So which LNG plants will be going ahead and in what order in BC 2

134 posts / 0 new
Last post
jerrym

The BC Liberal government has engaged in gross exaggeration of LNG employment opportunities. The 2013 projections have been further reduced by the dramatic decline in LNG prices causing many firms to postpone or cancel any LNG development. 

Quote:

The BC government has repeatedly claimed that development of an LNG ex- port industry will create 100,000 jobs in the province. In the 2013 pre-election speech from the throne, the government asserted: ...

Petronas claims its 12 million tonne (phase one) Pacific NorthWest LNG project would employ 3,500 workers at peak construction. After the terminal opens, there will be permanent jobs for only 200 to 300 operational workers.

An estimated 39,000 new full time jobs, on average, will be created during a 9 year construction period. Once all facilities reach full production, there could be over 75,000 new annual full time jobs. These jobs can be created in every part of our province, in many different sectors and sustained for generations to come. Construction jobs. Facility jobs. Highly skilled trades jobs. Jobs in the professional services. Jobs for First Nations. Jobs for businesses that support the industry. Technology jobs.1

Prior to the 2013 throne speech, however, the BC government’s expectations for LNG jobs were substantially lower. Its Liquefied Natural Gas Strategy, released February 2012, argued that three LNG plants in BC would create 800 new long-term jobs in the LNG sector, up to 9,000 more jobs during construction and several thousand more indirect jobs.2 Later in 2012, government ambi- tions for LNG had grown to five plants, with internal modelling for the government estimating the plants would create 2,400 new jobs, with 15,000 temporary jobs during the construction period.3

The shift in rhetoric about LNG jobs came from a single study commissioned by the BC govern- ment just weeks before its 2013 throne speech.4 This brief provides a reality check by reviewing projections from the companies themselves about how many jobs can realistically be expected from LNG (if any plants are actually built). We then look more closely at how LNG job claims were inflated to 100,000 through a series of exaggerations and the misuse of input-output modelling techniques. Finally, we consider some of the challenges for realizing employment benefits in BC due to the use of FIFO workers, which is increasingly commonplace in resource industries. 

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publicatio...

 

jerrym

In January 2016, Fortune magaizine, a business not an environment magazine, reports that "US solar jobs soar while oil, coal struggle".  While the notes that US entire fossil fuel sector has more jobs than the solar industry, solar is only one part of the renewable energy sector. 

Quote:

The rapid rise of solar continues as some traditional fossil fuel industries shed jobs.

More Americans are now installing solar panels on building rooftops than mining coal or extracting oil and gas, according to a report released Tuesday by the non-profit solar advocacy group The Solar Foundation.

The shift is a profound one that highlights how U.S. clean energy, both solar and wind, have emerged as large and rapidly growing sectors. It also shows how many traditional fossil fuel industries like coal and oil have struggled to expand in recent years.

The U.S. solar industry grew dramatically in 2015, and is expected to continue to do so this year. The industry now employs 209,000 workers after adding over 35,000 jobs last year. By the end of this year, its ranks are expected to grow to 240,000 workers.

The solar sector employs 77% more workers than the U.S. coal mining industry does today, according to The Solar Foundation report. The coal industry now employs a little less than 70,000 workers, notes the report. ...

There were 185,000 workers employed in the business of extracting oil and gas in the U.S. as of the end of 2015. ...

However there are still many more workers employed in the oil and gas sectors in the U.S. than in the solar sector.  ...

While the sheer numbers of solar workers is large, it’s the growth rate that’s more impressive. The solar industry’s employment has grown 123% since 2010. It grew 20.2% just over the past year.

Last year, the solar sector added workers at a rate that was almost 12 times faster than the overall economy, says the report. In fact, 1.2% of all jobs—or 1 in 83 jobs—created in the U.S. last year were solar jobs.

 

http://fortune.com/2016/01/12/solar-jobs-boom/

 

 

jerrym

At the global level renewable energy use and employment continue their exponential growth. The renewable sector now employs 8.1 million people globally. 

Quote:

More than 8.1 million people are now employed by the renewable energy industry worldwide, an increase of five percent over last year, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

The number of renewable energy jobs worldwide went up in 2015 while jobs in the broader energy sector fell. In the United States, for example, renewable energy jobs increased six percent, but employment in oil and gas fell 18 percent.

That’s perhaps not surprising, as renewable energy continues to break records. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), utility-scale electrical generation from renewable sources like solar and wind hit an all-time high of 16.89 percent of the country’s total electricity generation in the first quarter of 2016. During the same time period in 2015, renewable energy's share of net generation was just 14 percent. Distributed solar photovoltaic and wind energy have also continue to grow quickly, the EIA found.

China has seen huge growth in its clean energy sector and now employs 3.5 million people, whereas oil and gas employ just 2.6 million. The countries with the most renewable energy jobs in 2015 were Brazil, China, Germany, India, Japan, and the US, according to IRENA.

The solar photovoltaic sector is the largest renewable energy employer worldwide with 2.8 million jobs. Meanwhile, growing wind installation rates in China, Germany and the US led to 1.1 million people being employed by the wind industry, a five percent global increase. Wind employment in the US alone rose by 21 percent, IRENA reported.

“The continued job growth in the renewable energy sector is significant because it stands in contrast to trends across the energy sector,” IRENA Director-General Adnan Z. Amin said in a statement. The increase in jobs, he added, was being driven by declining renewable energy technology costs as well as improvements to policy frameworks, such as national and state auctions in India and Brazil and tax credits in the US.

Amin said he expects these trends to continue gaining momentum as the business case for renewables becomes stronger and as countries move to achieve the emissions targets they agreed to in signing the Paris Climate Agreement.

“As the ongoing energy transition accelerates, growth in renewable energy employment will remain strong,” Amin said. “IRENA’s research estimates that doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix by 2030 — enough to meet global climate and development targets — would result in more than 24 million jobs worldwide.”

https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/05/27/renewable-energy-jobs-keep-growing...

 

jerrym

renewable energy projects not only cause far less environmental damage, they generate far more jobs for the same size of investment. So if employment is your main objective, dollar for dollar renewable energy beats fossil fuels several times over. 

 

Quote:

 

Robert Pollin, the President of Pear Energy and a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, has studied this matter [green energy jobs versus fossil fuel jobs and found:]

“The basic facts are simple. When we invest, say, $1 million in building the green economy, this creates about 17 jobs within the United States. By comparison, if we continue to spend as we do on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, you create only about 5 jobs per $1 million in spending. That is, we create about 12 more jobs for every $1 million in spending — 300 percent more jobs — every time we spend on building the green economy as opposed to maintaining our dependence on dirty and dangerous oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.” ...

Transit Rocks It. (Click Here To Enlarge.)

 

 

 

 

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/20/over-3-times-more-green-jobs-per-mil...

 

jerrym

 

In 2011, renewable energy investment surpassed fossil fuel investment globally for the first time (https://www.esi-africa.com/news/renewable-energy-investment-surpasses-fo...).

By 2015 renewable energy investment was double that of fossil fuels globally. Can you see the trend, North Report?

Quote:

Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable.

While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.

One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).  

"We're in a low-cost-of-oil environment for the foreseeable future," Liebreich said during his keynote address at the BNEF Summit in New York on Tuesday. "Did that stop renewable energy investment? Not at all."

Here's what's shaping power markets, in six charts from BNEF:

Renewables are beating fossil fuels 2 to 1renewables vs fossil1

Investment in Power Capacity, 2008-2015

Source: BNEF, UNEP

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-cr...

 

jerrym

On the other hand, when it comes to renewable energy Canada is bucking the global trend. In other words, Canada is in danger of being left behind as the world continues to shift rapidly to renewable energy. We are still well behind other countries when it comes to investments in wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy sources.

We are betting on the buggy whip industry of the 21st century. 

Quote:

A new report by the Renewable Energy Policy Network has found that, for the first time, worldwide investments in alternative energy have exceeded investments in new fossil fuel projects. It's a sign that the world is taking positive steps toward a clean energy future. But Canada is still behind the major players.

The report by the United Nations-sponsored international non-profit association suggests that renewable energy provided roughly 19.2 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, with 147 Gigawatts of renewable capacity added in 2015. That's the largest annual increase ever.  

An estimated 8.1 million people were employed in the renewable energy sector, not including large-scale hydro, with solar photo-voltaic and biofuels providing the largest numbers of jobs. This is the sixth consecutive year renewables outpaced fossil fuels for net investment in power capacity.

Leading the changeover are China, Brazil, the United States and India, with many developing countries following suit. Canada, while not in the top five, scored well in hydro power — which provides more than half of the country's electricity but has its own set of environmental impacts — as well as production of biofuels.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/renewable-energy-investment-1.3614477

 

 

jerrym

At the same time that renewable energy is rapidly replacing fossil fuels globally, global warming continues to raise global temperatures with 2016 on a pace to break the 2015 global average temperature record, which, in turn, broke the 2014 global average temperature record. Sixteen of the 17 warmest years on record occurred since 2000. 

The key question is whether we can shift fast enough to avoid global catastrophe. So far, Canada and BC is doing a poor job in this regard, and the global warming deniers are certainly not helping. 

Quote:

Image result for average global temperatures graph since industrial revolution

average global temperatures graph since industrial revolution

 

 

 

Quote:

2016 will very likely be the hottest year on record and a new high for the third year in a row, according to the UN. It means 16 of the 17 hottest years on record will have been this century.

The scorching temperatures around the world, and the extreme weather they drive, mean the impacts of climate change on people are coming sooner and with more ferocity than expected, according to scientists.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report, published on Monday at the global climate summit in Morocco, found the global temperature in 2016 is running 1.2C above pre-industrial levels. This is perilously close to to the 1.5C target included as an aim of the Paris climate agreement last December.

The El Niño weather phenomenon helped push temperatures even higher in early 2016 but the global warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from human activities remains the strongest factor. ...

The WMO said human-induced global warming had contributed to at least half the extreme weather events studied in recent years, with the risk of extreme heat increasing by 10 times in some cases.

“It is almost as if mother nature is making a statement,” said climate scientist Michael Mann, at Penn State University in the US. “Just as one of the planet’s two largest emitters of carbon has elected a climate change denier [Donald Trump] - who has threatened to pull out of the Paris accord - to the highest office, she reminds us that she has the final word.”

“Climate change is not like other issues that can be postponed from one year to the next,” he said. “The US and world are already behind; speed is of the essence, because climate change and its impacts are coming sooner and with greater ferocity than anticipated.”

The record-smashing heat led to searing heatwaves across the year: a new high of 42.7C was recorded in Pretoria, South Africa in January; Mae Hong Son in Thailand saw 44.6C on 28 April; Phalodi in India reached 51.0C in May and Mitribah in Kuwait recorded 54.0C in July. Parts of Arctic Russia also saw extreme warming - 6C to 7C above average.

Arctic ice reached its equal second-lowest extent in the satellite record in September while warm oceans saw coral mortality of up to 50% in parts of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

Extreme weather and climate related events have damaged farming and food security, affecting more than 60 million people, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has also broken records in 2016, with May seeing the highest monthly value yet - 407.7 ppm - at Mauna Loa, in Hawaii.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/14/2016-will-be-the-hot...

 

 

 

 

jerrym

Even two year old data, when oilsands jobs were only starting their downturn, renewable energy jobs in Canada had already surpassed oilsands employment. Since then, renewable energy employment has significantly grown while oilsands employment has fallen. 

Quote:

Renewable energy has experienced big growth in Canada in the last five years, so much so that employment in the sector outstrips employment in the oilsands.

That's the conclusion of a report on the state of green energy technology in Canada by Clean Energy Canada, an advocate for renewables.

It estimates $24 billion has been invested in the past five years, mainly because of renewable initiatives in the power sector by Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec.

Direct employment in the clean energy sector – which encompasses hydro power, as well as wind, solar and biomass – is up 37 per cent to 23,700 people. That compares with 22,340 directly employed in the oilsands.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/clean-energy-provides-more-jobs-than-oil...

 

Martin N.

Climate change aside, it makes sense on every level to invest in new, clean renewables to replace hydrocarbons. It also makes sense economically to leverage the best return from hydrocarbon resources while they are still required.

Grid-tied home solar systems are now affordable and net metering provides a method to sell excess power back into the grid. In this way, everyone can make a contribution to minimising climate change and reducing fossil fuel use.

Martin N.

Michael Mann. Isn't he the chap who was discredited for tinkering with the forward extrapolation of climate data? The hockey stick graph?

jerrym

If you don't like that graph, I posted another one earlier and here it is again, showing the rise in temperature from 1880 to 2013. It's from NASA (the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration) who have been responsible for the US space program from its beginning, as well as aeronautics and aerospace research. 

No doubt you don't trust them either, despite all their success and being a world leader in technology.

Quote:

Image result for average global temperatures graph since industrial revolution

average global temperatures graph since industrial revolution

 

 

jerrym

Here are four reviews of Michael Mann's book, including two by leading scientific organizations (Nature and the American Chemical Society) and one by the Wall Street Journal (who we all know is anti-business and rabidly pro environmentalist).

 

Quote:

Publishers Weekly described the book as a "meticulous and engaging brief on climate change research and the political backlash to legitimate scientific work", with a tendency to over-technical language offset by "charming personal anecdotes from his life and work".[3] Kirkus Reviews called it "an important and disturbing account" of attempts to spread doubt about climate science, and said "This blistering indictment of corporate-funded chicanery demands a wide audience."[4]

For Simon Lewis, reviewing the book for Nature, the book became "riveting" when it came to the research which produced the "hockey stick" graphs, following which "Mann's shocking first-hand testimony of the repeated attempts to discredit him and his work gives his book power." While basically agreeing with Mann, Lewis was uncomfortable with seeing the dispute as a binary "climate war", preferring the less polarised metaphor of a "street fight".[5] In the Geoscientist magazine of the Geological Society of London, Colin Summerhayes described Mann as "a pioneer in analysing proxy records of climate change covering the past 1,000 years" whose early work had attracted vituperative attacks but had been supported by subsequent studies, and would "heartily recommend this book for an unusually clear view of the action on the front line of climate science".[6]

Rudy M. Baum in the magazine of the American Chemical Society said it was "one of the most useful books yet in explaining climate science", particularly paleoclimatology, as well as examining "the tactics used by climate-change deniers to distort the science of climate change and smear the reputations of climate scientists." Helpful explanations of concepts were backed by extensive citations and notes, and while casual readers would not turn to these pages, the notes included some important insights.[1] Michael Marshall, environment reporter for New Scientist, commented that although other studies showed the "hockey stick" graph was essentially correct, it came under persistent attack over statistical issues that the book explains in detail, difficult reading material which "will be invaluable for anyone confused by the many claims and counterclaims found online." It was "an admirable attempt to tell the behind-the-scenes story of one of today's most vicious scientific battles."[7]

Anne Jolis of The Wall Street Journal said that for what she called "anti-carbon crusaders" the "hockey stick" graph demonstrates the danger "that man poses to the planet", but for "global-warming skeptics, though, the graph and the name are prime examples of the overblown claims and sloppy science behind much of climatology." She said the book was largely "score-settling with anyone who has ever doubted his integrity or work: free-market think tanks, industrialists, 'scientists for hire,' 'the corruptive influence of industry,' the 'uninformed' media and public. So, a long list", and describes Mann as a "scientist-turned-climate-warrior." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hockey_Stick_and_the_Climate_Wars

 

jerrym

Martin N. wrote:
Climate change aside,

Yes I am sure you would like to put climate change aside, just like all the other climate change deniers, including Trump, the rest of the Republicans, the BC Liberals and the Conservatives. 

Part of your wish may even come true as Trump puts three climate change deniers in charge of key energyl-related positions in his cabinet, operating on the principle of if you don't like the evidence destroy it and fire the people who did the research. 

With the trifecta of global warming deniers in cabinet nominees Secretary of State Tillerson, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and Interior Secretary Zinke, as well as the proposal by a top-level Trump advisor that all funding for NASA's climate change research be terminated, climate scientists are so concerned about a purge of climate change scientists and data that they are feverishly copying US government data on global warming.

Thay are also refusing to identify who in the Department of Energy was involved in climate change research as they fear this will lead to their being fired. So far they have been successful in refusing to divulge these names. 

2017 will be the new 1984.

 

Quote:

 

The Department of Energy has refused to respond to the Trump transition team's chilling 74-question document seeking the names of anyone who has worked on climate change in the department. Climate scientists are also acting feverishly to preserve data after a senior Trump campaign adviser suggested eliminating all funding for NASA's climate research programs. ...

Scientists are rushing to copy decades of critical climate information that could be altered or destroyed under a hostile Trump Administration.

Two university professors are calling for a hackathon in collaboration with the Internet Archive's End of Term 2016 project, which will archive federal online pages and data that they fear could disappear after Jan. 20, 2017. Separately, the ad-hoc Climate Mirror project seeks to store key datasets and keep them publicly available. 

The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) has published a 16-page guide for government researchers whose work may be suppressed. ...

Sentiment is shared at the DOE, which is why they are refusing to share names with Trump's transition team. 

"We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department," Energy Department spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said in an email to The Washington Post.

"We will be forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team."

The gravest danger to these federal employees may be that they will lose their jobs in an anti-climate purge.  ...

In response, scientists are speaking out. "We cannot normalize science denial," the Union of Concerned Scientists stated.

On Nov. 30, more than 2,300 scientists published an open letter to Trump urging him to allow them to "conduct their work without political or private-sector interference."  ...

 

 

http://www.ecowatch.com/nasa-climate-scientists-trump-2146674752.html

 

 

 

 

NorthReport

Unfortunately commentators like the one directly above, and I'll be blunt because the approach is what keeps the NDP relegated to playing the third string at best, and probably when the Greens lose the clowns like May, and pick appropriate leaders, the NDP will be dead last in 4th place, right up there with the Christian Heritage Party and others of their ilk.

What a bunch of nonsense to infer that people who want good paying jobs could care less about the environment. And that really dumb-assed approach is what keeps the NDP out of power, and will continue to do so, no matter who the next friggin' musical chairs leader is or isn't.

How stupid can the NDP be!!!

Every single solitary survey ever published shows that it is pocketbook issues that are the number one priority for Canadian voters. But the NDP throughout Canada apart from Alberta continues to bury its head in the sand, and refuses to accept voters where they are as opposed to where the idiots and clowns that comprise the braintrust of the NDP think voters should be. The best thing Premier could do to stay alive politically is to disconnect from the NDP label. It did wonders for Brad Wall and there is absolutely no rerason to think it might not work for the AB NDP.

 

No wonder Trump defeated Clinton and no wonder the NDP are now considered an afterthought in the minds of most Canadian voters.

jerrym

Royal Dutch Shell is another fossi fuel company that has been playing the 3D (Deny, Doubt, Delay) game for decades with regard to global warming as shown in its own internal documents and discussed in McKenzie Funk's book "Windfall".

Quote:

Multinational businesses have a reputation for either denying or downplaying climate change. In fact, Shell has been preparing for it for decades. The company’s business depends on being able to anticipate and respond quickly to seismic shifts in the energy market. So it employs a team of big-thinking futurists, called scenario planners, to keep it a step ahead.

In 2008 the company released a fresh pair of scenarios for how the world might respond to climate change over the coming decades. Both were predicated on what the company called “three hard truths”: that global energy demand is rising, that the supply of conventional energy will not be able to keep up, and that climate change is both real and dangerous.

One scenario, called “Blueprints,” envisioned an increasingly urgent and systematic global effort to cut emissions and develop cleaner technologies. Change would come from the bottom up, as individuals, corporations, and cities laid a foundation for national and international policies. The results would include carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes, electric cars, solar panels, and carbon-capture technology for power plants. Those actions wouldn’t stop climate change. The seas would rise, hurricanes would wreck cities, and so on. But the results wouldn’t be catastrophic.

A second scenario, called “Scramble,” envisioned the world continuing to balk at real action, because “curbing the growth of energy demand—and hence economic growth—is simply too unpopular for politicians to undertake,” as Shell’s scenario planners put it in an interview with Funk. Coal and biofuels would drive the growth of developing countries, choking the air and driving up food prices. While Indonesia and Brazil were mowing down rainforests to grown palm oil and sugarcane, Canada and the United States would turn their attention toward “unconventional oil projects” like Canada’s tar sands.

Climate activists would grow increasingly shrill, but the general public would suffer “alarm fatigue.” Rich and poor nations would deadlock over who should do what as emissions spiraled past 550 parts per million. (In 2013 they reached 400 ppm for the first time—a frightening milestone.) At that point the impacts of climate change would be too great to ignore—but it would be too late to do much about it. In the final stage of the Scramble scenario, the planners wrote, “An increasing fraction of economic activity and innovation is ultimately directed towards preparing for the impact of climate change.”  

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/02/windfall_m...

 

jerrym

Climate change denialism has become a industry in itself, thanks to funding frpm the fossil fuel industry. This approach is based on the deny, doubt delay strategy made famous by the tobacco industry. 

 

Quote:

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views which depart from the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[2][3][4] In the global warming controversy, some deniers do endorse the term, but other often prefer the term climate change skepticism[3] whereas scientists think it "inappropriate to allow those who deny [anthropogenic global warming] to don the mantle of skeptics"; in effect, the two terms form a continuous, overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics: both reject, to a greater or lesser extent, mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.[5][6] Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.[7] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism.[5][6]

Campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" of industrial, political and ideological interests, supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers in manufacturing uncertainty about global warming.[8][9][10] In the public debate, phrases such as climate skepticism have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism.[11] The labels are contested: those actively challenging climate science commonly describe themselves as "skeptics", but many do not comply with common standards of scientific skepticism and, regardless of evidence, persistently deny the validity of human caused global warming.[5]

Although scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is extremely likely to be the primary driver of climate change,[12][13] the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate.[14][15][16] Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none. 

The climate change denial industry is most widespread in the United States, where the official Senate Environmental Committee is chaired by Jim Inhofe, who famously called climate change “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” and claimed to have debunked it in 2015 when he took a snowball with him and threw it on the Senate floor.[19] Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions.[20] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and libertarian think tanks, often in the United States.[15][21][22][23] More than 90% of papers sceptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.[24] The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million. ...

Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, leading to comparisons of this strategy to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by tobacco companies. ...

From 1989 onwards industry funded organisations including the Global Climate Coalition and the George C. Marshall Institute sought to spread doubt among the public, in a strategy already developed by the tobacco industry.[66][67][68] A small group of scientists opposed to the consensus on global warming became politically involved, and with support from conservative political interests, began publishing in books and the press rather than in scientific journals.[69] Spencer Weart identifies this period as the point where legitimate skepticism about basic aspects of climate science was no longer justified, and those spreading mistrust about these issues became deniers.[70] As their arguments were increasingly refuted by the scientific community and new data, deniers turned to political arguments, making personal attacks on the reputation of scientists, and promoting ideas of a global warming conspiracy. ...

In the 1990s, the Marshall Institute began campaigning against increased regulations on environmental issues such as acid rainozone depletion, second-hand smoke, and the dangers of DDT.[67][73][74] In each case their argument was that the science was too uncertain to justify any government intervention, a strategy it borrowed from earlier efforts to downplay the health effects of tobacco in the 1980s.[66][68] This campaign would continue for the next two decades. ...

Gelbspan's Boiling Point, published in 2004, detailed the fossil-fuel industry's campaign to deny climate change and undermine public confidence in climate science.[86] In Newsweek's August 2007 cover story "The Truth About Denial", Sharon Begley reported that "the denial machine is running at full throttle", and said that this "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign" by contrarian scientistsfree-market think tanks, and industry had "created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change."[41]

Referencing work of sociologists Robert Antonio and Robert Brulle, Wayne A. White has written that climate change denial has become the top priority in a broader agenda against environmental regulation being pursued by neoliberals. ...

The New York Times and others reported in 2015 that oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause climate change and global warming since the 1970s but nonetheless funded deniers for years.[28][29] Dana Nuccitelli wrote in The Guardian that a small fringe group of climate deniers were no longer taken seriously at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in an agreement that "we need to stop delaying and start getting serious about preventing a climate crisis. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

 

jerrym

The most highly cited climate change denier, Willie Soon, has also been discredited.

Quote:

A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show. ...

The documents draw new attention to the industry’s efforts to block action against climate change – including President Barack Obama’s power-plant rules. ...

Unlike the vast majority of scientists, Soon does not accept that rising greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial age are causing climate changes. He contends climate change is driven by the sun.

In the relatively small universe of climate denial Soon, with his Harvard-Smithsonian credentials, was a sought after commodity. He was cited admiringly by Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who famously called global warming a hoax. He was called to testify when Republicans in the Kansas state legislature tried to block measures promoting wind and solar power. The Heartland Institute, a hub of climate denial, gave Soon a courage award.

Soon did not enjoy such recognition from the scientific community. There were no grants from Nasa, the National Science Foundation or the other institutions which were funding his colleagues at the Center for Astrophysics. According to the documents, his work was funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel lobby. ...

“The question here is really: ‘What did API, ExxonMobil, Southern Company and Charles Koch see in Willie Soon? What did they get for $1m-plus,” said Kert Davies, a former Greenpeace researcher who filed the original freedom of information requests. Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center, of which Davies is the founder, shared the documents with news organisations. “Did they simply hope he was on to research that would disprove the consensus? Or was it too enticing to be able to basically buy the nameplate Harvard-Smithsonian?” ...

Greenpeace has suggested Soon also improperly concealed his funding sources for a recent article, in violation of the journal’s conflict of interest guidelines.  “The company was paying him to write peer-reviewed science and that relationship was not acknowledged in the peer-reviewed literature,” Davies said. “These proposals and contracts show debatable interventions in science literally on the behalf of Southern Company and the Kochs.” In letters to the Internal Revenue Service and Congress, Greenpeace said Soon may have misused the grants from the Koch foundation by trying to influence legislation. ...

Harvard said Soon operated outside of the university – even though he carries a Harvard ID and uses a Harvard email address. ...

“There is no record of Soon having applied for or having been granted funds that were or are administered by the University. Soon is not an employee of Harvard.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denie...

 

jerrym

The growing body of evidence concerning CEO Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil and his cozy connections to Putin could sink his confirmation. However, no Senator is yet talking about his record at Exxon and the 20 investigations by State Attorney Generals into Exxon's global warming denials despite the fact Exxon has had evidence from its own research 40 years ago indicating how dangerous fossil feul emissions are for the planet.  The Attorney Generals are pursuing the same strategy successfully used against Big Tobacco by suing them for billions of dollars in order to force the industry to pay billions it had done to people's health while misleading the public about the risks associated with cigarettes, which Big Tobacco was well aware of. The fossil fuel industry has copied Big Tobacco's deny, doubt, delay campaign techniques. 

 

Quote:

 

Exxon has faced scrutiny in the aftermath of a series of investigative reports that allege the company has known for decades about the effect of fossil fuels on climate change. Two state attorneys general — New York’s Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts’ Maura Healey — have launched fraud investigations into whether Exxon misled the public and its investors about the threat of climate change.

 

 

http://www.politico.eu/article/trump-likely-to-tap-tillerson-for-secreta...

 

 

NorthReport

It is obvious now even to the casual observer that the Squamish Woodfibre plant will be the first followed by Petronas in Prince Rupert and Shell in Kitimat

jerrym

The Big Tobacco approach of spending billions of misleading PR denying the risks associated with the industry has been employed for several decades and has helped it sustain itself politically.However, eventually Big Tobacco lost in the long run, as will the fossil fuel industry. The only question wil be whether it is to late for humanity and the planet.

Even the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD - note the E stands for Economic not Environment in this relatively right-wing organization) sees a global future of falling living standards if we do not quickly start shifting away from fossil fuels. The following is from the "OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050" report (basically it says we are not doing enough and not acting fast enough with regard to climate change if we are to avoid declining standards of living in the future):

Quote:

Without more ambitious policies, by 2050:

 More disruptive climate change is likely to be locked in, with global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions projected to increase by 50%, primarily due to a 70% growth in energy-related CO2 emissions. The atmospheric concentration of GHGs could reach 685 parts per million (ppm) by 2050. As a result, the global average temperature increase is projected to be 3o C to 6o C above pre- industrial levels by the end of the century, exceeding the internationally agreed goal of limiting it to 2o C. The GHG mitigation actions pledged by countries in the Cancún Agreements at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2010 will not be enough to prevent the global average temperature from exceeding the 2o C threshold, unless very rapid and costly emission reductions are realised after 2020. Surpassing the 2o C threshold would alter precipitation patterns, increase glacier and permafrost melt, drive sea-level rise, and worsen the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. This will hamper the ability of people and ecosystems to adapt. ...

Acting now makes environmental and economic sense. For example, the Outlook suggests that if countries act now, there is still a chance – although it is receding – of global GHG emissions peaking before 2020 and limiting the world’s average temperature increase to 2° C. The Outlook suggests that a global carbon price sufficient to lower GHG emissions by nearly 70% in 2050 compared to the Baseline and limit GHG concentrations to 450 ppm would slow economic growth by only 0.2 percentage points per year on average. This would cost roughly 5.5% of global GDP in 2050 (see Figure 5).  

https://www.oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling-outlooks/49846090.pdf

 

 

 

jerrym

NorthReport wrote:
It is obvious now even to the casual observer that the Squamish Woodfibre plant will be the first followed by Petronas in Prince Rupert and Shell in Kitimat

 

Sounds like you prefer fossil fuel giant Royal Dutch Shell's Scramble future scenario over its Blueprint future scenario outlined in its own internal documents. How far-sighted!

Quote:

In 2008 the company released a fresh pair of scenarios for how the world might respond to climate change over the coming decades. Both were predicated on what the company called “three hard truths”: that global energy demand is rising, that the supply of conventional energy will not be able to keep up, and that climate change is both real and dangerous.

One scenario, called “Blueprints,” envisioned an increasingly urgent and systematic global effort to cut emissions and develop cleaner technologies. Change would come from the bottom up, as individuals, corporations, and cities laid a foundation for national and international policies. The results would include carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes, electric cars, solar panels, and carbon-capture technology for power plants. Those actions wouldn’t stop climate change. The seas would rise, hurricanes would wreck cities, and so on. But the results wouldn’t be catastrophic.

A second scenario, called “Scramble,” envisioned the world continuing to balk at real action, because “curbing the growth of energy demand—and hence economic growth—is simply too unpopular for politicians to undertake,” as Shell’s scenario planners put it in an interview with Funk. Coal and biofuels would drive the growth of developing countries, choking the air and driving up food prices. While Indonesia and Brazil were mowing down rainforests to grown palm oil and sugarcane, Canada and the United States would turn their attention toward “unconventional oil projects” like Canada’s tar sands.

Climate activists would grow increasingly shrill, but the general public would suffer “alarm fatigue.” Rich and poor nations would deadlock over who should do what as emissions spiraled past 550 parts per million. (In 2013 they reached 400 ppm for the first time—a frightening milestone.) At that point the impacts of climate change would be too great to ignore—but it would be too late to do much about it. In the final stage of the Scramble scenario, the planners wrote, “An increasing fraction of economic activity and innovation is ultimately directed towards preparing for the impact of climate change.”  

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/02/windfall_m...

 

 

jerrym

 

Martin N. wrote:
Michael Mann. Isn't he the chap who was discredited for tinkering with the forward extrapolation of climate data? The hockey stick graph?

 

You sound like the typical climate change denier - using character assassination and intimidation, but no evidence, in an attempt to discredit those who do scientific research on the topic.

Furthermore the graph below showing recent rapid warming aftter 1,000 years of relative temperature stability, does have the rough shape of a hockey stick as Mann pointed out.

Quote:

When climate change deniers attacked climatologist Michael Mann and tried to discredit him and his scientific work in 2011, making Mann's life a "living hell," the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund rose up to help him. ...

Mann is the climatologist who helped develop the famed “hockey stick” graph show a sharp acceleration in global warming in the 20th century. 

As most recently detailed in New Yorker writer Jane Mayer’s new book, Dark Money and in a recent National Observer story, climate change deniers in 2009 waged a campaign against Mann that included trying to have him fired from Penn State, the university where he works as a tenured professor. ...

Over on his blog, founding board member Jeff Masters, who is director of meteorology for the Weather Underground, notes CSLDF has helped nearly 100 researchers across the states.

“Whenever scientific research uncovers truths that threaten the profits of large and powerful corporations, those companies — and the politicians these corporations' money help elect — inevitably fight back by attacking the scientists,” Masters writes. 

“These attacks often take the form of legal action, which government or university-funded scientists do not have the resources to combat. Such attacks against climate scientists have been particularly pernicious and numerous in recent years, and multiple climate scientists are currently involved in litigation in state and federal courts across the United States.”

In November 2015, the CSLDF successfully filed a motion to have the Arizona Court of Appeals protect climate scientists’ files from invasive open requests from E & E Legal (the new name of the American Tradition Institute).

In a blog on its site, the CSLDF noted that E & E Legal has a history of “filing nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research, especially litigating abusive open records requests, as part of a mission to convince ‘the public to believe human-caused global warming is scientific fraud.’”

Currently, the CSLDF is participating in a lawsuit designed to protect internal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) documents and emails.

Since July Republican Rep. Lamar Smith has been after the release of the data because, in his words, NOAA has “altered [climate] data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda.”

Another group, Judicial Watch, has filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), to try and compel NOAA to produce the data. ...

In its release, Judicial Watch says, “We have little doubt that the documents will show that the Obama administration put politics before science to advance global warming alarmism.”

Notes CSLDF on its website: “Unfortunately, FOIA lawsuits for scientists’ private communications are an increasingly popular method by groups who seek to intimidate, harass, and try to discredit publicly-funded scientists. 

“Lawsuits across the country are attempting to use FOIA and state law equivalents to access troves of researchers’ private correspondence.”

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/01/29/news/when-climate-deniers-har...

 

 

 

 

NorthReport

Actually my preference is for the NDP to get elected but with the BC NDP approach they do not have a prayer 

From Topp down, Notley shakes up Edmonton, Calgary offices

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/braid-from-topp-down-notley-shake...

 

jerrym

The extreme effects of global warming on BC and Canada are not just some abstract idea that may happen in the future. They are already happening now with punishing severity. When it comes to forest fires, this year's destruction of Fort MacMurray is just one example of this. 

While no single forest fire can be 100% directly attributed to climate change, the pattern seen in Saskatchewan, Slave Lake, Barriere, Kelowna and Fort McMurray leaves no doubt about how global warming is increasing the length of the fire season, the number and intensity of forest fires, as well as their social and economic costs to communities. 

However, climate change deniers simply ignore this and all the other evidence that the problem is causing both catastrophic environmental and economic consequences.

Some examples of the damage already include:

In Saskatchewan in 2015,

 

Quote:

 

more than 10,000 people from 54 communities were forced from their homes because of forest fires in 2015. More than 350 Red Cross personnel worked to provide food, clothing, shelter and emergency items for affected families while they were out of their homes.

 

http://www.redcross.ca/in-your-community/saskatchewan/major-responses/20...

 

 

Quote:

 

The latest disaster economists are watching unfold is the raging wildfire near Fort McMurray, which has forced the evacuation of the entire city and has led oil giant Shell to shut down one of its operations. 

Economists say it is too early to tell just how much the fire could hurt the economy, but looking at past natural disasters can give some scope.

Robert Kavcic, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, notes that the 2011 Slave Lake wildfire caused gross domestic product to drop five per cent in the oil and gas sector, while pulling the overall economy down in the month.

 

 

http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/economic-fallout-of-alber...

 

 

Quote:

 

Last year’s drought (so extreme the Alberta government officially classifiedit as a disaster) and El Niño conditions, which caused much of Canada to experience a mild winter, made the vegetation and soil extremely dry—and therefore prime fuel for fire.

The Alberta government lists both droughts and forest fires as extreme weather events that are made more likely by climate change. The Natural Resources Canada website, last updated Feb. 2, features a similar warning about climate-change-fuelled forest fires.

 

 

http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/economic-fallout-of-alber...

 

 

jerrym

A growing body of scientific evidence shows the clear relationship between climate change and these forest fires. The Slave Lake fire "forced the complete evacuation of Slave Lake's 7,000 residents—considered the largest such displacement in the province's history at the time [and] ...  destroyed roughly one-third of Slave Lake" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Slave_Lake_wildfire), causing the Alberta government to change the length of its fire season. 

 

 

Quote:

 

Mike Flannigan, a professor at the University of Alberta and the director of the Western Partnership for Wildland Fire Science, is a leading expert on forest fires. “The area burned in Canada has increased over the past 40 to 50 years. This is due to human-caused climate change,” says Flannigan.

Flannigan says that rising temperatures in Canada lead to drying soil and vegetation, increased lightning strikes, and longer fire seasons. After the 2011 Slave Lake area wildfires, Alberta pushed the beginning of fire season from April 1 to March 1.

A 2014 study published in Science found that climate change led to an increase in lightning strikes—one of the common ways wildfires get started.

Stephen Johnston, chair of the earth and atmospheric sciences department at the University of Alberta, echoes Flannigan’s concerns. “Climate change makes extreme weather events more common. From that perspective, you could say this is more of the extreme types of weather that you’d expect.”

A 2013 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesshowed that boreal forests—the type of forest currently burning in Fort McMurray—haven’t burned so frequently in at least 10,000 years.

In Canada, there’s also evidence that more forest is burning than ever before. A January 2016 study in Climatic Change co-authored by Flannigan, said that 8,000 fires burned over two million hectares on average per year, over the past decade. According to Flannigan, previous decades saw an average of about one million hectares burn per year.

 

 

http://www.macleans.ca/society/science/did-climate-change-contribute-to-...

 

jerrym

Forest fires have also caused major damage in BC that has been linked to global warming. 

 

Quote:

 

The Kelowna and Barriere fires in the summer of 2003, which followed an extensive drought, destroyed 334 homes, with insurance claims in excess of $200 million. The Slave Lake Fire in the spring of 2011, driven by extreme winds, burned over 400 homes and businesses in Slave Lake and surrounding communities, resulting in an insured loss of $700 million. ...

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections indicate an increase of 1.4 - 5.8 oC in global mean temperature by 2100 AD, with the largest increases occurring at higher latitudes, over land, and during the winter/spring period. These temperature increases will cause projected increases in extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts, floods, and wind storms.  ...

Temperature is a key variable relative to forest fire activity for three reasons:

(1) It affects the amount of moisture the atmosphere can hold, which in turn drives the moisture content of forest fuels;

(2) It is strongly positively correlated with lightning with higher temperatures resulting in more lightning, and;

(3) Warmer temperatures result in longer fire seasons, particularly at high northern latitudes.

Since the early 1990s, fire researchers in Canada have been using the most recent climate change model projections to predict the impact of future climate change on future fire regimes, updating these projections as new models become available. Results to date can be summarized as follows:

(1) Fire danger conditions are expected to become more extreme, most significantly in west- central Canada; 

(2) Both lightning and human-caused fire occurrence will increase across Canada, particularly in the boreal zone where increases of 50-100% are expected by the late 20th century; 

(3) Area burned expected to increase, primarily across west-central Canada; 

(4) Fire seasons will become longer, with earlier springs and later falls;

(5) Forest fire severity and intensity will increase.

 

 

http://www.climateontario.ca/doc/ORAC_Products/ICLR/Protecting%20Canadia...

 

Martin N.

Hm. Ask a question and be assaulted as a 'climate change denier' followed by a furious barrage of climate change rhetoric. Absolutely no response to the grid tied home solar system option I presented. Hey, jerry! There is a reason you are talking to yourself after hijacking the LNG thread.

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

Actually my preference is for the NDP to get elected but with the BC NDP approach they do not have a prayer 

From Topp down, Notley shakes up Edmonton, Calgary offices

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/braid-from-topp-down-notley-shake...

 


Yeah, Horgan is done and the NDP will eat their own young after the election. I'm going to sit this one out rather than door knocking for a lost cause. If Weaver proves himself more than a one-trick pony, he will rock the Greens.

jerrym

The costs of sea level rise for Vancouver  is just small part of the global cost of sea level rise, which could be a $trillion dollars a year for 136 coastal cities by 2050, according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation. 

Quote:

Coastal flooding could cost the global economy $1-trillion a year a few short decades from now because of the rise in sea levels caused by global warming if action is not taken now to stem the flow and Vancouver is one of the cities most at-risk for losses, says a new study.

The article, published Tuesday in the journal Nature Climate Change, is part of an ongoing project by the Organization for Economic Co-operation. ...

The authors based their prediction on an increase in sea levels of between 0.2 and 0.4 metres by 2050 caused by melting continental ice sheets.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/flooding-due-to-ris...

 

 

The insurance industry, hardly a bastion of left-wingers, together with the World Wildlife Fund, had a more chilling 2009 report which stated that global warming is already placing $3 trillion at risk of flooding and could place $28 trillion at risk in coastal cities by 2050. Incidentally, the 2009 temperature global average rise of 0.71 degrees Celsius mentioned in the article has since risen to 0.91 degrees Celsius this year, further accelerating sea level rise. 

Quote:

A possible rise in sea levels by 0.5 meters by 2050 could put at risk more than $28 trillion worth of assets in the world's largest coastal cities, according to a report compiled for the insurance industry. 

The value of infrastructure exposed in so-called "port mega-cities," urban conurbations with more than 10 million people, is just $3 trillion at present.

The rise in potential losses would be a result of expected greater urbanization and increased exposure of this greater population to catastrophic surge events occurring once every 100 years caused by rising sea levels and higher temperatures.

The report, released on Monday by WWF and financial services Allianz, concludes that the world's diverse regions and ecosystems are close to temperature thresholds -- or "tipping points." 

Any one of these surge events could unleash devastating environmental, social and economic changes amid a higher urban population. 

According to the report, carried out by the UK-based Tyndall Centre, the impacts of passing "Tipping Points" on the livelihoods of people and economic assets have been underestimated. 

Global temperatures have already risen by at least 0.7 degrees Celsius and the report says a further rise by 2-3 degrees in the second half of the century is likely unless deep cuts in emissions are put in place before 2015.

The consequent melting of the Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Shield could lead to one such tipping point scenario, possibly a sea level rise of up to 0.5 meters by 2050.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/23/climate.report.wwf.allianz/

 

 

jerrym

Somehow climate change deniers never get around to discussing the so-called evidence presented on the other side of the argument, but only engage in: denial; and when that fails, doubt; and when that fails, delay.

The Inside Climate News uses internal documents to show that ExxonMobil (and nearly all major oil companies) and its top executives, including current ExxonMobil CEO and President Rex Tillerson, who was just selected by Trump for his cabinet, knew from its own research from the 1970s onwards that carbon dioxide emissions were catastrophic for the planet despite the fossil fuel industry's climate change denials. The articles listed below can be found at the website at the bottom of the page, as well as individually within the quotes.

No doubt Tillerson would as Secretary of State, in collusion with Trump, continue to promote the fossil fuel industry no matter what the now staggering body of evdence says or how bad global warming gets.

 

 

Quote:

 

Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.

 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-int...

Exxon documents show that top corporate managers were aware of their scientists' early conclusions about carbon dioxide's impact on the climate. They reveal that scientists warned management that policy changes to address climate change might affect profitability. After a decade of frank internal discussions on global warming and conducting unbiased studies on it, Exxon changed direction in 1989 and spent more than 20 years discrediting the research its own scientists had once confirmed.

 

Exxon Confirmed Global Warming Consensus in 1982 with In-House Climate Models The company chairman would later mock climate models as unreliable while he campaigned to stop global action to reduce fossil fuel emissions.

 

Exxon's Business Ambition Collided with Climate Change Under a Distant Sea Throughout the 1980s, the company struggled to solve the carbon problem of one of the biggest gas fields in the world out of concern for climate impacts.

 

Highlighting the Allure of Synfuels, Exxon Played Down the Climate Risks In the 1980s, Exxon lobbied to replace scarce oil with synthetic fossil fuels, but it glossed over the high carbon footprint associated with synfuels.

Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty Collaborating with the Bush-Cheney White House, Exxon turned ordinary scientific uncertainties into weapons of mass confusion.

 

Exxon Made Deep Cuts in Climate Research Budget in the 1980s The cuts ushered in a five-year hiatus in peer-reviewed publication by its scientists and the era when the company first embraced disinformation.

 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122015/documents-exxons-early-co2-p...

Documents reveal Exxon's early CO2 position, its global warming forecast from the 1980s, and its involvement with the issue at the highest echelons.

 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-pee...

Members of an American Petroleum Institute task force on CO2 included scientists from nearly every major oil company, including Exxon, Texaco and Shell.

 

 

 

https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

 

 

 

jerrym

Martin N. wrote:
Michael Mann. Isn't he the chap who was discredited for tinkering with the forward extrapolation of climate data? The hockey stick graph?

Quote:

Hey, jerry! There is a reason you are talking to yourself after hijacking the LNG thread.

This is thread is open for debate whether you like it or not. 

In post #60 you attacked Michael Mann. Now you're attacking me. I presented evidence in defence of Mann's positions. in posts #61 to 63.  

Then you wrote 

Martin N. wrote:

Quote:

Climate change aside, ...

So I provided evidence, why climate change cannot be put aside in subsequent posts. You do not provide evidence to support your attacks.

This reminds me of an old legal adage: when the facts are in your favour, argue the facts; when the facts are against you, make an ad hominem attack. 

People’s values and the issues related to them are often in conflict. We are biologically designed because of evolution to focus on immediate problems rather than long-terms ones, no matter how serious the latter are. After all, if you do not escape the burning forest or are killed by the toxic fumes from a pipeline spill, you will not have to worry about climate change anymore. However, paraphrasing what Will Travers, executive director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, said in a CBC National broadcast a few years ago, people are going to first focus on paying their mortgage, balancing a budget, getting into a postsecondary institution or paying their tuition, rather than the long-term impacts of climate change, no matter how serious those impacts are. This is despite the fact that the people living in the San Francisco Bay area are facing more than $100 billion in costs for building levees and other measures to counteract a one metre expected rise in sea levels that would permanently flood the Bay’s business and other districts.

My last few posts provide evidence that the astronomical costs associated with global warming are not just going to occur in the future, but are already having major economic impacts, not just environmental ones, right now. 

Even the BC Liberals now admit global warming is having major impacts in this province today. For example, according to a 2012 BC Liberal government report, called  Cost of Adaptation - Sea Dikes and Alternative Strategies, similar measures to counteract sea level rise in Metro Vancouver could cost $9.5 billion in order to protect Vancouver, Richmond, Delta and Surrey.http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Metro+Vancouver+dike+improvements+could+cost+billion+2100+report+with+video/7682197/story.html?__lsa=b22e-32ff)

However, this is only the beginning of the costs associated with climate change in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and globally.

 

jerrym

In case you think sea level rise due to global warming is hypothetical and something our children or grandchildren can deal with anyway, sea level rise is already causing major economic and environmental problems. For example in the United States,

Quote:

NORFOLK, Va. — Huge vertical rulers are sprouting beside low spots in the streets here, so people can judge if the tidal floods that increasingly inundate their roads are too deep to drive through.

Five hundred miles down the Atlantic Coast, the only road to Tybee Island, Ga., is disappearing beneath the sea several times a year, cutting the town off from the mainland.

And another 500 miles on, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., increased tidal flooding is forcing the city to spend millions fixing battered roads and drains — and, at times, to send out giant vacuum trucks to suck saltwater off the streets.

For decades, as the global warming created by human emissions caused land ice to melt and ocean water to expand, scientists warned that the accelerating rise of the sea would eventually imperil the United States’ coastline. ...

 

Now, those warnings are no longer theoretical: The inundation of the coast has begun. The sea has crept up to the point that a high tide and a brisk wind are all it takes to send water pouring into streets and homes.

Federal scientists have documented a sharp jump in this nuisance flooding — often called “sunny-day flooding” — along both the East Coast and the Gulf Coast in recent years. The sea is now so near the brim in many places that they believe the problem is likely to worsen quickly. Shifts in the Pacific Ocean mean that the West Coast, partly spared over the past two decades, may be hit hard, too.

These tidal floods are often just a foot or two deep, but they can stop traffic, swamp basements, damage cars, kill lawns and forests, and poison wells with salt. Moreover, the high seas interfere with the drainage of storm water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-gl...

 

Miami Beach is already facing regular flooding.

Quote:

The city of Miami Beach floods on such a predictable basis that if, out of curiosity or sheer perversity, a person wants to she can plan a visit to coincide with an inundation.  ...

To cope with its recurrent flooding, Miami Beach has already spent something like a hundred million dollars. It is planning on spending several hundred million more.  Such efforts are, in Wanless’s view, so much money down the drain. Sooner or later—and probably sooner—the city will have too much water to deal with. Even before that happens, Wanless believes, insurers will stop selling policies on the luxury condos that line Biscayne Bay. Banks will stop writing mortgages. ...

As temperatures climb again, so, too, will sea levels. One reason for this is that water, as it heats up, expands. The process of thermal expansion follows well-known physical laws, and its impact is relatively easy to calculate. ...

Low-end forecasts, like the I.P.C.C.’s (United Nations) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), assume that the contribution from the ice sheets will remain relatively stable through the end of the century. High-end projections, like NOAA’s (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administation), assume that ice-melt will accelerate as the earth warms (as, under any remotely plausible scenario, the planet will continue to do at least through the end of this century, and probably beyond). Recent observations, meanwhile, tend to support the most worrisome scenarios.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami

 

 

Even the conservative US military recognizes the immense costs associated with global warming. 

Quote:

Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia and 17 other U.S. military installations sitting on waterfront property are looking at hundreds of floods a year and in some cases could be mostly submerged by 2100, according to a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Based on these calculations, the report says a three-foot sea level rise would threaten 128 U.S. military bases, valued at roughly $100 billion. 

https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/29/rising-oceans-threat...

 

 

 

jerrym

 It is not surprising that island nations are at the forefront of the battle against global warming. Island nations are well aware that global warming is already hitting them hard. They had already formed the 44 member Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) in 1990 which includes low-lying coastal nations, such as Bangladesh, as well as small island nations, such as Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Kiribati, Seychelles and the Maldives.

ETA: Bangladesh has a population of more than 140 million with 20 million the facing becoming flood refugees due to global warming if sea levels rise one metre. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/14/us-bangladesh-climate-islands-... )

Already half a million people on Bhola island in Bangladesh have been flooded out of there homes and more than one million  face bleak future as climate refugees as level of water wipes out villages. (http://www.aljazeera.com/video/asia/2014/03/rising-waters-swamp-banglade... )

Whether one looks at the current or future damage caused by global warming generated by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, the consequences are so severe that continuing down this path in BC or elsewhere by pipelines, oil refineries or LNG pllants makes no economic or environmental sense. 

Quote:

Global warming will force up to 150 million "climate refugees" to move to other countries in the next 40 years, a new report from the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) warns.

In 2008 alone, more than 20 million people were displaced by climate-related natural disasters, including 800,000 people by cyclone Nargis in Asia, and almost 80,000 by heavy floods and rains in Brazil, the NGO said.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/03/global-warming-clima...

 

 

jerrym

Sea level rise is also causing problems in Canada. One place in Canada that already has been affected in a major way is the First Nations community of Lennox Island, which lies just off the northern coast of Prince Edward Island.

Just another example of why the costs of fossil fuel exploitation far outway any benefits.

Quote:

Lennox Island is a small Mi'kmaq community of 450 people off the coast of P.E.I. It's also a kind of canary in the coal mine when it comes to climate change.

Rising sea levels, storm surges and coastal erosion threaten its very existence; an estimated 300 football fields of land have already fallen into the sea.

In Canada, Lennox Island is a place where you can see the effects of climate change happening right now — and it's a community preparing for a changing world. 

Scientists agree that the world's climate has warmed over the past 120 years and that the warming is a result of human activities. The effects of this change in climate include melting ice caps, rising sea levels, drought in some parts of the world and extreme storms in other areas.

Looking west from the shores of Lennox Island sits the shining waters of Malpeque Bay. Locals say they used to play baseball where boats now float. ...

A generation ago, [community planner Gilbert] Sark says, Lennox Island measured 1,300 acres. Now it is down to 1,100. "We lose Lennox, we lose a lot," he says. "Honestly, I worry about Lennox Island not being here … In my son's and my daughter's generation, maybe my grandkids' generation, there may be no Lennox Island. It will be eroding away if something is not done." ...

As the oceans warm up and the sea levels rise, the tides get stronger as well. Seasonal storm surges are also more powerful than before, he says.

And with warmer winters, the banks don't stay frozen as long — so that natural protection is reduced as well. ...

"When I came to the island about five years ago," says Fenech, "I thought I'd have to convince a lot of people about climate change.

"But people were coming up to me to share their stories about what they were seeing — increasing temperatures, drier conditions and especially coastal erosion. Everybody has a story in which they come back after a particularly bad winter, and they find metres of their shoreline just completely disappeared." ...

ETA: During a storm surge, [University of PEI climatologist Adam] Fenech says he has seen the water come up and lick the edge of the sewage lagoon on Lennox Island.

 If the sewage lagoon is breached, it won't just pollute the fishery of Malpeque Bay, it could also contaminate the community's drinking water and make the island uninhabitable.

"It's precarious," says Fenech. "And it's precarious right now."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/it-s-a-little-scary-on-lennox-island-n...

 

 

 

 

 

 

jerrym

The CBC National url below contains a 11 minute video on the loss of land on Lennox island and the First Nations community that lives there.

In the video, the University of Prince Edward Island climatologist Adam French discusses and shows a video game developed by one of his students of how rising sea levels have already reduced the 1300 acre island to 1100 acres and how successive increases in sea level would wipe out most of the island. French notes that seeing what happens visually as sea level rises by means of the video game has had far more impact on viewers than all of the scientific atricles on the subject that he has written over the years.

 

Quote:

A documentary on The National Wednesday night highlighted the effects that climate change and rising sea levels have had on the P.E.I. community of Lennox Island.

Climate scientists have said that 200 years ago, Lennox Island was 300 football fields bigger than it is today. In 50 years, they say, 50 per cent of Lennox Island could be underwater. ...

How do you prepare for climate change?

If it's coastal erosion, there's really only two major things you can do. You can retreat, move your property if it's under threat. Or armour. But there's a problem with armouring because here on P.E.I. we don't have any hard stone so we have to import it from off-Island. It's quite expensive. And in the long run, it doesn't really work. Eventually the sea is going to win. ...

What do you say to people who think climate change is a hoax?

I'd say come to Lennox Island and I'll show you some of the changes that have occurred. Lennox Island is very demonstrative of the changes that are occurring here on the East Coast. There are even bigger changes that are going on in Canada's far north. You just need to visit and you need to talk to the people. Some of them will tell you we've seen things like this over the last 100 years and it's no different but most will be telling you about unprecedented changes. Things like "We used to play baseball out where those boats are docked."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-climate-change-le...

 

 

NorthReport

Pipeline Deals Help Push Canadian Takeovers Abroad to Record

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-19/pipeline-deals-help-p...

Martin N.

Martin N. wrote:
Climate change aside, it makes sense on every level to invest in new, clean renewables to replace hydrocarbons. It also makes sense economically to leverage the best return from hydrocarbon resources while they are still required.

Grid-tied home solar systems are now affordable and net metering provides a method to sell excess power back into the grid. In this way, everyone can make a contribution to minimising climate change and reducing fossil fuel use.


Jerry, before snivelling about 'personal attacks' etc, do me the kindness of not cherry-picking out of context phrases. Your outrage is unseemly and, to be frank, a rather contrived victim hood.

jerrym

Martin N. wrote:

Jerry, before snivelling about 'personal attacks' etc, do me the kindness of not cherry-picking out of context phrases. Your outrage is unseemly and, to be frank, a rather contrived victim hood.

Once again you engage in personal attacks rather than offering evidence in support of your position.

However, even the BC Liberals own provincial government website warns of the dangers to British Columbia from sea level rise from the melting of glaciers and ice caps.

Quote:

Sea Level Rise and Storm Surges on the B.C. Coast

Sea level is projected to rise approximately 1 metre over the next century. On British Columbia’s coast, sea level change is influenced by both global and local effects.

Sea Level Rise in B.C.

Global sea level is affected by melting of glaciers and ice caps, and warming (thermal expansion) of the upper ocean. Locally, sea level rise is also affected by vertical movements of the land (tectonic movements, rebound and subsidence).

Estimates of mean sea level rise by 2100 for the B.C. coast range from 80 cm at Nanaimo to 120 cm in the Fraser Delta (PDF 1.3MB). Potential impacts of sea level rise in British Columbia include:

  • More frequent and extreme high water levels in coastal areas
  • Increased erosion and flooding
  • Increased risk to coastal infrastructure, as well as increased maintenance and repair costs
  • Loss of property due to erosion
  • Loss of habitat and reduced biodiversity
  • Saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers
  • Loss of cultural and historical sites

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/policy-legi...

 

jerrym

In 2012, the BC Liberal and Conservative federal governments (hardly strong supporters of global warming) released the "Cost of Adaptation - Sea Dikes and Alternative Strategies" report on the estimated $9.47 billion cost of sea level rise to Metro Vancouver by 2100.

Table E1 - Estimated Cost of Adaptation to Sea Level Rise by 2100  on page ii provides a detailed breakdown of these costs. 

Quote:

Sea level rise will affect a significant part of Metro Vancouver, and the Province of British Columbia is planning for this eventuality. Protection will require an increase in the height of existing flood defences and the construction of new flood defences. In addition to dike construction, the adoption of alternative non- structural options for dealing with flood risk will be a necessary part of the overall strategy.  ...

The study area covers the Metro Vancouver coastal shoreline and the Fraser River shoreline as far east as the Port Mann Bridge, totaling over 250 km. This includes shorelines of West Vancouver, the District of North Vancouver, the City of North Vancouver, Port Moody, Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, Richmond, Burnaby, Vancouver International Airport, Delta, Surrey and White Rock. Within the areas listed above there are both diked shorelines and low-lying areas that may require protection as the sea level rises. ...

This cost estimate is based on sea level rise estimates provided in the Climate Change Adaption Guidelines for Sea Dikes and Coastal Flood Hazard Land Use - Draft Policy Discussion Paper (Ausenco Sandwell, 2011) and represent currently accepted estimates of sea level rise by 2100. 

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/pdfs_word/cost_of_adapt...

 

 

 

 

Martin N.

jerrym wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Jerry, before snivelling about 'personal attacks' etc, do me the kindness of not cherry-picking out of context phrases. Your outrage is unseemly and, to be frank, a rather contrived victim hood.

Once again you engage in personal attacks rather than offering evidence in support of your position.

However, even the BC Liberals own provincial government website warns of the dangers to British Columbia from sea level rise from the melting of glaciers and ice caps.

Quote:

Sea Level Rise and Storm Surges on the B.C. Coast

Sea level is projected to rise approximately 1 metre over the next century. On British Columbia’s coast, sea level change is influenced by both global and local effects.

Sea Level Rise in B.C.

Global sea level is affected by melting of glaciers and ice caps, and warming (thermal expansion) of the upper ocean. Locally, sea level rise is also affected by vertical movements of the land (tectonic movements, rebound and subsidence).

Estimates of mean sea level rise by 2100 for the B.C. coast range from 80 cm at Nanaimo to 120 cm in the Fraser Delta (PDF 1.3MB). Potential impacts of sea level rise in British Columbia include:

  • More frequent and extreme high water levels in coastal areas
  • Increased erosion and flooding
  • Increased risk to coastal infrastructure, as well as increased maintenance and repair costs
  • Loss of property due to erosion
  • Loss of habitat and reduced biodiversity
  • Saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers
  • Loss of cultural and historical sites

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/policy-legi...

 


And, once again, you cherry pick my post to ignore relevant info to snivel about perceived 'attacks'. I think you post reams and reams of one sided climate change technobabble hoping against hope that someone will stumble in that you can freak out on. Carry on. Over and out.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

I think you post reams and reams of one sided climate change technobabble hoping against hope that someone will stumble in that you can freak out on. Carry on. Over and out.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

jerrym

Martyn Brown, chief of staff to Premier Gordon Campbell and no tree-hugging, environment-loving leftie, has dissected Christy's LNG deal and concluded it is an economic and environmental disaster. 

Quote:

 Christy Clark’s Boon to Big Oil is an unbelievable gift to Big Oil that will lock in ridiculously low LNG tax rates and lucrative LNG tax credits for 25 years. It is a terrible precedent that will transfer so many risks and costs from the world’s wealthiest state oil companies to B.C. taxpayers.

Bill 30 will effectively cede provincial control over many of the levers of environmental management to the companies that stand to profit from “liberating” British Columbia’s potential in LNG.

It is a point that many have illuminated, including the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Pembina InstituteDesmog Canada, and, of course, the NDP and the Green Party.

In essence, by excluding certain types of carbon dioxide emissions, the Clark government has made it easier for LNG operators to qualify for taxpayer-funded subsidies equal to 50-100 percent of the cost of complying with its legislated targets for LNG emissions. The Pembina Institute estimates that taxpayers will be obliged to shell out some $411 million for the Pacific Northwest LNG project alone over the 25-year agreement with Petronas and its partners.

Big Oil’s new demands

And yet the industry wants more, as we learned on the weekend from B.C. LNG Alliance president David Keane. Now his Big Oil company paymasters also want to be exempt from paying sales taxes on their proposed plants, arguing that they should qualify as “manufacturing facilities.” ...

The methane gas produced in the LNG process, pound for pound, will remain 25 times greater in its effects on global warming than carbon dioxide, over a 100-year period. ...

Far from adding value in the traditional sense, that industry will mostly exist to profit from added environmental and social costs that, if anything, should be fully costed and taxed accordingly, not the opposite.

Not content with paying no LNG tax until all capital costs are recovered and only a pittance thereafter, the industry now demands to be free of paying sales tax. In the name of global competitiveness and “adding value.” ...

As if his B.C. Liberal colleagues had not already sold their souls to Big Oil for an intended partisan advantage. As if they had not already sold out our province, our environment, and our potential to maximize the economic and fiscal value of British Columbia’s precious reserves of natural gas for working families and taxpayers alike.

Big Oil wants more, damn it, without any guarantees imposed on who it hires. Without any conditions imposed on where it builds its component parts for B.C.’s LNG plants. Without any contractual assurances of benefits for Canadian workers or local suppliers.

LNG’s impact on water ...

Most of that water approved for use by the natural gas sector is used for hydraulic “fracking,” which accounts for about 86 percent of all new wells drilled. ...

It is a process that the Wilderness Committee is petitioning to stop in B.C., citing bans and partial bans of the use of hydraulic fracturing in France, Bulgaria, South Africa, Northern Ireland, Ireland, New York state, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Quebec, and Newfoundland, and other jurisdictions.

The seismic effects of fracking in Fox Creek, Alberta, was ostensibly linked to two earthquakes registering over a 4 magnitude since January. Those events caused the Alberta Energy Regulator to impose a stop work order on fracking activities in the region, as it also imposed new reporting and public safety rules on all operators in relation to seismic activities. ...

The medical community is no more keen on fracking. Certainly not the U.S. Physicians for Social Responsibility"An analysis of 353 fracking chemicals found that more than 75% could have respiratory, gastrointestinal, dermatological, and ocular effects; 40% to 50% could be neuro-, immuno- and nephrotoxic; 37% could be endo­crine disruptors, and 25% could be carcinogenic.” ...

On average, some 3,000 truck trips to deliver water for fracking and to remove the resulting waste fluids. If you factor in the oil burned for those trips and its associated emissions, those Horn River gas wells do impose a significant toll on the environment. ...

It would require some 2,100 wells to be drilled each year at the peak drilling rate envisioned by the Clark government’s plans for LNG. In total, some 37,800 new wells could be cumulatively required by 2040 to support the premier’s starry-eyed vision. ...

Other environmental and social impacts of LNG

The potential impacts on hydrology are equally concerning in this age of global warming. They place further stresses on forestry, agriculture, and other renewable activities for human needs. Ditto for the impacts of mass drilling on our land base, on biodiversity, and especially on aboriginal rights and title. Will the industry be obliged to pay for any infringements on the latter that are deemed to be compensable after the government grants its development approvals? It will be taxpayers that will bear that cost burden for any ongoing penalties imposed in relation to infringements of aboriginal rights, treaty rights, and proven title in the new post-Tsilhqot’in decision world. ...

The Gitga'at First Nation  and Lax Kw'alaams Band have also announced plans to launch a judicial review of the LNG project. It claims it was excluded from the provincial environmental assessment. Who will pay for any court-imposed costs that might result at some point in respect of the legal challenges that may eventually materialize from those two First Nations? It will be you, me, and all B.C. taxpayers who are obliged to foot the bill.

What of that fledgling industry’s likely impact on greenhouse gas emissions? The Pembina Institute has also done the math on that. It calculates that even a lower end LNG development scenario would produce an additional 73 million tonnes of carbon pollution per year by 2020. ...

The 59 million tonnes of carbon we currently emit province-wide will not shrink to the 43 million tonne target that is legally required. Instead, our annual provincial carbon emissions will rise to 137 million tonnes, if all goes “swimmingly well”, as per the Clark government’s ultimate pipe dreams for LNG.

http://www.straight.com/news/492411/martyn-brown-christy-clark-governmen...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..these awesome art pieces were created to draw attention to the erosion of coastlines. click on the link to view the short video.

Strandbeest. The Dream Machines of Theo Jansen.

NorthReport

A surefire way to lose the debate, lose the election, waste your and everyone else's time, is to say you are against jobs rather than what you are going to do to create jobs, as the number one issue in every election are the economy, jobs, in other words pocketbook issues. Why does the left constantly refuse to accept that? It appears that the left would rather continue to get trounced day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year, one election after another, at the polls. Too bad but it is no wonder the right-wing rules forever.

Canadians want these good paying oil and gas jobs until something better comes along, eh!

Trudeau Sees Carbon Price as Investment Edge in Age of Trump

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-21/trudeau-sees-carbon-r...

NorthReport

Shades of the 2013 BC election. Where's your hard hat Premier?   Laughing

Petronas Eyes New Island for $27 Billion Canada LNG Plan

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-28/petronas-said-to-eye-...

jerrym

NorthReport wrote:

A surefire way to lose the debate, lose the election, waste your and everyone else's time, is to say you are against jobs rather than what you are going to do to create jobs.

The BC Liberals may well win the election because their enormous election campaign war chest will given them an enormous advantage and Christy has already shown herself to be a very strong campaigner who offers simplistic but superficially attractive solutions while Horgan has yet to show he can match her. However, when it comes to creating vs. losing jobs, Christy's LNG will contribute to a net loss of jobs from global warming. 

The impact on the forest industry alone of the pine beetle infestation brought on by global warming is already resulting in the loss of more than 10,000 jobs and to cost many billions more than the Petronas LNG project. 

Quote:

The MPB (mountain pine beetle) epidemic projected to lead to a net loss of 11,250 direct forestry jobs, and up to 9,500 indirect jobs]

http://www.sibacs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/SIBAC-Presentation-to-M...

 

Another study examined the ecconomic impacts of the moutain pine beetle (MPB) infestation

Quote:

This study estimates the future provincial economic impacts of the MPB infestation in a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, by examining the effects of the reduction in timber supply from BC forests over the 2009–2054 period. Results suggest that there will be a cumulative present value loss of $57.37 billion (or 1.34 per cent) in GDP and a $90 billion decline in welfare (compensating variation) from 2009 to 2054 in BC. These estimates emphasize the significance of negative economic impacts that may be in store for the economy.

http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/11/18/forestry.cpv042

 

In fact, closures were already occurring because of MPB by 2010.  Here are a couple of examples. 

Quote:

More than 800 B.C. forestry workers are slated to lose their jobs by the end of January, and some say the mountain pine beetle is to blame.

In the northern Cariboo community of Quesnel, about 180 Canfor employees will be laid off Jan. 15 when the company curtails production at its sawmill. Another 120 truckers and loggers who serve the mill will be out of work as a result.

In Kitimat, on the North Coast, about 500 mill workers will lose their jobs Jan. 31 when the Eurocan paper mill shuts its doors.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pine-beetle-blamed-for-b-...

 

Quote:

Many people were caught by surprise when West Fraser and Canfor announced mill shutdowns in October. But Bob Simpson says they shouldn't be: he warned government this was coming.

The former New Democratic Party-turned-independent MLA showed the B.C. legislature leaked cabinet documents in 2012 that said because of the increase in annual allowable cuts to capture pine beetle-destroyed wood, cut levels would have to be brought back down soon since most of that wood was gone. 

With less wood to process, massive mill shutdowns were expected to begin in the province within 18 months. Eighteen months later Canfor and West Fraser announced they were closing their mills in Quesnel and Houston, respectively, and swapping forest licenses to keep remaining mills profitable. 

The Quesnel mill closed last month and Houston's last day is May 9. 

https://thetyee.ca/News/2014/04/17/More-Mill-Closures/

jerrym

Of course the costs of climate change to the BC economy go well beyond the forest industry. 

 

Quote:

Drier summers and wetter winters. Higher sea levels and lower rivers. Less skiing and more complex and expensive infrastructure planning. 

In British Columbia, we’ve already witnessed the dramatic effects of climate change. Throughout the 2000s, the mountain pine beetle infestation ravaged the province’s Interior pine forests, leaving distinctive swaths of red-needled, dead trees. Warmer temperatures encouraged the spread of the beetle. 

This year’s warm, rainy winter hit ski hills throughout the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island hard; several closed early or didn’t open at all. While next year may be different, the general trend is toward warmer, wetter winters.

“The rate we’re emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere continues to increase,” Pedersen said. “If we’re serious about not allowing climate change to get out of hand, we have to see that rate decreasing.” ...

Forestry and tourism are just two of the sectors Pedersen expects to be hit hard by the changing climate. Aquaculture and fisheries, agriculture and energy production are also expected to undergo big changes over the next few decades.  ...

But a general pattern of wetter winters and drier summers means that other agricultural areas, like the Okanagan, will have to get a lot smarter about water use.  Lower Mainland farmland will be at risk of flooding or soil salinization, something that Harford said has already happened to some farmland in Delta. “Once the soil gets salty, there’s nothing you can do,” she said.

River flow in areas such as the Peace and the Kootenays will also change. Wetter winters will mean higher peak flows in the spring, but lower river flow in the summer. That means there will be less water to push through hydroelectric dams on the Peace and Columbia rivers, which together provide 77% of BC Hydro’s capacity. 

Glaciers that feed the Columbia River are already in retreat and could shrink to the point that they no longer empty meltwater into the river throughout the spring and summer.  “When you talk about a Site C dam, that dam is going to be designed to last 100 years,” Pedersen said, referring to the new $8.8 billion hydro dam planned for the Peace River.  “How do you build into the design today flow regimes 100 years from now that will protect your electricity production?”

As sea levels rise, the Metro Vancouver and Fraser Valley regions will have to invest a lot of resources into flood control and mitigation. The B.C. government is planning for a one-metre sea level rise over the next 100 years and recently called for more federal spending to upgrade Fraser River dikes. ...

In some pockets of the West Coast, water is so acidic that it has prevented shellfish larvae from forming shells. This has already started to affect shellfish farmers in B.C. and Washington state, but it could also change other parts of the ocean ecosystem.  “One of the principal food sources for salmon – which is a huge economic mainstay for British Columbia – is a little zooplankton that makes their shells out of calcium carbonate,” Pedersen said. “When they start to get negatively impacted by acidification, that has significant implications for the salmon.”

https://www.biv.com/article/2015/2/climate-change-looms-major-threat-key...

 

 

 

jerrym

The melting glaciers of BC threaten to reduce our largest source of energy, hydroelectricity, greatly reduce the salmon industry, increase flooding as rain increases in the winter and increase drought in drier summers. Vancouver, already facing water rationing in the summer, is likely to face more severe restrictions on both businesses and homes as snowpack, a major source of water in the summer, disappears. 

You seem quite willing to accelerate all of these impacts for a few thousand temporary construction jobs and an much smaller number of permanent jobs, because those jobs happen to be in the industry in which you work. 

Quote:

The mountains of British Columbia cradle glaciers that have scored the landscape over millennia, shaping the rugged West Coast since long before it was the West Coast.

But they're in rapid retreat, and an American state-of-the-union report on climate change has singled out the rapid melt in British Columbia and Alaska as a major climate change issue. ...

Menounos predicts that the smaller glaciers in B.C. — in the Rocky Mountains and the Interior — will be mostly gone by the end of this century.

The effects will be far-reaching, research suggests.

Glacial water is a thermal regulator in mountain headwater streams, Menounos said. Their loss will affect water temperatures, fish and the annual snow pack. That will affect the water supply and agriculture.

There could be greater potential for flooding in wet seasons and drought in dry, a particular problem in B.C., which relies on hydroelectricity to meet its energy needs.

The glacial decline in western Canada and Alaska significantly contributes to sea level rise, said the U.S. report.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/unprecedented-b-c-glacier...

 

 

 

jerrym

The BC fishing industry, especially the lucrative salmon industry, is under threat from global warming resulting in not only higher temperatures but also lower water levels as snowfall and glacier melt increase. 

Quote:

Weather-related and climate-change-exacerbated events this year on both the South Coast and Vancouver Island have created a "perfect storm" for our waterways. We had a near-record low snowpack, followed by a warmer than usual May and June. What little snow there was disappeared quickly, followed by prolonged warm and dry conditions. In addition to the impacts on fish, this has also resulted in ideal conditions for the many forest fires raging around the province. 

Fewer young fish are predicted to survive these conditions. We could also see less robust spawning rates for returning salmon, more fish dying before they spawn and a greater susceptibility of fish to parasites, disease and predators if these conditions persist. ...

Sockeye salmon, pushed by climate constraints, are already at the southern extent of their range. Fraser River sockeye are under threat, with a recent study predicting up to 21 per cent less catch by 2050 due to climate change alone.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/healthy-oceans-blog/2015/07/salmon-the-...

 

 

jerrym

On the other hand the rate of growth in renewable energy investement has been startling, leaving BC in the position of investing in the declining fossil fuel industry. 

Quote:

the rise in (renewable energy) investment to a new record came from China, which lifted its outlays by 17% to $102.9 billion, some 36% of the global total. Investment also increased in the US, up 19% at $44.1 billion; in Middle East and Africa, up 58% at $12.5 billion, helped by project development in South Africa and Morocco; and in India, up 22% at $10.2 billion. ...

Renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar used to be seen by some critics as a luxury, affordable only in the richer parts of the world. This has been an inaccurate view for a long time, but 2015 was the first year in which investment in 

renewables excluding large hydro was higher in developing economies than in developed countries. Figure 4 shows that the developing world invested $156 billion last year, some 19% up on 2014 and a remarkable 17 times the equivalent figure for 2004, of $9 billion. 

http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/publications/globaltrendsi...

 

 

Pages