Saturday, May 25, 2019

Piercing The Propaganda



It is indeed heartening to see so many young activists now regularly protesting the inertia that our political masters are mired in when it comes to climate change mitigation. If anyone has a right to feel outraged, it is the younger generation that will find life on our planet far less hospitable than the one their elders knew growing up.

Equally heartening however, is the growing realization of the economic consequences of the widespread costs being incurred in these still early-days of global warming:
...the Bank of Canada... has just announced that it will incorporate climate change and its effects on business and the economy into its ongoing assessments of financial stability, growth and inflation.

In its report on financial stability last week, the central bank has finally recognized that even though environmental concerns are a bit outside of its wheelhouse, the risks are too consequential to be ignored. Extreme weather hurts infrastructure and the daily functioning of the economy, but it can also affect the stability of banks, pension plans, insurance companies and other financial institutions.

More broadly, however, because the world is moving to a low-carbon economy, Canadian companies that don’t measure their exposure to carbon and figure out how to handle the shift could suffer deeply, the bank points out.
This, of course, begins to pierce the propaganda promulgated by many of the economic consequences of a rapid move to a low-carbon economy.

And speaking of the low-carbon economy, Don Pittis offers some interesting insights as he cites a report called Missing The Bigger Picture: Tracking the Energy Revolution 2019.
Not only is Canada’s clean energy sector growing faster than the rest of the country’s economy (4.8% versus 3.6% annually between 2010 and 2017), it’s also attracting tens of billions of dollars in investment every year.

And perhaps most importantly for the average Canadian, it’s a huge, and growing, employer. In 2017, clean energy accounted for 298,000 jobs in Canada—roughly equal to direct employment in the real estate sector.
The fact that the role clean energy is playing an increasingly important role in our economy is hidden from most Canadians, largely because it is
not even classified in most statistics as a sector at all.

As the executive director of Clean Energy Canada, Merran Smith says in her introduction to the report, "Put simply, it's made up of companies and jobs that help to reduce carbon pollution — whether by creating clean energy, helping move it, reducing energy consumption, or making low-carbon technologies."

... the concern of Smith and her group, and the reason for assembling today's report, is the blinkered view of many Canadians that the energy industry and the economy are somehow in conflict with green principles.
But nothing could be further from the truth:
Economic research has shown that making the world more energy efficient is exactly what successful businesses have done throughout history, because energy is a cost, and cutting costs is what thriving businesses do.

"The clean energy sector isn't just about fighting climate change — it's also about using Canadian innovation to create better and cheaper solutions for everyday life," said Smith.
And there is real economic heft to be found in that sector:
Studying the period from 2010 to 2017, not only did the sector outgrow the entire economy by more than one full percentage point, but jobs in that component of the economy increased by 2.2 per cent a year, compared to an annual increase of 1.4 per cent in jobs overall.
No doubt, the old canard about climate-change mitigation measures being inimical to economic imperatives will persist for some time. However, the louder young people scream, and the more economic data that becomes available to us, one hopes that blinkered and inaccurate mindset will weaken and ultimately disappear.

6 comments:

  1. All we need to do, Lorne, is to follow Reagan's call to "tear down that wall" erected by the fossil energy giants and their political lap dogs.

    My guess is that, with some $27 trillion of proven fossil reserves subscribed on the stock markets and bourses of the world our political leadership is terrified of what bursting that Carbon Bubble would mean to the global economy and their immediate partisan interests. That's why they can't focus on the future and obvious solutions.

    Imagine what happens when banks, institutional investors and pension plans collapse as many probably shall when that bubble bursts. The current and former governors of the Bank of England have warned all who will listen that this is coming. What then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Diversification and an understanding that the status quo cannot be maintained over the long term should help to mitigate some of that, Mound. However, as long as so many adhere to the old customs and expectations promoted by the fossil fuel industries, the harder the fall will be.

      Delete
  2. There are indeed ways to soften the blow, Lorne, but if you abruptly wipe out ten or twenty trillion dollars of wealth there's bound to be a panic and governments of the day will pay dearly. Once again this brings the partisan political interests of the parties in direct conflict with the public interest and, in that contest, the public interest routinely loses.

    The Liberals didn't buy Trans-Mountain to advance the public interest. That was a purely political call and short-term thinking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The purchase of that pipeline will haunt the Liberals at election time, Mound. Of that I am certain.

      Delete
  3. .. perhaps a description might be 'iceburg mentality'..
    That being, we in North America fail to comprehend that 90% is unseen below the water. Many of us know that as a fact, yet most really just don't comprend or think about it. We just stare at the highly visible and scenic postcard aspect above the surface. And besides, its just floating ice. How did that work out for The Titanic, by the way ? But hey ! ! Another question should be.. where did something that huge come from eh ? ? And just out of curiosity.. how 'old' is that ice ? When did it form within a vast, dynamic ice shelf or vast glacier ?

    The 'news' fondly refers to Alberta's 'oil patch' .. and North Americans are conditioned to adapt a bizarro view of energy extraction.. as a patch.. akin to friendly cabbage patches or something. .. or an iron on fix to a tear on your jeans. You know, a lovely scenic 'patch' where those friendly nodding horsie pumps, the iconic oil pumps abide.

    Well folks.. back to the iceburg eh.. yes, that hulking lurking reality under the surface. That's 'the iceburg' in reality.. after all its 90% of its reality !

    So keep this in mind.. though the 90% is just a guess. In the overall scope of energy extraction, its processing or transportation, the related infrastructure, its export or use.. and .. the attached profits or financials (show me the money) .. what $$ amount is provided / paid for by Canadian taxpayers ? Its not like Stephen Harper or Justin Trudeau or Joe Oliver or the late saint Jim Flaherty or up n comer Andrew Scheer or Jason Kenney contributed their cash.. and even if they did, they contributed with our money.. since we subsidize their lives, their children and their new extreme wealth.. their investment portfolios.. and their gold plated pensions

    So what if 90% of the direct and indirect $$ subsidizing the 'oil patch' were switched towards driving, growing, nurturing the green economy? That's right.. how many billions per year that 'we can afford to pay foreign energy interests' could we rudely & pragmatically divert to growing' alternative energy' - passive process energy - low plastics - chopping our GHG emissions - growing things (like food, or clothing materials, bamboo..) How many jobs & what kind of economy might that entail ? (psst.. Neither Justin Trudeau or Jason Kenney has that answer, they are fixated on extraction, hiding or ignoring the hidden radical pollution, toxification and easy $$ of 'royalties' they are free to absorb, then essentially give away again to subsidize more of the giving away of)

    Our political parties are selling us pretty pictures of iceburgs..
    They do not want us thinking about what's below the waterline
    Perhaps that's because it aint pretty.. thought its pretty nasty eh ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your iceberg imagery is very apt, Sal. To use another metaphor, we humans never really like to know how the sausage is actually made, and, as your commentary suggests, it is time all of us wake up and confront some ugly truths.

      Delete