As readers of this blog will know, Andrew Weaver is the Deputy Leader of the BC Green Party – and also a candidate in the forthcoming Provincial election. He’s also very much a green-heart-on-sleeve activist, and supposedly an “objective” Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s forthcoming 5th Assessment Report.
In my previous post I had observed that he was, in effect, a “midwife” at the birth of BC’s over-hyped and under-performing carbon offsets scheme.
And now it seems that he and his party have the (not surprising) support of (at least) one of the tentacles of the Tides Foundation [h/t Tom Nelson]:
Clean Energy Canada at Tides Canada today released a B.C. Climate Leadership Position Summary indicating where the major political parties planning to run candidates in the British Columbia May 14 provincial election stand on the carbon tax. Of the major parties in BC, the Green Party was noted as the only one fully committed both improving and expanding the carbon tax program.
“We are delighted that Clean Energy Canada has recognized our strong leadership position on climate change and our commitment to working to make the carbon levy an effective solution for carbon emissions reduction,” said Dr. Andrew Weaver, Deputy Green Party Leader and candidate for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.
“It is exciting that we’re starting to see a recommitment to climate leadership,“ said Merran Smith, director of Clean Energy Canada at Tides Canada.
Considering the many questions about this organization’s foreign funding and activities, if I were a candidate for election, I doubt that I’d be touting an endorsement from such a tainted source.
But then, I’m from a different generation: I learned how to use critical thinking skills and exercise sound judgment. Qualities that have not been in evidence from the utterances of alarmist-activist Andrew <don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater> Weaver. Or Andrew <barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles> Weaver if you prefer.
But on a somewhat related – and far more realistic – note, here’s an interview with Ross McKitrick speaking about his recent report on Ontario’s Green Energy Act – and the follies contained therein.
Ross McKitrick on his recent report on renewables
You can read his report here
And you can also read an amusingly predictable “response” from the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) here. One of CANWEA’S complaints:
The report relies excessively on the widely criticized 2011 Annual Report by the Auditor General of Ontario [emphasis added -hro]
I guess CANWEA wasn’t too happy with the Ontario AG’s findings which included (p. 97 of this pdf)
- no independent, objective, expert investigation had been done to examine the potential effects of renewable-energy policies on prices, job creation, and greenhouse gas emissions; and
- no thorough and professional cost/benefit analysis had been conducted to identify potentially cleaner, more economically productive, and cost-effective alternatives to renewable energy, such as energy imports and increased conservation.
Sounds like yet another environmental advocacy cart way ahead of any evidential horses with not a qualified “driver” in sight.
So what is it with these green dreamers and their assumption that they know better than Auditors General, eh?!
One can hardly wait for the wrath of the green dreamers to descend on The Economist. How dare they publish an article (as they did on April 6) in which they concluded:
A fuel and your money
Over the past few years, scientists have concluded that the original idea—carbon in managed forests offsets carbon in power stations—was an oversimplification. In reality, carbon neutrality depends on the type of forest used, how fast the trees grow, whether you use woodchips or whole trees and so on. As another bit of the EU, the European Environment Agency, said in 2011, the assumption “that biomass combustion would be inherently carbon neutral…is not correct…as it ignores the fact that using land to produce plants for energy typically means that this land is not producing plants for other purposes, including carbon otherwise sequestered.”
Tim Searchinger of Princeton University calculates that if whole trees are used to produce energy, as they sometimes are, they increase carbon emissions compared with coal (the dirtiest fuel) by 79% over 20 years and 49% over 40 years; there is no carbon reduction until 100 years have passed, when the replacement trees have grown up. But as Tom Brookes of the European Climate Foundation points out, “we’re trying to cut carbon now; not in 100 years’ time.”
In short, the EU has created a subsidy which costs a packet, probably does not reduce carbon emissions, does not encourage new energy technologies—and is set to grow like a leylandii hedge.
Green dreamers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose! Well, nothing but the respect and blind obeisance of those who choose to investigate and think for themselves.