Search the Community

BL is a thoughtful guy and an environmentalist who seems to get the hypocrisy of the west when it comes to the rest of world developing. Let There Be More than Light Let There Be More Than Light Jul 17, 2018 BJØRN LOMBORG Over the past 16 years, nearly every person who gained access to electricity did so through a grid connection, mostly powered by fossil fuels. And yet donors say that many of the 1.1 billion people who are still without electricity should instead try solar panels. PRAGUE – For the well-off in both rich and poor countries around the world, lives are enriched by plentiful access to energy that provides light, fresh food, and clean water, and that powers technology and allows the ability to control the temperature. PreviousNext Abundant energy provides the same life-transforming labor as hundreds of servants: Without a refrigerator, we would need to locate fresh food daily, store shelves would be half-empty, and a lot of food would go bad before we could eat it – one reason why, in 1930, stomach cancer was the leading cancer in the United States. Without synthetic fertilizer, which is produced almost entirely with fossil fuels, half the world’s food consumptionwould be imperiled. Without modern stoves and heaters, we would need to find our own firewood, and we would risk being poisoned in our own houses by killer air pollution. And without fuel-powered trucks, ships, and machines, humans would need to do nearly all the hard labor. Worldwide, fossil fuels produce two-thirds of all electricity, with nuclear and hydro producing another 27%. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), solar, wind, wave, and bio-energy produce just 9.8% of electricity in the OECD, and this is possible only because of huge subsidies, cumulatively totaling more than $160 billion this year. Even ultra-environmentally aware Germany still produces more than half its electricity with fossil fuels. Yet there is a disturbing movement in the West to tell the 1.1 billion people who still lack these myriad benefits that they should go without. A familiar refrain suggests that instead of dirty, coal-fired power plants, poor countries should “leapfrog” straight to cleaner energy sources like off-grid solar technology. Influential donors – including even the World Bank, which no longer funds coal energy projects – endorse this view. The underlying motivation is understandable: policymakers must address global warming. Eventually moving away from fossil fuels is crucial, and innovation is required to make green energy cheap and reliable. But this message to the world’s poor is hypocritical and dangerous. While fossil fuels contribute to global warming, they also contribute to prosperity, growth, and wellbeing. There is a strong, direct connection between power and poverty: the more of the former, the less of the latter. A study in Bangladesh showed that grid electrification has significant positive effects on household income, expenditure, and education. Electrified households experienced a jump of up to 21% in income and a 1.5% reduction in poverty each year. Reliance on coal is not ending soon. While we would wish otherwise, it often remains the cheapest, most dependable energy source: the IEA estimates that, by 2040, coal will still be cheaper, on average, than solar and wind energy, even with a sizeable carbon tax. Over the past 16 years, nearly every person who gained access to electricity did so through a grid connection, mostly powered by fossil fuels. And yet donors say that many of the 1.1 billion people who are still without electricity should instead try solar panels. Compared with expensive grid expansion, providing an off-grid, solar cell is very cheap. But for the recipient, it is a poor substitute. It offers just enough power to keep a lightbulb going, and to recharge a mobile phone, which is better than nothing – but only barely. The IEA expects that each of the 195 million people with off-grid solar will get just 170kWh per year – or half of what one US flat-screen TV uses in a year. Perhaps not surprisingly, the first rigorous test published on the impact of solar panels on the lives of poor people found that while they got a little more electricity, there was no measurable impact on their lives: they did not increase savings or spending, they did not work more or start more businesses, and their children did not study more. Little wonder: 170kWh is not what most of us would consider real access to electricity. Off-grid energy at this level will never power a factory or a farm, so it cannot reduce poverty or create jobs. And it will not help fight the world’s biggest environmental killer: indoor air pollution, which is mostly caused by open fires fueled by wood, cardboard, and dung, and claims 3.8 million livesannually. This is not a concern in rich countries, where stoves and heaters are hooked up to the grid; but because solar is too weak to power stoves and ovens, recipients of off-grid solar panels will continue suffering. In 2016, the Nigerian finance minister called out the West for its “hypocrisy” in attempting to block Africa from using coal to solve its power shortages. “After polluting the environment for hundreds of years,” she said, “now that Africa wants to use coal, they deny us.” A Copenhagen Consensus study for Bangladesh found that building new coal-fired power plants there would, over the next 15 years, generate global climate damage eventually costing around $592 million. But the benefits from electrification through higher economic growth would be almost 500 times greater, at $258 billion – equivalent to more than an entire year of the country’s GDP. By 2030, the average Bangladeshi would be 16% better off. Denying Bangladesh this benefit in the name of combating global warming means to focus on avoiding 23 cents of global climate costs for every $100 of development benefits we ask Bangladeshis to forgo – and this in a country where energy shortages cost an estimated 0.5% of GDP, and around 21 million people survive on less than $1.25 per day. There is no choice: we must fight energy poverty and fix climate change. But that requires a huge increase in green-energy research and development, so that clean sources eventually outcompete fossil fuels. And it means recognizing that it is hypocritical for the world’s wealthy, who would never accept survival on a tiny amount of power, to demand this from the world’s poorest. BJØRN LOMBORG Writing for PS since 2005 159 Commentaries Subscribe Bjørn Lomborg, a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School, is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which seeks to study environmental problems and solutions using the best available analytical methods. He is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cool It, How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place and The Nobel Laureates' Guide to the Smartest Targets for the World, and was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people in 2004.

Troy Stecher has signed a 2-year contract averaging $2.325 million per year. I'm thrilled with both the term and the money.

In my first AMA video, I answer over two dozen questions ranging from my favourite Canucks player of all time to my highest bowling score ever.

Heh... NHL, CHL, OHL, QMJL.... and all of the hockey world. I am a hockey fan. I think hockey has come a long way. It has evolved for the better. There is one thing in sports that I think needs to be rethought about. Especially in hockey! Can you guess what might be the cause of mononucleosis? PLEASE STOP SPITTING, hacking, and blowing your phlegm onto the ice surface! I believe spit on the ice is preserved with the virus and is incubated once reattached to its next victim. It does not add to the sport of hockey, and it is simply discusting if you think about it. Most hockey players think they need to spit onto the ice. Why? Is it to prove how maculine they are? Hmmm. So many kids and professional hockey players are getting sick with mono. Its not classy. Improve your hygienic practices!

Ask me anything you want - Canucks related or not - and I'll answer some of your questions in my next video.

Brock Boeser returned to action in grand style netting a hat trick in the opening game of Da Beauty League. Yes, it's a summer tourney, but it was still good to see that he seems fully recovered from his injuries.

Hopefully, both Elias Pettersson and Quinn Hughes start the season on the Canucks opening night roster.

Some reflections on the Summer Showdown (Prospects Game), retirement of Alex Burrows, and Troy Stecher filing for salary arbitration.

I went to the Canucks Development Camp practice at Rogers Arena and I was absolutely blown away by Quinn Hughes. Great skating, edges, and puck-handling. Now the question is: where will he be playing in October?

July 1: Canucks sign Jay Beagle, Antoine Roussel, and Tim Schaller

My cousin Dusty's name has come up in a couple of radio interviews this week as a potential candidate for the vacant Canucks goalie coach position.

Discuss.

With the 7th overall pick, the Vancouver Canucks select defenceman Quinn Hughes. I'm so excited...I certainly didn't think Hughes would still be available at 7!

The Canucks will look to add another important building block with the 7th overall pick in today's NHL entry draft.

I predict who will take home the hardware in tonight's NHL Awards ceremony from Las Vegas. As well, I took a quick look at where all the nominees were drafted in light of this Friday's NHL Entry Draft.

Aside from your "home" team, what other teams do you enjoy watching and why? I like the Winnipeg Jets and Tampa Bay Lightning.

I searched and couldn't find another thread on this issue so thought I would start one. I know there has been lots of discussion about how the game is played, hits to the head, rule changes etc. I read the Player's Tribune article this morning about Nick Boynton and his struggles both while he was playing and since his retirement. https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/nick-boynton-everythings-not-ok I've seen a few articles covering some of the evidence given by senior NHL executives during the lawsuit from the NHL players regarding concussions and their impacts. I am shocked by how boldly they deny any knowledge of CTE or long term impacts of head injuries and actually expect that people will believe them. https://www.tsn.ca/years-into-concussion-lawsuit-jacobs-and-other-nhl-owners-deny-knowledge-of-cte-1.1095287 It's sad to see how disingenuous people are when it comes to player health and the possibility of paying out major money for not protecting them better. Will we see changes in how the game is played? I hope so. We can't continue like this or the talent pool will dry up as parents no longer put their kids into hockey.

Olli Juolevi will be having minor back surgery; expected recovery time is 6-8 weeks. I'm not sure how Canucks fans are already labeling him a bust. How about we see what he does on the ice first?

Congrats to Alex Ovechkin and the Washington Capitals for winning the Stanley Cup. And I recall how hard it was to witness in person the opposing team hoisting the Cup in Rogers Arena back in 2011.

Legendary Canucks PA announcer John Ashbridge passed away on Tuesday night at the age of 71. We pray for the repose of his soul and for his entire family.

June 7: Remembering John Ashbridge

Elias Pettersson has signed his entry-level contract with the Canucks. Let the hype (and hope) train begin!

If TBL win the East it will pit Yzerman vs. Gallant. Most on here will remember the Wings heydays...one season of which included an interesting line combination: YZERMAN-GALLANT and a rather famous mustachioed gent named Paul MacLean (if only MacLean was somehow associated with the Caps then this would be really bizarre). As a sidenote: the scoring stats in 1988-89 for that first line in Detroit... Yzerman 65g 90a 155pts Gallant 39g 54a 93pts (also 230pims) MacLean 36g 35a 71pts ahhh...the glory days of hockey, when 125pts wouldn't win you a scoring title...and goalies were sieves (the Red Wings scored 313 goals that year...enough to finish 6th overall in team scoring) 1st - LA Kings 376 GF 2nd - Flames 354 GF 3rd - Penguins 347 GF 4th - Oilers 325 GF 5th - Habs 315 GF 6th - Red Wings 313 GF (that top line accounted for almost 45% of Detroit's offensive production) Ohhh...and dead last in Goals For that year? The Vancouver Canucks with "only" 251 GF...ahhh the glory days...they pass you by...

I was in Winnipeg for back to back weekends. And I had no trouble showing my Canucks pride!

Lately, the amount of game management by the refs, even in the playoffs, has been a little out of control. Refs should not be looking to give the home team a powerplay to tie up the game, or try to even out the PP for each team, or do make up calls to mitigate a missed call from earlier in the game. Any team playing an original 6 team always gets the short end of the stick it seems like, except for maybe Boston due to the style of game they play. It takes away from the integrity of the game because it does not leave an even playing field. I believe it also somewhat contributes to the diving culture that is becoming more prevalent in hockey in the past few years. If a player feels like their team is "due" for a powerplay, they might try to sell a call to get that PP. Granted, you can make the correlation/causation argument in this instance, and I am not saying game management leads to diving, but I believe the 2 are associated with each other. I'll leave you with one question: Do you feel like game management has a place in the game, or should the refs be as objective as possible?