Post to Twitter
Some other objections to effective action on climate change
- The tar sands are necessary for national unity
- The tar sands are necessary to provide Canadians with gas
- Tar sand emissions can be captured and stored somewhere
- Using nuclear power will reduce emissions
- The economy will be damaged if we try to reduce emissions
- Carbon taxes are just another tax
- Carbon taxes hurt the poor
- Bjorn Lombord has proved that climate change isn't real
The tar sands are necessary for national unity
Exempting provinces from the national goal will not promote national unity. Canadians do not want to be ashamed of our poor performance.
The tar sands are necessary to provide Canadians with gas
Most of the crude that is produced in the tar sands is piped to the United States.
Tar sand emissions can be captured and stored somewhere
Carbon emissions can be captured and stored elsewhere via Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). One of the most cost effective ways to capture and store emissions is in fact destroyed by the extraction process. When a new area is prepared for open pit mining all of the trees and fertile soil are destroyed. Trees are great for carbon capture yet they are destroyed while some of the new UNPROVEN hitech solutions require large amounts of energy and water.
There are no large scale CCS projects. Developing large scale CCS will take a long time and require large subsidies.
Using nuclear power will reduce emissions
Since every nuclear reactor needs uranium and uranium ore is mined the same way as tar sands by open pit mining (the most effective method) but also most destructive to the environment. At the present time in Australia a uranium mine is dug (open pit) 650 feet below the surface to extract the high grade ore. In that process all of the topsoil, rocks, stones, vegetation and wild life will have to be removed. Huge amounts of oil, gas and water will be used to service the heavy machinery used in the process. In a nutshell this nuclear power is doing the same and even worse damage than the tar sands but since it is usually done in remote areas it is seldom seen and ignored. Emissions of CO2 and toxic chemicals are ever present in this process.
Uranium is a non-renewable resource. According to a report (PDF) produced by the Energy Watch Group "in the short term until 2012 the world nuclear capacity will rather decline than increase due to aging reactors and too few new reactors under construction. In the long term beyond 2030 uranium shortages will limit the expansion of nuclear power plants. However, even to meet the demand until 2030 the present uranium production capacities must be increased by at least 30%. Due to the delays in new projects and the severe problems at the new Cigar Lake mine, the largest mine under development, probably these uranium supply restrictions will limit the available nuclear capacity way before 2030."
In many parts of the world (including Ontario and California) reducing consumption means that increased generation capacity is no longer required. By reducing consumption we could reduce our emissions many years before new plants are operational. It takes a long time (5 - 20 years - or more) and billions of dollars to build a nuclear plant and the average operation period is estimated to be 24 years. That money could be used more effectively to develop renewable energy and to help people reduce power consumption.
The economy will be damaged if we try to reduce emissions
Doing nothing will cost much more later than acting on climate change now. Nicholas Stern, former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank, estimates that delayed action could cost as much as 20 times more than immediate action. Other estimates are much higher. www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
Allianz, a European insurance company, discusses the costs of climate changes here.
In addition, storms are expected to increase in severity causing considerable damage to homes, roads, etc. Insurance for homes and businesses will rise significantly (and may even become unavailable.)
www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2238829/insurers-forced-disclose
Carbon taxes are just another tax
In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we need to put a price on carbon. There are a number of mechanisms for pricing carbon. Simple carbon taxes where a tax is applied at the consumer level are one form. Can and Trade or Cap and Dividend are other possibilies. A combination of taxes and caps is also possible.
It is imperative that revenues from any carbon pricing never go through general revenues for the government to make an indisputable claim that the process is revenue neutral.
To reduce costs of the distribution of revenues, it may be possible to use the Canada Revenue Agency, so long as there is a very clear distinction between the revenues from carbon taxes and other revenues. Funneling the revenues along with general revenues needs to be avoided at all costs.
Carbon taxes will hurt the poor
The core needs of most Canadians will be protected by the redistribution of revenues from carbon taxes. The majority of Canadians should experience a net economic benefit.
Their personal rebate should be greater than the increased costs they experience as a result of any taxes. The average is elevated through a relatively small number of individuals with high energy lifestyles. Very large or multiple homes, frequent or long-distance flights and high energy hobbies can rapidly raise personal emissions.
In addition, the benefits can be tilted to protect the lowest income Canadians. Because personal emissions are closely related to income, low-income Canadians are responsible for relatively low emissions. The dollar value of taxes that their increased costs cover will tend to be the lowest of all Canadians. However, their rebate would be the same as that of every other Canadian. This is very important because while wealthier Canadians need nothing more than incentives to invest in efficiencies, it is the rebate that can enable Canada's most vulnerable to make necessary changes to their lives – to move, insulate, buy a more efficient car, etc.
Costs for essentials like gasoline, home heating and electricity should all rise, producing the right incentives to efficiency and conservation, but remain affordable with the rebates. Except for those in very large, inefficient homes or who travel very long distances to work in gas guzzlers, the costs of these essentials should be amply covered by their rebate.
Bjorn Lombord has proved that climate change isn't real
Bjorn Lombord has written a popular book (The Skeptical Environmentalist.) However, he is an associate professor of statistics at Denmark's University of Aarhus and not a climatologist. To read a critical analysis of his book click here.