Stop Cable Bay boundary extension before Aug 5th

I recently phoned city hall about this controversial development and “negative option” approval process being used to bypass voter involvement. To be clear, the actual development isn’t what’s being voted on; the expansion of the city boundary to include this resort and golf course is the subject. It’s the developer who wants the city boundary expanded and our council has basically made sure that the developer will get their way. This is a big deal because it allows further sprawling of the city, and shows that Nanaimo isn’t serious about sustainable development and urban renewal through increasing population density.

It will take a decade to get proper transit service (as the RDN suggests) if the city doesn’t invest in building up the residential, commercial and industrial areas that already exist WITHIN the city limits. By expanding city limits and allowing developments to GROW our city, they prevent our central Nanaimo population from being concentrated enough to support ½ hr bus wait times instead of the current hour long wait between most busses.

If you wish to get more information you can call Bruce Anderson, Manager of Community Planning at 755-4483. Contact your city council to let them know what you think of this: http://www.nanaimo.ca/cityhall/index_inside.asp?id=213&collection=57

Click on the link below to get the elector response form that you can print and submit, or phone city hall at 250-755-4405 to have them mail it to you.
http://www.nanaimo.ca/uploadedfiles/Site_Structure/Corporate_Services/Corporate_Administration/StatutoryAAPPublicNotice.pdf


In the news:
City Deserves Better Effort
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_central/nanaimonewsbulletin/opinion/23202169.html

Residents hope to stop project
http://www.canada.com/harbourcitystar/news/story.html?id=98be0e77-5e58-4bba-a800-b30c147967b6

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)

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

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.

Nuclear Energy Very Problematic

This post is my reply to a pro-nuclear comment on a previous post of mine covering this issue.

Nuclear energy is NOT a good option for our current or future power needs.

Regarding greenhouse gases, many are produce in the production of materials to build, shipping of materials, and building of nuclear power plants. Then there is a large amount of greenhouse gases produced in the further transporting, storage and reprocessing of nuclear waste. The energy is not entirely emissions free unless one unrealistically removes all indirectly related emission from surrounding activities.

People will still want to drive their cars once oil is gone, but if you look at the numbers, it just can't happen, nor can we all freely fly around the world at will. There will not be enough energy, even if you build dozens of nuclear power plants. An interesting side note is that it would take about twenty nuclear power plants to replace the level of energy used from natural gas to fuel operations in the Athabasca tar sands, and that's just so that they can get the oil out of the ground so it can be shipped to the U.S. to be processed.

In articles all over the media, people are talking about the future need to replace oil, as peak oil might be upon us in at most a few decades, and at soonest... right now. The problem isn't that we will need to find a way to meet our growing energy demands. I think that will prove to be impossible without cheap abundant fossil fuels. Instead the problem is that somehow people across the entire world will need to learn to live on far less energy. In the future the grid distribution system may prove so inefficient that it will be entirely unusable. Decentralized local energy generation will likely be the solution, but without oil, we'll have trouble even maintaining and replacing those systems. So, how easy will it be for our future society to maintain, replace or decommission nuclear power generators, or to ensure that radioactive waste continues to be stored in a safe and secure manner?

Nuclear energy is NOT an option for our power needs.

Nuclear power will never be completely GHG free. There are so many other things that we need to do before we try to promote nuclear energy as some kind of solution to global warming. Isn't it completely possible that our society would simply continue to consume fossil fuels at the same pace, regardless of how much extra energy for other purposes is from nuclear power? If we build nuclear power plants, will we drive less? Ship goods by truck less? Heat our homes less?

The waste issue which is thoroughly understood by the anti-nuke community is a very big issue. Waste can be reprocessed, but as France is discovering, eventually the leftover waste that cannot be reprocessed will build up and huge amounts will have to be dealt with. Nuclear waste could be put back in the ground, but there will always be a risk of contamination. This process has been utilized by the French for many years and they are starting to realize that there are issues with the sustainability of this strategy that is simply burying the problem and delaying the inevitable.

Radiation release is a concern with nuclear plants. No one has experienced radiation exposure from working in a solar panel or wind turbine factory.

I lived in Toronto many years ago when it was discovered that the Pickering Nuclear Power plant was not living up to promises.

Ontario Hydro failed to report decades of copper and zinc emissions from steam condenser tubes 1,800 tones into Lake Ontario, Southern Ontario's and northern New York States drinking water. Ontario Hydro admitted that groundwater at Pickering nuclear power plant has been contaminated with high levels of tritium since 1978. Ontario Hydro disclosed that up to 150,000 liters of waste oil had been illegally dumped in a landfill in the late 1970s. Both the tritium contamination and the oil dumping were brought to light by whistle-blowers not Ontario Hydro.

In October 1997 it was revealed and widely reported in the media that the Pickering nuclear power plant had 30 fires the previous year thats more than two a month. This nuclear power plant is just outside Toronto in a densely populated area on the shores of Lake Ontario. The water of Lake Ontario is used as a coolant in the reactors and then pumped back into the lake - the drinking water of Southern Ontario and Northern New York.

For more on Tritium see this story:
Canada vs. U.S. Tritium Standards in Drinking Water (A Primer on Tritium)

Also, terrorist attacks weren't on the top of peoples minds back then, but we seriously need to consider the fact that a nuclear power plant is a possible target for terrorists. They wouldn't need to try to break in to get the fuel rods to try to make bombs, as some might suggest. There is a concern about the nuclear plants themselves being possible targets.

Nuclear plants are very expensive to build. There is a tremendous amount of concrete and steel that goes into their construction. They are heavily subsidized with taxpayers money and the ongoing costs including the costs of decommissioning a nuclear plant make nuclear energy one of the most expensive forms of energy.

Some might try to say that only small amounts of fuel are needed to yield huge amounts of energy, and while this is technically true, 'small' does not equal safe, or manageable, or responsible, or even adequate, meaning that we will need 'large' amounts of fuel if we are to try to attempt to run the grid on nuclear energy. Very large amounts.

A lot of those who are pro-nuclear mistakenly dismiss people who are anti-nuclear as being uninformed or not in possession of the facts. I'm not 'crying out' that we'd all need a power plant in our backyards. In my well informed opinion, one nuclear power plant is one too many. We'll all be leaving behind highly toxic waste for our children's children's lives and beyond.

Nuclear power is a horrible source of energy.

Here are some links to some must read stuff that will help inform the pro-nuclear individuals who are not in full possession of the facts.


Nuclear energy 'not a viable response to climate change' - enviro group

Earlier this week, Sancan criticised State-owned Eskom for being “misinformed” about the sustainability of nuclear energy as a response to the threat of climate change, arguing that the full fuel cycle of nuclear power generation was fossil-fuel intensive and that nuclear energy was emitting large amounts of greenhouse gasses.
By March, Eskom would complete a business case for new nuclear investment, which would be predominantly conventional projects and could see the current installed nuclear base rise from 1 800 MW to over 20 000 MW over the next 20 years.

The action group also stated that the mining, milling, processing and transportation of uranium fuel for reactors were all carbon-intensive industries and that nuclear power was releasing three to four times more CO2 per unit of energy produced than compared with renewable energy.

Worthington said that renewable energy initiatives involved smaller power generation units, which was opening up opportunities for greater employment.

He also said that risk of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as was evident in the international attempts to get Iran to shut down its uranium enrichment, was showing that enrichment for power generation and enrichment for the proliferation of weapons were one industry.

“There is no such thing as peaceful nuclear,” he said, adding that South Africa had enough renewable energy resources to provide energy for the whole of Africa.

The Long Emergency - James H. Kunstler (book review)

...Nevertheless, he does not see nuclear power as more than a short-term stopgap. Its ultimate limitations come first from safety issues with regard to plant operations and the disposal of waste fuel (although he points out that coal has cost far more lives than nuclear power, especially in the West). Second is the large amount of oil needed to mine and process nuclear fuel and to build and maintain nuclear plants. And the third, formidable objection Kunstler makes is that "Atomic fission is useful for producing electricity, but most of America's energy needs are for things that electricity can't do very well, if at all. For instance, you can't fly airplanes on electric power from nuclear reactors"—although, as he notes, the U.S. military has tried...

The Peak Oil Crisis: Alternatives – Decentralized Power

Most electricity is generated in massive remotely located plants – be they powered by coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear reactors. These edifices, on average, waste two-thirds of the fuel that goes into them. Most energy is lost as waste heat that goes into the air or a local body of water, and the rest in line loses while bringing the power tens or hundreds of miles from the generator to the user.

In terms of green house gases, we could have the same lights, appliances, heating and air conditioning for half the carbon emissions if we simply switched from the current paradigm to decentralized power generation. If we toss some user conservation into the equation -- more efficient lights, appliances, insulation, and whatever – it just might be possible to stretch dwindling supplies of oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium far enough to allow time to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy.

Government can’t solve energy crisis it created

...Americans are expected to consume 28 percent more oil in 2030, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates, as global demand for oil increases more than 50 percent. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, alternative fuels, including nuclear, hydropower and renewables like ethanol, will account for less than 20 percent of our total energy profile...

My note: Interestingly, this article completely ignores that global warming and the climate crisis is human caused, and that fossil fuels are a huge part of that. It goes on to suggest that the government relax regulations and provide incentives to the oil & gas industry so that companies can get to the oil as fast as possible. The numbers indicate that even with aggressive increasing of nuclear power it will be impossible to meet the energy needs of North Americans.


The nuclear energy option - Why environmentalists go silent when it's raised

Last week, John Rowe, chief executive of Exelon Corp., speaking at the CERES conference in Boston where hundreds of environmental officers from major corporations were in attendance, advocated the use of nuclear power to meet future energy needs.

The room went silent.

This is a telling sign of the state of the energy industry as a whole: "Environmentalists" create a lot of noise about creating alternative energy sources. The oil and gas industry quietly goes about its business. And when the nuclear option is brought up...no one has much to say about it.

The silence from the environmentalists can be attributed to the fact that nuclear power doesn't create carbon emissions. And it's readily available. It's an answer to the issue of global warming.

However, nuclear power isn't "clean energy" like solar or wind power. It's source and waste are radioactive material and therefore dangerous.

I personally don't want to bet the long-term future of the planet on whether we can find a solution to the carbon emissions from fossil fuels with nuclear power that in the short term can decimate pretty much every living thing on the planet.

There has to be a solution to meeting the world's energy demands, predicted to increase by 50% over the next 25 years. But nuclear power isn't it. There are too many hazards to consider.

There is NO solution save for reducing our levels of consumption of energy. Not solar, not hydro, not wind and not nuclear. Nuclear energy will meet part of the demand, but this is akin to widening the freeway to accommodate more cars in order to reduce congestion, only to see more and more cars and renewed congestion, or buying bigger pants and a bigger belt to accommodate weight gain.

Nuclear is NOT an option.


Union of Concerned Scientists on Nuclear Power and Global Warming

It must be borne in mind that a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide under existing conditions would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events-a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming. These catastrophic events include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, or the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian-most likely non-U.S.-nuclear power system. Expansion of nuclear power would also produce large amounts of radioactive waste that would pose a serious hazard as long as there remain no facilities for safe long-term disposal.

In this context, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:

1. Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

2. Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for "solving" the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur.

3. A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.

4. Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plants-from accidents and acts of terrorism-are fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry's worst performers.

Countries Undecided on How to Store Nuclear Waste

France Deals with Legacies of its Nuclear Programs

PBS.org - Why the French Like Nuclear Energy

Here's an informative video clip about Frances nuclear waste crisis. It's surprising free of anti-nuclear rhetoric.
Greenpeace on Frances Nuclear Waste

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 & 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.

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.

Nuclear is not an option

Reading The Long Emergency by James H Kunstler I almost feel like there is no alternative to nuclear, but then I snap out of it.

Using nuclear to maintain our society as it is won't work.

I am most certainly anti-nuclear, and I am fully aware of the reality of this position and the consequences of not building nuclear power plants in the face of an imminent global oil shortage.

In the post fossil fuel world (yes, it will happen one day not far from now) there will be consequences to not attempting to replace our 'cheap' abundant fossil fuel with the stop-gap of nuclear energy. Canada should start setting up sustainable decentralized energy systems that are not reliant on the grid right away.

Without fossil fuels to build nuclear power plants, large scale wind farms, solar grids, etc, we will find ourselves unable to maintain a society that's anything like what we have now. Based on the information in the book The Long Emergency I'm not even sure that we have a choice. A few decades (50 years?) down the road we may find ourselves with a broken down energy grid, using mostly coal and wood for energy because solar and wind power systems have broken down. When my 3 year old son turns 50, and his children are making a life for themselves, we won't have the abundant energy to consume at an unnecessarily rapid pace like we do now.

Nuclear will prolong the scenario of fossil fuel depletion, societal & government inaction, and the economic pains that accompany it, with the addition of radioactive waste. In the end we will not be able to maintain or replace the nuclear power systems without fossil fuel energy anyways. I'm having trouble imagining nuclear power plants that exist just to provide the energy to build more nuclear power plants, in addition to the nuclear power plants needed to provide energy to an entire country that continues to become more energy hungry.

How many nuclear power plants would we need, how much fossil fuel is needed to build them, what will we do with the waste, who will pay the bill, how will we maintain them or build more when fossil fuels run out... these are the same old questions and the answers are obvious to me.
Too many.
Too much.
Unknown, and no sure answer yet proven.
Taxpayers, through current subsidies to nuclear energy.
We won't be able to.

The bright side is that we can work now towards localized sustainable energy systems, reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, reduce our consumption of energy and shift the economy away from the current growth model. For example if we slow down the oil sands destruction, we will employ those who would have been working in the tar sands in green technologies like solar, wind and geothermal instead. This is a shift that the Green Party has explored thoroughly. (<--pdf link)


There's still no way around the fact that there will be less readily available easily accessed energy to go around in the future (we're already seeing this with the profitability of the once shunned and now coveted tar sands), and if the old-line parties are suggesting sustainability under the current economic model of growth and consumption, they either don't get it or they're lying.

Using nuclear to reduce climate change will not work. Strangely, Patrick Moore, formerly of Green Peace and James Lovelock disagree. Some people are not fans of Patrick Moore, and although I find Lovelocks thoughts on a number of subjects interesting, I (and many others) disagree with him on this point. Nuclear energy won't solve the climate crisis.

First, there are considerable GHG emissions produced in the consumption of fossil fuels needed to create & ship the materials, mine the uranium ore and run the machines in the building of a nuclear power plant.

Second, who's to say that we wouldn't just continue to consume fossil fuels at the same rate, with electricity from nuclear power plants to fuel our increasing demand for energy? This seems to be a more likely scenario than having nuclear power stations everywhere, asking Canadians to start conserving energy and change their lives while pouring billions of tax dollars into subsidies for nuclear development, one of the most expensive forms of energy.

Third, the climate is changing, and even if we stopped all consumption of all fossil fuels right now the climate would still continue to warm. That statement is based on research that shows that there is a 'lag time' in the order of many years with regards to the effects of GHG's on climate change.

There are environmental and economic problems with this source of energy. We should be preparing to deal with the effects of climate change, while reducing our fossil fuel & general energy consumption levels. Building nuclear power plants is a short term stop-gap that will do nothing positive for humans or the planet in the long term.

Reality Check: Sustainable Development

I recently had a great conversation with someone who was turned right off of the term 'sustainable development'. Their definition was the same as the old line parties using this catch phrase to sound good; increasing consumption, or 'development', while giving a lot of lip service with regard to the environment, saying the word 'sustainable' repeatedly. I agreed with my friend that it's frustratingly silly and that the two words appeared to contradict each other. Fortunately there is one political party that is reality based and does a good job of bringing politics 'down to Earth' (pun intended). The Green Party has a firm grasp of what sustainable development really is.

There are different definitions of the words sustainable and development. These words combined have been thrown around haphazardly by politicians so a clarification seems appropriate. I agree with the current Green Party definition of sustainability from their policies. It states that, “Activities are sustainable when they use materials in continuing cycles, use continuously reliable sources of energy, and come mainly from the potentials of being human (i.e., communication, creativity, coordination, appreciation, and spiritual and intellectual development).”

On the flipside, activities are non-sustainable when they require continual input of non-renewable resources, use renewable resources faster than their rate of renewal, cause cumulative degradation of the environment, require resources in quantities that could never be available for all people, and lead to the extinction of other life forms.

Now hold on a minute! That last part sounds more like what the current politicians want us to believe is sustainable, yet it's exactly the opposite. I'll go with the definition of sustainability that the Green Party uses, thank you very much.

To 'develop' according to my definition (not grow or consume more, but develop as in mature or change) seems like something that all types of green-minded individuals can agree to be a good thing. Promoting Fair Trade instead of Free Trade, viewing the economy as a subset of ecology (aka eco-economics), promoting green industries & 'green-collar jobs' as well as a move away from dependence on non-green technologies, and realizing that our level of consumption does not equate to well-being or quality of life (and subsequently supporting a reduction in our levels of consumption) all fall under my own definition of sustainable development.

See A Question Of Direction for more on this subject.

Oilsands: Burning Energy To Produce It

This image of the oilsands in northern Alberta links to an interesting video on oilsands development.


I wrote the following letter as a submission for the oilsands consultations that are taking place around Alberta. If you wish to make your voice heard, now's the time. Contact oilsandsconsultations@gov.ab.ca or call 1-877-644-4695 or go to http://www.oilsandsconsultations.gov.ab.ca/ for more info.

I want to add that in the 2006 Green Party platform it stated that the GPC would create thousands of new "Green collar jobs" by encouraging the development of low-emission industries in areas most affected by the shift away from natural resource sectors. Yes, my friends who work in the patch can vote Green knowing that they won't be out of work under a Green government.

- - -

To whom it may concern,

My name is Cameron Wigmore and I am writing this letter to you as a concerned Canadian. If it's possible, I would like to request for this to be read aloud by someone during the consultations please. I would be pleased to know that you have a system in place that allows people to be easily and readily heard.

It is my opinion that we are doing too much too quickly. What's the rush? If I were to ask the oil companies this question I imagine their answer would be profit related. It would be nice to see companies in the oilpatch taking the social and environmental implications of their business into consideration, but since the government says they don't need to do so, the companies don't worry about it. Why would they? To be fair, I realize that doing so would cut into their profits, and as a small business owner myself I can understand why a company would want the regulating bodies to stay out of their business so they can do what they want as quickly as they see fit. Sustainability doesn't fit in their equations. But it is in our best interests to regulate this industry properly. In this case it is my opinion that we can strengthen our economy by conserving our ecology.

This brings me back to my question. What's the rush? If I asked the city councillors in Fort McMurray or other negatively affected communities I'm sure I'd get an earful about how the government has been irresponsible in allowing, even promoting, such development and damage. I'd hear that many other people agree that we're doing too much too quickly. I remind everyone that recently the Regional Council for the Municipality of Wood Buffalo, which includes Fort McMurray, voted unanimously to apply for intervener status on any and all new oil sands projects coming before Alberta’s Energy Utility Board. Their infrastructure, police and social services are overstrained and woefully inadequate in the wake of this boom. They can't keep up with the pace set by the provincial government and this is a case where a municipality has taken matters into their own hands.

So let's ask the provincial and federal governments. What's the rush? Why are we doing so much so fast? Why are we moving forward with inadequate environmental impact studies being done? Why are vast areas of boreal forest being eliminated with no indication that we can ever restore this land? Yes, we can reclaim it, but I urge everyone to research what qualifies as land reclamation. Why are we allowing this extremely financially profitable activity to occur while we reduce royalties and taxes on oilsands development? Why should I believe that the companies, the government or even the organizations charged with ensuring public safety and proper activity regarding the oilsands share my concerns and wishes? To be clear, my wish is for no further leases to be issued and for current development to be properly examined for environmental impact.

To paraphrase James Howard Kunstler in his book entitled The Long Emergency, "The profits of a generation of speculators will be converted into costs passed along to future generations in the form of lost jobs, squandered equity, and reduced living standards. This is a convoluted liquidation sale of the wealth of the Earth for the benefit of a few people, with the average family sentenced to a race to the bottom as the economic & environmental assets are dismantled and sold off and livelihoods are closed down." Think about this. This is happening.

The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. In other words, ecology isn't a subset of the economy; it's the other way around. We need to transform our economy so that it respects ecology and gives us a healthy country with healthy Canadians. If we continue business as usual without accounting for and charging for the irreparable ecological damage that is occurring then we are practicing bad government and bad business.

I'll close this letter with a few quotes. My favourite and probably the most relevant is last.

"What many now call 'growth' will soon be seen as accelerated decay."

Dan Fiscus

"Anyone who thinks that an economy can be expanded forever, within the confines of a finite planet, is either a madman or an economist"
Economist Kenneth Boulding

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all."
Economist John Maynard Keynes

"Environmental injury is deficit spending. It’s a way of loading the cost of our generation’s prosperity on to the backs of our children."

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

"To waste and destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them."

Theodore Roosevelt

"Where there is no vision, the people perish."
Proverbs 29:18

Sincerely,

Cameron Wigmore

Drumheller, AB

Alberta Representative, Federal Council

CEO, Crowfoot EDA

Green Party of Canada

403-770-2962