May 29th, 2024

Liberal climate madness must be stopped


By Letter to the Editor on November 10, 2021.

Editor:
We must first understand that what separates our amazing modern world from the medieval or even the stone Aage is today’s access to reliable, affordable and abundant energy. If that seems like hyperbole, consider that since man walked this earth, we lived in and survived earth’s harsh climate almost like animals until recently. In the last few centuries, what is called the industrial revolution has given an unprecedented leap forward in health, life expectancy and human welfare. And what made the industrial revolution happen was the utilization of coal to power man’s creativity. For the first time in human history we tapped into a reliable and concentrated energy source that changed all the rules.
Since that time, we have discovered oil and natural gas which are similar high-density energy sources. As the name suggests, fossil fuels provide today’s world with an unrivalled energy resource that was captured by living organisms from the sun millions of years ago. Organic power! Use of fossil fuels also made possible the creation of nuclear and scalable hydropower, all of which, provide more than 90 per cent of the world’s energy supply today.
Let’s now look at wind and solar attempts to provide alternative power. Over time, both typically provide a small fraction of their claimed output capacity and always require full backup from traditional sources because of their erratic, unpredictable performance.
They can best be described as parasites on any electrical grid to which they are connected. Not surprisingly, after decades and hundreds of billions of taxpayer subsidies, these two ugly, environment-threatening alternatives still provide less than three per cent of the world supply. In other words, there is simply no viable alternative to our traditional sources of energy at this time.
Now we see our Prime Minister strutting up to the Glasgow stage to effectively commit the lowly citizens of this cold country to energy poverty going forward. He appears to have absolutely no understanding of energy systems.
For him, what matters is to be able to wear a halo among his cocktail set. When keeping the lights on in our homes, hospitals and industry is seriously threatened by government mandate we have to respond. It is no exaggeration to call this latest government absurdity what it is, climate madness!
Lynn Thacker
Bow Island

Share this story:

2
-1
35 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SophieR

The climate crisis has no politics. It is one indicator of many that our population and lifestyle have exceeded the capacity of earth systems to provide and regenerate.

It is quite incorrect to say humans lived like beasts prior to fossil fuels and the industrial revolution. Marshall Sahlins disabused us of that myth a half century ago. No modern anthropology supports this. What Lynn is saying is that there are a priviledged few who are living comparatively fabulous lives. The same favoured fifth who drag their feet at every opportunity.

Finally, renewable energy. Again, outdated arguments about cost, backup and efficacy. There is no alternative to vastly reducing fossil fuel use. We should be grateful to have a workable alternative. Rather than a parasite, a vaccine. Keep up, Lynn. You sound as old as the solar bugs in your tank.

buckwheat
TonyPargeter

I notice that right-wingers keep appropriating the language and ideas of the left because they’re obviously far more reasonable and humane, especially lately, but trying to do that same appropriation with the liberal bedrock of “critical thinking” as well is truly overstepping. Because it is YOUR cohort, your “side” that has been so avidly and assiduously groomed, thanks to the endless capacity for manipulation when it comes to people, particularly those who were mostly “tuned out” until social media came along with targeted algorithms to draw them into silos of “disinformation.” All these new words for what is not true. By deliberately cultivating “misinformation” with unscrupulous abandon, you guys have sullied the vital wellspring of not only straight-up CLEAR thinking but also the more comprehensive, critical kind.
And you older people pretending that you don’t remember when truth was generally acknowledged to be an essential, siren component of life? And was simply not THAT relative? Shame on you for blithely leading the charge into this bleak “post-truth” world that not only encompasses the pandemic, but rivals it.
The worst among us, hands down.

Fedup Conservative

A lawyer friend would say .They aren’t right-wingers when they are so stupid they are supporting a Liberal turned Reformer in Ralph Klein and Jason Kenney. Neither one was ever a true conservative.

SophieR

You mean ‘contrary’ thinking.

Though I think your blogger understands that his overconsumptive lifestyle is at risk with emission reduction. Poor pampered fellow is scared.

Seth Anthony

Sophie said: “There is no alternative to vastly reducing fossil fuel use”.
Nuclear: “Hold my beer”.

Sophie said, “Finally, renewable energy. Again, outdated arguments about cost, backup and efficacy”.

The arguments are in no way “outdated”. The arguments are based in the laws of physics and cost. The latter of which is related to the former.

For example, the arguments against solar power are:

1) Due to pesky clouds and that thing called “night”, solar panels don’t work most of the time. Consistency and stability are prerequisites for an energy grid, and solar has neither of those.

2) The panels and related components are too expensive.

3) Their efficiency is very low and they have reached their theoretical limit of efficiency.

4) They take up an enormous amount of land compared to the energy produced.

5) Insufficient storage technology.

Most or all of those arguments makes current solar technology unviable, and also why almost no one has solar panels on their roof. If solar panels were far more efficient, a third of the cost (with installation), and we have a breakthrough in storage technology, then solar power would be viable.

Last edited 2 years ago by Seth Anthony
SophieR

Actually, 1. matching supply to demand (or visa versa) is a prerequisite for the grid. 2. Nuclear is too expensive. 3. Efficiency is over 1000% over its useful life. 4. Compared to parking lots? Rooftops? Contaminated landscapes? 5. Okay, though the closer one matches demand to supply the less storage is required (this is related to lifestyle expectations).

Solar is already viable by your measures. There is a lot of inertia in an energy system designed around fossil fuels. An inertia we must overcome in the present.

Seth Anthony

1) Same difference. The point is, solar desperately needs a breakthrough storage solution.

2) Agreed it’s expensive, but too expensive to help “save the planet”? Plus, there are ways to get the cost down.

3) Agreed, but that’s not the efficiency I’m talking about, and I believe you know that.

4) Your examples are too varied to really understand your point.

5) That isn’t going to happen due to intermittence. In this case, it’s double intermittence with the intermittence of the source, as well as the intermittence of the demand. This goes back to #1 and needing a much better storage solution (probably something like solid state storage).

I’m not against solar power. Heck, I was into renewable energy and sustainable living long before the whole green movement. My next vehicle will be an EV, and I’ll be first in line to equip my roof with solar panels when it’s not stupid to do so.

Again, the proof is in the pudding. That is, almost no one in Canada uses solar energy, because it is not viable on many levels. Almost no one is going to spend $30,000 (not including maintenance) for an energy source that can’t heat your home, can’t cool your home, can’t run higher drain appliances, and all the while still have to be connected to the grid and pay all those fees.

Last edited 2 years ago by Seth Anthony
phlushie

i like the idea of a ev. but do you realize that just in making the batterey produces as much co2 as a gas powered car produces in 8 years

Dennis Bremner

Glad you have the same view as our dinosaur Enviro Minister. Let me know when you fossils see the Nuclear powered light! https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/david-staples-climate-activist-blasts-guilbeault-in-glasgow-for-botched-emissions-plans/ar-AAQClDw?ocid=BingNews

SophieR

It seems to me the nuclear lobby is schizophrenic. They consistently argue against the climate reality, against any plausible effort to reduce emissions, but promote a technology to solve the same problem they don’t even believe exists. They rally against government incentives for renewables, while being the most highly subsidized energy technology in the country. It beggars belief.

Seth Anthony

So an ad hominem and a ridiculous climate change accusation is your rebutal to the article?

SophieR

Did you read the article, Seth? The ersatz environmentalist calls out the environment minister because he isn’t bending to the nuclear lobby (who, as an industry, could care less about the environment and a stable climate)?

Seth Anthony

Your ad hominem attacks and ridiculous climate change accusations have nothing to do with the points raised in the article. You just blanket accused nuclear proponents of having a mental disorder, and not giving a sh-t about the earth.

You didn’t address the points in the article, however, it is impressive that you can read the minds of all the nuclear proponents 🙂

Last edited 2 years ago by Seth Anthony
Southern Albertan

Getting back to the Trudeau Liberals, and Trudeau himself, he recently at COP26 emphasized carbon pricing and emission reduction, but not, cutting fossil fuel production. We also need the Trudeau Liberals to stop subsidizing the oil and gas sector by $billions/year. Trudeau promised to stop these subsidies in his 2015 campaign already, but did not. Fossil fuel fans should love Trudeau for this.

Duane Pendergast

Thoughtful letter Lynn. Time to remember most humans alive today owe their lives to the energy we have recycled and reused from the fossil fuel store?
http://computare.org/Mission.htm

SophieR

And future humans will owe their lives to our transitioning away from them.

Seth Anthony

Ah yes, so the balance has been struck.

Anyway, the human race will do what they do best: adapt.

I’m more concerned, or rather “intrigued”, by something else. That is, China dominating the global economy.

They are taking over the global market and will cripple all other countries to meet their needs. All without firing a single shot.

Last edited 2 years ago by Seth Anthony
biff

what surely must be avoided is to try to solve one set of issues with a host of new issues. worth considering, as seth points to, is the net effect of alternative sources on the planet. there is nothing wrong with a hybrid approach as a bridge toward no fossil fuels at all; however, are wind and solar, the front running replacements, a net good or bad for the environment. how much new mining and the subsequent release of toxins and environmental degradation from that mining is currently associated with “green” as it now stands? how much toxic build up and waste is associated with the remnants from the new “green” once they have run their course? therefore, we had best be certain that our “new” way is indeed a healthy, net clean, and thus, sustainable way.
moreover, focusing purely on reducing carbon is not going to save us, other species, or the planet from the dire consequences of an exploited, ravaged, abysmally “managed” approach to living. we need clean soil, water and air, incredible diversity of flora and fauna, arable land…we need to be able to grow food. all of this is compromised most by a wants based, consumerist approach to society. i will restate what i have noted many times already: we could discover and harness the purest, cleanest, most harmonious source of energy that exists in the universe, but that will not solve our issues nearly enough. a ballooning human population that is being sold – and buying into – unlimited wants is our undoing. we had best begin discussions on what we can do without, while we still have some choice; the alternative reality is we will come to have to do without anyway, but without choice.

Fedup Conservative

I wonder how these ignorant seniors would do in court when Suncor in Edmonton is praising Trudeau for taking a strong stance. For years our oil executives have confirmed that Global Warming is real problem and we have do something about it. They were the ones who wanted the Carbon Tax implemented, yet these brainwashed seniors would rather believe the lies these phony conservatives feed them.
After claiming solar power won’t work, just like Kenney taught them to do, Shell Canada is making them look like damn fools, building a massive solar power plant at their Scotford Refinery east of Edmonton and the Travers Solar Project being built at Lomond is the largest in Canada and will provide electricity for 150,000 homes.
A friend put solar panels on his home in1975 and has saved thousands of dollars, especially after Klein deregulated electricity. The town of Devon is now powering their Rec Centre and streetlights with solar power.
Look it up on the internet boys and hope someone doesn’t ask you to prove in court that your stupid comments are a lot smarter than the true facts. Lawyers tell us you won’t stand a chance. Being stupid is what you do best, right?

Fedup Conservative

My friend hasn’t been paying all these stupid fees on his power bills like we have been paying on our power and gas bills thanks to Klein.