No person anywhere has ever said: “When I grow up, I want to be a homeless drug addict living in a tent in San Franciso on a sidewalk littered with feces and discarded drug paraphenalia, and will be fine if I am close enough to a CVS or Walmart to steal enough every day to supply my drug needs and get enough food to survive. To get there I just need to ignore my parents and teachers, hang out with the “cool kids”, try pot, cocaine and opiods and party with the “cool chicks”. School is distraction from life and my parents are anachronisms (whatever that is, but I think it means old-fashioned).
But that is the state of Democrat led cities in America and becoming the state of Vancouver and Toronto over time. About 20 million Americans are addicted to narcotics. 38,000 Americans are homeless in the Bay area.
A higher percentage, about 15% or 6 million Canadians will suffer substance addiction in their lifetime. The response of Canadian governments is free drugs, “safe spaces” and a health care response to provide emergency care for overdose victims. None of these responses will reduce addiction and may even encourage it to the extent the risk are a barrier to some ever trying drugs for the first time.
Leftist policies on drugs and homelessness are about as useless as their “climate change” policies which pretend CO2 causes climate change. The pretense that “sustainable development” depends on lower CO2 emissions is left wing nonsense inconsistent with laws of physics and thermodynamics. CO2 is harmless but necessary for life on Earth and Net Zero if ever achieved would see CO2 levels quickly fall below the 150 ppm by volume needed to sustain plant life.
Attempts to curb CO2 emissions continue nonetheless and the International Energy Agency sees “efficiency” as the most important mechanism to meet its goal of NetZero by 2050. Luckily, there is not a hope in hell of NetZero happening and Earth is safe from the foolishness of left wing politicians. The achievement of “energy efficiency” will not result is lower energy usage but will very likely increase energy consumption.
William Stanley Jevons noted in 1865 that progress in improving the efficiency of coal as a power source saw more coal consumed, not less, and coined the term “Jevons Paradox” to describe the outcome. Higher efficiency compels lower costs and lower costs for energy cause higher demand. Underdeveloped countries lack low cost energy and will welcome and embrace improvements in efficiency by using more energy and the amounts they consume will outpace the gains in efficiency by a wide margin.
A good example of the paradox is the automobile industry. Fifty years ago the number of cars per family was less than one in three. Today that has more than doubled. More efficient car production brought down car prices relative to incomes and the convenience of more than one car saw car sales expand. As electric vehicles become less costly and more economical, demand will grow and demand for more electricity will grow in parallel. Other than nuclear, there is no possible way to expand world energy supply without fossil fuels at a pace which will keep up with that demand.
There is likely an unlimited demand for energy but there are artificial limits to supply in the form of the leftist policies attacking the fossil fuel industry. Those policies will drive fossil fuel prices higher, spurring more inflation. They will also prompt efforts to improve energy efficiency. Those improvements if achieved will leave families with more income to spend on other items, increasing economic activity. Every increase in activity compels more energy use. Economic cycles will become more volatile with wider swings but no “progress” will be made in reducing energy usage except during the inescapable downturns (or recessions if they drive growth below zero). The recessions will see prices collapse and less capital will find its way into energy production, particularly in oil, gas and coal where substantial capital is needed to merely sustain production. Shortages will become more extreme as economies recover and prices track higher.
Jevson wrote: “It is a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.” Adam Smith saw it. Jevson saw it. But Justin Trudeau, Joe Biden, and Rishi Sunak are blind to reality and we will all suffer for their foolishness.
Another great atricle to support common sense and fossil fuels. This artilce confirmed my belief that my ICE car wiil soon become very expensive to run thnak to these air heads in power. B/C of my age I won't have to worry but I still do for others and my grand kids. I must post on twitter for others to see.
Thanks, Michael