For those who believe in the climate change scam: Canada’s forests act as a carbon sink and absorb 2.4 more carbon than the country produces. Canada is, therefore, in the negative as far as “net zero” accounting goes.
Despite this, Net Zero fanatics are pursuing “net zero” policies which will destroy Canada’s economy while making a few people very rich.
The Net Zero Illusion: Canada’s Self-Destructive Climate Policy
Murray Lytle
By 2050, Canada will be net zero and carbon neutral. This is very good news because, otherwise, we will all turn crispy and die. That, at least, is the argument of our political class. We must “decarbonise” our fuel sources at a cost of perhaps trillions of dollars to avoid this grisly outcome.
Our efforts, in fact, will make a negligible dent in the world’s carbon exchange, but as our standard of living continuously deteriorates, we can take solace in the fact that “we have done our bit.” Not only have our elbows come up in unison to destroy a once-profitable trade relationship with the world’s largest consumer market that sits virtually at our doorstep, but we can smugly peer out of our unlit, unheated homes and feel superior to the Americans. That is worth something.
But I have a couple of questions.
What does the term “decarbonised hydrocarbons” mean? From my research, it seems we are going to buy credits from carbon exchanges operated by companies in the corporate sector like, you know, Brookfield Asset Management or something. These credits will allow us to produce more hydrocarbons to collect more carbon dioxide and stick more of it in the ground. But who is going to produce oil and gas in Canada when we self-impose such expensive environmental overheads? It seems like there might be only one winner in this scenario. And what is going to happen to all that pressurised carbon dioxide that has been pumped into the ground? Oh, right … trust the science.
[Related: Eco-Fascist Mark Carney is Trying to Control the World Through Green Finance and Carney will impose the Globalists’ climate change scam on Canadians]
The other question is, what if it turns out that Canada’s massive forests are already sequestering the relatively puny amounts of carbon dioxide that we produce? A concept that seems to be all but forgotten in the debate is that carbon dioxide is plant food. Forests are full of trees, which are plants, and they like to eat carbon dioxide.
Sadly, however, Natural Resources Canada tells us that forest fires, insect blights, overcutting and, of course, climate change have made Canada a net source of carbon dioxide emissions rather than a net sink of carbon absorption. This is not good. But their website is full of tentative language: would, might, will lead to and predicted. In fact, if I recall correctly, when I accessed the website in 2016, Canadian forests were considered a carbon sink. Funny how things change over time.
The news, however, is not all bad. A compelling 2023 study came to my attention through a recent Friends of Science email. It analysed carbon dioxide concentrations using data from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite (OCO-2) and ground-based measurements collected at sites worldwide. By modelling natural carbon capture (forests and other biomass) and carbon dioxide emissions to calculate net carbon exchange, the study authors concluded that Canada’s forests were removing all the carbon dioxide produced in the country plus 140% more. This is good news, right?
Canada’s forests are removing 2.4 times as much carbon dioxide as is produced within the country, which means that Canada is already net zero and then some. Although my excitement is moderated by the knowledge that this conclusion is based on a model, the study authors have accounted for the variability of their assumptions. However, isn’t the global warming argument itself based on modelling that assumes that carbon dioxide is not plant food but rather the thermometer of the Earth? And wasn’t the popular CMIP6* family of models recently determined to be too hot to match reality?
No comments:
Post a Comment