher-than-normal” activity to continue throughout the late summer and fall.” (CBC 11th August)
First Fort Mac and now Yellowknife and it will not end any time soon.
Of course it always is “the feds”, nothing whatsoever to do with local (read UCP) who bow to the oil and gas industry no matter the costs!
https://open.substack.com/pub/public/p/renewables-mania-and-woke-dogma-behind?r=nlphz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
CBc And Wikipedia are quoted sources. One is a 1.2 billion taxpayer funded Trudeau Government mouthoiece and the other is open to editing by anyone. Hardly stellar sources but hey, its your brain.
It takes a lot of… something to criticize sources while spamming a blog post by Michael Schellenberger, a PR guy with no scientific credentials that runs a lobbying company aimed at undermining climate action.
In short, the adults are talking. Go home until you have something to contribute, I’m done with you.
You’ll have to forgive buckweet, he’s comic relief around here.
And here we have the lumpy who has nothing good to say about anyone who may have a different opinion.
Typical left wing bs. Attack the messenger. Done with you too. Climate cult and you have bought in.
Oooo look at you getting all defensive.
‘Left-wing climate cult’….what a clown.
Comic relief and now spam. Way to roll, buck, .lol
Shellenberg has forgot more than you know.
So CBC is a Trudeau mouthpiece? Carry on believing that if you wish! I suppose then that both ABC and BBC are similarly biased. OK, let’s try one of your favs – FOX – “ The National Center for Environmental Information shows over 1,200 more wildfires this year so far, compared to all of 2022.” Oh oh!
Choosing to ‘pause’ renewable energy projects is akin to foegoing the installation of lifeboats on the Titanic. It’s clear that the UCP are governing for the shipping line, not the passengers.