Asking for ‘un-development’

Only one thing is for certain: Those intrepid folks of the G7, having lavishly pledged complete decarbonization of the world by 2100, will themselves have long been fossilized by the end of the century. So much for “accountability.” Abandoning the use of fossil fuels by 2100 is basically asking their people to un-develop whatever they have developed so far.

The thing with pledges, promises or predictions is that if you make them far enough in the future, you never have to answer for them. That’s a lesson that economist Jeff Rubin learned the hard way, when he predicted in 2012 that oil was headed to over $200 a barrel and the world’s economy was to change drastically in a few short years. A goal of the year 2100 to eliminate fossil fuels is reasonable, as the span is long enough to allow for new technologies to emerge and avoids the fate of so many of those who have forecasted future events who lived long enough to be criticized for failed predictions.

Can pigs fly? Never say never: the genius Thomas Edison lit up the world. Another genius will emerge to solve the problem. Until then, go easy, be happy and live a good life. Don’t forget to adjust your futuristic mini breathing apparatus placed inside your nostrils, purifying air for your lungs.

No one knows what the world will be like a hundred years hence, so pledging to get rid of fossil-fuel pollution in the distant future is just political blatherskite. Besides, Canada is a minor polluter; the major polluters such as China, India and the U.S. should be the ones to clean up their acts ASAP. Whether fossil emissions add to global warming is not the point. Clean air, water and soil should be at the top of every nation’s agenda.

No matter how clean we make fossil fuels, the critics will never be satisfied. At the present time, there is no practical means of replacing fossil fuels. You also have to take into consideration that wind power and solar power are intermittent powers that only work while the wind blows, or when the sun shines. Fossil fuel power, like hydro power, provides constant uninterrupted power. The G7 and government decision to eliminate fossil fuels by 2100 is good proposal, but pledging to eliminate fossil fuels by 2200 would have even been better.

Harper is right. In 85 years we will probably discover how to make fossil fuels safe or find a better way of using energy. If we don’t, then our great-grandchildren in 2100 will rolloute of the problem. In the meantime we will continue to burn as much fossil fuels as needed. What could be more realistic?

Isn’t it probable that the G7 leaders have come to the conclusion that climate change is not the danger presented by the warming alarmists? After all, 17 years of no warming, a raft of economic disasters posing as green initiatives and an increasingly meddlesome number of anticapitalist groups would give anyone pause. But to avoid political suicide, they have all agreed to make the longest punt in political history. Who can argue that zero is not low enough? Great leadership can occasionally be exemplified by ducking an issue that will fizzle out over time from a lack of evidence.