There are three things that no developing society can be without.
No society flourishes while there is a shortfall in any of them.
When costly action happens to support a political agenda, we all lose. Current government actions seem to be limiting the availability of inexpensive energy. Other actions aim to suppress nitrogen fertilizer and thus limit food supplies.
How is that consistent with society prospering or, in the case of the less developed parts of the world, escaping poverty? The answer, of course, is that it is inconsistent with prosperity. We should ask why do it.
The answer is that climate change is an existential threat and requires immediate remediation. We should examine that more fully.
If we get good enough answers, we should do what we can. Presently we don’t get good enough answers from the people in charge of designing policy and spending the money. Propaganda is everywhere.
The people in charge have no sound arguments and so rely on hype and, in a perfect world for them, hysteria.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
Is Canada a significant producer of CO2 on a net basis?
Canada is a northern country and uses much energy per capita, but there are fewer people in Canada than in Tokyo. Canada produces about 1.5% of all CO2, but production is a one-sided metric. Given the trees and cropland, the plants may absorb as much or more than we produce. There are more than 350 billion trees in Canada. What is Canada’s net production? Isn’t that what we should care about?
Does the Canadian proposal anticipate significant technological changes over the next 75 years?
If it does, the government is hiding it well. You have to be naive to believe there will not be better technology available in the future. To believe that generating electricity with natural gas, transmitting it to a vehicle and then claiming there is a gain because the vehicle emits no CO2 is merely silly. Again think net CO2.
Does the Canadian plan make a material difference?
One claim I have seen is that if Canada does everything they propose successfully, it will reduce the world average temperature in 2100 by a thousandth of one degree Celsius. I doubt anyone can guess the average world temperature that clearly. So no value.
What does matter?
Stop thinking about the average over the globe and direct your resources where the biggest producers are. Not Canada. Canada doesn’t make the top 10 producers list. On that list, China is number one and produces 20 times more than Indonesia at number 10.
Where to next
Wasting money to make politicians feel good about how much they care is insane. Feelings are not truth.
I build strategic, fact-based estate and income plans. The plans identify alternate and effective ways to achieve spending and estate distribution goals.
Be in touch at 705-927-4770 or by email at email@example.com.