Juno News - Climate catastrophism has to stop (ft. Joe Oliver)

00:00:00.000 you're tuned in to the andrew lawton show

00:00:05.920 let's turn to energy policy here and just one point before i get to the real topic of the

00:00:14.980 discussion here that i wanted to get to is that the federal government is trying to use the carrot

00:00:20.420 and stick thing except it's a lot more stick than carrot to force provinces to get their electricity

00:00:26.500 grids to be so-called net zero we've heard from the environment minister that the feds are

00:00:32.360 considering tying a lot more tax credits to provinces overhauling their electricity system

00:00:38.860 now a lot of provinces are already doing this but it's a slow process and it's a very costly process

00:00:45.160 and a lot of the activists for example don't like that ontario's phase out of coal had to involve gas

00:00:51.940 well yeah wind and solar are not at all doing what you think it's doing uh they're not at all

00:00:56.900 affordable the activists seem to hate nuclear despite the fact that it's one of the most

00:01:01.020 clean and cost efficient forms of energy generation uh but not enough for the federal government who

00:01:07.180 thinks they need to try to extort more money out or more action out of the provinces and this is how

00:01:14.600 they're going to do it uh but then we go to the bigger picture here which is the climate change

00:01:19.340 catastrophism as termed in a new book by andy west with the philosophy foundation in london

00:01:26.580 which i learned of in a great column by joe oliver in the financial post this is canada's last

00:01:32.460 fiscally responsible finance minister and he joins me now now you contended with a lot of the activists

00:01:38.820 when you were in government and in cabinet and the one thing that i would say is that enough was never

00:01:43.900 enough and we've seen the rhetoric really ramp up in recent years to the point where it's not just

00:01:49.440 yeah we've got to do something about climate it's the world is burning we're all going to die

00:01:53.500 there's no question this is a catastrophe uh that that is imminent and we mustn't uh question it and

00:02:02.680 that's uh that that's been building out for some time you recall it was it was global warming and

00:02:08.260 then when it didn't warm it became uh climate change but there was always this this intensity uh

00:02:14.740 almost a a quasi uh religious fervor or certainly an ideological uh fervor that that was that was uh

00:02:24.260 behind uh the the rhetoric and there were all sorts of incantations of of of doom and priests and

00:02:31.380 priestesses that uh that were carrying uh the the the sacred message and if you weren't uh on side and

00:02:39.620 totally on side and then of course uh you weren't just the skeptic you were a denier well that term is

00:02:47.060 actually quite an important one because there are a lot of people uh and i've interviewed many of them

00:02:51.380 who are are believers in the fundamental idea that humans are causing global warming that we need to

00:02:58.260 change something they're even supporters of carbon taxes but people that don't go the full distance

00:03:04.660 and the full demonization and the full anti-industrialization approach and they're

00:03:10.100 vilified they're called deniers or lukewarmers uh sometimes and i think that's interesting as well

00:03:15.860 that we've basically taken this uh scientific process or what's supposed to be a scientific process

00:03:21.460 and have turned it into this us versus them a very polar political discussion yeah and you can

00:03:27.940 only you know the reason i wrote the article is because for some time i've been puzzled as to the

00:03:34.500 the fervor we were talking about the the the prevalence of of these beliefs and and the the

00:03:41.140 willingness to to uh undergo really severe economic uh hardship even though what we were doing um wouldn't

00:03:50.020 necessarily have any effect on the global temperature and we know that uh in in canada so i i was always

00:03:56.260 searching for what was the psychology behind it and then when i when i read the book that you just

00:04:01.940 referred to which which is a social psychological analysis of it uh it really uh came together uh

00:04:09.540 because it it refers to to culture and culture is is either religious or it's ideological uh and either

00:04:18.100 way it it doesn't uh it doesn't permit any dissent dissidence is not is not allowed i mean we talk a

00:04:25.940 lot about diversity but diversity of opinion certainly on that issue and a lot of others um is is simply

00:04:33.380 intolerable and i i think that that part of the uh the fervor and the and the fundamental insecurity i i

00:04:41.300 guess is that uh it's based on allegedly a profound belief that the science is settled and we've all

00:04:48.500 we've all heard that repeated uh endlessly so there's no reason for anybody to listen to someone who might

00:04:56.980 want to present uh scientists who have a different view and let me tell you there are thousands of them

00:05:02.660 that do even though they're in the minority so you know what what explains that and and i think it goes to

00:05:09.460 uh to uh to the ideological or religious uh commitment um and and uh it it just um doesn't tolerate uh any

00:05:19.940 dissent and and that's that's really uh unfortunate because what we're being asked to do will in in

00:05:27.620 canada according to our rbc economics cost the country two trillion dollars to get to net zero by 2050

00:05:36.820 and the globe according to mckinsey uh will have to fork over 275 trillion dollars well this is this

00:05:46.020 is a staggering amount and frankly i don't think there's any way that the uh that the western uh

00:05:53.140 democracies uh will uh will tolerate that and we're starting to see the resistance um in in europe

00:06:00.660 where they've just gone through a an energy crisis and the cost of uh of energy has ballooned and

00:06:08.420 they're confronted in a lot of cases very tragically with a choice between eating or heating well that's

00:06:15.940 not tolerable and neither is depriving the world's poorest countries of energy which is the only way out

00:06:24.180 of uh abject poverty i i fear you may be slightly optimistic in one sense and my reason for thinking

00:06:33.540 that is just looking at the last three years and how much economic harm people were willing to withstand

00:06:39.460 uh to deal with what was presented as an emergency and that was covet and whatever we think of how

00:06:44.340 governments responded to that uh what's what we learned there is that when something is an emergency or a

00:06:50.660 crisis all of the old rule books tend to get thrown away and i feel that the branding of climate change

00:06:57.620 as an emergency will license a lot of the same economic harm people are totally willing to uh

00:07:03.540 bankrupt certain sectors and certain businesses to fix this problem well i don't confuse me totally with

00:07:11.140 an optimist um on this matter but i think you you got it right when you said they're they're prepared to

00:07:18.260 to see others suffer but the question is uh how much um pain will will the population overall be willing

00:07:26.260 to and and polls indicate that that it's not very much and what what we've got in europe is a bit of

00:07:33.540 a test case because there the emergency is real it's it's intense and it's it's hurting people right across

00:07:42.180 the board uh the poor people always are the ones who are affected most adversity but the middle class

00:07:48.740 is suffering as well and you see it in the polls you see um the prime minister of the uk backing off

00:07:57.220 some of his his policies he's allowing a lot more drilling going on he's he's backing off some of the

00:08:03.940 restrictions on uh on on what kind of the heating uh is permitted and and and whether uh and and you

00:08:11.780 know in europe they've defined um natural gas as a non-emitting as a clean source of energy well

00:08:20.580 you know you you can you can argue with that or not but the reason they did that is is is the

00:08:26.420 practicality that if you don't have gas to back up wind and solar right you're going to have blackouts

00:08:32.820 and brownouts uh or you're going to use uh coal and uh you're going to burn wood pellets

00:08:38.420 uh so when it comes to that kind of a crisis and we're not there yet but when it does then i think

00:08:45.700 people start changing their minds and you can see that also in in some of the u.s states like california

00:08:52.900 uh the so-called blue states that is the democratic states which have moved more uh to to renewables

00:09:00.180 and are paying the price in terms of uh very high energy costs and periodic brownouts

00:09:05.540 well and i think to add to that the one thing in canada that's been so infuriating and this goes

00:09:11.700 back to the electricity stuff i was talking about at the outset of the segment here is that they're

00:09:16.740 wanting a solution that doesn't exist and you know yes wind power and solar power exist but the output

00:09:23.700 the cost the efficiency the reliability are simply not there and it's not that they might not be in the

00:09:29.780 future or some other magical energy source won't exist in the future but they're not there now and and

00:09:34.660 you know provinces like ontario like alberta have spent a lot of money to transition away from coal

00:09:40.260 because that was deemed to be an environmental benefit there they have to rely on gas in ontario

00:09:45.540 you have the benefit of nuclear but even that is derided by a lot of these same activists yeah that's

00:09:51.700 right and i've written about that because i have some background i was the former chair of the uh of of

00:09:57.460 the uh independent electricity uh system operator which basically runs the grid in ontario and uh the

00:10:04.740 the the the truth about renewables is that in this small amount uh they can have a role

00:10:11.940 but as we know the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine and so as you increase

00:10:17.620 the amount the proportion of of energy that's coming from from renewables then the cost starts escalating

00:10:25.700 dramatically and the reliability declines as well you absolutely have to have natural gas as a backup

00:10:33.940 because right now there isn't a tech technological uh alternative you know we're hoping that one day

00:10:43.860 battery power can provide the storage but right now it's it's four hours and that's certainly not uh not

00:10:51.140 long enough but uh since since most of the time uh neither of the two renewables wind and solar are

00:10:58.340 are operating you have to have something uh to back it up i mean nuclear is is is absolutely fundamental

00:11:05.300 but it can't gear up in minutes it takes days to to shut down and and then hydroelectricity uh hydroelectric

00:11:12.740 power is also critical but it it it isn't as flexible as as natural gas is so we can't get off that

00:11:20.740 and i think the the government of ontario realizes that they're not being explicit but they talk about

00:11:27.140 a pragmatic approach and that's i think what uh what what they're talking about but but frankly

00:11:33.780 it's um it's it's complete delusion uh for people to think that they can get off natural gas and rely

00:11:41.540 entirely on on renewables it's been tried and it's been a a a catastrophe frankly and to bring it back to

00:11:49.700 that catastrophism and and that aspect of this the one thing that i'll point out as well is that there

00:11:54.980 are a lot of slogans and platitudes in this space now i mean obviously this exists in politics in

00:11:59.860 general but when we hear net zero by 2050 we've picked an arbitrary goal net zero we've picked an

00:12:05.780 arbitrary year 2050 and we've said everyone has to bend over backwards to make this happen and and it's

00:12:11.860 not particularly feasible as we're seeing which is why even if canada were to bend over backwards and

00:12:18.740 cripple its economy and do all sorts of harmful things we're talking about a net reduction of 1.00

00:12:23.620 emissions in the world that is minimal absolutely minimal compared to china india the united states

00:12:31.220 and that part is i think probably one of the most obvious points but it's not really one acknowledged

00:12:37.140 by governments well they don't want to talk about it but canada is 1.5 percent of global emissions so

00:12:44.180 we could go back to the stone age and it wouldn't uh it wouldn't affect anything within a few weeks

00:12:50.820 china's increase in in coal production would make up for that and we would be running around with 0.99

00:12:57.140 with rocks and clubs you know a feeling right and self and our led powered candles because you can't even

00:13:03.540 burn the flame that's not allowed you know so you know really this is this is not uh this is not uh the

00:13:10.340 way to go and it's not uh it's it's totally it's totally impractical and uh you know europe uh europe

00:13:17.380 under understands that uh so i'm afraid it may take a uh a a a real sort of emergency to get people off

00:13:27.860 the idea that uh that this is uh this this is something that they have to pursue at the expense of

00:13:34.900 of the least advantaged people in the least advantaged uh countries uh but you know maybe at some point

00:13:41.700 practicality and guilt uh will will start um moving things uh over and of course uh another way that it

00:13:49.780 could happen is with is with political change right right now it may be uh that it's too early to be sure

00:13:56.660 but the liberal party seems to be in its death throes so that could uh that could uh obviously uh make a

00:14:04.180 difference but we're we're seeing this issue play out in in other countries and uh frankly those who

00:14:11.300 are carrying the green banner are not doing well politically in the last year or two no and and i

00:14:17.780 think to put a fine point on this your contrast of the canadian experience in the european experience

00:14:23.540 is an important one and i would also say that even people that are very committed to the abstract idea

00:14:29.300 of a climate emergency when the energy crisis hits them that's no longer an abstract emergency that's

00:14:34.660 something they have to contend with and it's all well and good to say when everything is theoretical

00:14:38.980 oh yes we need to you know go and save the seaside property in the maldives or whatever but when you

00:14:44.820 are faced with that decision and don't have the energy you need to run your business or you can't afford to

00:14:50.180 heat your home it's not the abstract crisis that grabs you well the other thing that's that's really

00:14:56.020 important to understand is that the science is not settled no there's a book written by uh stephen

00:15:03.300 coonan who was an under secretary of of uh of uh of energy and and as a as a scientist in the obama

00:15:11.220 administration and the title of his book is unsettled so that uh would indicate where where he where he's

00:15:17.940 coming from but very recently and this was quite significant the the chairman of the uh intergovernmental

00:15:25.620 panel on climate change which is the uh the body the un body that uh that so many of these uh catastrophes

00:15:33.940 look to uh for for support the chairman said uh let's not exaggerate this there isn't the emergency

00:15:41.460 uh that um that frankly so many people are talking about and you're paralyzing people with fear

00:15:48.580 by by claiming uh that almost nothing can be done uh we got 12 years two days and five hours uh before

00:15:56.100 it's you know the doom is is sealed uh well first of all they've been making these these projections

00:16:03.620 forever uh the um the models run hot they've all been wrong so why would we believe models which are

00:16:12.100 consistently wrong the next time uh you know just maybe uh they don't have it right this time either

00:16:19.060 someone who has a perfect perfectly wrong record is not someone that normally inspires confidence but

00:16:26.820 you know the latest the projections are getting even more strident i think because of of the the the fact

00:16:35.460 that they can't really back it up and the reason that they're running hot is because they have certain

00:16:41.780 relationships built into them mathematically uh that aren't uh proving out so you know i i don't think

00:16:49.380 we should lose sleep uh about a an imminent uh climate emergency uh i'm losing sleep about what

00:16:56.580 the climate alarmists are doing to to the economy and very well said and and what they're doing to the

00:17:04.020 uh to the western world in its real existential battle and that is a an emergency in its real

00:17:11.620 existential battle with with china uh which is uh laughing all the way to the bank very well said 1.00

00:17:18.820 joe oliver canada's last fiscally responsible finance minister hopefully not forever joe thanks

00:17:24.500 very much for coming on always good to talk to you great to talk to you thanks for listening to the

00:17:28.500 andrew lawton show support the program by donating to true north at www.tnc.news

Juno News - August 13, 2023

Climate catastrophism has to stop (ft. Joe Oliver)

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript