Ten fat polar bears filmed raiding a stalled Russian garbage truck.
Carbon taxes have been a massive failure, Fraser report study finds
Instead of talking about a trivial increase of a couple of dollars, Ontarians should be paying attention to the $4.7 billion the provincial government is borrowing this year to keep power bills artificially low. Ontarians are getting a rebate of 33 per cent off their real power costs. Pretending that power rates are far lower than they really are is a trifecta of political stupidity that the Liberals started, the PCs continued, and the NDP promises to make worse.
Ford defended the increase this week by saying that’s it’s rising at the rate of inflation. It is, but the increase has little to do with inflation. Instead, as the OEB pointed out, prices are going up because of declining demand.
But wait, wouldn’t decreasing demand in a market that already has a large supply surplus tend to lower prices, not increase them? Unfortunately, not in Ontario.
During the 15-year Liberal reign, the supply of wind, solar and natural gas generation increased to well beyond what the province required. For example, gas-fired generation makes up 25 per cent of provincial capacity but produces only six per cent of power output. In a free market, that kind of surplus would have driven prices down and pushed inefficient competitors out, but the Liberals had a solution for that. They guaranteed to pay for that new power, even if it was not needed or generated.
That’s the root cause of this week’s power increase. Guaranteed contracts have left Ontario with huge fixed power costs. As the volume of power used declined steadily for more than a decade, fixed costs rose to 18 times what they were back in 2008. Just over one-quarter of fixed costs now are attributed to wind and solar power.
Related: The Liberals are becoming a climate cult
Study: Renewable Energy does Nothing to Reduce CO2 Emissions
According to these reports, US$3660 billion has been spent on global climate change projects over the period 2011–2018. Fifty-five percent of this expenditure has gone to wind and solar energy. According to world energy reports, the contribution of wind and solar to world energy consumption has increased from 0.5% to 3% over this period. Meanwhile, coal, oil, and gas continue to supply 85% of the world’s energy consumption, with hydroelectricity and nuclear providing most of the remainder. With this in mind, we consider the potential engineering challenges and environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the main energy sources (old and new). We find that the literature raises many concerns about the engineering feasibility as well as environmental impacts of wind and solar.
In short: The world spend $3.6 trillion dollars over eight years, mostly trying to change the weather. Only a pitiful 5% of this was spent trying to adapt to the inevitable bad weather which is coming one way or another. Both solar and wind power are perversely useless at reducing CO2, which is their only reason for existing in large otherwise efficient grids. Wind farms raise the temperature of local area around them which causes more CO2 to be released from the soil. Solar and wind farms waste 100 times the wilderness land area of fossil fuels, and need ten times as many minerals mined from the earth. Biomass razes forests, but protects underground coal deposits.
The role of large wind and solar power in national grids is to produce redundant surges of electricity at random or low need times, they are surplus infrastructure designed in a religious quest to generate nicer weather. They always make electricity more expensive because the minor fuel savings are vastly overrun by the extra costs of misusing and abusing perfectly good infrastructure, which has to be there to provide baseload and backup, and yet is forced to run on and off, sitting around consuming capital, investments, labor and maintenance. It is simply impossible to imagine a situation where unreliable generators have some productive purpose on major grids other than to generate profits for shareholders or their mostly Chinese manufacturers.
Despite the extortionate, futile mountain-of-money paid to wind and solar parasites, they produced a pitiful 3% of all the energy needed on Earth, while fossil fuels produced 85%.
h/t Another Ian
…we have ended up with the worst of both worlds. None of the inefficient policies was repealed, carbon taxes were layered on top of them and now the government is charging ahead with even more misguided climate regulations. The recent throne speech brings back for the millionth time home energy retrofit subsidies, despite ample evidence (going back to the old CHIP grants in the 1970s) that most of the money is wasted, paying people to do things they were planning to do anyway. Even worse is the proposed Clean Fuels Standard, a high-cost boondoggle that aims to bring the carbon intensity of fuels down by a small amount, at what will be an exorbitant cost per tonne that far exceeds the carbon tax rate.
So if, as the government insists, carbon taxes “work,” why all the regulations? The reality is the government never understood or endorsed the economic theory of carbon taxes, they just liked the virtue signalling and the revenue.
Revisiting the surface stations;
A new study published in the ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing presents clear-sky surface UHI (SUHI) intensities for 497 urbanized areas in the United States by combining remotely-sensed data products with multiple US census-defined urban areas.
The SUHI intensity is the difference in surface temperature between the built-up and non-built up pixels of an urbanized area.
The study reported that the daytime summer SUHI was 1.91 °C higher and the daytime winter SUHI was 0.87 °C higher.
When they tell you who they are — believe them.
OPINION: We may need climate lockdowns to halt climate change, Mariana Mazzucato writes. That might mean governments limiting private vehicle use, banning consumption of red meat, etc. We must do capitalism differently to avoid that. https://t.co/zTxjfJJWpZ
— MarketWatch (@MarketWatch) September 24, 2020
Right now I’m seeing the mountains I grew up in — where I went to school, where I hung out, camped, backpacked, boated, cheated death and generally formed the foundation of my character — burning down. It makes me sad and angry.
This didn’t have to happen. Once upon a time, forests in California were logged, grazed, and competently managed. It wasn’t always perfect, but generally it worked.
Fires, which are a natural part of that ecosystem, were generally small — not just benign but beneficial. Land management focused on keeping the forest healthy for all involved, whether they were loggers, ranchers, fishermen, hunters, homeowners, or backpackers.
But then things started to change. Groups such as the Sierra Club and National Resources Defense Council began to drive a myopic agenda of protecting environmental interests at all costs. Logging was shut down. Grazing was banned. Controlled burning and undergrowth clearance were challenged and subjected to draconian regulations. Fires were put out as quickly as possible.
So the trees grew closer and closer together. Undergrowth, unchecked by grazing, cutting, or burning, grew thick and tall enough to reach the branches of mature trees.
The forests became thick and overgrown, but man, they sure looked nice and green from a scenic overlook.
Sawmills shut down and the cattle business went elsewhere. Thriving towns dried up and nearly went under. We started importing lumber and beef from Brazil and other places with objectively horrible environmental track records. And the vegetation kept growing.
Nearly 30 years ago, President Bill Clinton made a significant change to federal land management that created the conditions necessary for massive wildfires to consume portions of the West Coast, according to a fire expert who predicted the problem years ago.
Shortly before leaving office in 2001, Clinton limited the ability of the United States Forest Service to thin out a dense thicket of foliage and downed trees on federal land to bring the West into a pristine state, Bob Zybach, an experienced forester with a Ph.D. in environmental science, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The former president’s decision created a ticking time bomb, Zybach argues.
On second thought: State, feds agree to thin millions of acres of forests
A British Columbia carbon tax hailed by cabinet as a model for the nation has not lowered greenhouse gas emissions, says the Department of Environment. Even rebates for electric car buyers failed to cut pollution in B.C.’s transport sector: “British Columbia shows it.”
It didn’t fail. “Carbon” was the pretense, revenue was the objective.
“In 2017 and 2018 seven projects were funded for which researchers did not provide reports. Hence, their status is unknown,” said an Evaluation Of The Aquatic Climate Change Adaptation Services Program. “Under the current funding requirements there are no consequences if funded researchers do not submit reports, or reports are delayed.”
According to Blacklock’s, since 2017, the program, which is “the only federal program that advances research in the areas of aquatic climate change science,” cost $10.5 million, along with an extra $3.5 million in ongoing yearly spending.
The program has eight staff members, but “a federal website archiving the studies drew as few as fifty visits a month and was ‘hard to find and not easily navigable for users.’”
Holly Doan – Environment Minister [Jonathan Wilkinson] delegation to UN #climatechange #COP25 conference in Spain cost $680,000 including $178,000 in air fares and chauffeurs. “Could be higher,” writes @environmentca staff.
It’s All Over For Europe’s Green Deal As Angela Merkel’s MEPs Say ‘It’s No Longer Viable’
A team of researchers from the Innlandet County Council and NTNU University Museum in Norway and the University of Cambridge in the U.K. has found a large quantity of Viking-era artifacts in a long-lost mountain pass in Southern Norway. In their paper published in the journal Antiquity, the group describes the location of the pass, explains why it is suddenly revealing artifacts, and outlines what has been found thus far.