John Chuckman
SERIES OF COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“For better or worse, Trudeau’s next 4 years are going to be about climate change”
Even if you believe human activity drives the climate change we do see – and that remains an unproven hypothesis no matter what evangelists like Greta Thunberg say – Canada’s contribution to the world’s carbon dioxide is a tiny, tiny fraction.
Our share of emissions is 1.6% of the world’s.
And we have our massive forests contributing the other way.
Nothing Canada can possibly do would make a significant difference to the world.
But there are lots of things we can do that will hurt our economy, vis-a-vis international competitors who do not embrace the Greta Thunberg’s theology.
And there are lots of things we can do that will further rupture Canada’s new East-West divide.
I feel confident in suggesting Trudeau likely will undertake all or most of them.
He already has established a record across a range of portfolios as the worst Liberal government of modern times.
Now he’s determined to top that by becoming the worst government, period, ignoring real problems while pursuing massive unproven solutions to the unproven problem of human agency.
__________________
Fossil fuels will play an important role for decades to come.
There just is no substitute for their density of energy content. Their use in petrochemicals and the vast distribution system we have in place also have no substitutes.
Alternates today are totally inadequate and every one of them has problems and hazards of its own.
Batteries are still inadequate in their capacity for serious transportation needs. They are also very heavy, with the weight having been demonstrated to create extra forms of pollution while driving, as with road surface and tire dust particles flung out by higher rates of wear and tear.
Their full-cycle manufacture is in fact demonstrated as carbon-generating.
And their disposal is already creating horrors in some parts of the world as the leach ugly chemicals into groundwater after being dumped to rot in masses.
Windmills are an expensive joke. They cannot supply baseload power (24 hour-a-day reliability when you hit a light switch). They are always backed-up by other generation as by gas-fired (fossil) plants. They also kill millions of migrating birds. And they are a visual blight in some locations. Their long-term maintenance record is not good.
Solar has some limited promise in special applications, but again cannot provide baseload power. Solar panels are costly, not terribly efficient, and, as they age, they give off all kinds of nasty chemicals. Disposal is a problem, just as for batteries. So is full-cycle manufacturing.
There are no magic formulas unless you want to share the fantasies of Greta Thunberg who hitches rides across the Atlantic from wealthy folks in costly yachts constructed with petrochemical hulls.
__________________
Really, the prospects for our country are enough to make you cry.
Off on a costly fantasy crusade with the actual cause of climate change yet unproven.
Treating a world-class industry and resources as though they were unimportant.
We have an industry which is the envy of many in the world.
Extremely high new taxes, like the carbon tax, of absolutely no proven efficacy for their intended ultimate goal, which is to slow or to halt climate change.
All kinds of missed opportunities abroad for the sale of a valuable resource.
Missed development and jobs and legitimate new tax revenue on a big scale.
Additional alienation in the country between East and West.
Our international posture, in everything except energy, lined up almost toe-to-toe with the United States of Donald Trump.
That’s lined up as in not opposing such ugly activities as coups, interventions, war-like sanctions, bombing in a half dozen places, and supporting genuine tyrants.
Saudi Arabia, China, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Russia – you name the place, Canada under a so-called Liberal government, stands with the United States.
What a delightful future our Flower Child Prime Minister has lined up for us, assisted by his Neocon-lite, well-regarded-in-Washington, Foreign Minister.
__________________
A comment (below) makes the astute observation, ‘[Justin] Trudeau is not, and never was, a “complicated man”.’
I’m glad he picked up on that.
It is so very true.
Pierre Trudeau was an extremely complicated man, a reflection I believe of his razor-sharp intelligence and unusual education.
We do not see anything remotely like that in Justin.
A good observer watching him just a brief time realizes there isn’t a hint of anything complicated there.
In photos of Justin Trudeau with other Western leaders, their interactions can be quite revealing.
There is none of the attention and admiration and even awe Pierre could command. Justin is sometimes actually left to the side of a group of leaders, seeming to be ignored in photos I’ve seen. Given enough formal respect, I’m sure, because he does represent Canada, but no more than that, no more at all.
I’m sure he’s widely regarded as a “lightweight.” After all, there’s some pretty sharp minds among leaders of, say, the G-20. They aren’t easily fooled by a nice smile.
CHUCKMAN'S WORDS ON WORDPRESS: COMMENTS FROM THE WORLD'S PRESS 
John-
I agree with you about the inadequate answers that wind and solar provide. Intermittent sources will always have to feed into a grid or have energy storage of some kind, which adds to their already significant cost. They could not survive without subsidies. Moreover, they are location dependent. Wind farms work fairly well in the Dakotas and maybe in parts of Canada, and solar panels are best in the southern US.
There are various reasons to look beyond fossil fuels. Most importantly, it will become more scarce with time, and energy demands will likely increase. Some doubt fossil fuels will last the century., and will become too costly even sooner. Surprised you haven’t mentioned nuclear power, a steady-state energy source with many advantages. One disadvantage is a political black eye from some spectacular failures in the 20th century. Designs available now are much safer, and the big problem is political, at least here in the US. Canada may be ahead with its CANDU design, whereas in the US no new reactors have gone online for about forty years, a good part due to fearmongering. I believe the thorium molten-salt approach the best – a thorium reactor was operated for years at ORNL (Oak Ridge), but the Nixon administration shut the project down. The uranium reactors were more suitable for nuclear weapon production, nearly impossible for thorium. Check Dr. Kirk Sorensen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U9HVIFt2GE&vl=en
Using the thorium cycle instead of uranium may remove stigma popularly attached to the nuclear approach. China and possibly India already have working reactors, something we could have if the ORNL thorium reactor project had not been abandoned. Maybe folks will wake up too late here and buy licenses from the Celestial Kingdom. Visualize the “intellectual theft” charges coming, but it is the second mouse that gets the cheese.
The only other approach on the horizon is geothermal, and that so far is locality limited. No one has a sure way of drilling deep enough (and extracting the energy from such depths) for any but ideal locations, but they are working on it.
Fusion is still beyond that visible horizon. I got that from a physicist friend who worked for years at MIT in their Fusion Lab.
Dave Ecklein