The specter of climate change hyperbole is sweeping over the prairies, and it's incumbent upon the Province of Alberta to take meliorative action by making high income people pay more for using their refrigerators and furnaces. At least that's the crux of what I've gleaned from the Climate Leadership Report to the Minister.
People of Alberta, I think it's safe to say most of us are in favour of finding innovative ways to reduce carbon emissions - after all, lowered emissions would indicate one of two things: a reduction in overall output; or an increase in efficiency - the latter being the more favourable for what should be obvious reasons.
One might liken it to hunting for food in the wild - if a hunter believes they can ONLY eat the liver and kidneys of their game, then they're going to have to kill a lot more animals to survive than someone who realizes one can also eat muscle and fat too. Likewise, if we're spewing potentially usable energy where technologies exist to harness otherwise wasteful output, then we should embrace new methods.
I don't disbelieve the planet is in the midst of a warming trend. My issue lies with the new targets that the climate gurus (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) have set out to achieve: "limiting global temperature rise to 2°C Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2030." Even my layman's mind can see the whole framework is disingenuous.
Why did the IPCC opt to use temperature as a goalpost? I think it's quite simply because it's easier to wiggle policy around an arbitrary measure, and the metric-tonne approach wasn't inclined to create a lose-lose situation for the end user of energy fast enough. The lords of the weather needed to instill a belief that we SHOULD be paying more, when in reality, the whole scheme was craftily concocted by globalist parasites. A scheme to make us feel as though we're being environmentally responsible and that the carbon taxes imposed are indeed justifiable.
I know horsepuck when I smell it, and I'd invite anyone to correct any misconceptions I may be under. I can wrap my head around reducing metric tonnes of methane or CO2 output, but to think that doing so will have a measurable effect on global temperature is like claiming we can move the Sun.
Let's conveniently forget for a moment that China and Russia are outright refusing to believe that their industrial activities have a significant impact on global temperatures over time, and pretend the whole world immediately scrambles to reduce emissions to the point where IPCC recommendations aren't only met, but exceeded.
Alas, by 2030, data from weather stations around the world are STILL indicating an upward trend in global temperatures! Whatever shall we do?
I see two choices for the big foreheads in such an instance:
If in this hypothetical situation of complete international compliance the global temperature data by 2030 is in fact trending downward, they can say, "See? We told you it would work!"
As I've pointed-out, I'm no expert in this field, and quite frankly, it's not a field I'm especially interested in becoming more familiar with. Plus, I'm too poor to have much of a carbon footprint, so I feel a sense of indemnification when it comes to 'doing my part' even if I don't believe it'd make a difference if I started using a diesel generator to power my life.
I do however believe it's in the best interests of both consumers and industry to take a progressive approach when considering their environmental impact from a waste-based perspective. It only makes sense. I simply don't agree with anyone who believes they can predict with any certainty what the average global temperature will be decades from now, irregardless of industrial output.
People of Alberta, I think it's safe to say most of us are in favour of finding innovative ways to reduce carbon emissions - after all, lowered emissions would indicate one of two things: a reduction in overall output; or an increase in efficiency - the latter being the more favourable for what should be obvious reasons.
One might liken it to hunting for food in the wild - if a hunter believes they can ONLY eat the liver and kidneys of their game, then they're going to have to kill a lot more animals to survive than someone who realizes one can also eat muscle and fat too. Likewise, if we're spewing potentially usable energy where technologies exist to harness otherwise wasteful output, then we should embrace new methods.
I don't disbelieve the planet is in the midst of a warming trend. My issue lies with the new targets that the climate gurus (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) have set out to achieve: "limiting global temperature rise to 2°C Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2030." Even my layman's mind can see the whole framework is disingenuous.
Why did the IPCC opt to use temperature as a goalpost? I think it's quite simply because it's easier to wiggle policy around an arbitrary measure, and the metric-tonne approach wasn't inclined to create a lose-lose situation for the end user of energy fast enough. The lords of the weather needed to instill a belief that we SHOULD be paying more, when in reality, the whole scheme was craftily concocted by globalist parasites. A scheme to make us feel as though we're being environmentally responsible and that the carbon taxes imposed are indeed justifiable.
I know horsepuck when I smell it, and I'd invite anyone to correct any misconceptions I may be under. I can wrap my head around reducing metric tonnes of methane or CO2 output, but to think that doing so will have a measurable effect on global temperature is like claiming we can move the Sun.
Let's conveniently forget for a moment that China and Russia are outright refusing to believe that their industrial activities have a significant impact on global temperatures over time, and pretend the whole world immediately scrambles to reduce emissions to the point where IPCC recommendations aren't only met, but exceeded.
Alas, by 2030, data from weather stations around the world are STILL indicating an upward trend in global temperatures! Whatever shall we do?
I see two choices for the big foreheads in such an instance:
- Proclaim retroactive errors in the ways by which they've been collecting data, thus providing 'proof' that the temperature coefficient actually DID see a reduction, and our efforts weren't in vain;
- Proclaim that their means of correlating global temperatures with industrial output are primitive by today's standards, and we need to sacrifice more of your money to save the planet.
If in this hypothetical situation of complete international compliance the global temperature data by 2030 is in fact trending downward, they can say, "See? We told you it would work!"
As I've pointed-out, I'm no expert in this field, and quite frankly, it's not a field I'm especially interested in becoming more familiar with. Plus, I'm too poor to have much of a carbon footprint, so I feel a sense of indemnification when it comes to 'doing my part' even if I don't believe it'd make a difference if I started using a diesel generator to power my life.
I do however believe it's in the best interests of both consumers and industry to take a progressive approach when considering their environmental impact from a waste-based perspective. It only makes sense. I simply don't agree with anyone who believes they can predict with any certainty what the average global temperature will be decades from now, irregardless of industrial output.
No comments:
Post a Comment