Two weeks ago marked the long awaiting re-opening of the NS Legislature. Since that time, over 90 Bills have been tabled. Everything from amending the Trade Union Act to the mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds. However, lost in all the spin and publicity were two bills from the NDP, that were actually the most progressive Bills this province has ever seen regarding climate change and renewable energy. They were:
Bill No. 71 - Community-based Energy Development Act (C-BED)
and
Bill No. 89 - Carbon Offsets Fund Act
Both of these Bills were tabled as private member's bills. Bill 71 by the NDP Energy Critic, Frank Corbett, and Bill 89 by Graham Steele the NDP Environment Critic.
The C-BED Act brings forward two ideals that that have helped made places like Denmark and Germany world leaders in Renewable Energy: 1) Community Ownership and 2) Advanced Renewable Tariffs. This Bill would require the UARB to set rates for NS Power to purchase renewable energy from community based projects under 10MW. Setting rates allows smaller organizations develop projects while ensuring they get a good return for their investment. Community owned renewable energy, or Community Power as it tends to be called, has been proven to provide 5 to 10 times more economic benefits and employment than projects owned by out-of-town companies.
The Carbon Offset Fund Act is quite simple. It would establish a fund in which NS Companies that wish to go "carbon neutral" can invest. Those funds would then be used to promote renewable energy projects. It's a long way from project-based carbon trading markets, however, it helps companies become more carbon aware, helps encourage renewable energy, and helps all of Nova Scotia prepare for the inevitable carbon markets we will all have to work within.
While the Department of Energy is traveling around the province asking for public input for a revised Energy Strategy (to replace the strategy that they got public input on in 2001, but never acted on), kudos should go to the NDP, for actually trying to create real change in our coal-addicted province.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The 10 Myths of Renewable Energy
Hi everyone.
As many of you know, I am involved with the Scotian WindFields. I normally try to keep this blog independent of my work with Scotian, but this was too important to leave out. See the following communication about the 10 Myths of Renewable Energy...
The Nova Scotia Department of Energy is currently re-evaluating its Energy Strategy in light of concerns about Climate Change and increasing energy costs. The Department is currently looking for public and stakeholder input on this issue, and has published a discussion paper to help this process. Despite their best intentions, the discussion paper is heavily favoured towards further development of fossil fuel based industry, rather than utilization of our world class renewable energy resources.
The Scotian WindFields are currently developing a formal response to the NS Department of Energy’s discussion paper on Energy Strategy. Scotian is hoping to re-focus the debate over energy from fossil-fuel based ideals to the basic principals of renewable energy. Through its response, Scotian hopes to get the energy debate going in the right direction by dispelling some of the common myths about Renewable Energy. (see below, in order that they appear in the discussion paper). The goal is to help Nova Scotia realize its potential to be environmentally sustainable and truly prosperous, through a future energy strategy focused on promotion of renewable energy.
The 10 Myths of Renewable Energy:
1. “Our economy and energy demand will require fossil fuels for some time” (page ii)
2. The current cost of wind and wave energy is higher than fossil fuels (page 2)
3. “To meet all of our energy demands, we still need fossil fuels” (Page 4)
4. There are technical obstacles to renewable energy (Page 6)
5. That there are “natural limits” to the amount of renewable energy available to use (Page 8)
6. “putting more wind power onto the grid may not lower emission levels” (Page 8)
7. “Energy cannot be efficiently stored” (Page 11)
8. Carbon sequestration may prove cost effective (Page 12)
9. Nova Scotia is “without large-scale local clean energy sources” (Page 13)
10. The opportunities to manufacture competitive renewable energy products in NS is limited (Page 18)
The Department of Energy is currently holding a number of public meetings around the province. If you feel that our government should be doing more to promote renewable energy and address climate change concerns, make sure to attend the meetings in your area:
Nov 29, 2007 Halifax 9:00 am World Trade Convention CentreSuite 101
Nov 29, 2007 Musquodoboit Harbour 4:00 pm Community Center (Rink) 67 Park Road
Dec 3, 2007 Amherst 4:00 pm Wandlyn Inn
Dec 4, 2007 Antigonish 4:00 pm Keating Millennium Centre Conference Room St. Francis Xaxier University
Dec 5, 2007 Truro 4:00 pm Truro Convention Center
Dec 6, 2007 Halifax 4:30 pm World Trade Convention Centre
As many of you know, I am involved with the Scotian WindFields. I normally try to keep this blog independent of my work with Scotian, but this was too important to leave out. See the following communication about the 10 Myths of Renewable Energy...
The Nova Scotia Department of Energy is currently re-evaluating its Energy Strategy in light of concerns about Climate Change and increasing energy costs. The Department is currently looking for public and stakeholder input on this issue, and has published a discussion paper to help this process. Despite their best intentions, the discussion paper is heavily favoured towards further development of fossil fuel based industry, rather than utilization of our world class renewable energy resources.
The Scotian WindFields are currently developing a formal response to the NS Department of Energy’s discussion paper on Energy Strategy. Scotian is hoping to re-focus the debate over energy from fossil-fuel based ideals to the basic principals of renewable energy. Through its response, Scotian hopes to get the energy debate going in the right direction by dispelling some of the common myths about Renewable Energy. (see below, in order that they appear in the discussion paper). The goal is to help Nova Scotia realize its potential to be environmentally sustainable and truly prosperous, through a future energy strategy focused on promotion of renewable energy.
The 10 Myths of Renewable Energy:
1. “Our economy and energy demand will require fossil fuels for some time” (page ii)
2. The current cost of wind and wave energy is higher than fossil fuels (page 2)
3. “To meet all of our energy demands, we still need fossil fuels” (Page 4)
4. There are technical obstacles to renewable energy (Page 6)
5. That there are “natural limits” to the amount of renewable energy available to use (Page 8)
6. “putting more wind power onto the grid may not lower emission levels” (Page 8)
7. “Energy cannot be efficiently stored” (Page 11)
8. Carbon sequestration may prove cost effective (Page 12)
9. Nova Scotia is “without large-scale local clean energy sources” (Page 13)
10. The opportunities to manufacture competitive renewable energy products in NS is limited (Page 18)
The Department of Energy is currently holding a number of public meetings around the province. If you feel that our government should be doing more to promote renewable energy and address climate change concerns, make sure to attend the meetings in your area:
Nov 29, 2007 Halifax 9:00 am World Trade Convention CentreSuite 101
Nov 29, 2007 Musquodoboit Harbour 4:00 pm Community Center (Rink) 67 Park Road
Dec 3, 2007 Amherst 4:00 pm Wandlyn Inn
Dec 4, 2007 Antigonish 4:00 pm Keating Millennium Centre Conference Room St. Francis Xaxier University
Dec 5, 2007 Truro 4:00 pm Truro Convention Center
Dec 6, 2007 Halifax 4:30 pm World Trade Convention Centre
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Harper in the way, Australia changing course
Stephen Harper continues to show the world that the government of Canada is not interested in setting binding targets to reduce GHG emissions. This most recent declaration took place at the Commonwealth summit in Uganda this week. All of the 53 Commonwealth nations were in favour of binding targets expect for Canada and Australia. The push for binding charges was lead by Malta, a small island county who may cease to exist if sea waters rise due to inaction on climate change.
The good news this weekend is that this will be the last international meeting that Australia will be standing next to Harper (and Bush) against binding emission targets. John Howard, who has led Australia for over 10 years suffered a major defeat in a federal election yesterday. And what was the major platform of Kevin Rudd, the man who won this resounding electoral victory? Commitment to Kyoto and binding emissions reductions. If only we could be so lucky here in Canada. Despite Canadians insisting that the environment is the most important issue for voters, there has been little resistance from Canada's other political parties. Hopefully, that will change soon.
The spokesperson for Harper at the conference said that they want to continue to push for the targets agreed upon at the recent APEC summit, which are "aspirational" targets for 2050. Imagine if the Allies had said that "We would certainly like to get rid of Hitler?" rather than taking action.
Harper's continued efforts against real emission reductions will soon make its way to the world stage. Almost every county in the world will be in Bali in December to discuss the follow up to the Kyoto accord, which ends in 2012. I guarantee that Canada will be one of the few nations, along with the US and China, that are against the further strengthening of emission targets. Harper has managed to take Canada form a world leader, to one of the most stubborn opponents to taking action on the greatest crisis the world has ever faced. All in the name of protecting the Tar Sands.
Canada needs a new leader, so our planet can survive. But hey, at least we'll have 5% GST soon.
The good news this weekend is that this will be the last international meeting that Australia will be standing next to Harper (and Bush) against binding emission targets. John Howard, who has led Australia for over 10 years suffered a major defeat in a federal election yesterday. And what was the major platform of Kevin Rudd, the man who won this resounding electoral victory? Commitment to Kyoto and binding emissions reductions. If only we could be so lucky here in Canada. Despite Canadians insisting that the environment is the most important issue for voters, there has been little resistance from Canada's other political parties. Hopefully, that will change soon.
The spokesperson for Harper at the conference said that they want to continue to push for the targets agreed upon at the recent APEC summit, which are "aspirational" targets for 2050. Imagine if the Allies had said that "We would certainly like to get rid of Hitler?" rather than taking action.
Harper's continued efforts against real emission reductions will soon make its way to the world stage. Almost every county in the world will be in Bali in December to discuss the follow up to the Kyoto accord, which ends in 2012. I guarantee that Canada will be one of the few nations, along with the US and China, that are against the further strengthening of emission targets. Harper has managed to take Canada form a world leader, to one of the most stubborn opponents to taking action on the greatest crisis the world has ever faced. All in the name of protecting the Tar Sands.
Canada needs a new leader, so our planet can survive. But hey, at least we'll have 5% GST soon.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Back at it..
Hi everyone,
I haven't written on this blog in almost a month. A little vacation time along side many other distractions, and before you know it, a month has gone by. Unfortunately, there has been lots to talk about since I last wrote. This includes the IPCC's 4th report, which gives the strongest scientific warning yet about climate change, severe drought in South East US, severe fire in South West US, growing opposition to the Tar Sands, Deep Panuke given the green light, and Canada's continued stalling to implement effective climate change strategies. I hope to be able to write about each one of these.
That being said, I would like to post a video today that doesn't address any of these items specifically, but gives a very simple argument for why they are all important. The video is about 9 minutes long, but it gives everyone an excellent source of ammo for those arguments against people who don't believe in climate change. For your viewing pleasure:
I haven't written on this blog in almost a month. A little vacation time along side many other distractions, and before you know it, a month has gone by. Unfortunately, there has been lots to talk about since I last wrote. This includes the IPCC's 4th report, which gives the strongest scientific warning yet about climate change, severe drought in South East US, severe fire in South West US, growing opposition to the Tar Sands, Deep Panuke given the green light, and Canada's continued stalling to implement effective climate change strategies. I hope to be able to write about each one of these.
That being said, I would like to post a video today that doesn't address any of these items specifically, but gives a very simple argument for why they are all important. The video is about 9 minutes long, but it gives everyone an excellent source of ammo for those arguments against people who don't believe in climate change. For your viewing pleasure:
Friday, October 12, 2007
Uranium Isn't Missed
I was very upset to read the article in this morning's Chronicle Herald entitled Uranium ban "A Lost Opportunity". The article is based on an interview with Ken Chernin of Acadian Securities. Since Mr. Chernin is in the financial industry, which has a long history of only looking for profits and never taking into the unaccounted costs of environmentally unfriendly business practices, I wasn't as upset with him as I was with NS Natural Resources Minister David Morse.
Minister Morse replied to Mr. Chernin's comments by saying that the "science is credible" and he wants to know what Nova Scotian's think. I was so upset by his comments that I wrote a letter to the editor of the CH. I've included this letter below in the likely case that it isn't published. However, being limited to 200 words, I wasn't able to fit in everything wrong with this article.
My major concern is that our government talks the sustainability-and-green-economy talk, but then turns around and says "nuclear energy is part of the solution". There are many many issues with this.. including
- mining uranium is absolutely devastating to local ecology, causing radioactive pollution to both the workers that mine and contamination of local flora and fauna
- nuclear development is extremely expensive, and traditionally requires millions of dollars of government investment and subsidy to even get started
- although little GHG Emissions are emitted in producing nuclear energy, the process of mining Uranium is extremely emission intense
- centralized energy works against renewable energy production
- storage of radioactive waste is still a unsolved issue
- production of nuclear energy causes extremely large amounts of water loss due to vapour.
- Both Uranium mining and nuclear production would have to be done by out of province companies, ensuring that any profits from these activities end up far from Nova Scotia.
On top of all these issues is the fact that what our government should be doing is increasing energy efficiency and encouraging locally owned distributed renewable energy, as I mention in my letter below.
Nova Scotians need to be aware that Nuclear Energy is on the agenda of both our current government, and our privately held monopoly utility, and we all need to make it very clear that is isn't on the agenda of the people of this province.
Uranium Isn't Missed
The comments from Natural Resource Minister David Morse in response to the interview with Ken Chernin from Acadian Securities should cause all Nova Scotians great concern. (Uranium Ban "A missed Opportunity" - Oct 12) Mr. Chernin is right that we are missing opportunities in Nova Scotia , but he is wrong that those opportunities lie in spending huge amounts of money to mine and develop Uranium in Nova Scotia. The missed opportunities are the two basic principals that NS should be embracing in order to effectively reduce emissions, and increase sustainability and energy security: renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Minister Morse wants to know what Nova Scotians think about spending “enormous capital expenditures” to locate uranium deposits, and eventually pillage our landscape to spread radioactive waste around our beautiful province. How can he not know the answer to this question???
To remind him: Nova Scotians have made it very clear. They want NS to keep its Uranium Ban, and they want the government to live up to its promises from 2002 regarding renewable energy and come up with a better plan for the $10 Million Clean Nova Scotia budget to encourage efficiency than giving away free CFLs!
It's not just the heat...
An interesting study was recently published this week in the journal Nature. The study showed that yet another affect of man-made emissions of GHG's is increasing humidity. As this article from the Associated Press notes.. "it's not just the heat, its the humidity".. an ironic cliche. The study notes that humidity will raise 6% with every 1 degree raise in temperature. The 40degree humidex they had in Toronto last week starts to make a little more sense now, doesn't it?
Humidity plays a large role on the stress that heat causes on the human body. This was more than evident in the record European heat wave of 2003 that caused over 35,000 deaths; most of which were elderly due to their higher susceptibility to both heat and humidity. Humidity also causes increased evaporation, as well as prolonged heat during the night in urban areas, because of the increased the heating effect on concrete and asphalt structures. Lastly, like many climate change phenomena, it is in itself a contributer to global warming, as water vapour can trap heat in the atmosphere causing yet another vicious circle (similar to the melting arctic ice).
What this article doesn't mention is if the raise in temperature is the only cause of this increased humidity. I wouldn't be surprised if coal and nuclear thermal plants play a large role in adding humidity to the atmosphere. To generate electricity using coal or nuclear, water is boiled into steam which then powers a turbine. Most of this steam then turns back into water and is reheated, or returned from where it came (river, lake, ocean etc). However, about 2L/kWh for coal and 3L/kWh for nuclear is lost as water vapour into the atmosphere. This isn't that huge a problem in Nova Scotia, because we use salt water from the ocean, but it is having extremely negative consequences in Ontario and Alberta, where fresh water is being used. (this steam turbine technology was invented in 1884, in case you wondered about the technology that powers your iPod)
On a very related issue, the Great Lakes are at an all time low, as Ontario plans to bring its second nuclear reactor online and as higher temperatures cause increased evaporation. (here).
Humidity plays a large role on the stress that heat causes on the human body. This was more than evident in the record European heat wave of 2003 that caused over 35,000 deaths; most of which were elderly due to their higher susceptibility to both heat and humidity. Humidity also causes increased evaporation, as well as prolonged heat during the night in urban areas, because of the increased the heating effect on concrete and asphalt structures. Lastly, like many climate change phenomena, it is in itself a contributer to global warming, as water vapour can trap heat in the atmosphere causing yet another vicious circle (similar to the melting arctic ice).
What this article doesn't mention is if the raise in temperature is the only cause of this increased humidity. I wouldn't be surprised if coal and nuclear thermal plants play a large role in adding humidity to the atmosphere. To generate electricity using coal or nuclear, water is boiled into steam which then powers a turbine. Most of this steam then turns back into water and is reheated, or returned from where it came (river, lake, ocean etc). However, about 2L/kWh for coal and 3L/kWh for nuclear is lost as water vapour into the atmosphere. This isn't that huge a problem in Nova Scotia, because we use salt water from the ocean, but it is having extremely negative consequences in Ontario and Alberta, where fresh water is being used. (this steam turbine technology was invented in 1884, in case you wondered about the technology that powers your iPod)
On a very related issue, the Great Lakes are at an all time low, as Ontario plans to bring its second nuclear reactor online and as higher temperatures cause increased evaporation. (here).
Monday, October 8, 2007
What "Sustainable Prosperity Act"?
How quickly Premier MacDonald has forgotten his own party's work from the Spring Session. Our government was one of the first in North America to pass legislation focusing on Sustainability, yet our Premier has put his faith in the oil and gas industry to lead this province into the future. MacDonald wrote a column in todays Chronicle Herald (link) proclaiming that our "future looks bright" because Deep Panuke might happen. If Encana decides to proceed with this large offshore project, (which I imagine they will), they will spend 3 years building the facilities, and 13 years pumping Natural Gas from the ocean floor. This may seem like a long time, but every turbine that is installed in the next two years in response to NS Power's RFP will last longer than this offshore project.
The PC Government seems hell bent in pushing the oil and gas industry for more exploration off our coasts, going as far as traveling to Houston and Dallas (home of such sustainability experts as Exxon and Halliburton) to beg them to come to Nova Scotia. Do we want a Premier that is in Texas promoting Oil and Gas, or perhaps one that goes to Denmark and Germany to see how they became world leaders in renewable energy. The Sustainable Prosperity Act pledges that Nova Scotia will become a "world leader in environmentally sustainable technologies" (Bill 146 3b). Did Premier MacDonald think the Texas Oil Patch was the place to start looking for these technologies?
Our government's bias towards Natural Gas has been clear for a while. Earlier in the summer, Premier MacDonald and Energy Minister Dooks pledged $3Million to help Heritage Gas pay for infrastructure costs. Heritage Gas is now giving the KeyNote address at the Green Energy 2007 conference sponsored by the Department of Energy. Natural Gas isn't green, and it isn't sustainable.
Both the Natural Gas industry and the Renewable Energy industry are starting to blossom in Nova Scotia. If a government wanted to be environmentally friendly, and sustainable as well, which industry should it support? Our government has put it's money on the table: 3Million for basic Natural Gas infrastructure, $75 thousand for the NS Wind Atlas.
Minister Dooks recently added in the Chronicle Herald (link) that the Department of Energy has to "protect electricity consumers". Natural Gas is well known to be more expensive than wind energy for electricity production. All year, NSPower has been burning $80/barrel oil at Tuffs Cove because it's still cheaper than Natural Gas. (CORRECTION: since earlier in 2007, Natural Gas has been used instead of Oil, which had been used for the past few years). The argument that renewables must be contained to protect consumers is completely false... it's only the existing fossil fuel interests that it protects.
Despite all this, the funny thing is that the renewable energy industry doesn't need all the handouts and bait money the oil and gas industry gets. All that the renewable energy industry needs is access to customers, something our PC government promised it would do in 2002. My recommendation is to let our poorly funded and under-performing schools have the money, and let renewable energies lead this province into the future.
The PC Government seems hell bent in pushing the oil and gas industry for more exploration off our coasts, going as far as traveling to Houston and Dallas (home of such sustainability experts as Exxon and Halliburton) to beg them to come to Nova Scotia. Do we want a Premier that is in Texas promoting Oil and Gas, or perhaps one that goes to Denmark and Germany to see how they became world leaders in renewable energy. The Sustainable Prosperity Act pledges that Nova Scotia will become a "world leader in environmentally sustainable technologies" (Bill 146 3b). Did Premier MacDonald think the Texas Oil Patch was the place to start looking for these technologies?
Our government's bias towards Natural Gas has been clear for a while. Earlier in the summer, Premier MacDonald and Energy Minister Dooks pledged $3Million to help Heritage Gas pay for infrastructure costs. Heritage Gas is now giving the KeyNote address at the Green Energy 2007 conference sponsored by the Department of Energy. Natural Gas isn't green, and it isn't sustainable.
Both the Natural Gas industry and the Renewable Energy industry are starting to blossom in Nova Scotia. If a government wanted to be environmentally friendly, and sustainable as well, which industry should it support? Our government has put it's money on the table: 3Million for basic Natural Gas infrastructure, $75 thousand for the NS Wind Atlas.
Minister Dooks recently added in the Chronicle Herald (link) that the Department of Energy has to "protect electricity consumers". Natural Gas is well known to be more expensive than wind energy for electricity production. All year, NSPower has been burning $80/barrel oil at Tuffs Cove because it's still cheaper than Natural Gas. (CORRECTION: since earlier in 2007, Natural Gas has been used instead of Oil, which had been used for the past few years). The argument that renewables must be contained to protect consumers is completely false... it's only the existing fossil fuel interests that it protects.
Despite all this, the funny thing is that the renewable energy industry doesn't need all the handouts and bait money the oil and gas industry gets. All that the renewable energy industry needs is access to customers, something our PC government promised it would do in 2002. My recommendation is to let our poorly funded and under-performing schools have the money, and let renewable energies lead this province into the future.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Turbines = Tourists
I haven't been able to write for the past couple weeks because of a work trip to Ontario, plus a trip to Quebec City for the 2007 CanWEA Conference. I'm still busy catching up with everything, but I wanted to pass this short piece on to you....
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about wind turbines in Nova Scotia, specifically around the effect they will have on their community. I'm a firm believer that wind turbines need to be designed with proper community input and using sufficient set-backs for noise (something that hasn't been done at some wind farms in NS), but a lot of the more subjective "affects" of turbines I'm not so certain about. One argument is that they are a visual "blight" on the landscape and that they will stop tourists from visiting already popular areas. This article posted earlier this week tells the exact opposite is happening in areas where wind energy is already being developed...
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about wind turbines in Nova Scotia, specifically around the effect they will have on their community. I'm a firm believer that wind turbines need to be designed with proper community input and using sufficient set-backs for noise (something that hasn't been done at some wind farms in NS), but a lot of the more subjective "affects" of turbines I'm not so certain about. One argument is that they are a visual "blight" on the landscape and that they will stop tourists from visiting already popular areas. This article posted earlier this week tells the exact opposite is happening in areas where wind energy is already being developed...
Turbine tourists blown away by country's wind farms
They're cropping up all over Canada and visitors get quite a charge out of seeing the electricity-producing windmills up close, writes Kathryn Young.
Kathryn Young, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Tuesday, October 02, 2007So many drivers are gawking at the enormous wind turbines along Lake Erie that they're creating a safety hazard, while in Alberta, TransAlta Corp. responded to visitor demand by creating an iPod audio tour for people keen to learn more about its three wind farms.
Wind farms have surprisingly become tourist attractions across Canada, luring thousands of visitors -- some from as far away as Australia, New Zealand and Europe -- curious about the electricity-generating turbines.
Municipalities are responding by constructing viewing areas, opening interpretive centres, printing maps, welcoming tour buses and selling T-shirts, ball caps, windmill models, pins, aprons, photographs and postcards.... read more
Friday, September 7, 2007
Eco-Logic Sustainable Lifestyle Show
There is an exciting trade show at Exhibition Park in Halifax this weekend. The green lifestyle is becoming more and more popular, so much so that there can be a trade show of associated businesses and organizations. If you are in the Halifax area this weekend, come out to Exhibition Park and have a look at all of the great organizations making a difference in Nova Scotia. While you are there, make sure you stop by booth 144, I'll be there all weekend.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Nuclear Harper
Stephen Harper is certainly making his positions regarding climate change and energy clear to Canadians to week.
First, Harper announced that he would delay the opening of the House of Commons until the Throne Speech in October. What this means is that any unpassed pieces of legislation will "die on the house floor". Even though Canadians have repeatedly said that the environment is at the top of their priorities, the revised Bill C-30 - The Clean Air and Climate Change Act (fresh with the efforts of the three opposition parties... who as I've said before represent a majority of Canadians) will be lost. Therefore, this brings the total accomplishments of Canada's New Government to two items: 1) canceling and repackaging the programs of the previous government, while making them more expensive for Canadians and 2) shoveling a small amount of money to the provinces to deal with the problem. Canada needs a strong national program so that all emitters are treated equally. The main argument for the Conservative government has always been that the Kyoto Targets are too steep. However, in a preliminary meeting held in Vienna recently to discuss post-Kyoto targets the targets discussed were 25%-30% below 1990 levels by 2020. This represents a 15%-20% more than Kyoto. Therefore, wouldn't the best plan to avoid the "economic collapse" the Conservatives have continually warned us about be to start reducing emissions and encouraging new technology now???
On top of Harper's negligence regarding GHG Emissions on the domestic front, he is also secretly considering committing Canada to join George Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership on the international front. Press stories earlier this week show that although nothing has been said to parliament or the public, Harper has been working on committing Canada to this group for over a year. The basics of this group would give Canada stronger markets to export its Uranium, however, it would commit Canada to taking the spent radioactive fuel back for storage within Canada. The main reason for this is that the US is running out of room in it's existing nuclear waste storage facility (Yucca Mountain).
Despite how Harper's plan to turn Canada into a storage bin for Bush's radioactive pollution might turn your stomach, the biggest concern about Nuclear energy is the amount of water it uses. According to the Sierra Club of Canada, Nuclear reactors use at least 2.3L of water per kWh. With the Great Lakes at an all time low and much of North America suffering from severe drought, we need to take care of our fresh water sources the best we can. Although Nuclear reactors do emit less GHG's, Canada does not need to destroy its last great resource, fresh water, in order to reduce emissions.
Here in Nova Scotia, there has been a "No-Nuclear" act since the 70's. We need to make sure it stays that way, so that when the change from coal happens, that it's to renewable energy, not nuclear energy.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
First Round of Renewable Energy Proposals
On a somewhat historic day, Friday was the deadline for submissions in response to NS Power's Request for Proposals (RFP) of 130MW of renewable energy. This RFP is the first step from NS Power to address the Renewable Standards Portfolio that the NS Government implemented, which states that NS Power must increase the proportion of energy it gets from renewable sources by 10%. At the time, NS Power got 8.3% of its electricity from renewable sources, 7.3% of this was from small hydro energy, and 1% was from wind energy. It is commonly reported that NS Power has to increase it's renewable sources to 20%, but it is in fact only 18.3%. Read the story from the front page of the Chronicle Herald business section here
Projects from all over the province were proposed, and to my knowledge these projects were almost exclusively based on wind energy. The main reason for this, is that although NS Power was told to increase the amount of renewable energy it used, they were told how they had to procure that electricity. Once their legislative requirements are met, NS Power is responsible for the best interests of its shareholders. In order to maximize the profitability of their newly acquired renewable energy, NS Power will be deciding the results from this RFP almost exclusively on a "lowest cost basis". The Ecology Action Centre issued a great press release on the downfalls of this tendering process which was picked up by the Chronicle Herald here. Wind energy is the most cost effective source of renewable electricity, therefore, it is the renewable source of choice under this system. One issue that isn't addressed in the EAC article is that if we are truly committed to moving towards a completely renewable electricity system, we will have to develop a diverse portfolio of renewable energies such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and sustainable biomass. What is most cost effective today doesn't relate to what is most sustainable for the future.
Despite these drawbacks, this is generally still a positive step for Nova Scotia. Currently, there is about 60MW of wind energy installed in Nova Scotia, and projects from this RFP will add over twice that. These new projects will be enough to power 40,000 homes. NS Power has publicly committed to announcing the successful projects by October 1st.
I imagine that NS Power will try to use these new projects to promote themselves as being "green" or environmentally friendly. Their public image could certainly use some work. In a recent national survey, NS Power ranked second last in the country. Read all about it here. Despite all of these new projects, the new electricity will only be used to match the increase in electricity in this province, which is approximately 3%/year. NS Power's four coal burning thermal plants will continue to operate uninhibited, emitting enough Greenhouse Gases to make NS Power the 6th largest polluter in Canada.
Stay tuned to NS Power's promotional efforts surrounding these projects, as I'm sure it will be entertaining. October promises to be an exciting month.
Projects from all over the province were proposed, and to my knowledge these projects were almost exclusively based on wind energy. The main reason for this, is that although NS Power was told to increase the amount of renewable energy it used, they were told how they had to procure that electricity. Once their legislative requirements are met, NS Power is responsible for the best interests of its shareholders. In order to maximize the profitability of their newly acquired renewable energy, NS Power will be deciding the results from this RFP almost exclusively on a "lowest cost basis". The Ecology Action Centre issued a great press release on the downfalls of this tendering process which was picked up by the Chronicle Herald here. Wind energy is the most cost effective source of renewable electricity, therefore, it is the renewable source of choice under this system. One issue that isn't addressed in the EAC article is that if we are truly committed to moving towards a completely renewable electricity system, we will have to develop a diverse portfolio of renewable energies such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and sustainable biomass. What is most cost effective today doesn't relate to what is most sustainable for the future.
Despite these drawbacks, this is generally still a positive step for Nova Scotia. Currently, there is about 60MW of wind energy installed in Nova Scotia, and projects from this RFP will add over twice that. These new projects will be enough to power 40,000 homes. NS Power has publicly committed to announcing the successful projects by October 1st.
I imagine that NS Power will try to use these new projects to promote themselves as being "green" or environmentally friendly. Their public image could certainly use some work. In a recent national survey, NS Power ranked second last in the country. Read all about it here. Despite all of these new projects, the new electricity will only be used to match the increase in electricity in this province, which is approximately 3%/year. NS Power's four coal burning thermal plants will continue to operate uninhibited, emitting enough Greenhouse Gases to make NS Power the 6th largest polluter in Canada.
Stay tuned to NS Power's promotional efforts surrounding these projects, as I'm sure it will be entertaining. October promises to be an exciting month.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
The 11th Hour Trailer
A new movie on climate change was released this week called The 11th Hour. This film is produced and narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio and provides a quality follow up to An Inconvenient Truth. While An Inconvenient Truth focused on mostly the science of Global Warming, this new film seems to focus on both the effects of global warming as well as the solutions to reducing our emissions.
Regarding the effects of climate change, one item really stands out for me, and that is the advent of environmental refugees. The trailer notes that the UN has stated that by the middle of the century, there may be 150 Million displaced peoples due to changes in our climate. It's really hard to fathom how many people that is, but what I try to focus on is this: there will be areas which humans have lived since the dawn of civilization that will no longer be habitable due to humankind's influence. These areas will include some of the places that were first developed and are now some of the most densely populated.. The great river deltas of the world, such as the Ganges, the Yangtze, and the Nile, will be affected in similar ways to the largest delta in North America - the Mississippi (New Orleans).
What I like best about this new movie is the attention it seems to pay to emerging technologies and the dispelling of myths about the economic collapse and the puritan lifestyles required to address our addiction to fossil fuels. These emerging technologies and methods can provide opportunity, one that both Canada and Nova Scotia can play large role in. We are on the cusp of the cost effectiveness of zero emission technologies such as wind power. Decreasing fossil fuel supply and increasing the costs to emit pollution, along with inevitable inflation, show that the wide spread use of renewable and sustainable energy is unavoidable. This movie seems to remind us all that the solution is achievable. Lets hope Steven Harper and Rodney MacDonald get the message.
The trailer:
Regarding the effects of climate change, one item really stands out for me, and that is the advent of environmental refugees. The trailer notes that the UN has stated that by the middle of the century, there may be 150 Million displaced peoples due to changes in our climate. It's really hard to fathom how many people that is, but what I try to focus on is this: there will be areas which humans have lived since the dawn of civilization that will no longer be habitable due to humankind's influence. These areas will include some of the places that were first developed and are now some of the most densely populated.. The great river deltas of the world, such as the Ganges, the Yangtze, and the Nile, will be affected in similar ways to the largest delta in North America - the Mississippi (New Orleans).
What I like best about this new movie is the attention it seems to pay to emerging technologies and the dispelling of myths about the economic collapse and the puritan lifestyles required to address our addiction to fossil fuels. These emerging technologies and methods can provide opportunity, one that both Canada and Nova Scotia can play large role in. We are on the cusp of the cost effectiveness of zero emission technologies such as wind power. Decreasing fossil fuel supply and increasing the costs to emit pollution, along with inevitable inflation, show that the wide spread use of renewable and sustainable energy is unavoidable. This movie seems to remind us all that the solution is achievable. Lets hope Steven Harper and Rodney MacDonald get the message.
The trailer:
Thursday, August 23, 2007
"Canada's New Government" fails again
Once again, Steven Harper's Conservative government has acted against the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians by failing to issue a credible plan to meet Canada's international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. In response to a Liberal private member's Bill calling for the government of Canada to table a credible plan to meet the Kyoto guidelines, the Conservatives issued a 37 page "excuse of why government is not willing to take appropriate action to help protect the future of Canadians and the planet", said the Climate Action Network. The Climate Action Network is a joint effort by major environmental and sustainability groups formed to provide a unified voice regarding climate change issues in Canada. The governments plan is still based on "intensity" targets (see GWB's Grand Plan - June 7th) rather than hard caps on emissions, and will leave Canada more than 30% above its Kyoto Targets. All three federal opposition parties voted in favour of this private members bill, (which represents more than 60% of the voting public), so Harper can hardly say that he is acting in the interests of the majority of Canadians. Harper claims to be protecting Canadians from economic collapse, however, he is really only protecting the unbridled pillaging of our natural resources by foreign companies (Alberta), and our burning of dirty fossil fuels from other countries (Nova Scotia).
See the press release from the Climate Action Network - here
In other news:
See the press release from the Climate Action Network - here
In other news:
- Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks to lowest area ever - article
- Making Global Warming Profitable - stories of substantial economic success in countries that are aggressively reducing their GHG Emissions - article
- Glace Bay Wind Farm Commissioned - Province's second larges wind farm is now online. Note comments from the Premier saying "The future of power is renewable energy", and that the Province has the policies in place for to create "green economy". How ensuring the profitability, monopoly status and marketshare of the Canada's 5th largest emitter creates a "green economy", I'm not quite sure. -article
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Natural Gas in Halifax
The Provincial Government has played a pivotal role in bringing Natural Gas to the Halifax peninsula, and helped the supplier, Heritage Gas secure an "anchor" client in Capital Health. This change will bring a reduction in GHG emissions, since natural gas does burn cleaner than the source it is replacing, heating oil, however, I would hardly agree with the statement from Heritage Gas that it is "environmentally friendly" nor do I think it is a wise investment for the future of Halifax.
Natural Gas gets off easy when it comes to fossil fuel's affect on the environment, even though it is a highly exhaustible source (just like oil) that still emits lots of GHG emissions. The Government press release noted that this conversion will reduce GHG Emissions by 20,000 tonnes, which is a good thing, but installing 4 utility scale wind turbines would have the same effect with much less cost.
The people of Halifax and Nova Scotia must also stop to think if this is a wise investment economically. The price of natural gas is still highly volatile, and most of the worlds reserves have been found and are being extracted. Even our own offshore reserves are in decline. NS has done well exporting natural gas to New England, and why have we mostly exported it?? because it is more expensive than our current sources. Rather than exclusively being a seller of a limited resource with large price fluctuations, our provincial government and Heritage Gas are spending millions of dollars making the people of Nova Scotia buyers of it has well. The price of natural gas has come down over the past two years, but it only takes a basic understanding of supply and demand to realize that when supply is limited, price will go up. Where does Premier MacDonald and Minister Dooks think the price of natural gas will be in 10 years? or 25 years? It is increasingly expensive to run our health care system due to shifting demographics, and yet our government is investing millions to guarantee that the costs of operating our health care facilities will continue to increase. Not only will the price continue to increase, but the price of natural gas is actually more volatile than the oil it is replacing. All it would take is one big storm or one terrorist attack, and it could mean drastic increases in the cost to Nova Scotians to run our hospitals overnight.
In order to be truly environmentally friendly, and economically wise, the government needs to support using renewable energy sources to power our businesses, institutions and residences. Energy Minister Bill Dooks said in the government's press release "Nova Scotia has tremendous natural-gas potential -- we've got it, let's use it". Why doesn't "we've got it, let's use it" apply to renewable sources?? Not only do we have a far greater resource potential than natural gas in both wind and tidal , it doesn't require millions of millions of dollars of government infrastructure subsidization to succeed. All it needs is the opportunity to compete.
Natural Gas gets off easy when it comes to fossil fuel's affect on the environment, even though it is a highly exhaustible source (just like oil) that still emits lots of GHG emissions. The Government press release noted that this conversion will reduce GHG Emissions by 20,000 tonnes, which is a good thing, but installing 4 utility scale wind turbines would have the same effect with much less cost.
The people of Halifax and Nova Scotia must also stop to think if this is a wise investment economically. The price of natural gas is still highly volatile, and most of the worlds reserves have been found and are being extracted. Even our own offshore reserves are in decline. NS has done well exporting natural gas to New England, and why have we mostly exported it?? because it is more expensive than our current sources. Rather than exclusively being a seller of a limited resource with large price fluctuations, our provincial government and Heritage Gas are spending millions of dollars making the people of Nova Scotia buyers of it has well. The price of natural gas has come down over the past two years, but it only takes a basic understanding of supply and demand to realize that when supply is limited, price will go up. Where does Premier MacDonald and Minister Dooks think the price of natural gas will be in 10 years? or 25 years? It is increasingly expensive to run our health care system due to shifting demographics, and yet our government is investing millions to guarantee that the costs of operating our health care facilities will continue to increase. Not only will the price continue to increase, but the price of natural gas is actually more volatile than the oil it is replacing. All it would take is one big storm or one terrorist attack, and it could mean drastic increases in the cost to Nova Scotians to run our hospitals overnight.
In order to be truly environmentally friendly, and economically wise, the government needs to support using renewable energy sources to power our businesses, institutions and residences. Energy Minister Bill Dooks said in the government's press release "Nova Scotia has tremendous natural-gas potential -- we've got it, let's use it". Why doesn't "we've got it, let's use it" apply to renewable sources?? Not only do we have a far greater resource potential than natural gas in both wind and tidal , it doesn't require millions of millions of dollars of government infrastructure subsidization to succeed. All it needs is the opportunity to compete.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Premiers meeting on GHG Emissions
Well, I can manage to type with two hands again, which allows me to comment on the recent Council of the Federation meetings in NB. The Premiers of the Provinces and Territories were meeting over the past few days, and the major topic of discussion was GHG Emissions. While almost every province was in favour of a Cap and Trade system, none of the Premiers was able to stand up to Alberta to sign a country wide agreement to Cap and Trade emissions. So the greatest environmental pillaging our county has ever seen will continue, unfettered still. Alberta has a yearly surplus of over $8Billion, population growth that can't be handled, and crumbling infrastructure, yet they can't see the benefit of investing in clean technology, or in their future. They have even recently decided to impose a cap on wind energy production, yet they won't put a cap on oil sands development. What the powers that be in Alberta, along with our Calgarian Prime Minister, fail to realize that forcing companies to reduce their emissions by putting a dollar value on those emissions will only encourage innovation and establish an industry of carbon sequestration and diversion that could apply its trade all over the world. The technology has already been established to pump CO2 into the ground, and it can even be used to force more of their precious oil out of the ground, and implementing would barely make a dent in the oil companies record breaking profits.
Closer to home, Premier MacDonald said that many of the Premiers were asking about his Environmental Goals and Sustainability Act that states that NS will reduce our GHG emissions by 10% below 1990 levels by 2020. He also stated that "the province needs to move forward more quickly on determining specific plans on reducing emissions ... but we should have an added urgency based on what other provinces are doing". Very true. Nova Scotia needs a government who can make the tough decisions in the short term so that the province will benefit long after they are out of office. We have heard enough talk, when the governments sits in the Fall, the people of Nova Scotia will be looking for action.
Closer to home, Premier MacDonald said that many of the Premiers were asking about his Environmental Goals and Sustainability Act that states that NS will reduce our GHG emissions by 10% below 1990 levels by 2020. He also stated that "the province needs to move forward more quickly on determining specific plans on reducing emissions ... but we should have an added urgency based on what other provinces are doing". Very true. Nova Scotia needs a government who can make the tough decisions in the short term so that the province will benefit long after they are out of office. We have heard enough talk, when the governments sits in the Fall, the people of Nova Scotia will be looking for action.
Solar growth in rainy Germany
From a province that is just catching up, to a country that has been doing it right for years. In Germany, it's not particularly sunny or windy, yet it is by far the worlds leader in renewable energy. (it's actually somewhat sunnier and much windier here in NS). What have they done to encourage this amazing growth despite not having the best of resources? a Feed-in-Tariff. As I've said before, a Feed-in-Tariff requires the utility to pay a guaranteed rate for a particular type of renewable power. In the example in the following story from the G&M about the solar industry, that rate is a whopping 49cent/kWh. Now a similar rate in NS wouldn't be that high, even for solar, because our overall electricity rates are much lower. In Ontario it's 42cents for solar and 11 for wind. With the abundance of wind we have in this province guaranteeing 9cents would work far better than the current lowest-price tendering methods of NS Power. Not only would it encourage more renewable growth, but it would also allow smaller groups and even individuals to participate, unlike only the biggest companies with the deepest pockets under our current system.
Despite all these numbers, the thing that must be taken from this article is the fact that the power to make huge progress in reducing our GHG emissions, and increasing renewable energies, is in the hands of our government. When Premier MacDonald is looking for "specific plans" he doesn't have to reinvent the wheel, he just has to take advise from those who do it best.
Here is the article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070731.IBSOLAR31/TPStory/Business
Despite all these numbers, the thing that must be taken from this article is the fact that the power to make huge progress in reducing our GHG emissions, and increasing renewable energies, is in the hands of our government. When Premier MacDonald is looking for "specific plans" he doesn't have to reinvent the wheel, he just has to take advise from those who do it best.
Here is the article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070731.IBSOLAR31/TPStory/Business
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
10 Times Cheaper and Tall Ships Kiosk
Hi everyone,
Firstly, a great report released last week from Greenpeace and European Renewable Energy Council. This report constitutes the first global analysis of the differences between a "business as usual" electricity system, and one based on renewables. This report also finds that this renewable energy infrastructure will cost an annual global investment of $22Billion, but it will actually save $202Billion, for a total savings of $180Billion. Therefore a renewable energy electricity system will be 10times cheaper than a fossil fuel based one (including Nuclear) These numbers are very large, and may be hard to visualize, but remember this when established fossil-fuel-based utilities talk about the "costs" of renewable energy. The savings will be far greater for the general public. Here is the story: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0707/S00090.htm
Also, if you happen to be in my fair hometown of Halifax this weekend. Make sure you take in the Tall Ships festival. While you are down there, make sure you visit the Scotian WindFields kiosk between the Electropolis sound stage and Bishops landing. The booth will be up Friday morning, until Monday afternoon, between 10am and 6pm. If you are looking for a familier face, I'll be at the booth most of Saturday and Sunday.
Firstly, a great report released last week from Greenpeace and European Renewable Energy Council. This report constitutes the first global analysis of the differences between a "business as usual" electricity system, and one based on renewables. This report also finds that this renewable energy infrastructure will cost an annual global investment of $22Billion, but it will actually save $202Billion, for a total savings of $180Billion. Therefore a renewable energy electricity system will be 10times cheaper than a fossil fuel based one (including Nuclear) These numbers are very large, and may be hard to visualize, but remember this when established fossil-fuel-based utilities talk about the "costs" of renewable energy. The savings will be far greater for the general public. Here is the story: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0707/S00090.htm
Also, if you happen to be in my fair hometown of Halifax this weekend. Make sure you take in the Tall Ships festival. While you are down there, make sure you visit the Scotian WindFields kiosk between the Electropolis sound stage and Bishops landing. The booth will be up Friday morning, until Monday afternoon, between 10am and 6pm. If you are looking for a familier face, I'll be at the booth most of Saturday and Sunday.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Monbiot and Murray
Hi everyone, Does everyone feel a little greener after watching Live Earth? I wont get into the argument about whether the concert was the beginning of a new era, or just a huge publicity stunt and emissions source. I will note that however, there was one international star that wasn't on stage Saturday during Live Earth extravaganza, and that was our very own, the pride of Springhill Nova Scotia, Ann Murray. Just when you thought every celebrity in the world was jumping on the green bandwagon, Ms Murray has decided to use her celebrity status speak out publicly against a potential wind farm near Pugwash, on the North Shore of Nova Scotia. After only 3 days into her 3 month summer visit to Nova Scotia, she has been able to publicize that she doesn't think wind turbines are beautiful, and that she hasn't met anyone in support of installing them. I hope that if I ever release a Gold-selling album, that I too can use the resulting publicity to stifle environmentally and economically sustainable development in my community.
Regardless of Ms Murray's not-in-my-back-yard stance, there are also about 200 permanent residents who are also not supportive of this project. This provides a great example of how community-owned projects have an advantage over firms owned mostly by Bay St. investors.
Just in case Live Earth left you feeling like all you had to do was change 4 light bulbs and famous people would take care off rest, an article from one of the world's most respected voices on Climate Change. George Monbiot wrote the excellent book "Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning" (which makes An Inconvenient Truth look like a children's story) and continues to write articles on the subject. The article focuses on Confederation of British Industry, and the role that existing industry forces can have in preventing action on Climate Change. Although it is fairly specific to the British situation, we can easily see how these ideas apply to us here in Canada. The Canadian public cannot be fooled by the the opinions of representatives of the "petroleum industry" or the "automotive industry". Their claims regarding job losses don't take into account that someone will have to work at the turbine manufacturing plants, cellulosic distilleries and electrical transportation developers. Although there will be job changes the only people out of work will be the people that stood in the way of sustainable development. The article, from the Guardian UK, also provides some fairly grim details about how desperate our climate situation already is. The article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2117235,00.htmlanyway, that's all for tonight. more to come later this week
Regardless of Ms Murray's not-in-my-back-yard stance, there are also about 200 permanent residents who are also not supportive of this project. This provides a great example of how community-owned projects have an advantage over firms owned mostly by Bay St. investors.
Just in case Live Earth left you feeling like all you had to do was change 4 light bulbs and famous people would take care off rest, an article from one of the world's most respected voices on Climate Change. George Monbiot wrote the excellent book "Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning" (which makes An Inconvenient Truth look like a children's story) and continues to write articles on the subject. The article focuses on Confederation of British Industry, and the role that existing industry forces can have in preventing action on Climate Change. Although it is fairly specific to the British situation, we can easily see how these ideas apply to us here in Canada. The Canadian public cannot be fooled by the the opinions of representatives of the "petroleum industry" or the "automotive industry". Their claims regarding job losses don't take into account that someone will have to work at the turbine manufacturing plants, cellulosic distilleries and electrical transportation developers. Although there will be job changes the only people out of work will be the people that stood in the way of sustainable development. The article, from the Guardian UK, also provides some fairly grim details about how desperate our climate situation already is. The article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2117235,00.htmlanyway, that's all for tonight. more to come later this week
Monday, June 25, 2007
Rodney's Resources, Ontario Solar and Trading Carbon
Hello everyone,
Sorry for the long wait between emails, but I've been attending to some other work in my spare time. I've been collecting lots of stories from the news lately, and I have a few for you today. But first, I want to comment on our fearless leader here in NS, Rodney MacDonald, and his recent fight with the Federal Conservatives about the Atlantic Accord.
The Atlantic Accord concerns the revenue from our offshore oil/natural gas reserves and how they are accounted for in the Equalization program. Rodney's argument is that NS will continue to be disadvantaged until we can use these non-renewable energy sources as a leg up. Although he has a point that Harper is going back on his word, Rodney is also not acting on formal promises he made to his own people, but this time, about renewable energy sources. Not once, but twice the PC Government of Nova Scotia has promised to open up the electricity market to allow more renewable energy, but has yet to act. The reason? The spin doctors of NS Power are doing their best to look after their assets and profitability. And you can hardly blame them. However, you can blame the conservative government for not acting, since it is through renewable sustainability that NS will truly find its leg up. As more and more renewable companies head west looking for work, the PC's may find they were focusing on the wrong types of resources as they head to the polls looking for their fourth mandate in a row.
From a province that is doing the bare minimum to encourage renewables to province that is getting it right, Ontario. Much has been said about the booming wind energy industry in Ontario because of their Standard Offer Program, but it is now coming to light that Ontario is a hot bed of Solar activity as well. Standard Offers guarantee a price for renewable energy, which makes it very simple for even the smallest producers to implement renewable projects. This is the exact opposite of the lowest-price-wins tendering system still used in NS, which only favours the biggest and most well financed companies. You can see the economic benefits from Ontario's plan from the long list of companies in the following article that are doing great business in Ontario, providing employment, and certainly paying taxes too. These benefits stretch from the smallest co-ops to the biggest solar companies in the world. From the Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/228987.
Finally, an article about Carbon Trading from Silver Donald Cameron. I met Silver Donald at this Carbon Credit conference and was very impressed. During a Q&A session he made a well received comment about how difficult the complex issues regarding carbon credit markets were to understand for someone with a background in English literature. The positive news from the conference was that despite our non-involvement with Kyoto, and a Federal Government only interested in making Oil Sands developers and and impeachable tyrants from the South happy, there is still a demand for carbon credits from companies that can see the benefits. These benefits include increased efficiency, profitability and publicity. Soon, such progress will be in the hands of consumers, when they can choose from companies that are doing their part versus those that don't. Read the article here http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/843364.html. and for more information about a company who is leading the way, Interface Carpets, see this: http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1333.
Thats all for now.. If you have any other topics you'd like to hear about, please let me know. I'm already working on something about NS's Sustainable Prosperity Act, as well as a more in-depth look at Carbon Credit Trading at Silver Donald's request: Carbon Trading 101.
Take care,
Dan
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Economic Review, Bottom of the Barrel, and Carbon Offsets
I have some national perspective items that I'd like to bring to everyone's attention. I have a few Nova Scotian items that I wont get to this morning, but will hopefully pass on this evening.
First, an economic study of the the federal Conservatives environmental plan. The report is from Marc Jaccard of Simon Fraser University and the conservative CD Howe Institute. Mr. Jaccard has been hailed by none other than the Federal Environment Minister John Baird, as "one of the best economists in Canada" and was actually commissioned by Baird to write this report. The report details that the government as little chance of meeting its own 2020 targets (which are much more lenient than the Kyoto standards) and that emissions would not be likely to drop below current levels. Jaccard also had two very important statements. Firstly:
"no policy to curb greenhouse emissions will succeed unless it places a price on carbon emissions, either through a carbon tax or a strict economy-wide cap on carbon emissions"
Secondly, Jaccard mentioned that if Canada is going to reduce their emissions at all, they need to focus on programs and not targets, because these politicians wont be around when their target dates come around. Remember the 2050 target from the G8??
Here is the article: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/841236.html
Moving on, here is an interesting analysis of the Oil Sands, from a US environmental group that as pledged to start fighting more development. The group calls the oil from the Alberta development "bottom of the barrel" and noted that oil from this type of extraction causes three times the carbon emissions in production as conventional oil.
Scary stuff. here is the article:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/840196.html
Finally, an article about Carbon Offsetting. This is the practise of purchasing "offsets" to help retract carbon from the atmosphere to offset emissions from individuals or companies. Fully offsetting ones carbon emissions allows one to go "carbon neutral". In this article, the merits of this practise are discussed. Personally, I don't necessary think that carbon offsets are bad, but, I think they should be the last resort. An example would be Jacques Whitford, the Halifax NS based engineering firm that announced recently that they would soon be carbon neutral. They are trying to replace inefficient building systems and travel practises, and using offsets to offset the remaining. Hopefully, technology will advance to a point where companies can achieve "zero emission" status, rather than "carbon neutral". here is the article http://www.herald.ns.ca/NovaScotia/840974.html
anyway, that's all for now..
Dan
First, an economic study of the the federal Conservatives environmental plan. The report is from Marc Jaccard of Simon Fraser University and the conservative CD Howe Institute. Mr. Jaccard has been hailed by none other than the Federal Environment Minister John Baird, as "one of the best economists in Canada" and was actually commissioned by Baird to write this report. The report details that the government as little chance of meeting its own 2020 targets (which are much more lenient than the Kyoto standards) and that emissions would not be likely to drop below current levels. Jaccard also had two very important statements. Firstly:
"no policy to curb greenhouse emissions will succeed unless it places a price on carbon emissions, either through a carbon tax or a strict economy-wide cap on carbon emissions"
Secondly, Jaccard mentioned that if Canada is going to reduce their emissions at all, they need to focus on programs and not targets, because these politicians wont be around when their target dates come around. Remember the 2050 target from the G8??
Here is the article: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/841236.html
Moving on, here is an interesting analysis of the Oil Sands, from a US environmental group that as pledged to start fighting more development. The group calls the oil from the Alberta development "bottom of the barrel" and noted that oil from this type of extraction causes three times the carbon emissions in production as conventional oil.
Scary stuff. here is the article:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/840196.html
Finally, an article about Carbon Offsetting. This is the practise of purchasing "offsets" to help retract carbon from the atmosphere to offset emissions from individuals or companies. Fully offsetting ones carbon emissions allows one to go "carbon neutral". In this article, the merits of this practise are discussed. Personally, I don't necessary think that carbon offsets are bad, but, I think they should be the last resort. An example would be Jacques Whitford, the Halifax NS based engineering firm that announced recently that they would soon be carbon neutral. They are trying to replace inefficient building systems and travel practises, and using offsets to offset the remaining. Hopefully, technology will advance to a point where companies can achieve "zero emission" status, rather than "carbon neutral". here is the article http://www.herald.ns.ca/NovaScotia/840974.html
anyway, that's all for now..
Dan
Thursday, June 7, 2007
NS Energy Security, and G8 Plans for 42 years from now
Hi everyone,
With all of the focus on international climate issues, it was good to see news about Nova Scotia make the press today. Too bad it wasn't good news. A study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives stated that close to 90% of Nova Scotia's energy supply comes from vulnerable sources such as imported coal and oil. Because of this, we are at great risk of price fluctuation and supply interruption. The article did not indicate which resources we get from where, but I can tell you that the majority of our coal comes from Columbia, which is not "clean coal" nor is it mined in a ethical manner (google "blood coal", if you have the stomach for it). The problem is that dirty coal is cheep, so cheep in fact that it is too expensive to use the much cleaner Natural Gas we produce right off the coast of NS. (it is pumped to New England where the rates of electricity are double what they are here.) Hopefully, we will soon see a mechanism in place such as Carbon Trading which will allow renewable energy to be less expensive, and burning dirty coal more expensive, since the Government of Nova Scotia has constantly put the bottom line before ethics and the environment. We can produce 6 times the energy we use from the wind in NS, but we only use it for 1%. One down, 599 to go.
Here is the article: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/06/07/energy-security.html
At the G8, the leaders of the worlds most powerful countries came to a "landmark agreement" that there should be drastic cuts to GHG emissions, not only long after they leave office, but long after they are all dead: 2050. What a joke. I expected this from Harper and Bush, but i'm truly disappointed in the other leaders who should have pushed harder for short term targets. There is nothing binding in this agreement, just rhetoric. The fact that Harper says that "more extensive discussion is required" is a scandalous stalling tactic. The world is at a breaking point, and they still stall for time so their friends in the oil industry can have a view more years of record profits and oil sands production can quadruple.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/07/g8-climatechange.html
pardon my frustration
Dan
With all of the focus on international climate issues, it was good to see news about Nova Scotia make the press today. Too bad it wasn't good news. A study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives stated that close to 90% of Nova Scotia's energy supply comes from vulnerable sources such as imported coal and oil. Because of this, we are at great risk of price fluctuation and supply interruption. The article did not indicate which resources we get from where, but I can tell you that the majority of our coal comes from Columbia, which is not "clean coal" nor is it mined in a ethical manner (google "blood coal", if you have the stomach for it). The problem is that dirty coal is cheep, so cheep in fact that it is too expensive to use the much cleaner Natural Gas we produce right off the coast of NS. (it is pumped to New England where the rates of electricity are double what they are here.) Hopefully, we will soon see a mechanism in place such as Carbon Trading which will allow renewable energy to be less expensive, and burning dirty coal more expensive, since the Government of Nova Scotia has constantly put the bottom line before ethics and the environment. We can produce 6 times the energy we use from the wind in NS, but we only use it for 1%. One down, 599 to go.
Here is the article: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/06/07/energy-security.html
At the G8, the leaders of the worlds most powerful countries came to a "landmark agreement" that there should be drastic cuts to GHG emissions, not only long after they leave office, but long after they are all dead: 2050. What a joke. I expected this from Harper and Bush, but i'm truly disappointed in the other leaders who should have pushed harder for short term targets. There is nothing binding in this agreement, just rhetoric. The fact that Harper says that "more extensive discussion is required" is a scandalous stalling tactic. The world is at a breaking point, and they still stall for time so their friends in the oil industry can have a view more years of record profits and oil sands production can quadruple.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/07/g8-climatechange.html
pardon my frustration
Dan
NASA warning, Frustrating Press, and Non-Kyoto Tax
Hi everyone, and welcome to those of you who are new to the group
I have three articles for your mental digestion today.
First, an important reminder of why this is all important. NASA released an article detailing some of the basic science about how the ice caps are melting, and how this is a progressive process. You will note that all scientific research in the climate change field refers to total concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. I should also point out that NASA notes that the current CO2 concentration is 383ppm. On Friday, I said it was 385ppm. please trust NASA's numbers over mine... they do this for their day jobs.
Here is the article: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/01/nasa-warming.html
Second, a frustrating article from the Canadian Press (CP) of which I read a condensed version in today's Halifax Daily News, but I am forwarding to you from their parent website canada.com. The title suggests that there is some debate whether Stephen Harper's intensity based targets are acceptable. This article immediately reminded me of a portion of An Inconvenient Truth, (which you better have seen by now) where Al Gore compares the opinions of scientific publications to the opinions expressed in the media. My frustration stems from the fact that in Daily News, the comments from the UN (paragraph 11) and the comments from the Pembina Institute (paragraph 13) were left out, but the supportive comments from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers were included.
Despite my frustration, I did learn something new from the full CP article from the above noted UN comment, which i wanted to make sure you all read:
"A United Nations study released last month pointed out that while energy intensity decreased by 33 per cent between 1970 and 2004, the growth of global income and population still caused greenhouse-gas emissions to rise precipitously"
The final thing that I would like to point out in this article is that Harper says that Conservative's Plan "could be a model for some developing countries". Although he may be right - intensity based programs are great for countries that are only developing their heavy emitting industries - his plan falls far short of all other non-George-Bush-led industrialized countries.
Here is the article: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=609888fa-7eba-41d8-9580-44f2dcf9907f&k=98940&p=1
Finally - if you are still reading - I wanted to point out something mentioned in some of the extensive coverage of Harper's meeting with France's new leader Nicolas Sarkozy. This is the notion of a tax against all non-Kyoto compliant countries. The concept is pretty simple - protecting a market for those producers that are enduring short term cost increases to address climate change. With much of Canada's resource-based economy concentrating on the US and China, both non-Kyoto compliant countries, this may not have a huge potential to have a real impact, but it may very well become a political nightmare for Canada's New Government. Here's hoping.
See: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/05/harper-france.html
I think that is enough for now. thanks again for all of the positive comments... they are truly appreciated and are very inspiring.
- Dan
I have three articles for your mental digestion today.
First, an important reminder of why this is all important. NASA released an article detailing some of the basic science about how the ice caps are melting, and how this is a progressive process. You will note that all scientific research in the climate change field refers to total concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. I should also point out that NASA notes that the current CO2 concentration is 383ppm. On Friday, I said it was 385ppm. please trust NASA's numbers over mine... they do this for their day jobs.
Here is the article: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/01/nasa-warming.html
Second, a frustrating article from the Canadian Press (CP) of which I read a condensed version in today's Halifax Daily News, but I am forwarding to you from their parent website canada.com. The title suggests that there is some debate whether Stephen Harper's intensity based targets are acceptable. This article immediately reminded me of a portion of An Inconvenient Truth, (which you better have seen by now) where Al Gore compares the opinions of scientific publications to the opinions expressed in the media. My frustration stems from the fact that in Daily News, the comments from the UN (paragraph 11) and the comments from the Pembina Institute (paragraph 13) were left out, but the supportive comments from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers were included.
Despite my frustration, I did learn something new from the full CP article from the above noted UN comment, which i wanted to make sure you all read:
"A United Nations study released last month pointed out that while energy intensity decreased by 33 per cent between 1970 and 2004, the growth of global income and population still caused greenhouse-gas emissions to rise precipitously"
The final thing that I would like to point out in this article is that Harper says that Conservative's Plan "could be a model for some developing countries". Although he may be right - intensity based programs are great for countries that are only developing their heavy emitting industries - his plan falls far short of all other non-George-Bush-led industrialized countries.
Here is the article: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=609888fa-7eba-41d8-9580-44f2dcf9907f&k=98940&p=1
Finally - if you are still reading - I wanted to point out something mentioned in some of the extensive coverage of Harper's meeting with France's new leader Nicolas Sarkozy. This is the notion of a tax against all non-Kyoto compliant countries. The concept is pretty simple - protecting a market for those producers that are enduring short term cost increases to address climate change. With much of Canada's resource-based economy concentrating on the US and China, both non-Kyoto compliant countries, this may not have a huge potential to have a real impact, but it may very well become a political nightmare for Canada's New Government. Here's hoping.
See: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/05/harper-france.html
I think that is enough for now. thanks again for all of the positive comments... they are truly appreciated and are very inspiring.
- Dan
Start of the G8
Hi Everyone,
Two interesting pieces of information on Canada's stance prior to the G8 meetings later this week.
First is Stephen Harper's claim Canada can be a world leader in fighting climate change despite not attempting to meet our Kyoto obligations or even implementing emissions caps instead of intensity based targets.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/04/harper-germany.html
Second, if the opinions of David Suzuki, Al Gore, Stephen Lewis, the Pembina Institute, and the Sierra Club aren't enough for you, the World Wildlife Fund has released scorecards for the G8+5 countries which are meeting this week. It is not surprising, like many who have come before them, the the WWF did not have a positive response to Canada's climate change plan (on the scorecard, they actually said that Canada has no comprehensive plan at all). This is one of the most in depth analysis' I've seen comparing the world's largest emitters. Canada is ranked last along with the US. One point I found interesting was that although every time you hear a Conservative MP discuss climate change, they never forget to blame the former Liberal government (see paragraph 3 from the article above). However, the Director of the WWF's climate change program stated that "Canada must break ranks with the US to restore its former reputation as a leader on climate change". See the article here: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/index.cfm?uNewsID=104660
(if you have the time, have a look through the scorecards as well... interesting stuff)
stay tuned, the G8 meetings start Wednesday
-Dan
Two interesting pieces of information on Canada's stance prior to the G8 meetings later this week.
First is Stephen Harper's claim Canada can be a world leader in fighting climate change despite not attempting to meet our Kyoto obligations or even implementing emissions caps instead of intensity based targets.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/04/harper-germany.html
Second, if the opinions of David Suzuki, Al Gore, Stephen Lewis, the Pembina Institute, and the Sierra Club aren't enough for you, the World Wildlife Fund has released scorecards for the G8+5 countries which are meeting this week. It is not surprising, like many who have come before them, the the WWF did not have a positive response to Canada's climate change plan (on the scorecard, they actually said that Canada has no comprehensive plan at all). This is one of the most in depth analysis' I've seen comparing the world's largest emitters. Canada is ranked last along with the US. One point I found interesting was that although every time you hear a Conservative MP discuss climate change, they never forget to blame the former Liberal government (see paragraph 3 from the article above). However, the Director of the WWF's climate change program stated that "Canada must break ranks with the US to restore its former reputation as a leader on climate change". See the article here: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/index.cfm?uNewsID=104660
(if you have the time, have a look through the scorecards as well... interesting stuff)
stay tuned, the G8 meetings start Wednesday
-Dan
GWB's grand plan
Hi Everyone..
George W Bush has announced his plan to commit whoever has his job next to deal with climate change. One of the first things GWB did when he took office was retract from the Kyoto Protocol (the Clinton Administration was supportive). Now with his 8 year term coming to an end in November 08 he has promised to take action within 18months. Funny how he'll be leaving office in 18months... great timing George!. Bush is promising talk and cooperation, but all he as really done is delay action for the entirety of his presidency.
see: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/05/31/bush-climate.html (if you have the time, the CBC In Depth articles on Climate Change and Carbon Trading that are on this page are great reads.)
Although publicly the US doesn't agree with the Kyoto Protocol because it doesn't involve India and China, they also don't agree with a hard cap on emissions at all. What GWB and Stephen Harper are pushing for are "intensity" based emissions reductions. What a crafty piece of spin this is!!. Intensity based emissions are the emissions required per unit of economic output. I use the example of a Car Manufacturer, that emits 1 ton of carbon for every car that rolls off the line. They could reduce their emissions intensities by installing more efficient machinery to say 0.8tones per car, but if they produce 50% more cars, they are still emitting more.
The temperature increase in the atmosphere is directly related to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere which now stands at 385ppm (Parts Per Million) and is raising about 2.5-2.7ppm/year. The atmosphere does not care how many cars, barrels of oil, or cell phones are made to create these emissions, therefore the only way to stop the increase of CO2 is through hard caps on total emissions. To the average person "reducing emissions intensity" sounds great, however, we need to push for more than that if we are going to make a difference.
Be aware of anyone that uses emissions intensities to prove a point. The CEO of Nova Scotia Power said last year that bringing more wind power on to the grid would actually increase emissions because their coal fired power plants would have to operate below their optimal efficiency. Even though the emissions intensities of those coal units would increase, the overall emissions will decrease with every turbine that is installed.
Thats all for now, until next time: Keep fit and have fun
Dan
a busy week in climate change
Hi everyone,
I've certainly picked a busy week to start sending out information. The debate over Canada's position for the upcoming G8 meeting is the focus of much discussion and partisan bickering in the House of Commons this week. That being said, there were a few releases from non-governmental organizations that I wanted to share with you.
1) The first is from the Pembina Institute. The Pembina Institute is an organization based out of Alberta (of all places) that is focusing on the promotion of sustainable practices. They released a scathing report of the Federal Government's latest plan, which they are now calling "Turning the Corner". They outline many loopholes and inadequacies that they believe will allow industry to avoid cutting emissions to meet even the weak targets proposed by the Conservatives. See #1 Below. (the full 17 page report from Pembina is available on their website www.pembina.org)
2) I thought this was interesting as well. The Sierra Legal Defence Fund has launched a lawsuit against the federal government for failing to meet its international obligations from the Kyoto Protocol, (which has been ratified as International Law). see the following link http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070529/kyoto_courtchallenge_070529 . I'm not sure how or if they will be successful, but it will be interesting to follow nonetheless.
3) From Nova Scotia: One of the few Nova Scotia based wind energy developers is leaving NS for Ontario siting years of frustration with the slow changes to the electricity marketplace. I think it is a wake up call for the NS Department of Energy that their policies are forcing home-grown companies to look elsewhere for business. Also note that the last line of the article is somewhat inaccurate, as the 40 Turbines in NS only provide power for about 15,000 (not 150,000), and that about 90% of the renewable energy in NS comes from Hydro electric facilities on our rivers. http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/838407.html
4) Finally.. something I saw this morning that made me laugh.. see the attached cartoon.
Anyway, that should be enough for now. Thanks for you positive comments about the list and please keep in touch
Dan
Climate Change & Renewable Energy
Hi Everyone,
For some time now, many people have been asking me to help them keep up-to-date with all of news about Climate Change and Renewable Energy. These are very critical times in both Canada and Nova Scotia and I would like to do what I can to help people be aware of the important issues. From my work with Chebucto and Scotian WindFields, as well as the Ecology Action Centre's Energy Issues Committee, I see a lot of news articles and press releases come across my desk, and I'd like to do my best to share them with everyone.
It's not always easy to make sense of climate change and renewable energy issues since there are many powerful groups on both sides of the story, so I'll try to point out which statements I agree with, and which I don't.
I thought the upcoming G8 Summit would be a good place to start from. When Stephen Harper attended the last G8 summit, he was a freshly minted Prime Minister, with no established environmental policy. Since that time, his Conservative government ("Canada's New Government", as it likes to be called) released its Clean Air Act, which was promptly sent to committee for an all party review. That committee came back earlier this year with the revised and renamed Clean Air and Climate Change Act, which committed Canada to meeting its Kyoto obligations, including implementation of Carbon Credit trading and a Clean Development Mechanism for encouraging renewable investment. The Conservative's have since neglected to bring this bill (C-30) back to House floor for a vote, and will most likely attempt to implement their "Green Plan" through regulation changes, and not though a legislation in the House of Commons.
This means that George W Bush will have a new ally in Stephen Harper at next week's meeting as the only two members of the G8 who oppose the Kyoto Protocol. While the other 6 members, including Angela Merkel of Germany who is chairing the meetings and has promised to push the EU for even further emissions cuts, will be looking to extend Kyoto and discuss methods of bringing in larger developing nations such as China, India and Brazil. I don't think that Stephen Harper will be acting in the interests of most Canadians at this meeting, and it is important that we are all aware of how he is representing us.
To that end, I have attached two items. One is an article detailing the uncertainty of Canada's position from yesterday's Globe and Mail, and the other is a petition looking to raise support of addressing Climate Change at this upcoming meeting.
Globe: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070527.wcanenviro0527/BNStory/National/home
Petition: see below
An interesting response to Environment Minister John Baird's comments about Canada being a bridge between the US and the rest of the G8 came today from Stephane Dion, who said that Canada shouldn't be the bridge between right and wrong (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20070528/ca_pr_on_na/climate_g8_canada;_ylt=AkvPoBsuX1zZnxCswEeSoUD0kPUI)
I would like to thank all of you for your interest in Climate Change and Renewable Energy (whether implicitly expressed or just assumed on my behalf) as they are topics which I am very passionate about. Please let me know if you have any comments, questions or would like to find out more about a specific topic. I will include articles specific to Nova Scotia from time to time, so please bare with me those of you outside of my fair province and be happy your province or territory (GQ) uses less than 75% Coal for their electricity supply. And lastly but not leastly, please let me know if you know of anyone else that would like to be included in this list.. the more the merrier.
Cheers
Dan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)