Paul MacRae is a former editorial writer for the Times Colonist and a retired University of Victoria instructor in English. B.C. Conservative Party Leader John Rustad has been criticized because, as part of his party’s “common sense” approach, he doesn’t accept that rising carbon-dioxide levels are the primary reason for a warming planet. If Rustad is right, then “curbing carbon emissions” will have no noticeable effect on the climate but will damage or destroy Canada’s and B.C.’s economies, both highly dependent on fossil fuels. Is Rustad’s critical approach to climate change “common sense”? Common sense says we only spend huge sums of money if we’re sure we’ll get the desired result. When it comes to fighting “climate change,” this is not the case. Our anti-carbon policies demand huge expense for almost no gain. The global cost of reaching Net Zero by 2050 — the point at which greenhouse gases emitted are balanced by the amount removed — has been estimated at anywhere from US$10 trillion a year (the McKinsey Report) to US$15 trillion a year (energy expert Vaclav Smil[.) For Canada itself, the Royal Bank of Canada estimates Net Zero will cost $60 billion (Cdn) a year, which works out to about $1,500 a year for every Canadian, or $6,000 a year for a family of four. The federal government has already racked up a $40 billion deficit for 2024 — where is the extra $60 billion a year for 25 years to come from? And if we make ourselves poorer by $6,000 per household per year (and probably more), how much “global warming” will we prevent? If all nations that signed the 2015 Paris Agreement fully met their obligations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) own computer models estimate the temperature rise averted by 2100 would be a mere 0.04° Celsius. By another estimate, which includes (theoretical) feedbacks, warming could be reduced 0.28°C by 2050. A temperature change this small is not perceptible by the human body. How much warming would Canadians’ financial sacrifices prevent? Canada’s emits about 1.5 per cent of total global emissions, so our contribution to a cooler planet would be an infinitesimal 0.0042°C by 2050 (using the 0.28°C estimate,) and likely much less. Is this a “common sense” investment for Canadians’ $60 billion a year (or more) for the next 25 years ($1.5 trillion by 2050)? But that’s not all. Many developing nations, like China and India, still emit carbon in large quantities (China, for example, is building two new coal-fired power plants each week), and they will continue to emit carbon for decades until their populations are lifted out of poverty. So even if global warming was primarily caused by CO2 emissions, Canada’s emissions’ “savings” will be erased within weeks by the increased emissions of still-developing nations. Fortunately, the climate reality isn’t as grim as the IPCC would have us believe. CO2 is a “greenhouse gas,” but its warming effect falls exponentially as more carbon is added to the atmosphere. Over about 300 parts per million (we are currently at 422 ppm), the carbon atmospheric spectrum becomes “saturated” and causes very little extra warming. This is basic physics. If the physics is right, then rising carbon emissions won’t leave the planet a charred ruin and other, mostly natural, factors are the source of today’s “global warming,” as Rustad suggests. This means the IPCC’s efforts to terrify us into dismantling our fossil-fuelled civilization are not only misguided, but if successful would cause massive economic disruption, particularly in the poorer parts of the world. Simple “common sense” tells us that Canada’s (and B.C.’s) billions of dollars would be better spent adapting to a warming world than trying to “stop climate change,” which is impossible and will lead to enormous, self-created, and completely unnecessary social and economic damage. Paul MacRae is a former editorial writer for the Times Colonist and a retired University of Victoria instructor in English. He has written two books critical of the climate “consensus”: False Alarm: Global Warming Facts vs. Fears (2010) and Through the Looking Glass: A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Science (2023).
Paul MacRae is a former editorial writer for the Times Colonist and a retired University of Victoria instructor in English. B.C. Conservative Party Leader John Rustad has been criticized because, as part of his party’s “common sense” approach, he doesn’t accept that rising carbon-dioxide levels are the primary reason for a warming planet. If Rustad is right, then “curbing carbon emissions” will have no noticeable effect on the climate but will damage or destroy Canada’s and B.C.’s economies, both highly dependent on fossil fuels. Is Rustad’s critical approach to climate change “common sense”? Common sense says we only spend huge sums of money if we’re sure we’ll get the desired result. When it comes to fighting “climate change,” this is not the case. Our anti-carbon policies demand huge expense for almost no gain. The global cost of reaching Net Zero by 2050 — the point at which greenhouse gases emitted are balanced by the amount removed — has been estimated at anywhere from US$10 trillion a year (the McKinsey Report) to US$15 trillion a year (energy expert Vaclav Smil[.) For Canada itself, the Royal Bank of Canada estimates Net Zero will cost $60 billion (Cdn) a year, which works out to about $1,500 a year for every Canadian, or $6,000 a year for a family of four. The federal government has already racked up a $40 billion deficit for 2024 — where is the extra $60 billion a year for 25 years to come from? And if we make ourselves poorer by $6,000 per household per year (and probably more), how much “global warming” will we prevent? If all nations that signed the 2015 Paris Agreement fully met their obligations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) own computer models estimate the temperature rise averted by 2100 would be a mere 0.04° Celsius. By another estimate, which includes (theoretical) feedbacks, warming could be reduced 0.28°C by 2050. A temperature change this small is not perceptible by the human body. How much warming would Canadians’ financial sacrifices prevent? Canada’s emits about 1.5 per cent of total global emissions, so our contribution to a cooler planet would be an infinitesimal 0.0042°C by 2050 (using the 0.28°C estimate,) and likely much less. Is this a “common sense” investment for Canadians’ $60 billion a year (or more) for the next 25 years ($1.5 trillion by 2050)? But that’s not all. Many developing nations, like China and India, still emit carbon in large quantities (China, for example, is building two new coal-fired power plants each week), and they will continue to emit carbon for decades until their populations are lifted out of poverty. So even if global warming was primarily caused by CO2 emissions, Canada’s emissions’ “savings” will be erased within weeks by the increased emissions of still-developing nations. Fortunately, the climate reality isn’t as grim as the IPCC would have us believe. CO2 is a “greenhouse gas,” but its warming effect falls exponentially as more carbon is added to the atmosphere. Over about 300 parts per million (we are currently at 422 ppm), the carbon atmospheric spectrum becomes “saturated” and causes very little extra warming. This is basic physics. If the physics is right, then rising carbon emissions won’t leave the planet a charred ruin and other, mostly natural, factors are the source of today’s “global warming,” as Rustad suggests. This means the IPCC’s efforts to terrify us into dismantling our fossil-fuelled civilization are not only misguided, but if successful would cause massive economic disruption, particularly in the poorer parts of the world. Simple “common sense” tells us that Canada’s (and B.C.’s) billions of dollars would be better spent adapting to a warming world than trying to “stop climate change,” which is impossible and will lead to enormous, self-created, and completely unnecessary social and economic damage. Paul MacRae is a former editorial writer for the Times Colonist and a retired University of Victoria instructor in English. He has written two books critical of the climate “consensus”: False Alarm: Global Warming Facts vs. Fears (2010) and Through the Looking Glass: A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Science (2023).
