Stopping the Oil Sands Will NOT Help the Environment

This 2014 file photo shows a construction site at the Suncor Fort Hills oil sands mining operations near Fort McMurray, Alberta.

TODD KOROL / REUTERS

The world needs to take serious action to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions and keep global temperature increases below 2C above pre-industrial levels. We agree on that.

But here’s the thing.

Keeping oil sands in the ground and stopping new pipelines will actually increase global GHG emissions. It sounds counter-intuitive, but bear with us.

The story starts with global energy forecasts. Even if there is very aggressive adoption of electric vehicles and renewable energy technologies – which we wholeheartedly support – the world will use more oil each year through at least 2040. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), if the world goes beyond the aggressive commitments made in Paris and achieves the 2C global goal, then oil demand would fall by 2040. Yet, oil demand will remain high for years after that.

And, since there is no shortage of oil reserves in the world, oil won’t disappear on its own any time soon. The world will use more oil even if pipelines are stopped and oil sands remain in the ground.

But, you say, oil sands need to stay in the ground because they are dirtier than other crudes. That used to be true.

In 2014 – on a well-to-wheel basis – the average oil sands barrel emitted between 6 per cent to 9 per cent more GHGs than the average barrel consumed (refined) in the United States. This number has come down over the past two years in existing facilities primarily because oil-sands projects are using less energy to produce the same amount of oil.

In fact, newer projects are proving that oil sands can compete on a low-carbon basis. The Paraffinic Froth Treatment (PFT), for example, brings oil sands GHG emissions close to the average crude; it has a low boiling point (so it requires less heat and steam) and it eliminates the need to build upgraders.

According to a 2014 IHS Markit report, the GHG intensity of oil sands crudes are the same as that of 45 per cent of crude oils supplied to U.S. refineries in 2012. Two-thirds of the crudes in this range came from Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and some U.S. domestic production. Each new oil-sands facility produces less GHG-intensive product and, ironically, it is this newer oil that would use the pipelines being protested.

If U.S. refineries – which consume heavy oil – were to take more production from the oil sands, it would most likely displace a similar crude oil with a GHG intensity in the same range. It would not replace the average U.S. barrel. If, for example, an oil-sands barrel replaced a Venezuelan Petrozuata barrel, there would be a net GHG benefit as the Venezuelan barrel has a GHG intensity that is higher than the average oil-sands barrel – and significantly higher than oil from newer oil-sands projects.

Alberta’s climate policies – which are very stringent compared with other oil producing regions – create additional incentive to drive down oil-sands emissions. Alberta now has a 100MT cap on oil-sands emissions and a $30/tonne carbon price that pushes all oil-sands facilities to perform at a level already achieved by high-performing facilities. There should be little doubt that these twin policies will decrease the carbon intensity of oil-sands facilities.

While in the past it might have made sense to protest pipelines and oil-sands projects for climate reasons, it doesn’t make sense any more.

Demand for oil and gas will remain strong for years to come; we are nowhere near peak oil supply; not all barrels of oil are created equal; new oil-sands production is cleaner than both existing oil-sands production and competing crudes; Canada is one of the only oil producing jurisdictions in the world to truly focus on reducing the GHG intensity of its barrels.

Efforts to keep the oil sands in the ground by stopping pipelines will actually increase global GHG emissions. At a minimum, oil sands will be replaced by heavy crudes with near the same carbon intensity and, since Canada has an emissions cap and incentives that other heavy oil suppliers do not, over time Canada is going to be lower carbon than the alternatives.

It is time to end the charade. Pipelines and oil-sands opposition are not a good proxy for climate action.

If we actually want to keep global temperatures below 2C above pre-industrial levels, we need to get beyond entrenched positions and focus on tackling climate change together.

As long as there is demand for oil, oil will be produced. And Canada’s oil sands oil is increasingly a better choice for climate. By far the biggest change we can all make to reduce GHG emissions is to focus on consumption and demand.

Martha Hall Findlay is the CEO of the Canada West Foundation; Trevor McLeod is the director of the Natural Resources Centre at the Canada West Foundation.

Advertisements

Green Energy Policies Driving Up Carbon Emissions

Ontario green policies actually driving up carbon dioxide

JACK MACLAREN, SPECIAL TO THE TORONTO SUN

FIRST POSTED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 01, 2016 05:14 PM EST | UPDATED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 01, 2016 05:33 PM EST

Wind turbines
Wind turbines near Strathroy, Ont., west of London. (Mike Hensen/Postmedia 

The Ontario Liberals’ Green Energy Act is meant to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by generating power from wind turbines and solar panels.

We already know this has turned into a wasteful boondoggle — just look at your hydro bill. But there’s another problem with the Green Energy Act, which I was shocked to learn about.

A 2015 report from the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) makes the alarming case that Ontario green energy policy is actually driving up carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Wind and solar energy seem like good, clean sources of energy. But wind power is intermittent, and about 40% of the generated power arrives when load demand is low. Solar energy is also intermittent and capacity is very low. All this means that wind and solar power are expensive and unreliable.

Basically, windmills and solar panels only produce power when the wind blows and the sun shines. They need backup in the form of other power sources to provide constant electricity when you need it. Ontario has gone with natural gas backup because that is the cheapest source of energy currently available. Other options were available, including nuclear and hydro plants, but natural gas was chosen.

This is unfortunate because nuclear and hydro do not emit CO2, but natural gas does. So as we dial down nuclear and hydro, we are doubling up on CO2 emissions from natural gas.

According to OSPE, Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 per kWh. But wind and solar with natural gas backup release about 200 grams of CO2 per kWh.

Now, the trouble of building all the windmills and solar panels wouldn’t be so bad if it were actually worthwhile. But it isn’t. We do not have a cheap and effective way of storing the energy generated by wind and solar power. Simply put, storage is too expensive at the moment.

Adding solar and wind power to the Ontario grid just doesn’t make environmental or economic sense. Continuing to add wind and solar can only be justified on ideological grounds.

Admittedly, the Wynne government announced a halt to further wind and solar contracts. I’m not sure how long they’ll put their ideology on hold, but this is a short-term solution anyway.

We need to use more of our cheaper hydroelectric and nuclear power. And we need to stop exporting power abroad at low prices.

We all want to do the right thing for our environment and we all want clean air to breathe and water to drink. I sincerely believe it is important we strive for a cleaner and safer future.

But no one likes being misled or lied to. The Ontario Liberal government’s Green Energy Act is an environmental and economic disaster. As both a farmer and a civil engineer, I know about protecting the environment as well as long-term sustainability. Farming teaches you to understand the risks and benefits of co-operating with Mother Nature. Similarly, engineers are required to build things: We build things to last, and we do so in the public interest.

So I think most Ontarians would agree with me when I say that we need to have affordable, clean, reliable, and sustainable sources of energy which do not increase CO2.

Unfortunately the Green Energy Act just hasn’t got it right.

— MacLaren is the MPP for Carleton-Mississippi Mills 

Terence Corcoran Talks About the Wind Fiasco Perpetrated by Ontario’s Liberals!

Ontario’s electricity, “carnage”, “a train wreck”, electricity costs double to reduce carbon at $250/ton

 Boondoggle: How Ontario’s pursuit of renewables broke their electricity system

Financial Post, Terence Corcoran

The Green industry has done over Ontario consumers. Government control of the electricity market was “cheered on by a growing industrial complex of wind and solar promoters backed by a large contingent of financial firms, big name consultants, fee-collecting law firms and major corporations. All were anxious to play a lucrative role fulfilling renewables objectives”.

Ontario was going to be the North American leader in renewable energy. It would save lives, create jobs, cost nothing, but instead the electricity bills have doubled, no lives were saved and the only jobs created were temporary (and almost certainly cost more jobs in other areas due to high electricity costs). The only “success” for the extra wind and solar power that’s locked into the grid is that it has “saved” some meaningless CO2 emissions at the exorbitant, flagrant cost of $250 per ton. Green energy was supposed to save $4.4billion in healthcare and other costs, but virtually none of that materialized.

Canada, electricity, supply, demand, costs.Costs have gone from 5.5c a KWh in 2006 to 11c KWh in 2016. (How is it still so incredibly cheap ask Aussies? We are the largest coal exporters in the world and have some of the largest uranium reserves but Australians pay from 25c to 36c per KWh* and the currencies are 1:1).

According to Terence Corcoran things are so on the nose that the premier can’t even mention hydro without getting booed. The costs of going green have been estimated at $170 billion over 30 years, and while smog has decreased somewhat, no one is sure whether that was due to the coal stations closing in Ontario, or is linked to US changes. In any case, the coal plants could have been fitted with smog-cleaning gear for a tiny fraction of the cost.

The Ontario government has finally started canceling new wind projects, but there are long term contracts for current wind farms that go on for years. Jan Carr was head of the Ontario Power Authority and says the government is “finally waking up to Ontario’s electricity carnage.”

Ontario’s Society of Professional Engineers has issued many reports describing how dismal the green policies are, but the Premier’s office appear to have been fooled completely by the Green machine. A former head of the OSPE, Paul Acchione, says“because they know how to turn a light bulb on and off, they’ll issue policy statements on the most complex engineering system on the planet”. He said the Premier’s office was pretty much running the grid and “hiring political scientists and environmentalists because they thought they were the experts”. (Does Australia have an OSPE equivalent, wonders Jo?)

But demand for electricity has cratered as the prearranged contracts for green energy have surged, and Canadians are paying for expensive electricity that comes at the wrong time of day and isn’t needed.

In a normal market when supply outstrips demand, prices are supposed to fall. But put a government in charge and the most expensive provider can get a guarantee to get paid, even if their product isn’t needed.

A bunch of parasites fooled the Premier and they are getting rich by selling expensive electrons that are supposed to change the weather 50 years from now.

h/t to Clipe, Pat and David B.

________________

*Australia retail prices. For cost estimates read AMEC’s 2015 report.  Each State is listed in the summary pages viii to xii, “In 2014/15, a representative consumer [in WA] using 5,229 kWh per year paid the government-set price and had an annual bill of $1,319 exclusive of GST. “  “In 2014/15, a representative consumer [in SA] on the representative standing offer using 5,000 kWh per year had a total annual bill of $1,811 exclusive of GST.”

Wind Turbines Do NOT Reduce CO2….

Trillion Dollar Irony: Europe’s Wind Rush Sends CO2 Emissions Soaring

chicken-little-poster

If “saving” the planet is – as we are repeatedly told – all about reducing man-made emissions of an odourless, colourless, naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on earth – then European energy/environmental policy has manifestly failed. And what an expensive failure it is.

In the following piece, the delicious term ‘irony’ springs to mind: a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular result has the opposite or a very different result.

The wind cult’s defence for crushing entire industries and whole economies, driving thousands insane with incessant turbine generatedlow-frequency noise and infrasound, and for the slaughter of millions ofbirds and bats has run out of puff: CO2 emissions are rising fastest in those places, like Europe, that have literally thrown $billions to the wind.

Europe’s CO2 Emissions INCREASE While America’s Fall
Andrew Follett
Daily Caller
21 May 2016

The EU’s 2015 CO2 emissions increased by 0.7 percent relative to 2014, while U.S. emissions fell to its lowest level in two decades. The EU has spent an estimated $1.2 trillion financially supporting wind, solar and bio-energy and an incalculable amount on a cap-and-trade scheme to specifically lower CO2 emissions.

The DCNF analyzed the increased CO2 emissions data from the the European Commission through Eurostat and CO2 emissions from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the last full year of state-level data. The use of older U.S. data predates much of the fracking boom, meaning an updated result would likely be even more significant.

The DCNF’s findings are displayed on the maps below.

1CO2-Decline-Europe-620x479

The biggest CO2 percent increases in Europe occurred in Slovakia and Portugal, where emissions rose by 9.5 and 8.6 percent respectively. Other big CO2 increases came from the EU’s capital country of Belgium, where emissions rose by 4.7 percent. Emissions from Germany, the EU’s largest economy, remained mostly flat.

The largest CO2 percent decrease in the EU came from the tiny country of Malta, where emissions fell by about 27 percent.

2CO2-Decline-USA-1-620x479

The DCNF’s analysis found that a majority of U.S. states, especially on the East Coast, saw CO2 emissions fall by more than 10 percent.

America’s overall CO2 emissions have fallen by 12 percent since their peak in 2000, according to the EIA. The U.S. has reduced greenhouse gas emissions more than any other country, a fact even The Sierra Club acknowledges.

EU emissions are increasing even though it implemented a cap-and-trade system called the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. The program directly cost the European countries $287 billion to implement in 2011 and likely caused trillions of dollars in lost economic output.

Even worse, the scheme is widely acknowledge to have not worked, as CO2 emissions actually increased, according to a study by the Swiss banking firm UBS.

A similar scheme planned for America would have destroyed 2.5 million jobs and lost $9.4 trillion of economic output by 2035 if implemented,according to analysis by The Heritage Foundation.

Rising European CO2 emissions are likely due to failed EU policies, which actually increased emissions.

A study last month by environmental group Transport & Environment (T&E) determined the EU’s plans to fight global warming with biofuel actually ended up increasing CO2 emissions.

The U.S. spends far less than the EU supporting green energy, discounting the cap-and-trade schemes, but American CO2 emissions are falling thanks to the development of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which the EU has repeatedly slowed with regulations.

The EU has spent $1.2 trillion subsidizing green energy. EU regulations, financial support for green energy and taxes cause the average European to spend 26.9 cents per kilowatt-hour on electricity, according to calculations performed earlier this month by The DCNF. The average American only spends 10.4 cents.

The DCNF’s analysis concurs with a report published in early May by the EIA, which found the primary reason for the decline in CO2 emissions is increased natural gas production from fracking.

Fracked natural gas supplies much of the power in East Coast states, which saw CO2 emissions most rapidly fall. Previous analysis by TheDCNFfound a statistically significant correlation between the dependence of a state’s economy on natural gas and large reductions in CO2 emissions.

Natural gas emits about half the CO2 of coal power and is already cheaper than coal in many locations due to fracking. The EIA estimates roughly 68 percent of the falling CO2 emissions are due to the switch from coal to natural gas.

Fracking has cut more American CO2 emissions than solar or wind power, according to a study published last November by the Manhattan Institute. The study shows solar power is responsible for a mere one percent of the decline in American CO2 emissions, while natural gas is responsible for nearly 20 percent. For every ton of CO2 cut by solar power, fracking has cut 13 tons.
Daily Caller

coal-seam-gas

Faux-green crowd making a Killing from Carbon/Climate Scams!

Canada may already be carbon neutral, so why are we keeping it a secret?

Not all CO2 emitted by people stays in the atmosphere. Much of it returns to the earth, mainly through the carbon absorption and sequestration power of plants, soil, and trees.

Clement Sabourin/AFP/Getty Images
Not all CO2 emitted by people stays in the atmosphere. Much of it returns to the earth, mainly through the carbon absorption and sequestration power of plants, soil, and trees.

Here’s a seemingly simple question: Is Canada a net carbon dioxide emitter? You would think so from reading news headlines. We’ve earned the scorn of environmentalists, NGOs, and media outlets galore, labelled with such juvenile epithets as “fossil of the year” or “corrupt petro-state.”

Sadly, lost in all the hyperbole is the actual science. There is nothing quantitative about the vague idea that, as a “progressive nation,” Canada should be expected to “do more” to fight climate change.

But therein lies the rub; Canada is poised to immediately do more to combat climate change than almost every other country in the world. How, you ask? Well, by doing more of the same. If that sounds ludicrous, let me explain.

Most Canadians would agree that our response to climate change needs to be scientifically sound, environmentally sustainable and financially realistic, as well as global, comprehensive, and holistic. Right now, our approach is none of those things; the public discourse is driven by a myopic, ideological obsession with carbon emissions alone. What else is there, you ask?

The answer comes from the most recent report (2014) of the Global Carbon Project, which states that global human-induced CO2 emissions were 36 billion tonnes. Of that, 36 per cent stayed in the atmosphere, 27 per cent was absorbed by water, and 37 per cent was absorbed by land.

That’s right — absorbed by land! Not all CO2 emitted by people stays in the atmosphere. Much of it returns to the earth, mainly through the carbon absorption and sequestration power of plants, soil, and trees.

Novelty Energy is Not Reducing CO2. No Bang for our Billions of Bucks!

Why Squander $Billions on Wind Power? If CO2 is the Threat, Nukes is the Answer

 

How to squander ₤4 billion of other peoples’ money.

****

If policy is driven by petulant, infantile ideology, instead of cool-headed economics, the result is, without exception, an unmitigated disaster. Here’s a nice little wrap-up based on the latter policy approach, that unpicks the falsehoods of the former.

(Guaranteed) power to the people
Scientific Alliance
12 February 2016

This week saw the opening of a massive energy project centred on Shetland. A consortium led by the French energy company Total has invested £3.5bn in extracting gas from deep undersea over 100 km west of the islands, receiving it onshore at a new complex adjacent to the existing Sullom Voe oil terminal, and then feeding it into the UK mainland gas grid. According to the report “the Shetland Gas Plant is said by its operator Total to be capable of supplying energy to two million homes”(Total turns on gas from west of Shetland Laggan and Tormore fields).

By coincidence, an article last week reported that Hornsea takes the world lead in offshore wind. Hornsea is a project which has two things in common with the Shetland gas terminal: it is offshore (120 kilometres off Yorkshire) and big (with a peak capacity of 1.2 gigawatts, nearly twice the size as the London Array, currently the world’s largest such installation). The big difference, though, is that gas supplies are guaranteed, barring a system failure, while the output of any wind farm varies uncontrollably.

The ‘peak capacity’ quoted for Hornsea would give a theoretical energy output of nearly 10.5 terrawatt-hours. If we take 80% as the actual capacity factor, comparable to an efficient conventional station, this would generate sufficient electricity to power about half a million homes (using the 2011 ONS figure of 16 MWh for total annual household consumption of energy as electricity and gas), if it was available on demand. But in reality, the capacity factor would be half that, so the figure for homes supplied would come down to 250,000.

For more background information, it’s interesting to look at the London Array, as the Engineer journal did in 2013 (Your questions answered: the London Array). This wind farm occupies 100 square kilometres in the Thames estuary. The current 630MW peak output arrangement was intended to be added to in a second phase, but this has now been dropped because of concerns about the impact on overwintering Red Throated Divers.

In response to a question about expected output, the engineering team answered “We expect a load factor of c.40%, giving output of c.2,200,000MWh – enough to meet the electricity needs of around 500,000 households.” On that basis, we can expect the claim for the planned Hornsea project to be for a million homes to be supplied with electricity. However, if we take overall household energy consumption, the output of this giant wind farm will supply only a quarter of that number over a year.

The important point is that this quarter of a million is simply the expected output of the wind array divided by the average household energy consumption. It should not be confused with a real figure; it is by no means a guarantee that this number of houses could be supplied with energy at any one time.

To continue the comparison, Hornsea is said to cover an area more than five times the size of Hull, which would make it at least 350 km2. The developers will not reveal the cost, but the London Array cost £1.9bn, so let’s assume around £4bn. The Shetland gas terminal, on the other hand, is reported to be part of an overall £3.5bn investment by Total and its partners and the biggest construction project in the UK since the London Olympics. However, it has a footprint of only about half a square kilometre (this and other facts from Building the Shetland Gas Plant on the Petrofac website).

Gas will, of course, be sold at market prices, although in practice often on long-term contract. Some will go directly to homes and commercial premises for heating, and some to power stations, which will provide electricity also at market prices. On the other hand, we read that World’s biggest offshore wind farm to add £4.2 billion to energy bills.

Under a contract agreed in 2014 with Ed Davey, Energy Secretary in the then coalition government, electricity from Hornsea will cost £140/MWh – four times the current market price – for a guaranteed 15 year period. It is estimated that this will cost domestic and commercial consumers £4.2bn in total, or an average of £280 million each year.

The National Audit Office was critical of the deal, and with good cause. In 2015, a competition for available subsidies for existing wind farms resulted in prices as low as £115/MWh being agreed. By way of comparison, the troubled Hinkley C nuclear project would attract a price of £92.50/MWh, which has been widely condemned as being unnecessarily expensive. Against the price for offshore wind, it begins to look like a real bargain.

So, what we have in the case of Laggan/Tormore and Hornsea can be summed up as follows. One is a plant with capital costs of £3.5bn, which should not increase energy bills (and may help to keep them down) and will not cost taxpayers anything over its lifetime, capable of supplying the entire energy needs of two million homes reliably (that’s 8% of national energy demand).

The other has much the same capital costs and will add an estimated £4.2bn to energy costs over 15 years (and more if it lasts longer). On a straight comparative basis, it is theoretically capable of supplying the energy needs of a quarter of a million houses, or about 1% of total UK energy use. Not factored into this are the additional costs of accommodating the fluctuating output into the grid and the need to have conventional backup to maintain a stable supply.

The simple question to ask is why a government would support a project with at best one-eighth of the output of Laggan/Tormore and costing the country at least twice as much over its (almost certainly shorter) lifetime? The answer would of course be to meet emissions reduction targets. But there is a much more reliable way of doing that, which is to build nuclear stations.

The fact that we are still so far from doing this is down to problems with finance and lengthy design approval as well as the arbitrary inclusion of targets for renewable energy to emissions reduction goals. To have a secure, affordable, low carbon energy system, we need more nuclear and gas use rather than more massive wind farms. Unfortunately, in the case of offshore wind, it seems to be a question of out of sight, out of mind, at least until the bills start ratcheting up.
Scientific Alliance

Australia’s Federal Government is, under its Large-Scale RET, set up torob power consumers of $45 billion, designed to be thrown at wind power outfits; the ‘bottom line’ of which will be laid out a decade or so from now, as thousands of these things rusting in some dimwit’s top paddock, the end of energy hungry businesses – like mineral processors – and thousands of households rubbing along with candles and kero fridges.

If a fraction of that colossal sum was directed to a couple of nuclear plants  – starting now – Australia could avoid an unmitigated energy disaster, retain a manufacturing industry, keep mineral processors operating on Australian soil; and see future generations able to enjoy lasting employment, not least in the high-end work that comes with nuclear power generation.

As an added bonus, there would still be more than $25 billion of REC Tax/Subsidy leftover in change – who know’s Greg Hunt, Patrick Gibbons & Co might even stick it in an envelope marked ‘Return to Sender’?

Oh, and if CO2 gas is really the serious threat that we’re constantly harangued about, then those plants ought to satisfy the global warming catastrophists, too.

After cold beer (with a lasting job to generate the thirst for it), hot showers and, instead of random wind power blackouts, 24 x 365 reliable power – that’s affordable and satisfies the CAGW crowd? Then it’s nukes or nothing.

nuclear-power-a

‘Climate criminal’ blows whistle: ‘It’s just about the money!’

 

Secretary of State John Kerry told the Paris climate conference that ending all U.S. carbon emissions, or even those in all the industrialized world, would do nothing to impact the climate, leading one of the top critics of the climate-change movement to call the speech additional proof that the effort is all about wealth redistribution.

In another major development, the latest draft of the climate agreement does not include the creation of the International Climate Justice Tribunal, which would have been a U.N. agency that billed industrialized nations for the cleanup of natural disasters around the world.

In Kerry’s address to the conference, he made a push to get developing nations to make major commitments in reducing carbon emissions. However, his comments also gave considerable fuel to those who believe Kerry and others are on a fool’s errand.

“The fact is that even if every single American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what? That still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution from the rest of the world,” Kerry said.

He took a step further.

“If all the industrialized nations went down to zero emissions, remember what I said all the industrialized nations went down to zero emissions, it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world,” Kerry added.

Christopher C. Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of multiple books challenging the basis for the climate-change movement. He is in Paris as an observer at the conference, where he has been branded a “climate criminal.”

Horner said Kerry accidentally lurched toward the truth in trying to implore global cooperation.

“What he’s doing is inadvertently pointing out that this is all pain, no gain,” Horner said. “He won’t admit to the pain. They still say that if the state uses its coercive power and forces you into energy rationing and so on … it still wouldn’t impact the climate.”

Kerry used the hypothetical of zero carbon emissions, which is a far cry even from the hotly contested Obama environmental regulations calling for major carbon reductions by 2030. Horner said the real goals go much further and are plenty frightening.

“They’re talking 70-95 percent reductions in this document,” Horner said. “They really do think that they can bring us back to the renewable age, which we left over 100 years ago because we could. Suddenly we liberated hydrocarbon energy. We didn’t have to live on hydro power or solar power.”

While going back to renewables is the stated goal of climate-change activists, Horner said there’s a good reason we moved away from it generations ago.

“We’re not going back to that,” he said. “We left it. It was a time of much-shortened lifespans, disease, drudgery and mortality, crop failures leading to catastrophe and so on.”

Meanwhile, the scrapping of the International Climate Justice Tribunal marks a win on one of Horner’s highest priorities since he envisioned the panel blaming the U.S. and other advanced nations for the severe weather events throughout the world. It’s a charge he believes would have stuck at the tribunal because signatories at the conference will be expected to confess their responsibility for climate change in any final agreement.

But while Horner is thrilled, he said many others in Paris are not.

“It’s clearly going to leave the greens upset and some countries upset because it’s kicking the can down the road on a few issues,” Horner said.

Persistent sticking points are leading some climate-change activists to call for Pope Francis to come and demand unity in advancing a climate deal. Horner said the pontiff had better be ready for a debate.

“He’s going to couch this in terms of social justice, and as I have mentioned to you, that is truly perverse,” he said. “I’m not saying the pope knows this, but social justice, as they see it, is killing tens of thousands of the most vulnerable in every country.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Christopher C. Horner:

Horner said the explanation for that charge is simple. Implementing emissions reductions places major costs on energy providers, which pass the costs on to consumers. Soaring utility rates will then impact the poor most negatively and European nations that already do this see people having to choose between buying food and paying to heat or cool their homes.

As for the logistics of the conference and any forthcoming agreement, Horner said officials are twisting themselves in legal knots to avoid this being a treaty since they know Congress won’t approve it.

“The buzz here in Paris is that the U.S. Congress is the greatest obstacle to them obtaining the treaty they refuse to call a treaty,” Horner said. “That means the democratic process. There’s nothing democratic about this. If you allow Congress to get a crack at this, it’s over.

“Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, this would never fly. No free society would ever do to itself what they’re demanding of us,” he said.

Horner is one of seven activists opposed to any deal to have their face plastered around Paris on posters branding them climate criminals. After, first joking that activists could have picked a better picture of him, Horner said there is a message of intimidation involved with the posters.

“It’s getting a little long in the tooth, putting up all the bad guys’ pictures so everybody knows what they look like,” Horner said. “We can play the ‘What if Sarah Palin Did It’ game if you want, but they really want everybody here to now what we look like.”

In the end, Horner said the activists’ definition of climate criminal is really an indictment on those working to preserve freedom.

“We point out the policies, history, that it won’t effect the climate, that’s it’s about a wealth transfer, that it will kill the most vulnerable, that it’s a gesture about clearly what they’re openly acknowledging here – to redesign the global economic system,” he said. “When you point those things out, because they aren’t popular in the United States, you are a criminal.”

Copyright 2015 WND

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/climate-criminal-blows-whistle-its-just-about-the-money/#gT60jPdzHOZ7qf8l.99

Gerold's Blog

The truth shall set you free but first it will make you miserable

PolitiSite

Political News, Commentary, Fact Checking Fact Checkers, Polls

Birds and Blades

Broken Wing, The Book

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

“Edgar County Watchdogs"

stubbornlyme.

My thoughts...my life...my own way.

The Muslim Issue

"Muhammad was once a refugee taken in by the Jewish City of Medina. Within 5-years, he had driven out, executed, or enslaved every jew there."

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4timesayear's Blog

We don't control the climate; IT controls US.

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

townshiprebel

When Ignorance Reigns, Life is Lost

Politically Short

The American Reality Outside The Beltway