What I Learned About Climate Change & What Questions I Still Have, part 2

As I noted in part 1 of this article series, I've been trying to separate fact from fiction from hysteria in the climate change debate. I've been reading the research, the books, and following the discussions about climate change to understand the facts better. I will continue to share some additional facts in this part of the series and end with some additional questions that I have. As a warning, there is more editorial comment in part 2 than part 1 and like part 1 feel free to comment on the questions that I still have. And at this point, there are no plans for a part 3, but I'll let you know if I have more insight and questions to share.

-There is a statistic that more people repeat in some form or another regarding climate change and that has been quoted by presidents and prime ministers, the media, and climate change activists, than likely any other, and it is the results of a meta-analysis published in 2013. The summary is "... over 97 percent [of papers surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause." This finding has been altered and twisted to show up differently in a a variety of places, and like the campfire game of "telephone" takes on a new and different meaning every time it is shared. For example, "97% of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous" (Barack Obama). Or the version by John Kerry, "97% of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change - and it will change dramatically for the worse." The interesting part about these quotes, and the meta-analysis that it is based upon, is that they are wrong.

• The problem with the analysis that created the 97% number is that the researchers created two categories to group the data to better support their desired outcome. The study / review of the papers in the meta-analysis needed the authors and papers surveyed to say "that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause." (meaning greater than 50% of the cause). However, when an independent observer relooked at the data only 1.6% of the studies included in the meta-analysis actually stated this. The researcher used their own judgement to categorize the studies into two new categories; 1/ explicit endorsement but without quantification (meaning human caused greenhouse gases could be anywhere from 1 to 100 percent of the reason there is global warming), and 2/ implicit endorsement. As a result, the percent of the authors of the papers reviewed that support the finding is greatly over represented.

-More people die around the world from cold than heat. In fact, 17 people die from cold for each death from heat around the world each year.

-From what I understand from electrical utility executives is that the average suburban street / block in Canada can only handle the charging of about 2 - 3 electric vehicles. The distribution grid was not built to handle the amount of load needed to charge electric vehicles on a large scale.

-Off the lot, electric vehicles have a larger carbon footprint (i.e. CO2 emissions) than vehicles with internal combustion engines. The cross-over point occurs after tens of thousands of kilometers driven, then the electric vehicle has fewer emissions. Also, electric vehicles are only emission free if the source of the electricity is emission free. On average, over the life of a vehicle an electric vehicle has 24% fewer emissions than a gasoline powered vehicle.

-There is still a significant amount of slave labour associated with the mining of critical minerals for the development of the batteries for electric vehicles.

-The Canadian electrical grid is currently 83% - 85% emissions free (depending upon the source cited). There is limited hydroelectric power sources left in Canada and hardly any near where the remaining 15% - 17% of fossil fuel generation is located. The cost to convert these remaining utilities to emission free generation is significant and offers little to no value in terms of CO2 emissions reduction that affect climate change (recall that a net zero Canada has a climate change impact that rounds to 0 in its totality). Forcing these utilities to prematurely change puts an undue burden on its population for the significant costs but for no impact or benefit.

-On average, the use of natural gas for electrical power generation reduces CO2 emissions by 50% versus coal.

-Solar and wind power has always fascinated me given the promise of sustainability. However, there are significant problems with solar and wind energy from a utility perspective that not enough people talk about and that is, that it is not always available when needed.

• Many people talk about how the kilowatt-hour produced by solar and wind sources is the same as those from fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydroelectric but without discussing the cost / impact of intermittency it is really a misleading and disingenuous conversation. To be considered "equal" or to have the same "value" you have to analyze the different types of generation on an equal basis. The cost of solar and wind increases substantially when you require it to have the same availability as nuclear, fossil fuels, or hydroelectric because one of those more available generation systems has to be on standby to cover the times when wind and solar are unavailable (in essence you end up paying for the same kilowatt-hour at least by a factor of two). The other option, of course, is to accept the lower reliability and increased power outages and live with the consequences which will increase the number of human lives lost and a decrease in the standard of living.
• Paying solar and wind power producers pool prices for their generation capacity when the product is substantially less valuable due to its intermittency is, in essence, a significant subsidy to those producers and creates an uneven playing field in the market.
• Electrical storage has not progressed to an advanced stage that can cover the periods in which the intermittent availability of solar and wind power can be mitigated.
• Calgary is Canada's sunniest city and with that, solar energy would only be available ~27% of the time (solar is not available at night or on cloudy days). This makes it difficult for solar to be a reliable utility level electrical provider as we all want electricity when we need it.
• A reasonable capacity factor for wind power is 30% and a very good factor is 40%. Like solar, wind power, is much to "unavailable" to be meaningful at a utility scale.
• Both solar power and wind power generation efficiencies decrease with time and solar panels and turbine blades are not currently extensively recyclable or at all.

-As discussed in part 1, climate change actions in Canada are already causing pain with Canadians and Canadian families, in conjunction with inflation. Decisions about food, medicine, heat, and rent are having to be traded-off by many Canadians, and in a country like Canada this is shameful. When it is the government and government policies that is doing this "hurt" it is obviously unethical and immoral. Additionally, when government actions and policies hurt its people and population for the benefit of people outside the boarders of Canada then that is clearly wrong as well.

-Climate change and climate change actions are just a singular issue in a much broader geopolitical landscape that must be considered. And if we do not adequately understand the broader geopolitical context we will be putting Canadian sovereignty and independence at risk. It is clear that the globalization experiment of the last 50 years is not working well as there are tremendous cracks and failings in the processes. And while other countries and political blocks (e.g. BRICS) are seemingly playing chess for global dominance and influence, Canada appears to be playing checkers. And if we do not rectify this perspective quickly, Canadian sovereignty will be at risk and likely unrecoverable. With Canada's federal government attention diverted, focused, and consumed with climate change, which these other nations have no intention of addressing so long as it interferes with their real political objectives, Canada's sovereignty and independence is soon to be tested.

-While a desire to demonstrate climate change leadership and to “do something” may be noble, the refrain of “every little bit counts,” as many activists and supporters proclaim, is misleading and disingenuous to the public given the minimal impact Canadian emissions has on climate change (it is, in fact, a false equivalency).? It is like using a water pistol to fight a forest fire – it has a positive impact, just not a meaningful or significant one (not a perfect analogy, but it will do. And no, I'm not being disrespectful to those that have been impacted by recent forest fires).

-And while I'm talking about forest fires, contrary to what has been reported in the media - the world is not burning or on fire. In fact, the amount of area burned across the globe thus far in 2023 is about the average of the previous 10 years (actually 1.5% less). While there has been much more activity in the Americas in 2023, it has been much less in other places around the world.

-From a climate action perspective, energy policy basis, and economic well-being viewpoint, the governments in Canada (at all levels) must prioritize the well-being, sovereignty, and flourishing of the people of Canada first and for generations to come before that of others. None of the Canadian climate action initiatives actually do this; they have harmed Canadians across all these dimensions and will continue to harm Canadians well into the future. This is absolutely wrong of a government that is supposedly serving its people. In fact, as noted in part 1, if all the climate change initiatives from the Paris Accords were to be implemented, more people around the world will die than if none of those initiatives were implemented in the first place. The only moral and ethical basis to decide on what energy policy actions to take should be on the ability that allows people to thrive and flourish. Canadians have a long history of sacrificing for the greater good, but in climate change's case, there is no greater good. The hurt that the government is imposing creates no climate change benefit.

-Therefore, from a policy perspective Canada needs to consider several different approaches (an illustrative list):

• First, let's agree on a vision for the country. Let's create a country that puts its people first; where Canadians can flourish and thrive from a well-being and contribution perspective, not just today, but for generations to come. A place where Canadian sovereignty is assured and where malicious influences from inside and outside the country are not allowed or condoned. And one where every individual Canadian is free to pursue their vision of the future.
• Aligned with the vision we must enact policies (energy policies and others) that increase the well-being of Canadians, that allows all Canadians to flourish, and ensures Canadian sovereignty. Where we find policies that do not do this, we need to remove them and correct the mistakes.
• We must realize that the carbon tax is hurting Canadians and disproportionately poor and low income people. At a minimum, we must remove the carbon tax from food production, processing, and transportation activities and from home heating fuels and personal vehicle fuels.
• We should not force utilities that currently use fossil fuels for electrical power generation to convert to emission free sources before the end of life of those facilities. Be pragmatic about the investment and the costs born by the general public.
• Prioritize the repatriation of critical manufacturing and processing activities back to Canada to ensure independence and sovereignty is maintained. This focus needs to be accelerated significantly.
• Focus climate change activities on the sources of the greatest challenge (as Pareto would suggest) which is currently outside of the boarders of Canada in developing nations through technology transfer and development of emission free electrical power generation, education, and skills. This is where the biggest impact resides.
• Accelerate the development of LNG exportation facilities and the associated development of natural gas resources for export to displace the use of coal by other countries and to support our allies where needed.
• Accelerate the development of small modular nuclear reactor technology within Canada and reinvigorate the use of the Candu technology for the replacement of aging assets and for the exportation to developing countries.
• Focus on building "resilience" based strategies across Canada for the potential impact of climate change and geopolitical uncertainty.

Questions that I still have:

• How do we ensure that the general population can get the right information about climate change that is devoid of hysteria, misrepresentation, and propaganda?
• If we are to make good policy decisions we need to have the right information to work from; how do we ensure that decision makers have access to the right information from which decisions can then be made?
• Should an X-Prize style competition be developed to accelerate electricity storage mechanisms that would make both solar and wind power more attractive as utility power? What about a government backed accelerated research project to do the same thing? This would be a game changing technological advancement.
• If a government and government policies hurts the people of its nation with no benefit, is that not immoral and unethical? Should it not be illegal? If a government policy hurts the people of the country while benefitting those outside of the country is that not wrong as well?
• Are the companies, who while following the law and direction of the government policies, that harm Canadians and others, complicit in the unethical and immoral behavior?
• Hard choices are just that, difficult to make. But as the ancient parable states, "he who chases two rabbits catches neither," it is reminder that with limited resources we must pursue policies and plans that have the most meaningful impact while ensuring the ability of Canadians to thrive and flourish. How do we get the right people in place to demonstrate the leadership that is needed to make this a reality?
• Can you consider yourself an ethical person if you witness abuses of power by others and not do anything about it?