Nov 092015
 

[3rd in a Series is presented as an item for education and research on the topic of fantasy global warming and man-made climate change]

Terence Corcoran: Canada’s brand new climate Boy Scout joins countdown to Paris

Terence Corcoran: One of Just Trudeau's first Boy Scout moves is to invite Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to join him and provincial leaders at the Paris meeting.
Patrick Doyle/The Canadian Press filesTerence Corcoran: One of Just Trudeau’s first Boy Scout moves is to invite Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to join him and provincial leaders at the Paris meeting.

Third in a series

Countdown_To_Paris
As the Paris climate summit approaches activists are gearing up for the final push through November and into December, although the movement suffered a bit of a downer over the weekend.

 

Hurricane Patricia, building as a major hurricane of unprecedented proportions, fizzled as a climate mega-disaster into a mere tropical storm, leaving behind no opportunities for media and negotiators to use it as a pre-Paris PR bonanza.

 

As news of Patricia reached Europe at a climate change negotiating session in Bonn on Friday, the head of the Mexico delegation, Roberto Dondisch, said Patricia was evidence the frog was already in the boiling water. A reporter for Climate House quoted Dondish saying “I don’t think I need to say more about the urgency to get this deal done.”

 

When the total death toll is near zero, the climate angle is also near zero. But the climate machine kept rolling. Reports from the negotiation front are garbled and inconsistent, but a major session held in Bonn ended last Friday without any clear proposals for the final Paris sessions. In all, 196 nations will try to come up with a plan to reduce carbon emissions over coming decades so as to keep the world from slipping into what the UN predicts will be climate catastrophe.

 

A so-called draft text of an agreement, now up to 55 pages, is an unreadable mash of clauses, options and parentheses. They are fighting over carbon targets, temperature targets and – above all — cash transfer targets, in recognition of the fact that the major objective of climate change policy makers has always been to orchestrate a massive transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor nations.

 

On Monday, Catholic bishops from “every continent on earth” (in the words of the official announcement) appealed to nations meeting in Paris to adopt a “legally binding” agreement to “strongly limit” temperature increases. To control the weather, forget prayers and get on with the business of “complete de-carbonization by mid-century.” Major new funding transfers will be necessary to develop new models of economic development “to put an end to the fossil fuel era.” The bishops, along with Pope Francis, are apparently unaware that fossil fuels are the source of most of the energy that has helped generate the world’s current level of economic development.

 

And now comes Canada, suddenly transformed from climate embarrassment under Prime Minister Stephen Harper to environmental Boy Scout under a new Liberal government headed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. One of his first Boy Scout moves is to invite Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to join him and provincial leaders at the Paris meeting. How long can that last?

The Trudeau game plan in Paris and at home is roughly equivalent to a moon shot. Canada aims to land on the surface, but has no idea how to get there or even where the moon is.

The Liberal election platform called for a price on carbon (set by the provinces) under national emissions targets to be determined by reference to the global objective of holding the world temperate increases at the Papal-instructed level of 2 degrees Celsius. Within 90 days of the Paris summit’s mid-December end, a provincial First Ministers meeting will be held “to work together on a framework to combat climate change.”

 

At the same time, the Trudeau Liberals promised to work with the United States and Mexico to develop an “ambitious North American clean energy and environment agreement.” Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, in recent media interviews, also supported negotiation of a major North American climate deal.

 

This Boy Scout flight to the moon is now gathering media attention. Reporters are busy describing how the provinces can be brought on side and how the various regions — despite different economic, carbon and energy-consuming structures — can be herded into a cohesive fight to help rid the world of fossil fuels.

Trudeau and the provinces will go to Paris, pretending the world can be rid of fossil fuels

Some say the provinces are already mostly onside. British Columbia has a carbon tax in place and Quebec has a cap-and-trade emissions regime that Ontario is set to join. The fact the B.C. carbon tax nor Quebec’s emissions trading system has had no impact on carbon emissions in those provinces is conveniently ignored. [Yes, conveniently ignored because when you belong to the fundamentalist evangelical global warming religion, you MUST never let the facts get in the way of massive socialist money transfer schemes.Both schemes are essentially demonstration projects that so far demonstrate that at current price levels nothing is accomplished by these carbon-price regimes.

B.C. fossil fuel consumption for transportation has not declined since its six-cent carbon tax was first imposed in 2008. Under Quebec’s cap-and-trade system, which gives a free ride to big industries, providers of gasoline and other fuels must purchase  emissions permits on a carbon market. At current prices (about $16 a tonne) the price of gasoline in Quebec is hypothetically higher by three cents a litre.   But since the price of gasoline has fallen dramatically, nobody notices the carbon price increase.

Complicating matters is the uncertainty over whether higher gasoline prices brought on by carbon pricing will actually promote a reduction in gasoline use. Much evidence suggests consumers will keep on driving as prices and/or taxes increase—unless, of course, the burden is raised to some astronomically destructive level.

How will it be possible for carbon pricing schemes, in a small country like Canada, to achieve the ultimate UN climate objective, a fossil-fuel free country in a fossil-fuel free world within North America? It’s not possible, but Canada and the world will be spending the next few weeks and all of the next decade pretending it can be done.

Topics: FP Comment, Countdown to Paris

 Posted by at 06:35
Nov 082015
 

[Note: Since this topic is one of the hottest topics ever discussed in modern times, we have included it here as an educational resource for research.]
Peter Foster: Paris’s scary climate agenda

The earth dome at France's environment ministry has been built to promote the Climate Change Conference 2015.
The earth dome at France’s environment ministry has been built to promote the Climate Change Conference 2015.

First in a series

Countdown_To_Paris
Details of two international agreements were released on Monday. One, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which reduces trade barriers between 12 signatories, including Canada, got lots of ink. The other, which purports to control global weather, end the era of fossil fuels, and place all human activity under bureaucratic control, got very little.

The pretensions of the latter text, released by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, ADP, which is assigned to come up with an agreement to put to the vast UN climate meeting in Paris in December, are mind-boggling.

The fact that they attracted little attention means either that the media and public have no idea of the climate agenda’s implications, or that nobody takes the agenda seriously. Probably both. After all, the UN has been promoting the “urgent threat of climate change” for more than 25 years.

 

While the text of the TPP has yet to be finalized, that of the Paris meeting is skeletal. But, like skeletons, it is scary.

 

If anybody doubts the significance of the changes to which the puppeteers of Paris aspire, they should refer to remarks made last week by Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, who suggested that the climate thrust could destroy massive value as oil and gas assets are “stranded” by climate legislation.

 

Carney, former Governor of the Bank of Canada, has been lauded by segments of the Canadian mainstream media as a “rock star.” Indeed, he does bear some similarity – at least in orientation — to icon Neil Young, who has become deranged over the oil sands and recently signed his name to Naomi Klein’s loopy Leap Manifesto.

 

Carney would perhaps see his status as more analogous to another anti-capitalist crusader, Pope Francis, the man who put the “vestment” in “divestment.”

 

In fact, this is not the first time that Carney has addressed the risk of stranded assets. After a similar Bank of England claim earlier this year, Carney gave evidence before a House of Lords committee. Nigel Lawson, the redoubtable former Chancellor of the Exchequer and founder of skeptical think tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, noted that the bank’s projections were entirely at odds with those of the International Energy Agency, which saw decades of fossil-fuelled growth. Lawson suggested that Carney should stick to his financial mandate, and that the Bank should stop spouting “green claptrap.” (Significantly, the draft Paris text cites “financial institutions” as key partners in its fight against capitalism. Meanwhile Carney isn’t just boss of the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street, he is head of the Financial Stability Board, a global organization of central bankers. He is reportedly to push the climate agenda at a G20 meeting in November).

 

Text of a draft agreement for the UN climate conference betrays a desperation to negotiate a deal

 

The Paris text’s most significant feature is its lack of detail. It starts with the suggestion that the parties recognize “the intrinsic relationship between climate change, poverty eradication and sustainable development.”[Ya, right!: For one poverty eradication is impossible. Many people have the freedom to be poor if they want to and not bother to learn anything about handling money properly. On the other hand we have poorer nations. We cannot help them just by sending them money as many of the leaders of those countries are corrupt and generally keep the money and use it for their own aggrandizement. However there are agencies like Mennonite Central Committee, World Vision and others with great reputations that always have a person in charge in the country receiving the aid to make sure the money gets used to the benefit of those have nots.]

But although the relationship may be intrinsic, it is far from clear. Insofar as the promoters of the agreement seek to starve poor countries of financing for “maladaptive” fossil fuel development, they are promoting poverty. [Thus begins the hypocrisy!] Developing countries want nothing to do with having wind and solar foisted on them. They are gung ho for coal. They are also interested in the annual US$100 billion of handouts, starting in 2020, that was promised six years ago at Copenhagen but that, true to form, has not materialized. [Which brings us to the point. Since these climate conferences have not invited God in order to get permission to change the climate, all resolutions are just empty words. As Shakespeare put it, “

“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Macbeth – Act 5, Scene 5
I am sure that Shakespeare at the time did not realize that he was a prophet over 500 years ago pointing to climate change conferences. … “It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” ]

Many countries, including Canada, have committed, with fingers crossed, to emissions reductions targets, but few have specific plans. 

[ Let’s just go and meet the boys, and errr ladies and just have some nice speeches to make ourselves feel like we are actually doing something useful. Then we can go home and forget that the conference does nothing but generate ambitious headlines aspiring to build a new tower of Babel which also got nowhere!”
“And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death”]

The negotiating text betrays that peculiarly UN mindset that demands that all the world’s alleged problems be shouldered and addressed together, a kind of Gethsemane Syndrome. Not only will a giant interlinked series of new bureaucracies oversee programmes to regulate the climate and encourage appropriate technology and development to end poverty. They will negotiate these joint wonders while ensuring sensitivity to women, natives and the disabled. Their call to action claims to be based on “the best available scientific knowledge,” yet it also incorporates “traditional” — that is, distinctly non-scientific — knowledge. Among additional “preambular paragraphs” being considered is a reference to “Mother Earth. Copyright by Dole” This is not just a spiritual add-on. As a provider of “environmental services” Gaia needs to be paid. Since she has no bank account, the UN is more than prepared to act as her proxy.

 

The document is a compendium of parentheses, that is, wording or issues that have yet to be decided. One parenthesis suggests that the famous 2 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures (since before the Industrial Revolution) that will put us at an existential tipping point might be changed to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Could that be a recognition of the inconvenient fact that global temperatures are refusing to rise despite unprecedented increases in the CO2 that is meant to drive them?

 

The desperation to negotiate a deal is obvious in provisions that signatories may be able to pull out after three years, and that there are no penalties for non-compliance.

 

The document is very big on “capacity building,” which means bureaucrats teaching people to think like them, in terms of “modalities and procedures” and “facilitative dialogues.” Best practices are a top priority, particularly if they are “scalable and replicable.” Needless to say, the world’s most obscure document is big on transparency.

 

In that speech last week, Pope Mark claimed that “climate change will threaten financial resilience and longer term prosperity.” But the primary threat comes not from climate change, but from climate change policy.

 

The Paris text several times stresses the critical importance of cities and non-governmental organizations in promoting the climate agenda. Thus, to the extent that Canadian export pipelines are being opposed by local authorities in Vancouver and Montreal, and challenged legally and illegally by the likes of Greenpeace and ForestEthics, the UN’s agenda isn’t just bureaucratic fantasy. It’s a real threat to prosperity and democracy.

 Posted by at 10:18
Jun 242015
 

Warmer is better: Junk Science Week

National Post

Some present global warming as a threat to all life on the planet; others say that at best it’s a threat to human well-being. The latest from the doom-is-everywhere camp came last week from David Suzuki, who likes to float scary scenarios. He’s been a big promoter of the killer-mosquito threat, allegedly brought on as climate warming brings higher temperatures north and creates hospitable climates for disease-carrying bugs. Now he’s found a new threat: killer poison ivy. New research, he says, shows that with higher carbon dioxide levels, “poison ivy did not only grow twice as fast — it became more poisonous.”

For more of this, you can always go drown in the Suzuki Foundation’s Web site. On the other hand, there’s an alternative view of climate change. The fact is that, if the world is warming, we would see many benefits, especially for those who live in the coldest climates. Such as Canada.

Every change in our living conditions creates gains and losses, winners and losers, advantages and disadvantages. Throughout history, people have responded to change like Cassandras or Pollyannas, pessimists or optimists. The use of fear to sway public opinion, coupled with people’s natural aversion to change and media amplification of the problems it brings, has brought us to our current focus on the negatives, the problems and the disadvantages of global warming.

Scientists have noticed and discussed climate change, and then fear-mongers have magnified it into a threat. The possibility of global warming is a classic example. Here’s the conclusion of journalist Don Philpott, author of “Global Warming: How Serious Is The Threat?“, a paper published in January: “Global heating threatens our health, with the elderly, young and poor particularly at risk. It threatens our ability to grow crops and store them safely. It opens the door to a fearsome spread of diseases; it threatens drinking-water supplies and air quality.”

Sounds fearsome, doesn’t it? My response is, “Thank goodness for global warming.” Just 20,000 years ago, Canada was under a massive ice sheet, two kilometres thick in the Hudson Bay region. Just 300 years ago, a Little Ice Age would have precluded agriculture as practiced in Canada today. In fact, just 30 years ago, global cooling was the scientific consensus, transmitted to the public by the same transmission belt, the popular press.

We were told in 1976 by libertarian radio host Lowell Ponte in his book The Cooling: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.” Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, and that event caused a 1C drop in global temperature in 1992, resulting in a late, poor harvest in Canada and close to no harvest at all. Cooling is a much greater problem for Canadians.

What happened in Canada as it emerged from under the ice? Fifteen thousand years ago, flora and fauna quickly moved in. In more recent times, the treeline has moved north an average of 200 kilometres in northern Manitoba since the nadir of the little Ice Age, a period of global cooling that followed what’s called the “medieval climate optimum.” That’s about one kilometre per year. Aboriginal people moved north to capture the opportunities provided by warming 6,000 and again 1,000 years ago. Contrary to what you hear, historic evidence shows that warming offers plants, animals and people greater chances for development and survival.

In warmer times, Queen Elizabeth I had a geopolitical goal of controlling the north Atlantic and north Pacific by dominating the Northwest Passage and Arctic waters. Several people, especially Frobisher in the east and Drake in the west (see Sam Bawlf’s book The Secret Voyage of Sir Francis Drake) were looking to establish settlements at each end. Elizabeth was a leader with vision.

A later comment on the potential of the north came from the Royal Society in 1817: “New sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”

Canada is one of the few countries with access to three oceans. As we evolved as a nation, the focus shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. That left the centre essentially landlocked. But this will change if global warming occurs as predicted by the doomsayers. Access to the Arctic Ocean as ice conditions ameliorate and temperatures increase will open another door to the world.

Ironically, for 200 years most western development and settlement came through the ports at York Factory and Churchill. The plan for a Hudson Bay route — by the trading company, now a retailer, bearing the same name — tried to continue this pattern, but essentially failed because of political domination by the east and a three-month limit to the shipping season by insurance companies. With icebreaker support, new cargo vessels and better insurance, the current shipping season could be extended to five or six months. Predicted warming would extend this even more. Commerce is shorter and more direct because great-circle routes put Arctic and Hudson Bay ports closer to Europe and Asia.

Just a brief list of the benefits to our coldest province, Manitoba, and the coldest city, Winnipeg, illustrates the positive potential of global warming:

– Reduced heating costs.

– Reduced fuel bills for travel.

– A longer growing season, allowing a greater variety of crops.

– Less frost damage and crop loss.

– A greater variety of plants for gardens and other uses.

– More rapidly growing forests and an increased rate of reforestation.

– Less frost damage to streets and roads.

– The potential for direct access to world markets through northern ports.

– Reduced construction costs in an ameliorated climate.

– A longer summer season for tourism, and for cottagers and campers.

As for mosquitoes, Winnipeggers at least have been dealing with the pesky bugs since long before David Suzuki even heard of global warming.

A warmer Canada would improve our lives in these and other ways too numerous to list. Global warming? Let’s hope so.

 Posted by at 15:36
Jul 022013
 

Conrad Black wrote in the National Post, Saturday that in his opinion, in this day with the U.S. increasingly becoming irrelevant in world leadership, it is time for Canada with one of the most stable economies to take leadership in reforming domestic and international institutions and practices that have not been functioning well.

He said “