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

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

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

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

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

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