Gwyn Morgan: At their meeting last month G7 leaders agreed to a greenhouse gas emissions target of “net zero” by 2050. That would require phasing out all fossil fuels. But how? The common reply is “putting a price on carbon,”, i.e., carbon taxes. But unless there’s a viable alternative, taxing something people can’t do without only makes them poorer. Policy makers seem to believe that “green power,” meaning wind and solar, is the answer. But despite hundreds of billions of dollars having been spent on them, wind and solar currently account for only 3.3 per cent of world energy supply.
That fact may come as a surprise, since the heavily subsidized wind and solar industry claims a much higher “capacity” number, defined as the electricity that would be generated when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing everywhere. But it’s hard to imagine those conditions existing at any time, let alone during cold, calm Canadian winter nights when power is needed most. Ontario consumers learned this first-hand after large-scale investment in costly windmills and solar panels sent their electricity rates from being among the lowest in North America to among the continent’s highest and driving the province’s manufacturers south to the welcoming arms of Georgia and the Carolinas.
Should we give up hope of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Although it’s clear that “net zero” is simply not on, a substantial reduction is possible. And the biggest opportunity for emissions reduction lies in a fossil fuel that is in practically unlimited supply: natural gas.
No comments:
Post a Comment