OK, given that the evidence is now out on climate change, I am very disappointed that the Government of Canada insists on going along with the charade of Copenhagen by committing us, in a non-binding way, to a reduction of 17% in CO2 emissions from 2005 levels by 2020…
Let’s work out how much that is going to cost… Since we didn’t reduce emissions from 2005 through 2009 (they went up, even with the reductions from economic contraction), we have to cut deeper now. That means that to meet the goal, reductions must be of 1.75% every year starting in 2010. The total reduction in emissions will need to be 744 Million tonnes. From studies I’ve been involved with indicate carbon capture and storage will cost between $40 – 100 per tonne. So this will cost at a minimum $30 Billion (today, inflation will drive this up). The government’s own study in 2007 said that the price of CO2 (carbon tax or credit value) needed to change behaviour sufficiently to reduce emissions would be $195/tonne. That pushes up the cost over the next 10 years to $145 Billion. That’s $14.5 billion per year that will be REMOVED from the economy. And that excludes any knock-on effects that reduce economic growth because investors would rather spend their money in countries that don’t waste money on things like this. Or impose such regulations. And it excludes the knock-on effects of the blackouts we are going to have because we can’t build enough nuclear plants in 10 years to counter-act the shutdown of all the coal-fired power plants we will have to shutdown to meet the goal. An wind and solar aren’t going to replace the coal-fired because they aren’t reliable enough (wind) or don’t work well in the darkness that is a Canadian winter (solar).
Do you want to pay $15 Billion a year to make us “look kinda ok” on the world stage? Or should we say no and stop chasing this non-existent problem?
3 comments
1 ping
Powell Lucas
31 January 2010 at 13:14 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
These targets will never be adopted as actual policy. This is just a delaying tactic so as to appear to be on board with this nonsense. The Liberals did the same thing with Kyoto. Canada cannot put itself at a competitive disadvantage vis-a- vis its largest trading partner and, when the U.S. Congress refuses to go along with the Obama administration’s ruinous policy (which is the safest bet on the planet), Canada will also drop the global warming idiocy. In the interim, I expect that any funds directed toward pollution control will be exactly that…pollution control aimed at such things as particulate emissions, noxious sulfur and nitrous compounds, and the cleanup in waterways. I do not foresee the Federal Government following Ontario’s lead in subsidizing windmill builders and other such fruitless ventures.
Taliesyn
1 February 2010 at 8:40 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
But why do they insist on lying to us… I never did understand political expediency…
Cynical Bard
1 February 2010 at 9:24 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I don’t believe that the targets have anything to do with emissions, or science. The entire program has been cooked up with the goal of justifying certain other programs. For example,
I have it in writing from Ed Stelmach’s Communications Director (when he was running for Leader) that the ethanol fuel program was intended as a an “indirect subsidy for farmers”.
Alberta has had a program to pay farmers for “reduced tillage” going back five years. Why go back if you want to reduce emmissions now?
Federal Ministers refuse to discuss what the various programs cost in terms of dollars per tonne of emission reduction. Why?
Mark Holland (Liberal MP) said on a Calgary Radio Program “We may have to take control of the Oil Sands so we don’t blow the Kyoto objectives.” So is the goal to reduce emmissions or to “take control”.
The Montreal Economic Institute asked Mr. Dion, in writing, twice, why he continued to send the Michael Mann “hockey stick” out to schools as if it were meaningful information after it was discredited and withdrawn. Mr. Dion declined to answer.
The only thing that has been achieved so far is more government, and more control, and indoctrination of children.
Lawrence Solomon quoted in a recent FP column about a woman who graduated with Masters Degree in Environmental Engineering, and was outraged because she then learned that there is controversy about climate change, but had never heard of it in University. Wonder why? Gee!
Spend the $5 Billion to mitigate Climate Change » Musings of the Technical Bard
29 September 2011 at 21:07 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
[...] you read my post of January 2010, this would be a great deal! We should embrace this and give up on any attempts to reduce [...]