Summarised by Centrist
Professor Ross McKitrick, a distinguished economist from the University of Guelph, asserts that the climate catastrophe narrative is driven by political and financial interests, not just environmental concerns.
He argues that renewables require substantial government subsidies and backup systems like gas-fired plants, which ultimately make them costly and unreliable.
“You can’t have an electricity system that when the wind dies down, there’s no electricity,” he says.
Using Ontario’s failed wind turbine initiative as a case study, he explains that these industries collapse as soon as the subsidies end. Yet, while subsidies are in place, they drain society’s resources, eroding national wealth rather than building it.
But even before transitioning to a decarbonised economy, we need to ask why we are doing it. McKitrick says the accuracy of claims that human-emitted CO2 causes global warming, leading to severe climate catastrophes if unchecked, should be questioned.
He says that the debate is heavily influenced by Western universities and scientific journals often promoting alarmist views to support left-wing policies.
Fossil fuels and nuclear energy remain more efficient and dependable compared to current renewable technologies.
The narrative of a climate catastrophe serves as a convenient means for governments to expand regulatory control over various aspects of life.
