In today’s National Post, and elsewhere around the net, there is much commentary about the upcoming Copenhagen Conference where the UN and the Climate Change Priesthood will try to guilt the western world into signing on to a treaty that will cripple their economies and transfer wealth to the developing world.
- Peter Foster does a good job of explaining why the TD / Suzuki / Pembina report likely underestimates the economic consequences of trying to reduce carbon emissions.
- Kevin Libin and John Ivison do a good job of pointing out that Canadians need to wake up to the economic cost we will all be asked to bear. Ivison also makes it clear that the government needs to provide clearer leadership on this subject and be more honest with the people.
- But the best is from Jack Mintz, who lays out the truth – not every nation is going to agree to curtail economic growth in the name of maybe reducing climate impacts a century or more in the future. And the ones that do will suffer economic pain as industry moves to places that don’t restrict economic performance. For any western country to sign on to this is economic suicide.
- The worst is Jim Harris, who claims that technological innovation is going to magically solve our problems. He incorrectly compares the improvements in productivity created by the industrial revolution to the hoped for improvements in energy efficiency. The fact is, a lot of energy use is extremely efficient. Household furnaces are now available with >90% efficiency. You can’t get to 100%. The laws of thermodynamics say so. You can’t insulate buildings to lose or gain no heat from their surroundings. There is a limit to energy efficiency because delta S (entropy) must rise. Coal or gas fired power plants can be up to 60% efficient – more requires circulating low grade hot water to heat buildings. But that means moving the power plants to where the people are, which costs money because we already have 100 years of infrastructure built up. It’s not going to change overnight.
Canada should skip the Copenhagen conference altogether. The draft text of the treaty tells us enough that we don’t want to go near it. We don’t want UN bureaucrats in Geneva or New York imposing sanctions or demanding tribute to the green gods because we don’t want to impoverish ourselves by shrinking the economy.
3 comments
Jim Harris
31 October 2009 at 10:11 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Jim Harris here. My column in the national post on Friday focused on how cutting carbon is very profitable according to McKinsey & Compnay (see http://tinyurl.com/yllbema).
It was not I who I who compared the improvements in productivity created by the industrial revolution to the improvements in energy efficiency that are possible — it was Jon Creyts, the lead author of the McKinsey study and a principal at McKinsey’s Chicago office.
McKinsey is one of the pre-eminent management consulting firms worldwide. A company widely respected by business executives.
In this framework an individuals opinion on climate change is not relevant. Because “cutting carbon,” equals “eliminating energy inefficiency” equals “cutting energy costs” equals “eliminating waste” equals equals “driving profit to the corporate bottom line.”
Wal-Mart is saving $500 million a year through its fuel and energy efficiency — in projects with paybacks of three years or less! (see http://tinyurl.com/yfe4tlk)
Taliesyn
2 November 2009 at 8:39 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Jim – I am disappointed that you don’t think an individual’s opinion is relevant.
On the topic you discussed, and that which McKinsey studied, the problem is not energy efficiency. I am all for energy efficiency, especially if it has an economic return on investment. My problem is that when it comes to the big energy consumers in the world, there isn’t that much left to pursue.
Lighting is a good example. Incandescent lights are terribly inefficient. Fluorescents are better, but LEDs are the right answer. The challenge there lies in getting big enough and bright enough LEDs to replace street lights and other such bright light needs. If one can replace incandescent lights with LEDs and the reduction in power cost can overcome the cost of the LEDs, then good. Of course, we must also consider the energy inputs of producing the LEDs, and the potential that costs will rise as the availability of rare-earth elements become more dear.
But I want to look at the problem of airplanes, cars and home heating. Aircraft need a high energy density fuel because weight is their enemy. I cannot imagine an electric airliner – Even a ten-fold improvement in battery technology wouldn’t get one anywhere near the energy density found in jet fuel. As for cars, electric cars may be feasible, but looking at the whole fuel cycle I still have problems with solar and wind power being large enough or reliable enough (given the vagaries of mother nature) to produce that power in a cost effective way. The experience to date with feed-in-tariffs for wind and solar power in Europe is costing taxpayers far more than is reasonable – if those costs were passed on to consumers wind/solar would die a quick death.
Home heating is another problem. If I buy a natural gas fired furnace that is >90% efficient, then we are getting close to the point of being unable to find any improvements from energy efficiency. The alternative therefore would be to use waste heat from a power plant to heat my house – but I need the power plant to be nearby. Since thermal power plants are between 40% and 60% efficient, there is opportunity. But the lowest efficiency plants are coal fired and the emissions are higher than if I just kept burning natural gas. The natural gas powered plants are better, but again they are not dispersed enough nor close enough to my house. There is also the capital cost of building the networks to move all this hot water (or some other fluid if water is too precious in a dry area like southern Alberta) which will have to be paid by consumers. Quickly replacing the current energy infrastructure that took most of a century to build will not be cheap.
It is disingenuous to tell people otherwise.
Cynical Bard
31 October 2009 at 11:34 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I listened to John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, explain that part of the problem is the UN feels that they are at the mercy of the US Congress to grant them their operating money, and so the Copenhagen agreement gives the UN the power to TAX. I can’t agree to give anyone the power to tax us unless WE have the right to throw them out, and we don’t. On the same show Lord Monckton (UK) stressed that the agreement specifically gives some of the powers of government to the UN.
I have sent a note to our PM advising him not to cede ANY power over internal decision to the UN or anyone else.