2007 Year In Review Environment And More

This will be my last post of the year.

I'm going to share a few news pieces covering environmental stories of 2007, but before I do I'd like to reflect on my own personal experiences this year.

The year started with talk of a spring election (much like we're seeing again) and I was hard at work organizing and facilitating Green Party training sessions back in southern Alberta. In the end there was no federal election, but my wife did decide to run for the Green Party of Alberta in a provincial byelection in the late spring. I had started full time work at the Tyrrell museum again, and she resigned so she could stay at home with our son. As soon as the byelection was over Jen wanted to work again, so she got a part time job and we saved up a bit of cash. In September a job opportunity opened up for Jen here on Vancouver Island, and obviously she got the job. We made the move from Drumheller AB to Nanaimo BC in about a month. Her job here is great, our son loves the mild weather and the trees, and I'm starting to get some gigs playing around Nanaimo. I also have a part time job to make ends meet. I'm very excited about the direction our lives are moving in! Next move: selling our house back in Drumheller, and possibly buying some land and building some kind of green home. We've been looking at yurts and manufactured homes as well as small condos or townhouses, and we still don't know exactly what move to make.

I've taken up a supportive peripheral role in the local GPC electoral district assoc. We have a great candidate here and I look forward to the next federal election when I'll be door and phone canvassing during the campaign. I left a big hole back in Alberta, but I'm confident that the Crowfoot EDA, working with the provincial organizer, will be able to find a solid candidate for the next election. As of the fall council elections, Alberta has a strong and capable representative on the GPC Federal Council in Mark Taylor.

Throughout the year my blogging efforts had me exploring and learning about energy, economics and how both subjects are so very intertwined with the environment. Thanks to many visitors here on my blog who forced discussion and debate, I'm now much better informed on these subjects.

For more on specific subjects, or to see my posts over the year, please view the right hand columns listing my blog posts by subject and by month.

Here are a few news summaries of 2007 environmental news.

See you in the new year!


2007: The year in environment
22 December 2007 NewScientist.com
Catherine Brahic

The Magnificent '07
The top green stories of 2007
By David Roberts and Lisa Hymas
20 Dec 2007

Twelve Environmental Victories in 2007
Environmental Defense
03-Dec-2007

ABC Australia - Year in Review - Environment
By Elaine Ford - Dec 19, 2007

News review 2007: Reality of climate change hits home
22 December 2007 - New Scientist

Economic policies and overconsumption are chief causes of climate change

Economic policies and overconsumption are chief causes of climate change, say Canadian Nobel scientists

This isn't really new news for most of us, but this statement is worth a closer look, as the recommendations are intended to improve the sustainability of our society, among other things. They state that "Individuals, corporations, and all levels of government around the world have a duty to act as global citizens in the face of the danger posed to life on Earth and to the well-being of the human race as whole."

Obviously one must already accept that climate change is happening, that it's human caused, that the effects are negative and will continue to get worse. There are mountains of data available to back this up. Governments around the world understand the problem and are taking action. Unfortunately there are still a few people out there who are falling for the disinformation promoted by the climate change deniers. Before they can understand and accept the recommendations for action on the climate crisis, they must first understand and accept the realities of the climate crisis.

Climate change is a huge issue, and when faced with the enormity of this problem it's tempting to try to deny it's existence. For those readers who are already past this point, please read on, but for anyone reading this who still aren't on board with the international scientific community, please first read How To Beat Denial - A 12-Step Plan, and then read How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic, and then go on to the rest of this blog post.

From the news release:

The statement's twenty-seven endorsers include two Canadian members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Price jointly with former U.S. vice-president Al Gore.

"In the long run, we need to focus on sustainable levels of consumption, which means finding ways to rein in our currently insatiable demand for more and more," said Professor Danny Harvey of the Department of Geography at the University of Toronto, who also served as lead author of the latest IPCC assessment report.

The scientists also cast doubt on the reliance upon nuclear power and large-scale biofuels to prevent climate change. "It is no secret that humankind is already struggling to eliminate hunger and the loss of biodiversity," said Ryerson University Professor Emeritus of Physics Helmut Burkhardt. "To take land away from food production and from rainforests is, in a global perspective, not an option."

The Wasan Action Framework urges governments and international bodies to curb overconsumption, promote lower global birth rates through women's education and empowerment, focus on low-impact renewable energy sources, reduce carbon emissions and preserve forests.

Full declaration & recommendations:
Wasan Action Framework (PDF)

Happiness Is...

An excellent article by Bill McKibben exploring how the environment that sustains us has become very relevant to economics, and how a new shift in focus on well-being can help people understand the relationship between economic activity, our quality of life and the environment.

The Green Party already has extensive policy (also found here, and in other places throughout the federal party's website) on the interconnectedness of the environment, the economy and societal well being. And if this article isn't enough reading on the subject for you, I've blogged on it before as well.

From the article:

...we were so deeply enmeshed in the rhythms of consumer culture that challenging it in any real way seemed anathema. You could really see this attitude at work in the negotiations around the World Trade Organization. Relentless expansion of the international economy was the central business at hand – labour and environmental concerns could be discussed, but as ‘side agreements’. We were, literally, in the margins; the economic worldview loomed so large that all else was in its shadow.

But that’s begun to change – or soon will. Or could, anyway, if environmentalism begins to transform itself from a fixation on filters and light bulbs to a new fixation – on human satisfaction. For a very long time, ‘happiness’ has been considered a soft topic, something that hippies and sandal-wearers bothered themselves with and the actual world ignored as it went about the important business of More. In the past decade, however, economists, aided by psychologists and sociologists, have begun to question some of their assumptions...

...British economist Richard Layard, who has written a great deal about this work, says: ‘We now know that what people say about how they feel corresponds closely to the actual levels of activity in different parts of the brain, which can be measured in standard scientific ways.’ People who call themselves happy also seem happier to their friends, live healthier lives, and so forth.

Which allows you to start doing something interesting. It allows you to start reversing two centuries of reductionism. Instead of asking: ‘What did you buy?’, you can ask someone: ‘Is your life good?’ And once you’ve asked that, you’re in position to ask the most subversive question there could be: ‘Is “more” better?’

Because if more really is better, then environmentalism is a lost cause. There aren’t enough Powerpoint slides of calving icebergs to turn things around.

But if more isn’t necessarily better, then there are possibilities.

And so here’s the bottom line. We’ve become significantly richer, but not significantly happier...

read more | digg story

Building the Green Economy

I will be posting a series here over the next few months covering different parts of the Green Party of Canada's Vision Green document. The first section I'd like to explore is called Building the Green Economy.

Economics is a subject that is tied directly into the environment. For many decades the field of economics has failed to recognize that our economy is a subset of global ecological systems. Instead, economists have traditionally looked at the environment as something to be values and consumed in the pursuit of economic prosperity; the environment, along with everything else, has been viewed as a subset of the economy.

The logical errors in that outdated model are now becoming readily apparent: as we degrade and consume ecosystems, we pay dearly for the loss of that 'natural capital'. Take the example of how New York City chose to implement a comprehensive watershed protection program to preserve and restore natural filtration services as a more cost effective means of maintaining water quality than water treatment. Here's another link to info on this example. This outside the box thinking is slowly being adopted by economists and some governments, but not many, and certainly not fast enough.

Now past the point of global sustainability, our resource consumption under an economic growth model is becoming a dangerous and obviously outdated model. It was Walter Bagehot who said, "The whole history of civilization is strewn with creeds and institutions which were invaluable at first, and deadly afterwards."


The following selected text excerpts are from the Vision Green introduction on a green economy.

The Green Party approach is to think holistically. How can we achieve the best possible economic result? What are the fiscal and regulatory impediments to economic sustainability?

With the U.S. our largest trading partner, how can we maintain a healthy economy without surrendering our sovereignty and becoming subsumed into the U.S. orbit, as contemplated by the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership?

We strive for stronger local economies with a small business focus, increased national and regional self-sufficiency, economic diversification, more “fair” trade, more value-added manufacturing of resources, more green-certified production and a rapid shift to more renewable energy to create local economic opportunities.

This generation has the potential to capitalize on the single biggest business opportunity in human history – the shift to a low-carbon economy. Whether this is driven by high energy prices, dwindling oil supplies, strategic geo-political threats to foreign oil, the climate crisis, or all of them combined, the country that mobilizes resources to develop and commercialize low carbon technologies (e.g. alternate fuels, renewable energy and energy efficiency) will survive the price shocks of fossil fuel’s last gasps and emerge with a thriving economy. Canada should be that country.

It makes no sense to subsidize the wealthiest companies on earth to make the world’s most profitable product -- a barrel of oil. These perverse subsidies must be removed. It makes sense to reduce taxes on things we want – income and employment – while increasing taxes on things we do not want, like greenhouse gases and pollution that causes smog.

Canadian businesses want two things from their government: predictability and policy coherence. The Green Party government will ensure that the rules are clear, the playing field is level and decision-making is transparent.

Our fiscal plan is straightforward: Use the tax system to help meet societal and ecological goals. Get the prices right. Allow business to pursue profit, with clear signals of environmental and societal objectives.

Canada and the world community face an environmentally linked, energy challenge of historic proportions over the next few decades. The reality of rising fossil fuel prices, increased losses due to extreme weather events caused by the worsening climate crisis, higher global temperatures and worsening pollution levels will make mitigation and adaptation responses absolutely essential. Focusing community economic development and investment towards clean technology and services is both a smart economic development strategy and a superb investment opportunity.

Green technology has been called the greatest business opportunity of this century. All levels of government need to advance this green economic approach through effective tax and policy measures and appropriate skills and trades training at the secondary and post-secondary levels.

As part of the federal government’s contribution to advancing this green economic vision, the Green Party of Canada government will gradually and progressively shift current consumption taxes onto products and services that harm people and the environment while reducing taxes on income, products and economic activities that do no harm. This "green tax shift" will be largely revenue neutral, meaning that as certain taxes increase, other taxes will decrease. In particular, income and payroll taxes will decline. And because the Green Party is committed to eliminating poverty it would ensure that this tax shift would not unfairly burden less fortunate members of our society.

By moving to "true" or "full-cost” accounting, whereby products and services are priced according to the positive or negative impacts they cause throughout their lifecycle, our society can make rational market choices that will guide the economy toward environmental sustainability.

The Green Party believes in reforming our tax system to make it fairer and more in tune with Canadians’ desire for a healthy environment, a sustainable economy and a vibrant, caring society.

It makes no sense to subsidize the wealthiest corporations on earth – the oil companies. We must remove these perverse subsidies immediately, not in the slow, “grandfathered” approach of the Conservatives’ 2007 budget.

The Green Party will reduce taxes on things we all want, like income and employment, and we will increase taxes on things we do not want – things that harm people and our environment.

Our "green tax shift" will be progressive, with a schedule that gives industry time to gear up or down. And it will be revenue neutral because a tax shift is not a tax grab. Income and payroll taxes will decline and the changes will help, not hurt, less fortunate members of our society.

To shift taxes effectively, we have to change to a "true" or "full-cost” accounting method that incorporates economic, social and environmental costs and benefits in the national accounts. Using this method, products and services are taxed, and thus priced, according to the positive or negative impacts caused throughout their lifecycle. We have already done this with tobacco products. Such taxes help consumers make more rational choices.

There are other ways to put taxes to work improving our society. Our tax system must be designed to reduce poverty, encourage environmentally beneficial activities and generate more wealth for the 90 percent of Canadian families who are currently working harder without getting further ahead.

The Green Party’s fiscal plan is straightforward: gradually reduce our debt, give clear tax signals that enable companies to pursue profits on a level playing field, and shift taxes to ensure that both revenue streams and expenditures meet social, economic and ecological goals.

For more, including specific action items, see the full text here.


Click here to see all of my blog posts related to economics.

A Carbon Tax, the Arts and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

There is a point where ideology can exceed common sense, and one might wonder if that is happening with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

One month ago Maureen Bader, BC director of the CTF, came out against arts funding stating that government subsidies to the arts should be abolished. Bader sees the arts as business activity, but it is more appropriate to compare investment in the arts with investment in things like parks and recreation. Perhaps Bader isn't aware of the difference between investments and subsidies.

According to a 2001-02 Statistics Canada report, with an investment of $6.8 billion from three levels of government, the arts and culture sector directly employed 740,000 people and generated $26 billion for the economy. I'm sure Bader doesn't want to hurt our economy, so it might be that she just doesn't understand the concept of EROI (economic return on investment).

Then Maureen Bader misrepresented carbon taxes while making fun of global warming 'theorists' <--(her term).

Poverty is a serious concern, and Bader's use of the issue to breed fear of a carbon tax is misleading. By suggesting that we imagine carbon taxes "so high that people can't afford to heat their homes in the winter" in the opening of her missive entitled The Carbon Tax Poverty Effect, she tries to scare us out of using critical thinking to examine the situation. By listing "global warming theorists" as beneficiaries of a carbon tax, Bader manages to question the reality of climate change while suggesting that public concerns about climate change are somehow preyed upon by scientists for financial gain. Ridiculous! This suggestion seems more like a call from Bader to question the science of climate change than a sincere concern for Canadians living in poverty.

It is irresponsible of Bader to haphazardly dismiss the seriousness of climate change, and by conflating the subject with poverty she leads the reader to conclude that action on climate change in the form of a carbon tax will invariably lead to widespread poverty. It's also irresponsible to dismiss the concept of a carbon tax without first investigating how it could be implemented correctly, or why many respected economists support the idea.

Only one national political party is calling for a carbon tax and suggesting that the revenue be used in part to reduce income and payroll taxes, as well as kick start green energy industries. This tax shift can be as close to revenue neutral as we want, and Canadians can decide for themselves if they wish to spend their tax savings in ways that reduce or increase carbon emissions and climate change.

In the absence of tax shifting, a carbon tax would likely impose a higher cost on some people than on others, in particular those who cannot afford to upgrade their energy efficiency or who have no alternative to driving long distances. The Green Party would use tax shifting in a way that provides equivalent tax breaks to such people, so that they would not suffer economic hardship. We cannot afford to dismiss the use of carbon taxes, and using tax shifting to achieve fairness is a way to make it work.


More reading:

Arts ire for canadian taxpayers federation

Is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Right-Wing?

Canadian Taxpayer Federation being Dishonest with Canadians

Get The Prices Right (on tax shifting and GPC policy)

Green Tax Shift will protect Canadians against gas price shocks, says Green Party

Video: Dr. Mark Jaccard talks about carbon taxes

Carbon Tax FAQ

from the link above:
Q: Won’t low income and rural people be hardest hit by a carbon tax?

* In the absence of tax shifting, a carbon tax would impose a higher cost on some people than on others, in particular those who cannot afford to upgrade their energy efficiency or who have no alternative to driving long distances.
* The Green Party would use tax shifting in a way that provides equivalent tax breaks to such people, so that they would not suffer economic hardship.
* We as a society cannot afford to dismiss the use of carbon taxes. It’s much better to use tax shifting to achieve fairness.

- - -

UPDATE (Feb 21st, 2008) Click here for a good blog post on the new BC carbon tax by Vancouver Island federal Green Party candidate Brian Gordon.

Harper not fiscally responsible, yet tax cuts only for show

In response to the recent announcement on budget surplus and tax cuts by the federal government, I've written the following as a letter to the editor. I grabbed a few points from comments and articles on the internet over the last week. This was printed in at least one local paper, and you may use it or modify it as you see fit.

- - -

Letter to the Editor: Harper not fiscally responsible, yet tax cuts only for show

For years the Conservatives condemned Liberal surpluses as phony surprises. The irony of Harper bringing in a surprise surplus is not lost on me.

I don't disagree with the cuts to income tax and corporate taxes. I actually support a tax shift – reducing income and business taxes while phasing in a carbon tax to replace lost revenue. Most economist agree with this approach.

Unfortunately this ‘surprise surplus’ means that social and environmental priorities, like fighting poverty and homelessness, or meeting the challenge of climate change, have been left off the table by deliberate understatement of available surpluses. That money could fund capital projects such as social housing or transportation infrastructure.

One reason Harper cut taxes is to cut social services, to which his party is ideologically opposed. Harper also doesn’t seem to mind the infrastructure deficit worsening in Canada. The country-wide municipal infrastructure deficit has now grown to about $100 billion.

I keep hearing that the Harper government is offering handouts and tax giveaways (hardly a fiscally responsible practice) but all I’ve noticed is my child tax benefit, much of which will be taxed back by the government. The income trust flip flop was a major campaign promise that Harper didn’t make good on. No tax break there. This federal income tax cut offers savings per taxpayer at about $35. This is only for show.

Lastly, announcing a GST cut before shopping season is going to create purchasing doubt in shoppers minds. Couple that with the strong Canadian dollar and Mr Flaherty’s call for retailers to lower prices, and you have shoppers holding out for better deals.

- - -

Tip: When sending letters to the editor, always include you full name, phone number and address so the papers can verify that you're a real person.

Green Party of Canada releases 'Vision Green'

PDF version

About the Green Party of Canada and Vision Green

From the GPC website:
Vision Green presents leading-edge thinking and rational, realistic solutions for all the issues facing Canadians. It was developed by a 31-member Green Shadow Cabinet and was informed by experts, activists and citizens who participated in policy workshops held across Canada. All the proposals are based on policies approved by the membership of the Green Party.

Green Party solutions are rational because the Green Party, unlike other parties, understands the scientifically verified limits to growth set by the carrying capacity of our planet. We must work within these limits. Otherwise, we will exhaust resources, degrade our environment and put our economy, health and children’s future at risk.

Our solutions are realistic because they follow “best practices” already in place in parts of Canada or other countries. These practices are cost-effective, deliver results and benefit people, the economy and the environment.

The Green Party’s down-to-earth solutions will work in Canada because they have worked around the world. Many have been successfully applied in Europe, where Greens are elected at all political levels, including the European Union and national parliaments. Countries where Greens have served in government are the countries creating new high-paying jobs while simultaneously meeting targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are the countries where the gap between rich and poor is small and the standard of living is high. These countries don’t trade off the environment for the economy. Their economies and environmental laws are both strong.

Many people find it hard to position the Green Party on the old political spectrum. We believe in sound fiscal management and strengthening our economy while ensuring that it is sustainable. Does that mean we are “right wing”? We believe that government must provide needed social services while protecting our environment and the rights of women, minorities and disadvantaged people. Does that make us “left wing”? We don’t think so. More and more people are simply thinking of the Green Party as the party of the future.

The Green Party is different from other parties in another important way. We will never place the pursuit of power above principle. We will not allow partisan politics to get in the way of good ideas and needed action. We agree with Canadians who say it’s time for parties in parliament to stop bickering and get on with the job of combating climate change and taking better care of our environment, our health and our economy.

The Green Party of Canada, founded in 1983, is now a major force in Canadians politics. Over 660,000 Canadians voted Green in the 2006 federal election. More than one in ten Canadians are now saying they plan to vote Green.

There is only one true Green Party. We are not like the old line parties who talk green when seeking your vote but sideline green action once elected. You can trust us to stay true to our promises and champion the issues you care about. If you share our vision and agree with our solutions, VOTE GREEN.

Change the climate in Parliament.

The Green Economy

Averting Climate Catastrophe

Preserving And Restoring The Environment

People

The Planet Needs Canada (and Vice Versa)

Good Government

Green Economics - Stephen Leahy

I'd like to share with you a few articles on the economics of going green by Stephen Leahy.

Enjoy!

Like Enron, Earth Inc. Sliding Into Bankruptcy

All economies depend on the natural capital lying within nature’s lands, waters, forests, and reefs, but humans have often treated them as if they had little value or were inexhaustible.

Global Warming Is Real But I Didn’t Do It

The vast majority of North Americans now declare that they want action on climate change. But whether people are truly willing to embrace “carbon-neutral” lifestyles — including giving up their gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles — remains an open question, say experts.

How to Kick-Start the 21st Century Eco-Economy

Farming and forestry in nearly all countries is only about maximising food or lumber production, but that has to start including maximising the ecological goods and service those ecosystems also offer. And since they are extremely important services, the stewards of these lands to ought to [be] compensated so these services will be preserved and enhanced.

57 Tips On Going Green and Saving Money

The reason I spotted Stephen Leahy is that I read Adbusters magazine, and there is a great article in the latest issue called 'Earth Inc. - Staying in the black now means going green'. For more on this subject, as explained by Adbusters, click here.

Alberta Becoming A Petro-Tyranny

I attended a presentation by Mr. Nikiforuk in Rockyford a few months ago. He presented, to a room full of concerned farmers and land owners, an excellent slide show about CBM (coal bed methane) and the Tar Sands. He's a great journalist and this audio file offers very good information on what's happening with the Alberta government and our energy resources.

Click here (or for direct 'real media' file link click here) for the audio interview on CBC radio show The Current with Andrew Nikiforuk. Look for part two at the bottom of the page.

For the full written article 'Is Canada the latest emerging petro-tyranny?' by Andrew Nikiforuk, click here. (highlights below)

June 11, 2007 Monday
ANDREW NIKIFORUK
Calgary journalist and columnist for Canadian Business magazine
Is Canada the latest emerging petro-tyranny?

Every day, the First Law of Petropolitics quietly insinuates its way into the nation's political blood like a rogue parasite. The law, first coined by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, posits that the price of oil and the quality of freedom invariably travel in opposite directions.

As the price of crude oil goes higher in an oil-dominated kingdom, the average citizen will experience, over time, less free speech, fewer free papers and a steady erosion of the rule of law. The reason, argues Mr. Friedman, is simple: Oil and gas regimes don't need to tax their citizens to survive because they can simply tax another tar sands project, so they really don't have to listen to their people either...

...Alberta's politics mirror a global phenomenon. In a recent study of 105 oil-rich states between 1971 and 1997, political scientist Michael Ross consistently found that reliance on oil exports made a country less democratic regardless of its size, location or ideology. Oil corrupts and corrupts absolutely. Given that Canada is now ruled by Albertans and claims to be an "emerging energy superpower" as well as a "secure source of almost limitless energy resources" for North America, can Canada defy the axiom of our age?

Politicians serve those first who deliver the most revenue.

Energy Efficiency Better Than Expected

Energy Efficiency and Conservation: The Cornerstone of a Sustainable Energy Future

Here are a few highlights from a July '06, PDF report (985kb file) from the Canadian Renewable Energy Alliance on how conservation and efficiency measures have proven highly effective in an effort to meet energy demands. It's simple: we can meet demands by reducing them.

Energy efficiency is the least cost, most reliable, and most environmentally-sensitive resource, and minimizes our contribution to climate change.
—California’s Energy Action Plan II *1

Energy efficiency is likely to be the cheapest and safest way of addressing all [of our energy] objectives, while also strengthening energy security and improving our industrial competitiveness as we develop cleaner technologies, products and processes.
—UK Energy White Paper *2

Fortunately, energy efficiency and conservation are the lowest cost option for meeting energy needs, and they provide many other environmental, economic and social benefits as well:
· overall cost savings from lower expenditures on energy;
· a lower environmental load from avoiding the greenhouse gas and local air, water and land emissions associated with energy production and consumption;
· local economic-development opportunities and associated new jobs;
· an energy system with enhanced reliability and less price volatility; and
· improved energy-supply security.

*1 California Energy Commission. 2005. California’s Energy Action Plan II, p. 3.
*2 Department of Trade and Industry. 2003. UK Energy White Paper, Our Energy Future—Creating a Low Carbon Economy,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/ourenergyfuture.pdf


Recommendations for Provincial Strategies

1 Set a goal of meeting all new growth in energy demand over the next two decades through energy efficiency and conservation. Set energy efficiency targets for each sector along with appropriate intermediate milestones for energy utilities and industries. Make these milestones into legal requirements by using Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards and tradable permit (white certificates) programs.

2 Treat energy efficiency as a resource and given priority over supply resources. All resources should be assessed using social, environmental and economic cost criteria.

3 Mandate an independent dedicated agency to coordinate and deliver energy efficiency and conservation programs, and recommend policy changes.

4 Establish permanent funding sources through the budget process to support a building code and equipment standard review cycle.

5 Provide a shared savings DSM incentive mechanism for energy utilities, technical support provided for smaller utilities, and coordinate DSM programs across the Province.

6 Establish regular review cycles of energy efficiency requirements in building codes and minimum efficiency requirements for equipment. Changes in codes and standards should be negotiatedwith all stakeholders and supportive incentives provided to builders and suppliers in the lead up to changes.

7 Provide comprehensive energy efficiency programming covering all sectors and geographic areas in the Province. Market transformation programs should target the whole supply chain – manufacturers/builders, suppliers, contractors, users/consumers.

8 Provide targeted financial incentives to kick start market transformation and raise efficiency levels between code and standards cycles, providing effective support to suppliers, users, or contractors as appropriate.

9 Build an infrastructure to deliver energy efficiency products and services through training/certification of DSM program managers, contractors, circuit riders, building operators.

10 Partner with municipalities and First Nations to deliver community energy plans and community based energy efficiency programs.


Recommendations for Federal Enabling Policies and Support

1 Develop and implement a national energy efficiency strategy and action plan with targets and timelines, based on best practices, individual and joint initiatives across Provinces, and participation in international initiatives on energy efficiency.

2 Establish a permanent review cycle of the national model energy code for buildings, EnerGuide for Houses, and vehicle efficiency requirements, in cooperation with the Provinces.

3 Use the Energy Efficiency Act to raise minimum efficiency standards for all energy using equipment to the highest levels in North America in cooperation with Provinces and harmonized with the most progressive US States.

4 Provide enabling legislation and protocol support for energy performance and best in class labeling programs.

5 Promote and support the use of measures that provide value to energy efficiency labels so that they reflect the full environmental and social benefits of high efficiency. These should include tradable energy efficiency permits or “white” certificates, green mortgage concessions, preferential tax treatment, and targeted incentives.

6 Make market transformation the primary objective of federal energy efficiency programming, working with Provinces, Territories, Municipalities and all stakeholders to transform new and retrofit building, appliance, lighting, electronic equipment, and industrial equipment and process markets.

7 Provide national support for training/certification of DSM program managers, contractors, circuit riders, building operators.

8 Show leadership and support for market transformation by expanding the Federal Buildings Initiative into a full green procurement strategy where all federal facilities are built, leased, upgraded, equipped and operated to the highest levels of efficiency on a life cycle cost basis.

9 Establish a national energy efficiency finance fund in cooperation with the finance industry, private sector investors, and municipalities. Reduce financial incentives and tax concessions for fossil fuels and nuclear and divert them toward new incentives for energy efficiency (and renewable energy).

10 Put special programs in place to reduce “energy poverty” and raise building standards for First Nations communities and low income families.

11 Expand Canadian participation in international partnerships such as REEEP, NAFTA, and the IEA, providing support for energy efficiency in developing countries as well as North American and international discussions.

Also related, here is a link to a summary of an article on energy efficiency from a September '06 Scientific American issue on energy.

Excerpts from “An Efficient Solution,” by Eberhard K. Jochem, Scientific American, September 2006.


Energy Efficiency Is The Solution

Wasting less energy is the quickest, least expensive way to stem carbon emissions. The huge potential of energy efficiency measures for mitigating the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere attracts little attention when place alongside the more glamorous alternatives of nuclear, hydrogen or renewable energies. But developing a comprehensive efficiency strategy is the fastest and cheapest thing we can do to reduce carbon emissions. It can also be profitable and astonishingly effective, as two recent examples demonstrate...

...Improved efficiencies can be realized all along the energy chain, from the conversion of primary energy (oil, for example) to energy carriers (such as electricity) and finally to useful energy (the heat in your toaster). The annual global primary energy demand is 447,000 petajoules (a petajoule is roughly 300 gigawatt-hours), 80 percent of which comes from carbon-emitting fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. After conversion these primary energy sources deliver roughly 300,000 petajoules of so-called final energy to customers in the form of electricity, gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel, and so on.

The next step, the conversion of electricity, gasoline, and the like to useful energy in engines, boilers and lightbulbs, causes further energy losses of 154,000 petajuoules. Thus, at present almost 300,000 petajoules, or two thirds of the primary energy are lost during the two stages of energy conversion. Furthermore, all useful energy is eventually dissipated as heat at various temperatures. Insulating buildings more effectively, changing industrial processes and driving lighter, more aerodynamic cars would reduce the demand for useful energy, thus substantial reducing energy wastage.

Given the challenges presented by climate change and the high increases expected in energy prices, the losses that occur all along the energy chain can also be viewed as opportunities–and efficiency is one of the most important. New technologies and know-how must replace the present intensive use of energy and materials...

...Little heralded but impressive advances have already been made, often in the form of efficiency improvements that are invisible to the consumer. Beginning with the energy crisis in the 1970's, air conditioners in the U.S. were redesigned to use less power with little loss in cooling capacity and new U.S. building codes required more insulation and double-paned windows. New refrigerators use only one quarter of the power of earlier models. (With approximately 150 million refrigerators and freezers in the U.S., the difference in consumption between 1974 efficiency levels and 2001 levels is equivalent to avoiding the generation of 40 gigawatts at power plants.) Changing to compact fluorescent light-bulbs yields an instant reduction in power demand; these bulbs provide as much light as regular incandescent bulbs, last 10 times longer and use just one fourth to one fifth the energy...


The Importance Of Policy

To realize the full benefits of efficiency, strong energy policies are essential. Among the underlying reasons for the crucial role of policy are the dearth of knowledge by manufacturers and the public about efficiency options, budgeting methods that do not take proper account of the ongoing benefits of long-lasting investments, and market imperfections such as external costs for carbon emissions and other costs of energy use. Energy policy set by governments has traditionally underestimated the benefits of efficiency. Of course, factors other than policy can drive changes in efficiency–higher energy prices, new technologies or cost competition, for instance. But policies–which include energy taxes, financial incentives, professional training, labeling, environmental legislation, greenhouse gas emissions trading and international coordination of regulations for traded products–can make an enormous difference...

...Other similar projects abound. The Board of the Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology, for instance, has suggested a technological program aimed at what we call the 2,000-Watt Society–an annual primary energy use of 2,000 watts (or 65 gigajoules) per capita. Realizing this vision in industrial countries would reduce the per capita energy use and related carbon emissions by two thirds, despite a two-thirds increase in GDP, within the next 60 to 80 years. Swiss scientists, including myself, have been evaluating this plan since 2002, and we have concluded that the goal of the 2,000-watt per capita society is technically feasible for industrial countries in the second half of this century.

To some people, the term “energy efficiency” implies reduced comfort. But the concept of efficiency means that you get the same service–a comfortable room or convenient travel from home to work–using less energy. The EU, its member states and Japan have begun to tap the substantial–and profitable–potential of efficiency measures. To avoid the rising costs of energy supplies and the even costlier adaptations to climate change, efficiency must become a global activity.

Finally, on the subject of the economics & profitability of going green with your business, have a look at the book Natural Capitalism. Click on the link to read selected chapter excerpts online.

Green Tax Shift will protect Canadians against gas price shocks, says Green Party

Here are two recent press releases on the green tax shift that the Green Party is proposing, along with some background documents below.

A green tax shift is also known as ecological fiscal reform (EFR) and you'll find more info on EFR at this link.

Green Tax Shift will protect Canadians against gas price shocks, says Green Party
12.06.2007
OTTAWA – The Green Party of Canada warned today that Canada will enter a period of sustained and escalating price shocks at the gas pump unless the federal government moves quickly to protect Canadians from the financial toll of declining oil supplies in an era of growing global demand for oil.

“The current spike in Canada’s transportation fuel costs is just the start,” Green Party leader Elizabeth May said today. “It is going to get much worse if, like Prime Minister Harper, we simply accept that there is nothing we can do because the price increase is due to the imbalance between global oil supply and demand.”

The Green Party’s recently-released climate change plan – A New Energy Revolution to Avert Global Catastrophe – sets out a detailed strategy to simultaneously stabilize transportation costs and protect personal disposable income while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

This comprehensive and integrated green economic plan maximizes the energy efficiency of vehicles, significantly expands public transit alternatives, introduces environmentally sustainable smart urban planning and agricultural practices, promotes development of renewable energy and encourages aggressive energy conservation measures.

The plan’s key policy lever is the Green Tax Shift, which cuts income and payroll taxes and introduces a variable carbon tax on different types of fuel. The tax shift is revenue-neutral: there would be no net gain to the government’s tax coffers because individual income and payroll taxes would be cut by the same amount as the revenue collected by the carbon tax.

Canadians employers and workers would pay more for energy but this would be offset by lower payroll and income taxes. Canadians on lower incomes, who pay no income tax, would be given a carbon tax rebate similar to the GST rebate.

According to the Green Party’s Industry and Entrepreneurship Advocate, Eric Walton, by gradually increasing the cost of energy in clearly prescribed stages, the carbon tax will drive rapid technological innovation, vehicle fleet conversion, appropriate government regulations and personal transportation adjustments that will in turn reduce energy consumption.

“Over time, this will reduce demand and protect Canadians from rapid, uncontrolled gas price increases by reducing the percentage of an individual’s or family’s budget spent on transportation costs,” said Mr. Walton. “It is a win/win strategy that protects both the environment and the disposable income of Canadians through the Green Tax Shift.

“Maintaining the status quo will continue to damage the atmosphere and provide no financial rebate on income and payroll taxes. That is the lose/lose proposition."

- - - - -

Averting Climate Catastrophe: Green Party lays out roadmap to Canada’s low-carbon future

06.06.2007
OTTAWA – Green Party leader Elizabeth May today unveiled the party’s Environment Day gift to Canada – a comprehensive blueprint for a thriving low-carbon economy and a clean, green energy future that will reinstate Canada as a leader in the global campaign to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Ms. May released the Green Party Climate Plan: A New Energy Revolution to Avert Global Catastrophe, in Ottawa today – World Environment Day – with an urgent message for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Environment Minister John Baird and opposition party leaders:

“Please steal these ideas. They are decisive but workable and they will drive rapid progress towards achieving our Kyoto targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. There is no time to lose.”

As the Prime Minister joins leaders of the G-8 industrialized nations in Heiligendamm, Germany – with climate change top of the agenda – Ms. May also urged Mr. Harper to reject the defeatist attitude being promoted by the Bush administration and to reaffirm Canada’s commitment to Kyoto and further medium- and long-term emissions reduction targets.

“This is no time to align ourselves with the laggards of the world,” said Ms. May. “It is a time for vision and ambition. The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy represents the greatest business opportunity the world has ever seen. The federal government’s dogged refusal to recognize and seize that opportunity is a failure of leadership that puts Canada’s future prosperity in great jeopardy.”

The cornerstone of the Green Party plan is an immediate $50/tonne carbon tax, rising to $100/tonne by 2020 if necessary. Experts agree that a carbon tax is the most efficient and effective way to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but some say it is politically dangerous to enact a carbon tax. (See what experts say in the attached backgrounder.)

A $50 carbon tax adds 12 cents to the cost of a litre of gas at the pump. That revenue will be used to progressively reduce other taxes, including income and payroll taxes, and to provide tax incentives for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

The plan also includes a cap-and-trade CO2 market for Large Final Emitters – the big mining, manufacturing, oil, gas and thermal electricity companies responsible for about half of Canada’s total emissions. Trading of CO2 allocations will be overseen by a non-governmental body.

The Green Party plan also calls for:

• Rapid development of Canada’s renewable energy sources through tax incentives, research funds and new policies, including carbon conditionality clauses requiring provincial adoption of Advanced Renewables Tariffs.
• Tax incentives, regulation and funded programs to cut vehicle emissions 30% by 2015 and 85% by 2040, including incentives for the Canadian manufacture of electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
• A retrofit of all Canada’s buildings to a high level of energy efficiency by 2025 and zero net energy after 2025 using refundable tax credits, tax-deductible Green Mortgages, 100% Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance, revolving federal loans and changes to Canada’s Building Code.
• Regulations requiring all appliances to meet Energy Star rating by 2015 with most inefficient appliances and light bulbs phased out by 2010.
• Adaptation strategies to cope with climatic disruption that is no longer avoidable, including a special task force to prepare area-specific strategies and a Climate Change Adaptation Fund to assist areas hard hit by “natural” disasters linked to global warming.
• Withdrawal of federal funding for programmes such the Pacific Gateway Programme, that encourage urban sprawl and increase vehicle use.
• Removal of all subsidies to coal, oil, gas and coalbed methane production, a cap on overall extraction levels of fossil fuels, and phasing out of coal, oil, gas and nuclear electrical generation.
• Payments to farmers for carbon sequestration in soils within a domestic carbon market.
• A carbon tax or carbon rebate for forest companies to reflect either the net loss of carbon storage or the net gain of carbon sinks from their lands.
• A methane tax on all landfills and mandatory methane capture after 2015.
• Global verification and certification standards for carbon credits and the establishment of a Canadian Carbon Bank along with a federal framework for local and provincial carbon banks to encourage the purchase of local offsets.
• Expansion of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 to include international aviation and shipping and commitments to ramp up solar energy, electric vehicles and other low carbon technologies.

Green Party Climate Plan (PDF)

Summary Plan & Carbon Tax Quotes (PDF)

Key Points on Climate Plan

Carbon Tax FAQ

Going green is an economic plus, but Tories won't do it

While surfing the news online (I mostly use the highly customizable Google News but I have other alternative sources too) I spotted The Province, a canada.com CanWest Global paper from Vancouver BC. Here are a few links and story excerpts on the latest green plan from the Harper Government...


Tory Green Scheme Kills Kyoto With Hot Air

CLIMATE CHANGE: Greenhouse gases to continue rising under weak plan
James McNulty, The Province
Published: Sunday, April 29, 2007

Perched on a sunny Vancouver hotel rooftop last fall, Stephen Harper pitched his then-new Clean Air Act as the golden eagle of climate-change plans.

It would soar through greenhouse gases like a bird and sting pollution like a bee, Harper told the glorious photo-op, which cost taxpayers $75,000 to stage.

Nuts, said the opposition parties. The Liberals and NDP claimed the Clean Air Act was a partisan time-waster, when GHGs and smog-causing pollutants could be regulated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Nuts, said Harper, claiming CEPA wasn't strong enough. The Clean Air Act was declared "dead" by the opposition and a stalemate ensued.

Instead of standing by the CEPA argument, the opposition -- and Harper -- bought into NDP Leader Jack Layton's plan to revive the act for rework by a House committee.

The act was then bolstered with GHG caps and returned to Harper three weeks ago. The revisions were too tough for his liking.

Harper's solution? Abandon the big-sell act and have green foghorn John Baird announce that Canada's environment would now be saved . . . with new CEPA regulations.

The impenetrable haze of climate-change politics is thicker than ever for bamboozled Canadians.
(snip)

The opposition, having spent months rebuilding the act it once said was unnecessary, now argues that it trumps CEPA.
(snip)

Layton, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois were suckered when Harper agreed to rework his act. The PM clearly had no intention of honouring the committee's work, using the sop to waste time on a file already years behind schedule.

Harper and Baird's new plan is called the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda. It amounts to unambitious, unbalanced, half-slices of old Liberal policy, weak "intensity-based" GHG-reduction targets that allow total GHG output to continue rising, and a feebly low carbon tax of $15 per tonne for non-compliers.

It abandons Canada's Kyoto targets, even as a new Strategic Counsel poll shows that a clear majority of Canadians -- 61 per cent -- want the signed targets honoured.

Harper is trying to have it every which way, voting last week to support a BQ motion to meet Kyoto objectives while simultaneously trashing Kyoto.
(snip)

Harper is willing to bring in hard caps on smog-causing pollution, but avoids GHG caps, not wanting to annoy tar-sands producers counting billions in profits in all-Tory Alberta.

"The government of Canada is the only government of 165 nations to officially announce we have no intentions of ever trying to reach our targets," says Green party leader Elizabeth May. "It's really very shameful."

Economists polled by the Canadian Press said the Harper government overstated Kyoto costs while claiming one of the world's "most aggressive" climate-change plans.

Denmark, for one, has far tougher carbon penalties, yet its economy continues to grow as GHGs come down faster than in Canada.
(snip)

Dirty Canada Failing Global Test

CLIMATE CHANGE: Smart nations move as Canada's record worsens
James McNulty, The Province
Published: Sunday, January 28, 2007

The heat is on, and Canada is running cold. The Great White North is falling far behind the world's enlightened nations in the growing push to cut greenhouse-gas emissions hastening global warming.

As the Conference Board of Canada notes in a new report, Canada has the highest rate of increase in greenhouse-gas emissions of any G8 nation. The growth in emissions under Stephen Harper's Conservative government is even greater than that of the previous do-nothing Liberal regime.

The Conference Board, urging a cap on industrial emissions, warns that Canada would be "ill-advised to wait" and "risks being left behind" the United States, Europe and Japan in moving to a cleaner, greener economy.

Even the great climate-change skeptic George W. Bush, one of Harper's top ideological soulmates, has changed his tune from denial to urging conservation in gasoline use.
(snip)

Ten major U.S. corporations, including General Electric, BP, DuPont, Duke Energy and Alcoa, joined environmental groups last week in urging Congress to "significantly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions" with mandatory caps and a carbon-trading market to speed the inevitable conversion to greener energy sources.
(snip)

Canadian climate-change deniers falsely argue that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. In fact, there is consensus, to be demonstrated again this week in the latest UN report from top world scientists.

The need for action has never been clearer. Under Harper, Canada marches backwards.

Going 'green' makes eminent economic sense

Letter
Published: Thursday, February 01, 2007

I'm concerned about climate change and feel it's crucial our government takes urgent action.

It should commit to clean energy sources and reduce emission targets and guidelines as well as stop coal-fired power plants.
(snip)

As an entrepreneur and a capitalist, I believe there is greater economic opportunity for all communities that pursue a greener path. B.C. has a chance to lead the country and the world by adopting policies that deal with climate change.

If we ignore climate change and work only to maintain the status quo, our economy and lifestyle will suffer rather than flourish.

See two recent related Green Party media releases on this here and here.

As many people expected, the GPC Green Plan Squared (pdf link) continues to be the most economically sound and the best plan currently around.

Harper Governments Income Trust Mess

First this: (click this link for full story)

Excerpt:

Surprise move breaks major Conservative campaign promise to avoid taxing trusts

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said he had no choice because he feared that increasing numbers of corporations were preparing to convert to trusts — a trend he said threatened Ottawa's tax base.

Then this: (click here for full story)

Excerpt:

There have been 12 takeovers of trusts announced or proposed in the five months since the Harper government announced a surprise 31.5-per-cent tax on income trusts, according to Deloitte & Touche...

...Finance Minister Jim Flaherty sold the trust tax as a way to recoup tax revenue that these corporate structures were not paying, but critics say the measure will ultimately cost Ottawa money as takeovers put trusts in the hands of entities, including foreign private equity funds, that won't pay Canadian federal taxes.

New foreign owners of trusts would pay less Canadian tax, says Ogilvy Renault LLP's Leonard Farber, a former Finance official. "Foreign takeover will result in less tax at both the federal and provincial levels," he said yesterday.

Now this: (full article here)

Excerpt:

The rash of recent income trust takeovers that critics blame on the Harper government's trust levy will cost Ottawa tens of millions of dollars in annual lost tax revenue, Bay Street investment experts say.

That's tax revenue that would have been paid by trust unitholders and will now be lost to tax avoidance by predominantly foreign entities that have snapped up most of the trusts in the last five months.

It's a sign of how misguided the income trust tax was, critics say, arguing that the levy sold by Ottawa as a solution to tax leakage is actually causing its own bleed of revenue from federal coffers...

...“If so-called tax fairness was intended to accelerate the sale of Canadian companies to foreign entities, then it is a success,” Mr. McIntyre said. “If it was intended to increase Canadian tax revenues, it is a failure.”

Mr. Flaherty justified the 31.5-per-cent trust tax by saying it was necessary to stem tax avoidance by trust investors that the Finance Department had estimated was at least $500-million a year.

It would only take slightly more than 15 per cent of the trust sector to be bought out by foreign private equity, and non-Canadian firms before Ottawa was losing annual tax revenue equivalent to what it said eluded its grasp before the trust tax.

What a mess.

Was this simply a big mistake made by a party unable to govern, or was this done on purpose?

I know a great number of ex-PCers who absolutely will not place their vote with the Harper Conservatives. This party is failing to represent their voter base. The Harper government has taken Alberta's oil&gas revenues and used the cash in the spring budget to buy votes in Quebec. They have not demonstrated transparency or accountability.

So where does a Canadian, who wants to see the power to make choices concerning their land and municipalities actually put back in the hands of the land owners and municipal representatives, where does a Canadian concerned with fiscal responsibility, social justice, and ecological sustainability place their political support?

Edited to Update: Green Party Income Trusts Media Release Here.

A Geologist Talks Peak Oil & Canada

I'm always on the lookout for articles like the one below.

I know that we have a choice to either stay with a major focus on using the oilsands to drive our economy or invest instead in cleaner and more sustainable forms of energy. Eventually we (and our descendants) will be left with depleted supplies of fossil fuels. It's up to us now to decide on how fast we want this to occur. It's obvious to me that the faster we extract oil from the oilsands, the faster we'll use it up, or rather the faster the United States will use it up. What's the rush? It's not going anywhere sitting in the ground, except for maybe up in value.

I like to focus on solutions. The problem is that our economy is driven by the destruction/development of the oil sands. The development of oilsands is causing massive greenhouse gas emissions (in turn contributing to global warming), illnesses due to pollution, ecological degradation, and is attached to other unresolved issues.

The solution starts with ending government subsidies for the most profitable substance in the world. Instead of offering the oil companies incentives to invest in the oilsands (they need our tax money to help them operate?!?) Our government - the one we elected to represent us* - should instead invest that money in renewable energy technologies. Jobs will be created. We will be able to work in wind, geothermal & solar technologies. Our economy will shift away from being resource based and instead Canada will develop sustainable green energy &amp;amp;amp; export that energy technology. We have to act now though; other countries are already doing this and realizing great profits. Their citizens are healthier. Their economies are stable and sustainable. Why hasn't Canada done this? Because our government lacks the political will.

* (due to our dysfunctional first past the post electoral system, our government doesn't actually represent the majority of this country. That's a post for another day though... ;-)

Back to the article...

David Hughes on Canada's Oil and Natural Gas

Here are some excerpts from this interview. Read the whole transcript here.

DH: I am Dave Hughes. I work for the Geological Survey of Canada. I have been there for 31 years. I've worked on energy for my entire career, and I've been concerned about the whole global supply issue, and Canadian and North American supply issues, for more than 10 years...

...DH: Really, all you have to do is look at the last 10 years at what's happened. Even take it back 15 years to 1990. In 1990, we had a gas production probably of around 14 Bcf a day, and we had an overall decline rate of about 13%. So, if you didn't drill a well, gas production would drop by 13%. Going forward to 2004, the overall decline rate on a slightly higher production is now 20%. But, even more important, it's the initial productivity of the gas wells. Back in 1996, the average gas well - when it came on production - it came on production at about 600 Mcf per day. The average gas well, today, is around 200 Mcf/day - a little bit better than that.

JD: That's a thousand cubic feet.

DH: Thousand cubic feet. So, we have to drill 2-3 wells to get the initial productivity of a well that was drilled back in 1996. And you can see it in the overall drilling rates. In 1996, we drilled 4,000 successful gas wells. The price of gas spiked in 2001 - we drilled 11,000 gas wells. We've had about a 10% increase in productivity by drilling three times as many wells. 2003: even though we drilled 14,000 wells, gas production fell by about 3%. So, it basically hit a peak in 2001, maintained that plateau till mid-2002, declined 3% in 2003. We're now drilling nearly 16,000 gas wells per year, as of 2005, and production is about what it was back in 2002... We have to drill more and more wells each year - hopefully to stay flat - but, eventually, even to hold declines, to relatively small, incremental levels...

JD: Turning to the tar sands, the oil sands. Can you explain what kind of oil is extracted from the tar sands?

DH: I like to talk about the food chain when it comes to oil - conventional and unconventional. When we drill an oil well - really, this is a comment on energy return on investment - so, how much energy do we spend developing the resource versus the energy that we get back from the resource that we recovered? And when we drilled a vertical well in Saudi Arabia back in the 1950s, the energy that it took us to drill that well versus the energy in the 20 thousand barrels a day that we got back, was 100:1, or greater... If you look at oil sands - again, they're very low-grade oil, they require upgrading to turn it into synthetic crude, which is something that can actually be used - I think the ratio is something like two tonnes of oil sand for one barrel of oil - that's moved by trucks (hydrocarbons, diesel fuel). It's upgraded with natural gas, water. So, the energy input for tar sands is on the order of two to one. So, we burn a barrel to get two - with all of the greenhouse gas implications of doing that. So, as we move down the food chain, from 1950’s Saudi Arabia to oil sands in 2006, we're committing more and more hydrocarbon consumption, just to get hydrocarbons. And you can see the greenhouse gas implications of doing that. How much can the oil sands can grow? ...by my calculations, if we spend $90 billion (which is on the table right now), we may be able to get the oil sands to 2 million to 2.5 million barrels per day. And, again, that's going to keep Canadians in oil. It's going to result in a huge increase in greenhouse gas emissions. And, if you fire up GoogleEarth and go north of Fort McMurray and have a look at the surface - environmental impact of those oil sands - we're going to have a major ecological issue for those 2.5 million barrels per day of oil, a lot of which will be exported to our neighbors to the South...

JD: What do you think of Canada being trumpeted as having more reserves than - or, at least, being equivalent to the new Saudi Arabia?

DH: I think it's very misleading. I don't question that the reserves are there. The whole issue is how fast can you convert them to supply. And that's the whole problem with oil sands: it takes a long time to build the infrastructure, and to grow deliverability, compared to drilling a 1950 well in Saudi Arabia. So, it's a deliverability issue, not a resource issue. There's a study done at Uppsala University in Sweden on the oil sands, the implications of a crash program - if you didn't worry about natural gas limitations, water limitations, environmental impact limitations - how fast - or, the whole inflation situation that's happening in Fort McMurray because of all the development. If we didn't worry about any of that, and said, how much could we get if we just went flat out, and their analysis was that the oil sands would peak in 2038 at about five million barrels per day. And that's, again, significant, but the forecast [global] demand at that time is over 120 million barrels a day. So, compared to what the world needs, it's still a small part. And, the other thing about that analysis is, by 2050, all of the surface mineable oil sands will be gone, so we'll be left just with what we may, or may not, be able to recover from the in-situ [resources].

JD: The greenhouse gas situation in terms of Canada and Canadian politics is not exactly clear cut, but it does seem to have taken a - it does seem to be heading in the direction of being less worried about it. What light can you shed on that picture?

Can you comment on the greenhouse gas situation in Canadian politics?

DH: Canada has been a bit of a bad offender when you look at greenhouse gas emissions growth. Since 1990, Kyoto was supposed to get us down to 6% below 1990 by 2012, I believe. What's actually happened is we're now about 30 odd percent above 1990 levels, which requires a horrific decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberals said we were going to do it, but if you look at what happened, greenhouse gas emissions just kept rising. The Conservatives are backing off on Kyoto. In a way, I sort of agree with them. I can't see [with] people committed to business as usual, how we're going to get a cut of 36% by 2012. I see a lot of inertia. I don't see things happening - in fact, I can see things getting worse with the developments at Fort McMurray. So, they might have been realistic in assuming that we can't meet those targets. What really disturbs me is we're looking around the world to try to maintain business as usual without realising that we have an oil problem, a natural gas problem. There are things that we could and should be doing to reduce our consumption of those resources, as opposed to desperately trying to find more to keep business as usual going. I think we have to kind of wake up and smell the roses, and start doing those things. And that's the only way we're going to manage the greenhouse gas problem, or the long-term energy sustainability problem...

That's a lot to read, but well worth the time.

Final thought goes to Folke Günther:

"After 1850, the human population changed from using a flow (sun and its derivatives) to using a storage (fossil fuels). This is reflected in the population growth curve. When speaking of a change from a store to a flow, (renewable energy sources), you also have to invent a new (logistic) economy, since our current economy is adapted to the energy extraction from a storage."

How Will Our Grandchildren See Us? [article]

I found the article below interesting because stories like these are becoming very frequent, regardless of whether the source is on the left or right of the political spectrum. The climate crisis issue is not a partisan one. The realities of the climate crisis are being realized by Canadians and people all over the world, and the effects are being seen right now, from the loss of habitat and traditional native lifestyle in Northern Canada to the Pine Beetle infestation made worse through warmer and shorter winters.

So what can we do?

While we can change our own lifestyles, I believe that our government needs the political will to make the changes that we Canadians collectively want. Shifting our industries away from an unsustainable resource based one to a sustainable renewable energy technologies one is something that will be good for our economy today and for the next seven generations. That's the time frame that Green Party policies operate under.

We can strengthen our economy by conserving our ecology.

See the GP2 document by clicking here (PDF file) for more info on where the Greens are coming from with regards to energy, the economy, and climate change.

Back to the article...

The US Counterpunch website posted this article by Scott Bontz on April 3rd, '07. Here are a few selected passages. For the full article click the link just below.

The Great Depletion
How Will Our Grandchildren See Us?

Thirty years ago, Alex Haley's "Roots" on television inspired millions to sleuth their blood ties to history. On this anniversary, let's imagine what our own descendants will make of us when they look back.

What they will see is that Earth's people more than tripled between 1950 and 2050. They'll see that halfway through this explosion, American material consumption had grown so voracious that four Earths would be needed for everyone on the planet to live the same way. And they'll see that billions tried.

They'll see that this combination exhausted and poisoned water supplies, exterminated hundreds of thousands of species, and plowed under forests and grasslands, eroding essentially irreplaceable soils.

They'll see that what fueled the "free market" was humanity's biggest free lunch: We exploited energy accumulated over millions of years -- coal, oil and natural gas. And we did it even though we knew we'd run out.

They'll see that burning these fossil fuels raised temperatures and sea levels to drive tens of millions from coastal cities and drown rich delta soils, turned rich midcontinent farmland into desert, and made storms in wetter regions destructively stronger and erratic.

They'll see that even during this delayed reaction to the Big Burn, fossil fuels petered out, and with them the irrigation and fertilizer that made it possible to feed so many extra billions.

And they'll see that before the resulting hardships, people in the richest countries got much fatter, yet no happier.

They -- the Children of the Great Depletion -- will see that we squandered Earth, their birthright, for the sake of the "good life."

Since the free market has failed us here, we need new rules of taxation, regulation and treaty. So:

-- Make the American way of life negotiable. Our fuel burning pumps into the atmosphere more global-warming carbon dioxide than any other nation, even though No. 2 China has more than four times as many people. We have to lead the way out.

-- Do this by taxing fossil fuels to slash release of greenhouse gases. Price these fuels at their true, long-term cost, including illness from pollution and food production lost to climate change. Invest the revenue in sustainable alternatives. Do it soon: Leading NASA climate scientist James Hansen reckons we have a decade at most to start reducing greenhouse gases before drastic climate change becomes inevitable.

-- And for policy and individual conduct in general, recognize that what we call economic growth, running now on so much principal from the natural world, cannot last. Instead of spending like there's no tomorrow, conserve -- make this the United States of Conservation -- and pass along a good life to our descendants.

What could make them prouder?

Scott Bontz wrote this for the Prairie Writers Circle, a project of the Land Institute, Salina, Kan. He edits institute publications.

Spring Federal Budget Gets Thumbs Down

Green Party gives thumbs down to “bits and pieces” budget

Harper budget heavy on PR but lacking in substance.

Ottawa – The Green Party has rejected the federal budget brought down today by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. “This is a budget that is heavy on public relations but lacking any real substance when it comes to the key issues,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May.

“The government has included lots of small goodies for just about everyone but all those bits and pieces don’t add up to much,” she said. “It’s a most unimpressive budget and the Green Party would certainly join with the Liberal Party and the NDP in voting against it.”

Ms. May singled out the budget’s climate change initiatives for particular criticism, calling them piecemeal and, in the final analysis, insignificant.

“There is no way this government will ever be able to deliver credible climate policy while it insists on adhering to the regressive greenhouse gas reduction targets of 45-60% below 2003 levels by 2050,” she said. “That translates to about 30% below 1990 levels and we need to reach that by 2020. These targets are a formula for disaster.”

Ms. May did welcome Mr. Flaherty’s decision to borrow a plank from the Green Party platform by introducing a “feebate” tax incentive to shift drivers out of gas guzzlers and into fuel-efficient vehicles but said that one eye-catching initiative did not constitute effective climate policy.

“If this was part of an overall strategy that included a suite of similar initiatives, we could actually look forward to significant progress on climate change,” she said. “By itself, it will hardly make a dent in Canada’s emissions.”

She also criticized the budget’s weak response in the areas of child care, support for aboriginal communities and tax relief for poor and middle class families. “They included some personal finance breaks but exclude broad-based income splitting,” she said. “In almost every area, Mr. Flaherty has chosen to tinker around the edges rather than take substantive action.”

- - -

Canadian Conference of the Arts

Thursday, March 22 2007

Deconstructing the Federal Budget 2007 from a cultural point of view

...What then do this year’s current Main Estimates tell us at first look?

First, they confirm the first impression that if the government has a strategy for the cultural sector in Canada, it has not started to implement it. While there are laudable items in the budget concerning culture in the broadest sense of the word, and while there is a concern for grassroot financing and for involving the private sector, there is no obvious plan or policy the announced expenditures can be linked to, nor any long term commitment to anything, all allocations having a maximum lifespan of two years...

A friend of mine had this to say on the Harper budget:

I'm glad to see they are finally enacting the long-time Green Party policy of a feebate on new cars, although it is too little too late and not enough by itself to reduce our wasteful fuel use - we need a more comprehensive program, and something that influences everyone's habits, not just the lucky new car buyers. A new carbon tax balanced by a labour/income tax cut would be more effective, as would stricter emissions standards for all cars.

They are cutting some tarsands subsidies, but waiting 8 years to do so! Not sure why they feel they have to wait so long to stop subsidizing Canada's most profitable billion-dollar industry.

(RRSP extension to 71) Their approach to seniors [is to say] “hey, you can work a few more years before you retire.”

There is no plan to end poverty, no real plan to address child poverty (instead, the same old overstatement of benefits - the $2000 tax credit is only $301 in your pocket, even worse than last year's $1200 universal child care that meant as little as $360 take-home cash)

There is no sign of a shift away from taxing what we want (goods) to what we don't want (bads)

There is no focus on preventive health care - instead of money to wait in a shorter line when I'm sick, I'd rather just not get sick! Knowing how to prevent 50% of what makes us sick, why are we still spending pennies on the dollar on prevention?

In general, they are tinkering around the edges of business as usual. Canadians have given Harper the gift of a huge surplus, but rather than use it on a vision to transform Canada to a more sustainable economy, Harper is squandering it on pre-election goodies.

- - -

I noticed that a lot of the environmental programs to be funded by the Harper government are just the 'regifting' of previous programs that were in existence before but cut last year by Harper.

The amount of spending has been criticized by a great many political analysts as being far more Liberal and spend thrifty that previous governments. It seems clear to me that the Green Party of Canada would be a more fiscally responsible party.

Perhaps the Harper government feels confident in the thought that voters who are somewhat on the right ('red tories', 'Green conservatives' & 'blue conservationists') have nowhere else to go, but they should think again. The Greens did very well in Alberta in the last federal election, and this is because we draw votes from across the political spectrum. Many ex-PCers are not happy with this new Harper government and they are taking a serious look at the Green Party.

Does anyone else get the sense that this government is not actually governing our country, but rather they are positioning themselves for the next election? Buying votes in Quebec and Ottawa with massive amounts of spending, providing band-aid solutions for issues in Alberta and the rest of Canada where long term plans are deserved, and ingnoring our Native communities is not what I call good government.

Water, Water, Everywhere

New Trail Magazine
University of Alberta
Spring 2007
by Kim Green




Alberta development, drought, and ongoing climate change could transform an oasis of prosperity into a future mirage.

Full Article here

There is no such thing as new water. The Earth is a closed system and the water that quenched the thirst of dinosaurs is the same recycled water we’re drinking today. In fact, it’s been estimated that eight people before you have consumed every glass of water you drink so the same molecules of H2O that passed over the lips of Napoleon, Columbus, Joan of Arc or Shakespeare could be snaking their way through an underground labyrinth of pipes to a faucet in your home or office...
...Alberta, like much of B.C. and Saskatchewan, lies in the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains and the southern portions of these provinces comprise the driest large area of southern Canada. And although in recent years precipitation in Alberta has been sufficient to sustain growth, there’s no reason to believe that this circumstance will continue. Research conducted at the U of A by David Schindler and William Donahue, ’87 BSc, ’90 BSc (SpecCert), ’00 PhD, found that the region’s climate has been unusually stable and moist in the 20th century and that the drought that occurred in what is commonly known as the Dirty ’30s was mild in comparison to earlier centuries where several droughts per century were common, often lasting as long as several decades.

David Schindler - Thinking Globally

“It amazes me,” says Schindler, “that there are people who still think that the glaciers that are at the headwaters of all the major rivers in this province don’t provide any discernable flow quotient to the rivers. It’s clear that about 15 percent of the water in the rivers is coming from these glaciers, and they’ve all experienced significant decline in recent history, some of them retreating up the mountainsides by almost two kilometres during the last century.

“We also think that the 20th century has been normal in the province in terms of our precipitation patterns. But nothing could be farther from the truth. It’s been unusually moist and stable compared to previous centuries and we could be facing a drought in the future that will make the one we experienced in the so-called Dirty ’30s look pale by comparison. I think sometime, probably in the next quarter century, we are going to find ourselves in a several-year drought and then we’re going to know what water scarcity is all about.”

I've been watching the Drought Watch maps at Ag Canada and I'm a bit concerned. It's been a dry winter, and the 30, 60, & 90 day rolling maps show just how dry. Less glacial meltwater for the rivers, increased water usage by the oilsands operations, possible water table damage by CBM fracing, megamall proposals proposing to draw water from one river and dump their wastewater in another... it all smells of mismanagement and impending water shortage.

If we want the government to step in and ensure that our resources are used in a sustainable fashion, then we have to ask ourselves what sort of government will do this for us. If we want a government that will consider the well being of the people and the stewardship of our land, rather than just the industries competing for our land and water, then we have to ask what the track record of our previous government has been.

The information I wish to convey most of all is that the Green Party has a plan to conserve our ecology while preserving our economy. The Green Party has an economic plan that considers our health, our land & our children. It is head and shoulders above the other parties. Check it out here, here & here.

Green Party proposes Super Six fix for municipal infrastructure

Green Party proposes Super Six fix for municipal infrastructure

Cochrane, AB (9 March 2007) – The Green Party today unveiled a $3 billion-a-year plan to create six municipal superfunds that will fund the reconstruction of crumbling municipal infrastructure and transform Canada’s cities and towns into green and vibrant communities.

Delivering the first policy announcement from the party’s new platform at the contaminated Domtar brownfields in Cochrane, Alberta, Green Party leader Elizabeth May said that the Super Six superfund initiative is a simple, clear and decisive plan to develop green solutions to urgent and long-standing municipal infrastructure needs.

“It’s time to reinvest in communities,” said Ms. May. “We need to rectify the fiscal and infrastructure deficit facing municipalities by bringing all levels of government together around the key concerns of health, safety and a clean environment.”

The Green Party proposes replacing the obsolete and generic Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund with separate funds to target six specific areas of municipal concern: brownfield remediation, water and wastewater treatment facilities, sports and recreation facilities, mass transit, cycling and pedestrian promotion, and affordable housing.

“It’s a larger strategy for ensuring that all Canadian communities get the opportunity to have clean water, better transit and affordable housing,” said Sean Maw, candidate for Wild Rose and the Green Party’s Community Development Advocate.

“Every municipality in the country has its own problems, not just those cities that need an extended subway line. In Alberta alone, communities need federal commitments to cleaning up brownfields like the one here in Cochrane, Calgary’s mass transit is overcrowded and Fort McMurray desperately needs housing and other services.”

The Green Party’s Green Municipal Infrastructure plan is based on the belief that local government has the potential to be the driving force for improving the environment and the quality of life of Canadians. Creating opportunities for municipalities to clean up the local environment, promote more physically active lifestyles among residents and focus on energy efficient buildings and other infrastructure translates into reduced health care costs and energy consumption. These savings will then be passed on to Canadians through reduced personal taxes and better services in their communities.

“Both the previous Liberal and current Conservative governments have squandered a wonderful opportunity to partner with municipalities in a broad-based commitment to building strong and healthy communities,” said May. “The Green Party will rebuild that partnership – and our local communities – to the benefit of all Canadians.”

Click here for more Green Party media releases.

Click here for Green Party news.