Fraser Institute Presents a Barrel Full of Problems

Thu, 2008-10-23 15:34Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Fraser Institute Presents a Barrel Full of Problems


"No matter which candidate emerges the victor come November, Canada will likely confront an administration that is less friendly to its petroleum products than its predecessors have been," writes the Fraser Institute's oily Diane Katz.

Katz is the Fraser Institute's Director of Risk, Environment, and Energy Policy Studies, but it's pretty clear that she doesn't care about risk or the environment. She complaints that "both McCain and Obama vow
to replace fossil fuels with so-called (my emphasis) renewable energies such as wind and solar
power—neither of which is as cheap to produce or readily available."

She also notes that Obama and McCain have both set emission reduction targets of 80 per cent and 60 per cent respectively for 2050 - 42 years from now, and she adds, "Canadians should hope that the United States does not come anywhere close to meeting such targets, given that zero emission substitutes are in short supply.

Clearly, the Fraser Institute is banking on Canada's oil industry and is committed to a total lack of technological innovation in the next four decades. And as to what effect such a plan might have on the state of the earth? Well, our risk and environment expert overlooks both issues entirely. Very balanced.

Hat tip to David Beers at for digging this up.


Wow, 2050 is a long way off. North American economies will really miss the boat for renewable energy growth. Plus, the effects of global warming and air pollution will certainly be known by then!!

All nations that have moved away from fossil fuels [replacing them with wind, solar, tidal, energy sources] have seen a marked increase in their economic fortunes [recent unrelated events aside]. Citizens and most industries save a lot of money when energy is cheaper.

Renewable energy is CHEAPER, Dianne:
Trans Canada Pipelines [Canada] is setting up the Kibby wind farm right now for $320M [U.S.];it will produce 120Mw
I calculate that to produce electricity worth $50M per year, and so it will pay for itself in just 6 years. After that, it will produce the 132 Megawatts of electricity for about 20 or 30 more years with almost no further expenses.

Compared to a coal-fired plant, wind farms are a gold mine... unless you are in the business of selling the coal also. [I think that is who Dianne is appealing to]

If that isn't definitive evidence that the Fraser institute is a joke, I don't know what is.

It's really disappointing that a think tank that promotes such extreme, intellectually dishonest, and ideologically-based propaganda get any air-time in Canada.

Maybe the "free market" will bring about the solution, just not the one the carbon guys were hoping for. Volatile pricing on oil (up and down 60%) meets reasonable pricing on alternatives... Meanwhile we're beginning to understand that to carbon guys "free market" means free air and free water to produce private profits... they are an insult to true free enterprise.

free market guys would be delighted if oil died and wind took over - they just aren't ready to believe it yet, but don't worry, once they start seeing money in alternatives they'll be on it like seagulls on a dead squid.