Opinion
Solar discussion invites more creative proposals needing discussion.
Let us consider the carbon footprint issue in more ways than mega-projects. Let us start at home.
There is a lot of information about the average home. For example the average home has 2.5 residents. The average home costs $25.000 to install enough solar panels.( there is debate that it may be as little as 14,000 but I would like to prepare for costs overruns) It takes 75 hours of labour to install enough solar panels including electrical and non-electrical labour. So to go solar it would cost $10,000 per resident and require 30 hours of labour per person. This is based on the U.S. which is higher than countries like Germany who are more involved and takes advantage of economies of scale. Germany averages only 33 hours.
Red Deer has about 100,000 residents, so to go solar in such a big way would cost a billion dollars and require 3 million man hours of labour. Spread out over 10 years and 3 levels of government, federal, provincial, and municipal. It would cost each level of government 33 million per year. It would create 300,000 manhours of work and if a full time equivalent is 2,000 hours per year then it would create 150 full time equivalent jobs directly in installation. Each direct job would create several indirect jobs in manufacturing, transportation, hospitality etc. Someone offered 7 indirect jobs but I do not know.
When you look at previous bail outs for jobs, this is not that extreme. The economic impact would be huge. The tax base would increase, employment would increase, and our carbon foot print would decrease.
The economics of scale would lower the costs, the natural evolution of solar efficiency would lower the costs, and experience would lessen the labour time and costs but the benefits would be the same.
Red Deer College could get involved in training. The city could become an eco-friendly destination for residents and tourists.
If we were to download a portion of the costs onto the home owners through a loan, and incorporate into their property taxes based on 3% interest. 40% of the costs over 10 years would mean $100 per month for 10 years, which would probably be less than their current electrical bill. If as some suggest it would be $14,000 and even if the home owners bore all the costs then it would be $150 per month for 10 years.That is based on current costs on a small scale.
This will not happen overnight. Three levels of government, training, planning, and manufacturing etc. will take time. I remember satellite dishes that were once so huge, that are now so small, and the same goes for solar panels, once so huge they are increasingly getting smaller and more efficient.
The amount of money is not insurmountable. In a equal-shared scenario with the provincial and federal governments, the costs of building the planned footbridge from the Riverlands to Bower Ponds for example would convert about 2500 homes.
I hope the city continues to discuss and explore these possibilities with other levels of government. Talking about the environment, talking about innovation, and talking about infrastructure spending, here you go.
Another idea could be doing a neighbourhood project like Drake’s Landing Solar Community in Okotoks which had 10 years of uninterrupted service with solar fraction of 100% during the summer and a low of 92% during the coldest winter.
We could look at using our river for hydro-electric, mandate architectural restrictions like reflective roofs, encourage green roofs to name but a few as the dialogue widens.
I hope the city continues the discussions after their March 6 2017 meeting.
Energy
Guilbeault’s Emissions Obsession: Ten Reasons to Call Time Out on Canada’s CO2 Crusade
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Before we collectively devastate our economies, further reduce our birth rates in a misguided attempt to save the planet, squander trillions of dollars, and halt human progress by making energy both scarce and exorbitantly expensive, it’s crucial to remember that human-induced climate change is not a settled fact, but rather a hypothesis largely unsupported by the history of the climate but supported by climate models that have considerable error built into them.
Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault recently announced a plan requiring the oil and gas industry to cut CO2 emissions by more than one-third from 2019 levels by 2030. This deadline might seem far off, but it also stipulates that at least 20 percent of light-duty vehicle sales must be zero-emission by 2026, a deadline that’s just around the corner. This is all part of Guilbeault’s strategy to achieve the ambitious net-zero emissions target by 2050.
There are at least ten reasons suggesting that this plan is absurd.
- CO2 is Not a Pollutant.
Carbon dioxide is, in fact, a fertilizer crucial for the growth of all vegetation. Higher concentrations of CO2 result in increased crop yields and more productive forests. Healthier forests, in turn, absorb more CO2, providing oxygen in exchange which is essential for the survival of all living organisms including humans.
- CO2 is a Trace Gas
During my extensive career as a university professor, I encountered numerous students eager to support policies that might devastate the livelihoods of thousands of men and women who depend on the oil and gas industry, believing these sacrifices would save the planet. Their near-religious zeal was only matched by their stunning ignorance of basic CO2 facts.
Class surveys I conducted showed that almost one hundred percent of my students were unaware that CO2 is a trace gas, with its atmospheric concentration having varied significantly over centuries and even seasonally. Currently, CO2 represents about 0.04% of the atmospheric gases, or approximately 420 parts per million (ppm). By comparison, nitrogen makes up about 78%, and oxygen around 21%.
The best estimates suggest that human activities contribute roughly 4% of the total annual CO2 emissions (16 ppm). Canada’s share of global emissions is approximately 1.5% (0.24 ppm), essentially a rounding error in the total calculation.
- Why Alberta and Not China?
It is no secret that Guilbeault harbours a special animosity towards Alberta. His energy regulations appear designed to severely impact Alberta’s economy despite the province being a relatively minor player on the global stage. In contrast, China, by far the largest contributor to global CO2 emissions, builds two new coal-powered (dirty) power plants every week and is the primary beneficiary of Canada’s coal exports. Why doesn’t Guilbeault turn his scornful gaze towards the People’s Republic? Even during his visit to China in August 2023 for climate talks, not only did he overlook that country’s appalling environmental track record, to add insult to injury, while there he critiqued Suncor for recommitting to oil sands development, highlighting a troubling policy double standard.
- Watch What They Do, not What They Say
The economic and cultural elites, who incessantly warn of an impending climate catastrophe, seem to contradict their own claims by their extravagant lifestyles. Their opulent residences, frequent use of private jets, and other extravagances reveal a significant disconnect between their rhetoric and their behaviour, suggesting either hypocrisy or a lack of belief in the very crisis they promote.
- Magical Thinking
When they purport to compel the oil and gas industry to adopt new technologies, politicians and policymakers indulge in a particularly delusional form of magical thinking. First, the industry is already one of the most innovative sectors in the economy. Second, these individuals demonstrate a profound ignorance of both climate change and the complex challenges of energy production. As is typical of low-information politicians, they seem to believe that all they need to do to enact change in line with their utopian ideals is to snap their fingers or twitch their collective nose.
- A Multiplier of Human Misery
All the regulations that politicians like Guilbeault introduce with a regularity that rivals the proverbial cuckoo clock have nothing to do with creating new sources of energy or making energy more accessible and affordable. If they were genuinely concerned about their constituents’ welfare, these politicians would incentivize nuclear energy. But they conspicuously do not. These incessant regulations, taxes, and oppressive energy policies serve one purpose: to inflate energy prices so high that middle-class individuals are forced to drive less, reduce their energy use for heating and cooling their homes, and drastically curbing manufacturing. To the extent that such policies persist, they will impose an increasingly devastating economic burden on the poor and the working class.
- Extreme Weather Events
A radical reduction in CO2 emissions will not only lead to a weaker economy and increased poverty, but it will also diminish our capacity to respond to extreme weather conditions, which will occur regardless of the taxation governments impose on human activities.
- The Used-Car Salesman Syndrome
You know you’re being conned when a used car salesperson fails to mention the downsides of the vehicle being considered. The same skepticism and caution should be applied to politicians who tout only the benefits of their proposed policies without discussing the costs. Either they are blissfully unaware of these costs, or they believe they will be insulated from the real-world repercussions of their harmful policies due to their status, wealth, or connections.
- Anti-Human Perspective
While it’s unwise to gratuitously attribute malicious intent to anyone, the evidence suggests that proponents of radical climate change policies operate from what can only be described as an anti-human perspective. They view human beings as liabilities and parasites rather than, as the Judeo-Christian tradition asserts, the valuable assets they truly are.
- A Matter of Debate
Before we collectively devastate our economies, further reduce our birth rates in a misguided attempt to save the planet, squander trillions of dollars, and halt human progress by making energy both scarce and exorbitantly expensive, it’s crucial to remember that human-induced climate change is not a settled fact, but rather a hypothesis largely unsupported by the history of the climate but supported by climate models that have considerable error built into them.
In conclusion, Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish political scientist and founder of the prestigious Copenhagen Consensus Center—an organization renowned for producing some of the most authoritative studies on environmental issues—wisely reminds us that while there are environmental concerns needing attention, it’s questionable whether climate change constitutes an existential crisis that warrants dedicating all our resources at the expense of human life and flourishing.
Pierre Gilbert is Associate Professor Emeritus at Canadian Mennonite University. He writes here for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
armed forces
Top Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Morgan Murphy
With less than a month to go before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the top brass are already running for cover. This week the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, pledged to cut approximately a dozen general officers from the U.S. Army.
It is a start.
But given the Army is authorized 219 general officers, cutting just 12 is using a scalpel when a machete is in order. At present, the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel stands at an all-time high. During World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. Today, we have one for every 1,600.
Right now, the United States has 1.3 million active-duty service members according to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Of those, 885 are flag officers (fun fact: you get your own flag when you make general or admiral, hence the term “flag officer” and “flagship”). In the reserve world, the ratio is even worse. There are 925 general and flag officers and a total reserve force of just 760,499 personnel. That is a flag for every 674 enlisted troops.
The hallways at the Pentagon are filled with a constellation of stars and the legions of staffers who support them. I’ve worked in both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Starting around 2011, the Joint Staff began to surge in scope and power. Though the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command and simply serves as an advisor to the president, there are a staggering 4,409 people working for the Joint Staff, including 1,400 civilians with an average salary of $196,800 (yes, you read that correctly). The Joint Staff budget for 2025 is estimated by the Department of Defense’s comptroller to be $1.3 billion.
In contrast, the Secretary of Defense — the civilian in charge of running our nation’s military — has a staff of 2,646 civilians and uniformed personnel. The disparity between the two staffs threatens the longstanding American principle of civilian control of the military.
Just look at what happens when civilians in the White House or the Senate dare question the ranks of America’s general class. “Politicizing the military!” critics cry, as if the Commander-in-Chief has no right to question the judgement of generals who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, bought into the woke ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or oversaw over-budget and behind-schedule weapons systems. Introducing accountability to the general class is not politicizing our nation’s military — it is called leadership.
What most Americans don’t understand is that our top brass is already very political. On any given day in our nation’s Capitol, a casual visitor is likely to run into multiple generals and admirals visiting our elected representatives and their staff. Ostensibly, these “briefs” are about various strategic threats and weapons systems — but everyone on the Hill knows our military leaders are also jockeying for their next assignment or promotion. It’s classic politics
The country witnessed this firsthand with now-retired Gen. Mark Milley. Most Americans were put off by what they saw. Milley brazenly played the Washington spin game, bragging in a Senate Armed Services hearing that he had interviewed with Bob Woodward and a host of other Washington, D.C. reporters.
Woodward later admitted in an interview with CNN that he was flabbergasted by Milley, recalling the chairman hadn’t just said “[Trump] is a problem or we can’t trust him,” but took it to the point of saying, “he is a danger to the country. He is the most dangerous person I know.” Woodward said that Milley’s attitude felt like an assignment editor ordering him, “Do something about this.”
Think on that a moment — an active-duty four star general spoke on the record, disparaging the Commander-in-Chief. Not only did it show rank insubordination and a breach of Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88, but Milley’s actions represented a grave threat against the Constitution and civilian oversight of the military.
How will it play out now that Trump has returned? Old political hands know that what goes around comes around. Milley’s ham-handed political meddling may very well pave the way for a massive reorganization of flag officers similar to Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” of 1940. Marshall forced 500 colonels into retirement saying, “You give a good leader very little and he will succeed; you give mediocrity a great deal and they will fail.”
Marshall’s efforts to reorient the War Department to a meritocracy proved prescient when the United States entered World War II less than two years later.
Perhaps it’s time for another plucking board to remind the military brass that it is their civilian bosses who sit at the top of the U.S. chain of command.
Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.
-
Alberta2 days ago
Proposed $70 billion AI data centre in MD of Greenview could launch an incredible new chapter for western Canadian energy
-
Brownstone Institute12 hours ago
A Potpourri of the World’s Unexposed Scandals
-
Alberta1 day ago
Your towing rights! AMA unveils measures to help fight predatory towing
-
Economy10 hours ago
The White Pill: Big Government Can Be Defeated (Just Ask the Soviet Union)
-
conflict9 hours ago
Trump has started negotiations to end the war in Ukraine
-
COVID-198 hours ago
Esteemed UK Doctor pleads with governments to cancel COVID-19 vaccines
-
COVID-1913 hours ago
Biden HHS extends immunity for COVID shot manufacturers through 2029
-
Business7 hours ago
The CBC gets $1.4 billion per year, but the Trudeau government wants to give it more