An award winning ad about wind power
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)