Election should be more than just climate
The Liberals want the upcoming federal election to be about climate change instead of the more pressing issues of poor governance and the economic and social devastation of COVID. Let’s not chase the rabbits when the elephants are loose.
Fighting climate change is a popular idea, but it’s elusive. It’s a global issue that requires effective action by all countries. We create 1.6 percent of emissions, so we need to measure the effect of our actions against the big offenders.
China produces 28 percent of emissions and signs on to every climate agreement going. But, instead of basing their expanding energy needs on wind and solar systems, they continue to build coal-fired electrical plants and import oil and gas on an enormous scale. They negate everything we do.
Human-induced climate change is caused by more consumption by more people. We can’t stop population growth, but we could limit consumption. But lower consumption means a reversal of living standards and slowing economic and social development. When desires for a better quality of life are frustrated, it’s war and revolution.
Many are seduced by the simplistic notion that current living standards can be maintained by switching to electric vehicles and wind and solar electricity. This is the rhetoric of environmentalists and opportunistic politicians.
But, the true costs and environmental consequences of this strategy have never been identified or offered as a choice. It’s all based on hope and unproven theories.
We’ve chosen to operate one vehicle per capita and countless recreational carbon emitters. We use just–in-time supply chains which substitute high frequency, carbon intensive, transportation for inventory and warehousing costs.
There aren’t any electric jets, so shouldn’t governments be discouraging air travel instead of incentivizing it? Are these personal choices or government choices?
Throughout history our lifestyles, prosperity and economic growth have depended on transportation and ever increasing energy consumption.
China is now doing what we’ve already done, only on a much larger scale. No carbon taxes and climate evangelism for them though. They’re on the way up and won’t tolerate any obstacles. The developing world has plenty of sun and wind, but they want reliable energy, and they want it now.
Is less consumption a more effective climate strategy than taxing ourselves to perdition and bearing the costs of switching to uncertain wind and solar electricity? People don’t want to hear this, and no politician dares to talk about it.
John Thompson Kaleden