Connect with us

Energy

How global warming saves more people than it dooms

Published

6 minute read

From Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein

This is Part 3 of a 4 part feature where I cover 4 of the top energy issues that will be discussed this summer, especially as politicians return home for August Recess.


Warmer temperatures are less of a threat than cold ones, and fossil fuels make us safer from both.

  • Anti-fossil fuel politicians love summer because hot temperatures give them the opportunity to portray the world as “on fire”—and offering anti-fossil-fuel policies as a solution.In reality, cold is a bigger problem than heat—and anti-fossil-fuel policies make both worse
    temperature-headlines
  • Anyone commentating responsibly on summer temperatures must acknowledge 3 facts:1. Heat-related deaths are far less prevalent than cold-related deaths
    2. Earth is warming slowly—especially in warm places
    3. Fossil fuels make us safer from both cold and heat
  • 1. Heat-related deaths < cold-related deaths 

    When our leaders discuss the warming of the planet, they treat warming as obviously bad. But while they portray the planet as already “too hot,” the fact is that far more human beings die of cold than of heat

    lancet-cold-deaths
  • Study after study has found that deaths from cold outnumber deaths from heat by 5-15 times. On every continent cold is more dangerous than heat. Even in many countries we think of as especially hot, such as India, cold-related deaths significantly exceed heat-related deaths.³
    lancet-warming-saves-lives
  • 2. Earth is warming slowly—especially in warm places 

    So far we’ve had ~1°C of warming from a cold starting point in Earth’s history 150 years ago. Future warming will be limited by the diminishing nature of “the greenhouse effect”—as well as being concentrated in colder places.⁴

  • Warming so far has been slow and benign. But will future warming make the world unlivably hot? No, given 2 facts almost universally acknowledged by climate scientists: 1) the diminishing warming impact of CO2 and 2) the concentration of warming in colder places.
  • The warming impact of CO2 diminishes (“logarithmically”) as it increases in concentration.Every new molecule of CO2 we add to the atmosphere has less of a warming effect than the previous one. Warming will diminish as emissions increase—the only question is at what rate.⁵
    climate-sensitivity
  • Climate warming is concentrated in colder areas of the world (such as the Arctic), during colder times of day, and during colder seasons.This means that future warming will occur more in cold situations where it saves lives than in hot situations where it causes problems.⁶
  • All reporting on the warming of the Earth should specify not only that humans are far more endangered by cold than by heat, but also that Earth is warming slowly—and less in warm places. That virtually no reporting acknowledges this shows that much “reporting” is propaganda.
  • 3. Fossil fuels make us safer from dangerous temperatures 

    Not only is the warming from fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions slow and in many ways beneficial, the uniquely cost-effective energy we get from fossil fuels makes us both safer from cold and heat.

  • The key to being protected from dangerous temperatures is to master them by producing different forms of temperature protection, such as: insulated buildings, heating, and air-conditioning. All of these things require energy—which means for most people they require fossil fuels.
  • Fossil fuels are the only source of low-cost, reliable energy that for the foreseeable future can provide energy to billions—in a world where 3 billion people still use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator.⁷
  • On a planet where people die much more from cold than from heat, but both are major threats, the key to safety is to have energy be as affordable and plentiful as possible so as many as possible can afford heating and air conditioning. For now this means more fossil fuels.
  • People who blaming pro-fossil-fuel politicians for hot temperatures evade that:1. Cold is more dangerous than heat
    2. Warming is slow, especially in warm places
    3. We need fossil fuels to protect us from cold and heat
  • Reducing CO2 emissions in a humane and practical way means focusing on liberating alternatives—especially the most potent, nuclear—to try to truly outcompete fossil fuels in the future. Depriving us off fossil fuels now and pretending China will follow is immoral and impractical.

Share

Popular links


“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Carney government’s anti-oil sentiment no longer in doubt

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The Carney government, which on Monday survived a confidence vote in Parliament by the skin of its teeth, recently released a “second tranche of nation-building projects” blessed by the Major Projects Office. To have a chance to survive Canada’s otherwise oppressive regulatory gauntlet, projects must get on this Caesar-like-thumbs-up-thumbs-down list.

The first tranche of major projects released in September included no new oil pipelines but pertained largely to natural gas, nuclear power, mineral production, etc. The absence of proposed oil pipelines was not surprising, as Ottawa’s regulatory barricade on oil production means no sane private company would propose such a project. (The first tranche carries a price tag of $60 billion in government/private-sector spending.)

Now, the second tranche of projects also includes not a whiff of support for oil production, transport and export to non-U.S. markets. Again, not surprising as the prime minister has done nothing to lift the existing regulatory blockade on oil transport out of Alberta.

So, what’s on the latest list?

There’s a “conservation corridor” for British Columbia and Yukon; more LNG projects (both in B.C.); more mineral projects (nickel, graphite, tungsten—all electric vehicle battery constituents); and still more transmission for “clean energy”—again, mostly in B.C. And Nunavut comes out ahead with a new hydro project to power Iqaluit. (The second tranche carries a price tag of $58 billion in government/private-sector spending.)

No doubt many of these projects are worthy endeavours that shouldn’t require the imprimatur of the “Major Projects Office” to see the light of day, and merit development in the old-fashioned Canadian process where private-sector firms propose a project to Canada’s environmental regulators, get necessary and sufficient safety approval, and then build things.

However, new pipeline projects from Alberta would also easily stand on their own feet in that older regulatory regime based on necessary and sufficient safety approval, without the Carney government additionally deciding what is—or is not—important to the government, as opposed to the market, and without provincial governments and First Nations erecting endless barriers.

Regardless of how you value the various projects on the first two tranches, the second tranche makes it crystal clear (if it wasn’t already) that the Carney government will follow (or double down) on the Trudeau government’s plan to constrain oil production in Canada, particularly products derived from Alberta’s oilsands. There’s nary a mention that these products even exist in the government’s latest announcement, despite the fact that the oilsands are the world’s fourth-largest proven reserve of oil. This comes on the heels on the Carney government’s first proposed budget, which also reified the government’s fixation to extinguish greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, continue on the path to “net-zero 2050” and retain Canada’s all-EV new car future beginning in 2036.

It’s clear, at this point, that the Carney government is committed to the policies of the previous Liberal government, has little interest in harnessing the economic value of Canada’s oil holdings nor the potential global influence Canada might exert by exporting its oil products to Asia, Europe and other points abroad. This policy fixation will come at a significant cost to future generations of Canadians.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Energy

Carney bets on LNG, Alberta doubles down on oil

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Rashid Husain Syed

Carney is promoting LNG as Canada’s future. Alberta insists the future still runs through oil

Prime Minister Mark Carney is a man in a hurry. He’s fast-tracking energy megaprojects to position Canada as a global LNG powerhouse, but Alberta’s oil ambitions and the private sector’s U.S. focus could throw his plan off course.

It’s all part of a broader federal strategy to reframe Canada’s energy priorities and show that his government is delivering economic results. Some say the motivation is political, with a fragile minority government and the potential for a snap election.
Others say it’s about legacy: Carney wants to be remembered as the prime minister who put Canada back on the global energy map.

That ambition came into sharper focus last week. On Thursday, he announced a second wave of projects being sent to the federal Major Projects Office, a body set up to fast-track infrastructure Ottawa sees as vital to national priorities.

The new list includes the Ksi Lisims liquefied natural gas project and the North Coast Transmission Line in British Columbia, along with a hydroelectric project in Nunavut. It also features nickel, graphite and tungsten mines in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

Ksi Lisims is the second LNG project Ottawa has submitted to the Major Projects Office.

Carney’s goal is clear, according to Lisa Baiton, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. “With Ksi Lisims LNG and the related Prince Rupert Gas Transmission project joining LNG Canada Phase 2 on the major projects list, paired with Cedar and Woodfibre LNG, which are already under construction, Canada is on a path to become one of the top five LNG exporters in the world,” she said in a statement.

But not everyone is on the same page, especially Alberta.

The first batch of fast-tracked projects, announced two months ago, included a Montreal port expansion, a small modular nuclear plant in Ontario, mining projects in Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and LNG Canada Phase 2.

Alberta’s proposed oil export pipeline project was on neither list.

Premier Danielle Smith had said she hoped an agreement with Ottawa would be finalized by early last week to allow a new bitumen pipeline to proceed. That didn’t happen. But in a statement last Wednesday, her office said “sensitive” negotiations are continuing.

“Currently, we are working on a (memorandum of understanding) agreement with the federal government that includes the removal, carveout or overhaul of several damaging laws chasing away private investment in our energy sector, and an agreement to work towards ultimate approval of a bitumen pipeline to Asian markets,” the statement said.

Alberta argues such pipelines are critical if Canada is serious about energy diversification and global exports, particularly to Asia, where demand is rising. So far, those arguments don’t appear to have moved Carney.

With no federal deal in place, the industry is moving ahead with its own export agenda by doubling down on the U.S. market.

Enbridge has approved $1.4 billion in upgrades to its Mainline and Flanagan South pipelines, adding 250,000 barrels per day of capacity to move Canadian crude to the U.S. Midwest and Gulf Coast. The expansion is expected to come online in 2027.

The company also plans to test commercial demand in 2026 for a second phase of Mainline expansion that could add another 250,000 barrels per day.

Colin Gruending, Enbridge’s president of liquids pipelines, said the U.S. remains the most logical export market for Canadian oil, followed by Asia via the West Coast. The federal government’s goal of reducing reliance on U.S. buyers may take time.

Trans Mountain Corp., which moves oil sands crude to the Vancouver area for export, is reportedly also considering ways to increase volumes quickly and affordably.

Keystone XL, the pipeline project killed by former U.S. president Joe Biden in 2021, may also be back in play. The existing Keystone system, now owned by South Bow Corp., moves Canadian oil to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. The cancelled XL expansion would have added new pipe and a more direct route south.

Whether Carney’s push makes Canada an LNG superpower or hits a wall of regional resistance and market reality, the energy and political maps are shifting.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X