I note that people in this blog are intensely concerned about man made global warming.
This is in opposition to the reverse statements by global warming IPCC contributor Dr. Phil Jones of the CRU that " there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995; that in fact, global temperatures have been trending to the downside since January of 2002". He also concedes that "the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented" because the debate is clearly not over whether there were warmer periods in the Middle Ages. If the Middle Ages were warmer, then any recent warming is not unprecedented.
IN other words, there is no hard scientific fact out there that any current warming - the past 8 years has seen cooling - is either unprecedented or unnatural.
My own belief, and apparently the belief of the majority of N. Americans, is that Man-Made Global Warming is a bunch of baloney.
The real threats - and where money ought to go - is in continually...
Guest blog by Ron van der Eerden - Market regulation is not enough for oil sands
I wrote a quick comment to Satya's piece in Vancouver's The Province.
Twice Das states that Alberta "owns" the tar sands - and they are TAR sands. I find this the first clue to his wrong thinking and it begs the question what his motives really are.
Not nearly enough is said about what an environmental disaster the tar sands are and how ridiculously feeble are current environmental regulations. Is this just another marketing angle to reduce Canadian’s (and the globe’s) rightful fear and concern about this filthy resource to the benefit of wealthy Albertans? Who really “owns” this resource? And, more importantly, who owns the atmosphere the emissions will be dumped into?
The question isn't if the tar sands must be developed. First it is absolutely essential to scientifically establish maximum sustainable CO2 emissions and ensure that tar sands development doesn't exceed it. That will likely mean the pace of development must be dramatically slowed, not increased as market pressures dictate. Then, it's not the money that should go towards alternatives. Money is of no use in developing alternatives if there isn’t enough energy left to develop them.
Can you build wind turbines using only the energy from wind turbines? Can you build solar panels using only the energy from solar panels?
We need a robust base of alternative energy infrastructure in order to provide enough energy to maintain those alternatives with the alternatives themselves. It is the energy that the tar sands provide that should only go directly into the production of alternatives to fossil fuels. That could last thousands of years if used wisely, averting climate disaster by slowing the rate of emissions and leaving a precious resource for our descendants. Otherwise Das seems to be promoting business as usual: burn up this valuable resource in our inefficient wasteful society and toss a crumb to alternative energy.
The tanks may indeed come to take this horrible stuff off our hands. That even seems likely if we continue down the path we’re on. But if we acknowledge that Alberta (or Canada) doesn’t really “own” the tar sands in the first place and we spread the wealth, but only for the production of alternatives, we might just get enough international support to keep the tanks at home.
The world is in this together. There are madmen who would lead armies to make matters worse. But we can take the wind out of their sails by offering something better to the world.
The market has brought us the environmental disaster area that the tar sands have become. The market will ensure that environmental regulations remain laughably inadequate. The market doesn’t care about the fate of future generations. It may have its place but the tar sands are far too dangerous a place for market pressures to dictate.
Ron van der Eerdenpacific
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Â
- Comments
-
You say, "It is the energy that the tar sands provide that should only go directly into the production of alternatives to fossil fuels." This statement Big Oil can be persuaded to agree with, but it won't make any difference. Athabaska needs such high carbon taxes that it is priced out of existence. At the moment it receives a tax subsidy.
Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta2
