Editor,
I write in response to a recent submission to the paper by Mr. J. Hepple of Meaford. With great respect to Mr. Hepple and to the millions of other people who might share his points of view on this subject, it is clear there exists a complete misunderstanding of the subject of ‘Climate Change’.
Firstly, with respect to energy storage, this is a much-needed mechanism by which to provide a constant supply of energy from various sporadic sources such as wind and solar. Not so long ago, pumped storage was a viable technology to achieve this, but now it has been replaced by a more efficient and less costly method, that being rechargeable battery systems.
Specifically, the Meaford Pumped Storage facility would have an energy capture efficiency of about 67%. A battery system would be closer to 91%. A 1,000 Megawatt battery system would be half the capital cost of the Pumped Storage alternative and could be constructed on less than 50 acres of land anywhere adjacent to an Ontario high voltage transmission trunk. Having spent half my 40-year Engineering career designing and building hydro-electric dams and water storage complexes, I cannot name any justifications to spend many billions of dollars to install this, now, antiquated form of energy storage in Ontario. It makes no sense financially, technically or environmentally.
Secondly, and more significantly, the public needs to have an accurate and non-biased understanding on the drivers of Climate Change, unfiltered from those would profit by creating emotional and even hysterical rhetoric on the subject, and communicating it internationally.
Let’s reflect to the 1960s. We were told the world would run out of fossil fuels in 10 years. In the ’70s, the climate was rapidly cooling and we were on the way to a looming Ice Age. In the ’80s acid rain was going to destroy half the world’s crop growing abilities, and in the ’90s the depletion of the Ozone layer would render humans with all manner of health issues. None of this was true, yet it served to facilitate increased taxation, the genesis of unnecessary industries and the general willingness of those in our society that created wealth, to transfer it to those who did not.
The following may shatter the paradigms which have been force fed to the public…. “CO2 in our atmosphere does not cause change in our climate.” “Climate Change causes CO2 levels to rise.”
How is this possible? Those billions of people who live north and south of the equator are aware of the dramatic Climate Change that occurs every 6 months. As I write this letter the outside temperature is -12 degrees. Six months from now it will be +27 degrees. There is no change in atmospheric CO2 levels during this transition. Our semi-annual Climate Change is caused by the fact our planet’s axis of rotation is pitched at 23.5 degrees from the axis of the sun’s. Except this 23.5-degree pitch is not constant. It ‘wobbles’ over a cycle of many hundreds of thousands of years. This has been the source of many dramatic climate change events our world has been subject to well before the arrival of humans. The ocean’s levels have been 20 meters higher than they are now and they have been 30 meters lower on numerous occasions. We are currently in a naturally warming cycle. If all human activity ceased immediately, the planet’s temperature will continue to rise without us, until most of the polar ice caps are melted into the seas. Then this cycle reverses back to another Ice Age. This process has become most inconvenient for the human race, but sadly this earth was not ‘created’ for the sole benefit of our species.
Analyses of atmosphere trapped in ice core samples dating back 12,000 years to the melt of the North American ice cap reveal CO2 levels then to be lower then those of 6,000 years ago and less lower to present day levels. “A warmer climate drives CO2 higher.” “CO2 does not initiate Climate Change.”
Now, back to CO2 and this hoax which has been prevailed upon society…. Our atmosphere is composed of roughly 78% Nitrogen, N2, roughly 21% Oxygen, O2 and 0.04% Carbon Dioxide, CO2. Yes, you read that correctly. That’s four one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere being CO2. All plant life depends on CO2 in the atmosphere to exist. Through photosynthesis, vegetation creates O2 from CO2. And we are told this must be reduced?
Canada is responsible for creating 1.4 % of human-generated CO2 and yet somehow a majority of Canadians have been convinced that if we tax our energy consumption, this will magically change the planet’s climate. Such a declaration is ludicrous. What is not ludicrous is that this taxation on an imaginary evil is destroying our fragile economy. How many times have we heard our disgraced Prime Minister insist his taxes will reduce global temperatures? This brand of incompetence and scientific ignorance needs to be identified as such.
Mr. Hepple is concerned about the future welfare of his grandchildren. I might suggest he can best help them by ensuring they receive a comprehensive education in the sciences so they do not become fodder for the poorly informed and deceptive members of government, media and industry who will use every possible scare tactic to relieve them of their hard-earned money and their psychological freedoms.
Whereas one might conclude these statements are somehow a brand of ‘conspiracy theory’, they are not. It’s just unbiased science.
Stephen Carr, Meaford
