Some Global Warming Stuff

I don't know who else has noticed, but it's pretty cold outside. Doesn't mean Climate Change is necessarily a joke, what it does mean is this: you won't hear too many environmentalists screeching about the fragility of mother Gaia and how she needs our help to survive. However, that time is coming. Soon, when it gets really hot out, we will be told about how we have to spend bucketloads of cash to fix the problem.

Now, for the purposes of this essay, I'm going to assume that AGW is real, and that the effects of AGW are universally bad. Just for the record, I have no issue whatever with the notion of Climate Change, as there is plenty of evidence to say that yes, it has been hotter. I do have a problem with how much man is to blame. I do take issue with the idea that it being warmer is a bad thing, or an ice free Arctic is the worst thing ever. But I digress.

The Environmentalists will say that they need money in order to fix things. They never actually explain how they are going to fix things. Oh, higher taxes on stuff will do something for someone, but I smell huge money pit on that one. If the goal is to reduce CO2, then carbon credits don't do that, either.

If we, the province of Saskatchewan, go over our limit on emissions, we can buy credits from some tree farm or undeveloped country. Guess what? We still didn't reduce our emissions so the problem doesn't go away. Not to mention that if CO2 is the culprit, then a couple of countries in Asia should really get on board.

So, how do we reduce emissions? Taxing will not work because I intend to not be cold in the winter, so something else will suffer in order to stay warm. The rest of the country is on board with that, I think. Lowering my thermostat to keep the planet from warming up is a non-starter after 2 weeks in the deep freeze.

The answer, at least so I hear, is green power. We'll use the sun and the wind! Well, no we won't. These are, no matter what, supplementary energy sources and do not upscale well. The problem is storage of the energy for later use coupled with the primary sources are not 24/7. Put up wind farms, or solar panels but the world still needs reliable electricity.

So, that leaves coal, hydro and nuclear. All three reliable. 2 are really clean, and one can be made cleaner. You will rarely hear of an Environmentalist wanting those any of those three things to be used to generate power. The debate cannot even be had.

So, it's fairly clear to me, and I've looked, that there is no practical plan in place to reduce CO2. However, we will assume that someone has a workable, yet expensive plan. Not a 'we have to do something' plan, but an actual blueprint that makes sense. The developing world does not get screwed over with unreliable electricity and I don't need to freeze.

The problem is as follows: how will this get paid for? Well, if the last election up here is any indication, a special tax to pay for fixing stuff just will not fly with the public. The other thing that can be done involves government cuts. That's where this gets fun.

So, if we need a billion dollars to get this kicked off, all we need do is privatize CBC. We are talking about the biggest calamity facing mankind, so freeing up one billion dollars a year in revenue will go a long way towards helping us implement this plan (which, as of now, has not been proposed).

It's a small price to pay, but the people who demand that we pay a higher tax for unknown plans of imaginary efficacy will not give up one single thing on their end to combat this global crisis. So, give me a plan, give me a cost and give me what you will sacrifice. You know why? I'm not interested in giving the government more of my money for a project that will fail miserably. You can take the money from the money I have already given you and let it fail miserably.