# Cons announce Clean Air Act



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and what an act it was...

Rona (env. min., not hdw. store) tells us that no GHG firm targets will be needed until 2020

big party in Calgary today and the white house
i could hear the champagne corks popping from here


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I wonder if VD will attend or will he be making excuses?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> I wonder if VD will attend or will he be making excuses?



the question is not "if" he will attend, but which party?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Rona (env. min., not hdw. store) tells us that no GHG firm targets will be needed until 2020


You misunderstood. No firm industry targets until 2020, no overall targets until 2050. Wouldn't want to move too fast, now. And really, why should we worry about doing anything about the environment before my 3-year old is in her late 40s?

This plan has remarkably acheived the benchmark of being considerably worse than my worst fears. I sure hope Beej is right about the tipping point being here. And if he is, Harper might as well put his head between his legs and kiss his a$$ goodbye. The gymnastics of that move would at least be entertaining. And, as an environmental plan, would be more successful than this piece of garbage.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

hence the name of 'act' for this con-entertainment


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

In the Conservatives defence... they're only talking the same talk that liberals did with these issues and the enviroment portfolio. Lip service from Canada's New Government.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Fair point, Paul. The Liberals talked a better game, but certainly were useless at implementing it.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I've always felt that the Liberal's signing of Kyoto was mere showmanship with no real plan to do anything about it. Reducing our GHG emissions by 30% by 2012 is something that just wasn't going to happen without serious economic consequences that no federal government wishing to maintain power would do.

If Kyoto was insane for the short implementation period, this Act, as it relates to GHG, is insane for the opposite reason.

A 45 - 65% reduction by 2050? 

Surely, if we start working at it know, we can reach some kind of reasonable reduction to GHG by 2020. That is just 8 years past the Kyoto target and 14 years from know.

Bring in small but progressive legislation forcing industry to gradually scale back. If we asked for a two percent reduction every year between know and 2020 we could almost get to the 30% that Kyoto would require. We could add additional incentives for industries that could beat the 2% a year target.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This is just what I'd hoped for.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> This is just what I'd hoped for.


come spring election time you, VD and SINC ain't gonna get what you really hoped for; a CONjority gov't

very recent poll shows cons and libs neck and neck...

you can fool some of the people some of the time...

hee hee


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> This is just what I'd hoped for.


Bending over for big business? Lip-service?
Man are you sure that Rove and you are not related?

Oil and gas will keep flowing, pollution rising.
I'm amazed Ambrose was able to keep a straight face...
Target goals are 2050.
Made in Canada


> The intention will be to synchronize Canadian regulations with those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. New rules for the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks will be established by 2010.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061019.wcleanair1019/BNStory/National/home

Bottom line GHG will increase out of control to the benefit of very few but all Canadians will be paying for it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> I sure hope Beej is right about the tipping point being here.


If Turner goes to the Greens, that could be the tip. Deb Grey won a by-election for Reform (their first seat) and that was quite the tipping-point that dramatically changed the political parties in Canada. That tipping-point could also have been something like the CF-18 scandal (heralding a material party split). It's hard to tell until you're past it, but the (political) weather's a little funny right now. 

Of course, this could all just be a little hype amongst people who spend too much time on such things, while no underlying sentiment has changed. I don't think that's the case but I don't really have a strong case for my opinion other than feel and some bits and bites here and there.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061019.wxpoll19/BNStory/National/home

Not as significant as the title suggests (support drops with specific impacts people can intuitively grasp) but it's still different from past polls I've seen. I think a large number of Canadians (the mushy middle -- the non-freaks) are starting to shift their ample weight.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I think a large number of Canadians (the mushy middle -- the non-freaks) are starting to shift their ample weight.


Another tax, great..... In the face of record oil industry profits and the New whatever they call themselves this week rather cynical, no?

So what's your opinion on this made in Alberta plan, I seem to recall you posting that you'd hope it does not ressemble what was delivered...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So what's your opinion on this made in Alberta plan, I seem to recall you posting that you'd hope it does not ressemble what was delivered...


On GHGs it's not a plan anymore than we had before; it's more delays and future actions. I agree with VD's point about not rushing into vital legislation but they've already set it up to be largely irrelevant until 2020. At least it shouldn't cost billions to accomplish next-to-nothing this time.

There's some good stuff in there that relate more to "air quality" type issues, which is consistent with their platform.

If I'm right about the tipping point, the Cons will need to have a "deathbed conversion" (the Libs pulled this off quite well before) or follow RMs words: "Harper might as well put his head between his legs and kiss his a$$ goodbye." 

If I'm wrong, then they can stay the course with their only big risks being some as-yet unknown scandal, foreign policy and/or a very effective Liberal leader.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> . At least it shouldn't cost billions to accomplish next-to-nothing this time..


Consultants and lobby groups are expensive, we shall see....


Beej said:


> There's some good stuff in there that relate more to "air quality" type issues, which is consistent with their platform.


Hardly a problem on the GHG scale at the moment. 

I was expecting a little cynicism from the Beej - I guess you like non plan and they are opening the doors to more consultants so I can understand you not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you. beejacon


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I was expecting a little cynicism from the Beej


"it's not a plan anymore than we had before"

"they've already set it up to be largely irrelevant until 2020"

Right, I should have screamed and stomped my feet as per the usual behaviour and capability of ehmac's loudest con-critics.  

Maybe later.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

Hey Artist series and Beej...what exactly do you do to help the environment? I bet you pollute just as bad as the rest of Canada without losing sleep over it. Your ecological footprint is just as big as mine I would imagine. If you want to stop complaining about whos in office and isn't doing thier job run for PM. Lets see if you got the balls to change the world...good god...WHAAAA...

Dear God, please let the liberals win the next election and see if they can implement an environmental change without bending us over the gate especially the Ontario auto sector and Alberta, oh I forgot they hate Alberta so that doesn't matter....I pray that the liberals win so we can finally rest and everyone can go home happy that the liberals are the night in shining armour and came to save Canada from the Cons. I also pray that the liberals learned thier lesson that ripping off the people of Canada isn't cool and that they all forgive them of this and thier many stupid mistakes, broken promises. I admit now that the liberals are perfect, and perfect for Canada...AMEN.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i still say the best deal for Canada would be to sell Alberta to the U.S. for 1 trillion dollars Canadian - cash only, no lay away plan

it sounded strange when i suggested it, but now seems that all parties would be better served

harpo could become governor of the great state of Alberta
the calgary ex pat american oil barons would be re-patriated home again
Canada settles its debt
the rest of Canada can get on with observing the kyoto protocols

why is this a bad idea?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

imactheknife said:


> Hey Artist series and Beej...what exactly do you do to help the environment? I bet you pollute just as bad as the rest of Canada without losing sleep over it. Your ecological footprint is just as big as mine I would imagine. If you want to stop complaining about whos in office and isn't doing thier job run for PM. Lets see if you got the balls to change the world...good god...WHAAAA...
> 
> Dear God, please let the liberals win the next election and see if they can implement an environmental change without bending us over the gate especially the Ontario auto sector and Alberta, oh I forgot they hate Alberta so that doesn't matter....I pray that the liberals win so we can finally rest and everyone can go home happy that the liberals are the night in shining armour and came to save Canada from the Cons. I also pray that the liberals learned thier lesson that ripping off the people of Canada isn't cool and that they all forgive them of this and thier many stupid mistakes, broken promises. I admit now that the liberals are perfect, and perfect for Canada...AMEN.


I don't know where to start with how silly this post is. It's almost of 'Spectacular proportions.

It won't matter until a good policy framework is in place. You can do all you want and it just won't make a difference without supporting policy development. This problem is way too big to solve with good intentions and personal flagellation. So install some CFLs, buy a solar panel and accomplish nothing. 

This is particularly off, "If you want to stop complaining about whos in office and isn't doing thier job run for PM" Trouble understanding the concept of representative democracy?

By the way, I live in a high-density residential setting, walk to work and rarely travel except for special occasions and work. Not for the environment, but because it suits my current situation.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Wow... It sounds so good when filtered through the foreign media

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/10/19/canada.environment.ap/index.html


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

By comparison



> EU sets 'ambitious' energy goals
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6060608.stm


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> "People should understand that each time they waste energy by opening a window they are not only actually destroying the potential to buy goods or save money, they are also making the climate warmer even through this small emission," he told reporters.


Glad I don't live in "micro-manage land.".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

from the CNN article;
*
The Clean Air Act would transfer a number of substances previously defined as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to a new category labeled "air pollutants."
*


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

imactheknife said:


> Hey Artist series and Beej...what exactly do you do to help the environment? I bet you pollute just as bad as the rest of Canada without losing sleep over it. Your ecological footprint is just as big as mine I would imagine. If you want to stop complaining about whos in office and isn't doing thier job run for PM. Lets see if you got the balls to change the world...good god...WHAAAA...


It's really none of your business but since you want to know.
I can easily bet that my footprint is smaller than yours.
The first advantage I may have is that I live in Quebec, the power electricity that I use is less polluting than most of Canada. Most of the food that I buy is locally grown/raised and organic. We also produce much of our vegetables/fruits during the summer months. My partner and I do to commute to work but I’ve gradually reduce the days that I drive to the office to the minimum. We have a small fuel efficient car that replaced the bigger vehicle that we had. I have the benefit of having a relative that designs environmentally friendly housing. 
In the house, we compost most material and our land fill garbage is easily 1/8 that of our neighbors. My kids mostly wear hand-me-downs – is saves money but is also more environmentally friendly. 
We have reduced our electricity consumption in the house by a variety of measures and are looking at ways to go off the grid. At work, I’ve replaced most PCs by more efficient models – we look at passive cooling as well other measures.
Water consumption is something that I’m aware we could to better but we do our part – rain barrels for the garden, low flush toilet, and at night we avoid flushing (unless it’s excrements). The kids share a baths or showers.
We live well but are hardly consumers compared to my immediate neighbors. Any item I buy, the element of quality and durability is taken into account. 

Last year, I co-founded a municipal political party. We have come into power and are working on introducing sustainable development policies. I’m part of urban planning committees that look at all new projects and one of the criteria that we examine is environmental impact. We can’t stop all development (nor would it be our mandate) but are looking to make it more green. 
On the municipal level, I can tell you that it is frustrating to try and get some common sense development done because all seems stacked in the favor of the developers. It takes strong political will, the backing of the population to reverse the tide. Even trying to get “best practices” implemented is sometimes an exercise in futility. 

We also own large tracks of land in Australia (near Cairns) and want to preserve that - again not sure what good that does when all around is being turned into housing. 

But even all that I try to do, will mean nothing if big business (and oil and gas production) continues to pollute with impunity. It’s perverse in an era of record profits for them to not do more to reduce their pollution. 





imactheknife said:


> Dear God, please let the liberals win the next election and see if they can implement an environmental change without bending us over the gate especially the Ontario auto sector and Alberta, oh I forgot they hate Alberta so that doesn't matter....I pray that the liberals win so we can finally rest and everyone can go home happy that the liberals are the night in shining armour and came to save Canada from the Cons. I also pray that the liberals learned thier lesson that ripping off the people of Canada isn't cool and that they all forgive them of this and thier many stupid mistakes, broken promises. I admit now that the liberals are perfect, and perfect for Canada...AMEN.


Both parties have a rather poor history. 
The Liberals did talk the game and should of done more - let's not forget that a lot of resistance to change did come from the Albertal Cons and big business. 
What the Cons have given us is a giant farce. 
They blame the Liberals (of course).
- Intensity targets are meaningless as your overall pollution rate goes up.
- The window dressing of reducing emissions from small engines is a joke (they can't even tell us what % of pollution is caused by those or how they will reduce it)
- Harmonizing vehicule emissions with those in the states is meaningless (it's already happening and really does nothing) (It's not even strict California emission and Quebec is going forth with it's made-in-Quebec norms).
- The Cons had 13 years to work on a plan, this one looks like it was done in less than 2 weeks (it's hard to copy-paste oil company directives). 
- All the groundwork has already been laid, this is stalling from Harper
- When does peak oil production happen in Alberta (I bet it will be within the year 2050)
- Toxic substance are being downgradded to "pollutants"
- There is nothing concrete in what the Cons announced - 2050? That's a joke and they are just praying for technology to somehow save them?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> By the way, I live in a high-density residential setting, walk to work and rarely travel except for special occasions and work. Not for the environment, but because it suits my current situation.


You forgot to add that you rarely move from your chair because you want to be nice to the earth by not stepping on it. 

Part of the problem, is that no one wants to live in high density areas. We had a municipal rule that all lots had to be a minimum of 10 000 square feet...


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i still say the best deal for Canada would be to sell Alberta to the U.S. for 1 trillion dollars Canadian - cash only, no lay away plan
> 
> it sounded strange when i suggested it, but now seems that all parties would be better served
> 
> ...


... or... we could collect and store our extra CO2 in MACSPECTRUM's mouth (the post above is emperical proof that we'd have years and years of storage). An added bonus is that MACSPECTRUM would also have to keep his mouth shut. 

why is this a bad idea?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> ... or... we could collect and store our extra CO2 in MACSPECTRUM's mouth (the post above is emperical proof that we'd have years and years of storage). An added bonus is that MACSPECTRUM would also have to keep his mouth shut.


MACSPECTRUM is actually typing - just goes to show how confused some are about reality... beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Mugatu said:


> An added bonus is that MACSPECTRUM would also have to keep his mouth shut.


Carbon sequestering!



ArtistSeries said:


> MACSPECTRUM is actually typing - just goes to show how confused some are about reality...


But are his lips moving while he proofreads?



ArtistSeries said:


> The Liberals did talk the game and should of done more - let's not forget that a lot of resistance to change did come from the Albertal Cons and big business.


They had a MAJORITY government.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I've been a great detractor of the Liberals all my adult life, and would never have considered voting for them until now. At least the liberals cried crocodile tears over the environment, and made promises that sounded good.

Again, you can give the Cons credit for keeping their promises, but when they've promised to help provide your children with a slow and painful death, what's that worth?

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

not to mention the ever increasing death toll in our new escalated peace making mission in Afghanistan which the previous gov't would have NOT allowed and we would have had our troops home by Feb. 2007

seems conservatives have no compulsion about allowing their fellow human to die, quickly or slowly

profits before people


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> not to mention the ever increasing death toll in our new escalated peace making mission in Afghanistan


How about not mentioning it here? Or are you so obsessed with one political party that you can't stay on topic? You already have several threads devoted to Afghanistan at your disposal. This one is about GHG and the Clean air Act.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> How about not mentioning it here? Or are you so obsessed with one political party that you can't stay on topic? You already have several threads devoted to Afghanistan at your disposal. This one is about GHG and the Clean air Act.


For once I agree. Let's not mush all the problems together, lest they look smaller. Let's go back to the wisest words yet spoken on this in-act:



bryanc said:


> Again, you can give the Cons credit for keeping their promises, but when they've promised to help provide your children with a slow and painful death, what's that worth?


Brilliant. Heard an interview with the main Con strategist this morning (the minister, of course, is not available, and doesn't even bother calling back to say that any more), and he managed to make this sound even worse. I didn't think that was possible, but he did.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> How about not mentioning it here? Or are you so obsessed with one political party that you can't stay on topic? You already have several threads devoted to Afghanistan at your disposal. This one is about GHG and the Clean air Act.


i'm obsessed with people living instead of dying
the cons seemed obsessed with the opposite


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The first advantage I may have is that I live in Quebec, the power electricity that I use is less polluting than most of Canada.


That argument doesn't fly. Consumption is consumption.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i'm obsessed with people living instead of dying
> the cons seemed obsessed with the opposite


Become obsessed with staying on topic.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Become obsessed with staying on topic.


he who is without sin...
you know the rest


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> he who is without sin...


Can still be evaluated based upon the frequency and ferocity of their sins?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Become obsessed with staying on topic.


Actually I thought he was on topic. How many people in Ontario die because of the smog they inhale daily. How many people have health problems because of that smog. On smoggy days, the air is probably cleaner in the house than outside, which is ironic. And this is all gonna improve under the conservatives rein... NOT. Just when I start to think that this government was a government of action and I actually would vote for them next election (I didn't last election), they go and act like Paul Martin's liberals... 

There's alot they could do by 2010 or 2015, starting with cars, buses, trucks, etc. instead what are they concentrated on Lawnmowers, lawn trimmers, and ATVs  . Then they could tell Ontario to get it's ass in gear and get rid of those coal electricity generating plants as well as going after the other top 4 polluting companies on the list.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Green plan prescription for inaction*
> Oct. 20, 2006. 05:51 AM
> CHANTAL HÉBERT
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907622983

:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I was actually quite surprised by the amount of air pollution produced by lawnmowers.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Can still be evaluated based upon the frequency and ferocity of their sins?


sins?
what's next, you going to go RC priest on me?



> Actually I thought he was on topic. How many people in Ontario die because of the smog they inhale daily. How many people have health problems because of that smog. On smoggy days, the air is probably cleaner in the house than outside, which is ironic. And this is all gonna improve under the conservatives rein... NOT. Just when I start to think that this government was a government of action and I actually would vote for them next election (I didn't last election), they go and act like Paul Martin's liberals...
> 
> There's alot they could do by 2010 or 2015, starting with cars, buses, trucks, etc. instead what are they concentrated on Lawnmowers, lawn trimmers, and ATVs . Then they could tell Ontario to get it's ass in gear and get rid of those coal electricity generating plants as well as going after the other top 4 polluting companies on the list.



somebody gets it...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The headache with Ontario pollution is the the bulk drifts up from the Ohio Valley which is coal fired as well as 100,000,000 people in the Central area there.

While Ontario needs it's own clean air program it will not likely make a material impact on smog and air quality related deaths.

The heart of the matter is the despicable ethical conduct in failing to put tough GHG regs on the energy iindustry in N Alberta WHICH CAN BLOODY WELL AFFORD IT 

Hebert has the right or it it's irresponsible to the the point of lunancy.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> The headache with Ontario pollution is the the bulk drifts up from the Ohio Valley which is coal fired as well as 100,000,000 people in the Central area there.
> 
> While Ontario needs it's own clean air program it will not likely make a material impact on smog and air quality related deaths.


Yeah I agree, but once Ontario cleans up it's act and as you mention Alberta cleans up it's act, then Canada can complain to the US. It's hard to complain about the US, when your own country is worse than the US. Once you've cleaned your own backyard (or at least made a plan to) you can complain about other countries.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I agree - it puts us on the right moral ground to complain.
I'm just pointing out that us cleaning up will not likely save many lives in Ontario 

Ontario may have a ( small case) for easing the burden on industry due to pending recession but there is NO EXCUSE for Alberta....period, full stop.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Ontario may have a ( small case) for easing the burden on industry due to pending recession but there is NO EXCUSE for Alberta....period, full stop.


Ah, but we are simple Eastern Bastards. We aren't allowed to comment on anything related to Alberta.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Ontario doesn't have an excuse; it effed up its own power system and the auto manufacturers don't have a case anymore than the oil guys. Simply making more money doesn't a weaker case make. That's Ontario-logic.  Note that the Feds are making billions off Alberta's energy industry. Almost as much as they suck out of Ontario.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Timing and yes the Feds are idjits not to get it done while times are good.
As I said "small case".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> As I said "small case".


Fair enough, as long as it applies to funding the techs with the highest potential too. Like carbon sequestration. East-West grid (MB and NL/QC feeding Ontario) may also do the trick, but I'm not sure that actually reduces global emissions.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

RevMatt said:


> Ah, but we are simple Eastern Bastards. We aren't allowed to comment on anything related to Alberta.


Ahhh you are, it just gets tiring when alot of eastern Canadians bash the west over everything.... It seems that because the reform and conservatives joined a few years back this became of problem for easteners. Stephen Harper is PM, is a Conservative, and is a Westerner all of things and all of a sudden eastern canada feels threatened or something. The west is finally showing some power and influence in Canada OH NO and they can finally have a voice that is heard. It's nice for a change for the west to finally have a say in what happens in an election. Before it was always Quebec and Ontario (Maritimes) who decided whats best and the the rest of Canada had to live with CHretian for 13 LONG CRAPPY YEARS....remember? On subject...a big problem....ACID RAIN

http://www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain/

The amount of people who live in Ontario and Drive 1+ hours to work contribute to this acid rain problem. I have never seen so many people drive to work in my life over such a distance. The 401 is packed at 6:30 AM everyday during the week...don't you think that contributes enough to acid rain? I like the fact that we so easily blame the US for our pollution problems...it's not the case. THe US pollutes, yes, and they don't seem to be in much of a hurry to not pollute. That doesn't mean we can't take an initiative and go green and start taking action ourselves. We just seem like well it won't make any difference if the US isn't going to so why bother? Great attitude, watch more David Suzuki and the nature of things.

Imagine if we weren't recycling at all? How much land do you think we would have filled up if were living the same lifestyle 10 years ago? what if they never made unleaded gas? all that lead leaching into everything as it was before 1991.
The Gov't be it Cons/ Libs/ blacks/ whites /gay /straights whatever someone needs to take control. THe downside is that whoever does it won't last in office. Why you might say...cause people you/me have become so accustom (spoiled actually) that we could not give up our luxuries (standard of living) if it came to push and shove to help the world/ Country. We are so spoiled beyond belief that I can't see a huge change in anything environmental ever happening. You call Stephen Harper Bushs's Cousin? look at yourself in the mirror. What would you give up to live in a cleaner world? Bush wants the economy so he isn't doing anything to help....what do you want? what can't you live without? I bet you couldn't make a list of ten things that you would give up to help the environment if it was a luxury (car, boat, A/C, Heat, Computer,lawnmower, Fridge, stove, plus many more)

I read a quote one time that said "the human race will make it self extinct by it's own doing" ...I hate to believe it but I do.

well How about a toast to a cleaner world and hope one can reverse that damage we have done to Mother nature...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

imactheknife said:


> Ahhh you are, it just gets tiring when alot of eastern Canadians bash the west over everything.... It seems that because the reform and conservatives joined a few years back this became of problem for easteners. Stephen Harper is PM, is a Conservative, and is a Westerner all of things and all of a sudden eastern canada feels threatened or something. The west is finally showing some power and influence in Canada OH NO and they can finally have a voice that is heard. It's nice for a change for the west to finally have a say in what happens in an election.


It's too bad that Alberta produces more GHG than most countries. This has nothing to do with Reform/Libs/Cons. 
You have a province that does all it can to minimize what is a growing problem with GHG over there. 
This is a growing problem. As for Ontario, many are aware of the problem and they are at least trying to grasp for a solution unlike Alberta and the Con brigade that won't even admit that there is a problem.

And what are YOU doing to help the environment?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

imactheknife said:


> You call Stephen Harper Bushs's Cousin? look at yourself in the mirror. What would you give up to live in a cleaner world? Bush wants the economy so he isn't doing anything to help....what do you want? what can't you live without? I bet you couldn't make a list of ten things that you would give up to help the environment if it was a luxury (car, boat, A/C, Heat, Computer,lawnmower, Fridge, stove, plus many more)


I already did give up something for the environment. I challenge ALL ehmac members to do the same (or simillar if you are not in Southern Ontario). I switched electricty companies. I now buy my power from Bullfrog Power. They don't use coal or natural gas. Strictly wind and low impact hydro electric. 
I did this and so can you. You want to help the environment? Then do something positive instread of just paying lip service. It costs me up to $20 a month extra. The best $20 I ever spent.
My power doesn't come from Nukes, natural gas, or coal. Yours doesn't have to either.
http://www.bullfrogpower.com/


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> That argument doesn't fly. Consumption is consumption.


Ah VD, ever so silent on the Con joke of the "Clean Air Plan".....

Did you even read some of the steps I've/we taken? 
I did preface that this is an advantage that Quebec has when it comes to electricity production. 
Living in Toronto or Vancouver can also be an advantage in terms of climate (reduces heating needs). 
You are not going to eliminate consumption but you can make choices that reduce damage. I certainly would not chastise you for driving a motorcycle, even if you ride just for the fun of it...

How about talking about the leisurely Con "Clean Air Plan"... Is it still the greatest think since slice bread? 
What about that goal of 2050? I guess there is no rush...
Smog? 2020...
But at least we are moving closer to US standards...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

And what pray tell did you say IM that does not apply in spades to the energy moghuls in Alberta.

Acid rain is not really factor - that's generally been dealt with despite your thinking and the lakes are a lot cleaner.

There is a balance to be had between lifestyle, jobs and being competitive and being green and being able to afford the changes to power sources and refitting older energy inefficient buildings.

Alberta has no reason dollar wise, competitive wise, technology-wise not to be pursuing very green extraction.
The amount of natural gas used to extract 1 barrel of oil is criminal to the atmosphere.

It's about leverage - how much can be reduced within a addressable framework and there is no question the oil sands represent that addressable solution.

The money is available, the the technology is available...the will to either impose it by the Fed or self regulation by the energy industry is missing entirely.

If "Screw the environment" is what Alberta's voice is in this nation ...and it appears to be clearly that.....then they deserve the consequences when the rest of the country gets mad enough.

I would love to see the opposition parties unite on this and push through really stiff and short time frame restrictions on GHG.

Then Harper et al will understand LOUD AND CLEAR what being in a minority opinion about the environment and a minority gov is about.  

I'd love to see Garth Turner join the Greens and table a GHG bill with teeth and the other parties shove it down Harper's throat.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> If "Screw the environment" is what Alberta's voice is in this nation ...and it appears to be clearly that.....then they deserve the consequences when the rest of the country gets mad enough.
> 
> I would love to see the opposition parties unite on this and push through really stiff and short time frame restrictions on GHG.
> 
> ...


This is so true. If this happens I will throw a party and you will be invited MacDoc!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> I now buy my power from Bullfrog Power.


As long as you understand that it is money that can be invested in cleaner energy (creates investor/contract demand for more clean projects like wind farms); it doesn't change how your power is generated. I still find it to be a good step, acknowledging the complexity in dispatchable power versus intermittent.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> then they deserve the consequences when the rest of the country gets mad enough.


There is a lot to this. From my experience, for the many good points that came out of notions of empowering the West, this was the most conspicuous one by its absence. Ontario has not dominated Canada's politics by always getting its way, it has given a lot of slack to QC and Atlantic Canada. Part of gaining power -- which they (AB and BC) have earned off population growth alone -- is realising what that power really entails.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Yes and no Beej.
I buy my power from Bullfrong and they put clean power into the grid. They do not sell more power than they generate so in effect my power is clean while (presumably) yours is not. I agree that technically I may actually get power from nukes or whatever but I do not pay for this and I am making sure clean power is being put into the grid. In at least teh amount I consume. Again I challenge everyone at ehmac to do the same.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> There is a balance to be had between lifestyle, jobs and being competitive and being green and being able to afford the changes to power sources and refitting older energy inefficient buildings.


I agree - it's not an "all or nothing" proposition. 





> Alberta has no reason dollar wise, competitive wise, technology-wise not to be pursuing very green extraction.
> The amount of natural gas used to extract 1 barrel of oil is criminal to the atmosphere.
> 
> It's about leverage - how much can be reduced within a addressable framework and there is no question the oil sands represent that addressable solution.
> ...


Profits before people MacDoc - and spin marketing..... Common sense will get you nowhere...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> Yes and no Beej.
> I buy my power from Bullfrong and they put clean power into the grid. They do not sell more power than they generate so in effect my power is clean while (presumably) yours is not. I agree that technically I may actually get power from nukes or whatever but I do not pay for this and I am making sure clean power is being put into the grid. In at least teh amount I consume. Again I challenge everyone at ehmac to do the same.


I don't have a meter (included in rent).  

This is where intermittent comes in. Total power is covered but, unless something has changed, the "when" isn't. It may be annual or monthly reconciliation, for example (hourly can't be done yet, but deemed profiles can be used). As I said, I like the concept (it was being done in AB years ago  ) because it uses the market demand to create the pooled contract demand for alternatives without burdening people who don't participate (again, acknowledging intermittent issues). Now if the price actually reflected the value and enviro-cost...

The flat fee is curious, but I guess the portfolio approach allows them to get a good idea of total use.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> It's too bad that Alberta produces more GHG than most countries. This has nothing to do with Reform/Libs/Cons.
> You have a province that does all it can to minimize what is a growing problem with GHG over there.
> This is a growing problem. As for Ontario, many are aware of the problem and they are at least trying to grasp for a solution unlike Alberta and the Con brigade that won't even admit that there is a problem.
> 
> And what are YOU doing to help the environment?


I admit the whole oil industry makes me mad....and I can't wait for the chance to do what I can to NOT support Opec and oil companies. I also want to make an effort to reduce my contribution to GHG. I will look into Alberta's ignorance of GHG and get back to you, In the meantime if you have links/ articles that aren't Globe n mail Bias about Alberta I will read them. I would also like to see some articles on Ontarios efforts / grasp on thier Issues. I think they have a lot more than GHG to worry about as well.

My girlfriend is an environmental engineer and she says Ontario doesn't do much in regard to the environment.She says they try this and then that screws up something else. She is also from the Niagra region and knows a lot about Ontarios state of affairs with the environment. All one has to do is drive the QEW over Hamilton harbour on a hot humid day to see the most disgusting picture one can imagine. I am proud to be alive when I drive over the bridge and I take a DEEP breath to celebrate life.

My girlfriend also has a lot of friends (18-20) that have cancer. She thinks that the whole Area from Toronto to Niagra falls has the highest Cancer rate in Ontario and Canada because of Hamilton steel factories as well as being at the bottom of the escarpment where pollution just stagantes over them.

A FOR ME: I am not doing much or my share to help the enviorment at the moment. I have never openly admited to doing so and I am ashamed of not doing my part. I don't openly bash or slam others (on a personal level) that don't give a crap about the environment either. I get frustrated when gov'ts and provinces keep doing what they have been for years and years with no remorse when it comes to the environment. They see and know of the implications of thier actions but turn a blind eye towards it. We have a very good recycling program here in Guelph for which I am happy about . In time we plan on having a plan in place to do our part I will make that a promise here on ehmac.

I do apologize if the comment the other day came across as a personal attack (AS and Beej) I get frustrated easily. All I am trying to say is there is no getting around that we as people have things that we CAN live without. These things are a big problem to the climate/ environment. No one wants to give up what these are so we keep doing damage and not caring. It's like someone who smokes and gets cancer. The doctor says we can operate and might be successful but you have to QUIT smoking. The person continues to smoke because they like it and are addicted. They operate and that person still dies a cruel death later on. Likewise with the planet, we as humans are addicted to crap WE DON'T NEED but hell if we can give it up. Let mother nature or the next generation pay...I want to have fun and have no reponsibilites for my actions....I can relate this attitude to tons of other stuff (pregnancy, aids, sirrosis, etc. all these things would never happen to me!) I can do what I want and who cares....well EARTH cares..and in time it will make us pay. We see it with the Ozone, the melting icecaps, the droughts, the floods, hurricanes...what else does it take?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

imactheknife said:


> I do apologize if the comment the other day came across as a personal attack (AS and Beej) I get frustrated easily. All I am trying to say is there is no getting around that we as people have things that we CAN live without.


Thanks. Seriously.

On the second point I think we disagree. I think we will have to deliver the services differently and most likely more expensively which will mean choosing different balances (less car; more beer?  ), but I don't think the problem requires a fundamental shift in material quality of life for wealthy countries to achieve the necessary alterations. My opinion is based on analysis of a lot of the technology options that are commercial, near-commercial and under development.

Poorer countries can't do much but, as they get wealthier and technology continues to advance, they will be able to. This means their emissions must be allowed to increase significantly within a certain timeframe. The end solution is a per capita based set of caps with, possibly, some allowances for temperatures and resource structures. Not a huge amount, but some. 

I'm only pessimistic in the sense of politics (and thereby 'the people') on this one; the technical and policy solutions are there. They don't move fast (unnecessary and impossible without massive degradation of quality of life) but the problem lends itself to gradual and consistent progress. 

That being said, we still need to start. Slow the GHG emissions growth; flatline them; then set them on a declining path. We have not had any policy package proposed by ANY of the three major parties on this. We have had smoke and mirrors, mis-direction, and unrealistic optimistic BS. Yet another reason why I'm reminded of how Canada arrived at its debt/deficit crisis. I may be reading too much into it, but the parallels are abundant.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Back in 2003 the government of Alberta passed the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act which, by law, forces Alberta to reduce its GHG emissions to below 50% of 1990 levels by 2020.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Back in 2003 the government of Alberta passed the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act which, by law, forces Alberta to reduce its GHG emissions to below 50% of 1990 levels by 2020.


Do you have a link? I recall this as being a 50% decline in intensity and out to 2030 (really uncertain about the year) but it has been many years and many beers.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ah VD, ever so silent on the Con joke of the "Clean Air Plan".....
> 
> Did you even read some of the steps I've/we taken?
> I did preface that this is an advantage that Quebec has when it comes to electricity production.
> ...


Been too busy to read up on the Clean Air Plan. But, I bought a place last night so I have more free time until I have to move. Not good news for you.  

Yes I drive a motorbike, but the mileage sucks relative to other bikes ~35 miles / gallon.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Somebody (who, me?) has no life...

http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/sta/c-16.7/20050211/whole.html
....................
Specified gas emission targets
3(1) The specified gas emission target for Alberta is a reduction by 
December 31, 2020 of specified gas emissions relative to Gross 
Domestic Product to an amount that is equal to or less than 50% of 
1990 levels.
....................

Not as bad as I've made it out to be, yet a 50% intensity reduction over 30 years isn't much either. It is above standard long-term projections but, by its long-term nature, allows for too much political room and isn't nearly as good as the 50% sounds. I would also have to look into the 1990-2003 accomplishments to see how much was already done ala the Euro-Kyoto negotiations (e.g. UK already switching off coal; Germany gains from East Germany inefficiency). Still, I understated the goal. My mistake.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Both parties have a rather poor history.
> The Liberals did talk the game and should of done more


So far neither party has done anything meaningful about GHG, but in my opinion the Liberal approach is somewhat worse as they *claimed* they were going to do something, and then didn't - which might give people that don't follow this stuff too closely the impression that something was being done.

At least you know where you stand with the Conservatives, imperfect though they may be.


imactheknife said:


> ...look at yourself in the mirror. What would you give up to live in a cleaner world? Bush wants the economy so he isn't doing anything to help....what do you want? what can't you live without? I bet you couldn't make a list of ten things that you would give up to help the environment if it was a luxury (car, boat, A/C, Heat, Computer,lawnmower, Fridge, stove, plus many more)


Good point! Industry isn't the only source of CHG - we will all have to adjust our lifestyle a bit to make a meaningful change here.


MacDoc said:


> If "Screw the environment" is what Alberta's voice is in this nation ...and it appears to be clearly that.....then they deserve the consequences when the rest of the country gets mad enough.
> 
> I would love to see the opposition parties unite on this and push through really stiff and short time frame restrictions on GHG.


Would you be prepared to give up your 3000 sq. ft. house (for two people, IIRC) and seven passenger van as part of these "stiff and short time frame restrictions"?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB I trade those off as I support 4 employees and myself with no additional eco footprint and we require a van for our business. I suspect our work/home footprint is lower than those in an apartment as it's in use 24/7/365 and not one of our staff nor myself has an office idling empty for 14-18 hours a day and all weekend.

A major problem is that facilities that consume energy - especially in a Canadian climate sit empty for a far too high percentage of time.

Zoning needs to combine light commercial with housing for any number of reasons and that just lack of planning and political will. When you see how well Paris combines residential and commercial you see how far behind we are.
Every one of those strip commercial plazas should have low rise housing on top 
Every major street should have apartments on top of the retail.


















and this is a perfect blueprint for Toronto


> It’s not easy being green – for a city, that is. It's tough enough to simply keep up with the endless trash, traffic and pollution generated by urban life. To actually get the better of it with good public transportation, smart recycling programs and the kind of well-kept streets, parks and playgrounds that make cities fun and healthful places to live, that’s the true challenge. So who measures up?
> We’ve picked 10 places – in no particular order – that we think are doing a great job at putting residents first. That means they’re obsessed with clean air and clean water, renewable energy, reliable city buses, trams, streetcars and subways, a growing number of parks and greenbelts, farmer’s markets and, very important, opportunities for community involvement.
> 
> Portland, Oregon
> ...


http://www1.move.com/homefinance/RealEstateNews/General/greencities.asp?poe=homestore

But where is the political will to do so.??

Leverage for change is NOT on individual dwellings but on 

a) major industries - start first with the ones most GHG intensive

b) major housing - apartments and condos for energy use reduction - provide low cost financing for retrofits that can recoup in as little as five years.

c) transportation - needs more incentives and a faster time line tho I suspect electric will bust wide open in the next short while.
••••

Hamilton??



> HAMILTON, ON – January 18, 2005 – *Clean Air Hamilton reports that Hamilton’s air quality is getting better but there is still room for improvement.* The multi-stakeholder group presented its annual report on Hamilton’s air quality to Councilors at the Planning and Development
> Committee meeting today at City Hall.
> 
> “We have two very clear messages for Hamilton residents,” explains Dr. Brian McCarry who has chaired Clean Air Hamilton since its inception in 1998. “We have made significant improvements in air quality in Hamilton, and there is still much work to be done.”
> ...


With the steel industry on a roll now would be a good time to require additional controls. But as with the Great Lakes there is no question progress has been made in the area for both water and air pollution.

Positives out of this - it seems the climate is climbing very high in public concern in Canada = Manning had it right. Any politician not "owing green" takes a serious risk with the populace - and that risk grows higher and higher as people get madder about lack of progress.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What's really necessary to change the urban landscape isn't so much incentives or zoning, but a desire to create something that people will want to own, full of obvious advantages. If you want people to live in row houses, make it sexy--call them the "new lofts." The design world can go a long way to making this happen.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> What's really necessary to change the urban landscape isn't so much incentives or zoning, but a desire to create something that people will want to own, full of obvious advantages. If you want people to live in row houses, make it sexy--call them the "new lofts." The design world can go a long way to making this happen.


In many ways, MF, we agree on this.
Do you realize that you are echoing the Suziki foundation's position on urban planning?

BTW, you will have to get zoning chages. I can only speak for what's happening in the province of Quebec. The land had to be zoned to certain population densities - in other words, all the land is already divided up. By law, we have to have certain types/population densities. 

Now you add the human factor where some people do want huge houses and some that want huge houses big lots. These people and developers expect the city to pay for the increase burden on the infrastructures - in other words, have the people living there swallow any tax increase because of new development. I'd prefer that developers be responsable for all increases (they can build it into the cost of the house). I'd like to see low density developments not be hooked up to city sewage (septic tanks instead).
Ontario is ahead of Quebec in the aspect of urban planning.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Been too busy to read up on the Clean Air Plan. But, I bought a place last night so I have more free time until I have to move. Not good news for you.


Congratulations on the place.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

imactheknife said:


> I get frustrated when gov'ts and provinces keep doing what they have been for years and years with no remorse when it comes to the environment. They see and know of the implications of thier actions but turn a blind eye towards it. We have a very good recycling program here in Guelph for which I am happy about.


For what's it worth, Quebec is taking a pro-active stance on many issues. 
The best way for people to influence what is going on, is to get involved politically. The municipal level is the most direct place to get involved - yes it's extremely frustrating at times - but you can make small changes. 





imactheknife said:


> I do apologize if the comment the other day came across as a personal attack (AS and Beej) I get frustrated easily. All I am trying to say is there is no getting around that we as people have things that we CAN live without.
> 
> No one wants to give up what these are so we keep doing damage and not caring.


Thanks -


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Congratulations on the place.


Thanks. Since we're talking about housing:

http://www.realtylink.org/prop_sear...=1&PTYTID=2&MNPRC=200000&MXPRC=900000&SCTP=RS


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> In many ways, MF, we agree on this.
> Do you realize that you are echoing the Suziki foundation's position on urban planning?
> 
> BTW, you will have to get zoning chages. I can only speak for what's happening in the province of Quebec. The land had to be zoned to certain population densities - in other words, all the land is already divided up. By law, we have to have certain types/population densities.
> ...


Vancouver has had a lot of success with building high density housing. We have the highest densities in North America in the downtown core. People can get by without a car. Work, shopping and leisure are all within walking distance.

When Larry Campbell was mayor he said it was fun to take mayors from other cities around the downtown area just to see their reactions and envy.

I see you are active in municipal politics. Our new mayor has undertaken an eco-density and affordable housing initiate. You will probably find this to be of interest. 

http://www.mayorsamsullivan.ca/ecodensity.html

You might also be interested to know that the NPA, Sullivan's Party, is the right leaning municipal party in Vancouver.

Another local success story is the new development at SFU, called Univercity, which was designed to be a sustainable community. We almost bought our new place up there, but it is a little far for commuting. This development was headed up by one of those 'evil' developers and he's the one to push for all this innovation.

http://www.sfu.ca/mediapr/news_releases/archives/news07060501.htm

Anyways, if we want to get these things implemented we need to keep the lines of communication open. If you want to 'sell' these ideas to your municipality, knowing the success and failures of various initiatives will go a long way.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Somebody get's it...the right somebody.....



> *A Law to Cut Emissions? Deal With It* :clap:
> 
> By JANE L. LEVERE
> Published: October 21, 2006
> ...


Somebody post this on Parliament's door.........

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/business/21interview.html?ref=science


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Thanks. Since we're talking about housing:
> 
> http://www.realtylink.org/prop_sear...=1&PTYTID=2&MNPRC=200000&MXPRC=900000&SCTP=RS


When's the housewarming?



(just kidding).

Look nice, not to big, not too small.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Aye, and a very nice neighbourhood, too, Vandave.

Word on the radio yesterday was that all three opposition parties have already declared their intentions to kill this at the earliest opportunity. That will be interesting.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> Aye, and a very nice neighbourhood, too, Vandave.
> 
> Word on the radio yesterday was that all three opposition parties have already declared their intentions to kill this at the earliest opportunity. That will be interesting.


Maybe Harper should table the bill right away before the Liberal leadership vote. Bet the Liberals wouldn't "kill this at the earliest opportunity" in that case.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Maybe Harper should table the bill right away before the Liberal leadership vote. Bet the Liberals wouldn't "kill this at the earliest opportunity" in that case.


Heheh. It's not a confidence vote, though. Anyone seen any polling on public support for this bill?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> It's not a confidence vote, though. Anyone seen any polling on public support for this bill?


Harper's most important bill to date and he's afraid to make it a confidence vote  

Typical... I hear Fortier is still not going to run....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Harper's most important bill to date and he's afraid to make it a confidence vote
> 
> Typical... I hear Fortier is still not going to run....


Foriter clarified his comment on running the next election by stating he meant the next general election

He's hoping a seat in Alberta opens up.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Foriter clarified his comment on running the next election by stating he meant the next general election
> 
> He's hoping a seat in Alberta opens up.


That last line is a joke, right? His whole purpose is to "represent" Quebec...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt said:



> That last line is a joke, right? His whole purpose is to "represent" Quebec...


He's supposed to "represent" Montreal but he knows he'd never win here...
Appointed Senators - was that not something Harper rallied against?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> That last line is a joke, right? His whole purpose is to "represent" Quebec...


i'm sure Fortier would find a convenient excuse to run in AB should the opening arise

however (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) to understand political logic you must acquaint yourself with 2 axioms of politics;
1. get power
2. stay in power


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

not the only "dead in the water" either



> stymies Conservative agenda
> Oct. 27, 2006. 01:00 AM
> CHANTAL HÉBERT
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907622983

When ..if ever..will we some governing instead of posturing.  

an out of touch with the populace minority gov and a an opposition unwilling to set aside differences to create a coalition.

What a gallimaufry


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the cons don't want to play nice with others
their plan was to muzzle their MPs until the next election
looks like mackay needs to be measured for a size 16 muzzle


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I wonder how much media coverage this will get in North America.



> The Stern Report will tomorrow reveal that if governments do nothing, climate change will cost more than both world wars and render swathes of the planet uninhabitable.


One of the interesting little tidbits in the article is that the UK economy grew while reducing it's carbon emissions over the past 5 years.

There is no reason not to have a vigourous, pro-active green plan in North America, apart from the interests of Big Oil.

It'll be fun watching the cons try to spin this one.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> There is no reason not to have a vigourous, pro-active green plan in North America


Voters.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I doubt anyone will need to put a spin on it. Why would Sir Nicholas be any more convincing than the last set of dire predictions?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It is just appalling that in the face of data like this have the temerity under a minority government to propose something so ludicrous as a 2050 date for mandatory GHG controls. Out of touch is polite.

Stupid and criminally irresponsible is more like it. 

The corrollary tho indirect - Europe is far greener and will outperform the North American economy over the next while. ( of course Britain is part of this ).












> Feeling fitter
> Oct 5th 2006
> From The Economist print edition
> 
> This year the euro area's economic strength has been a source of surprise. Its longer-term prospects may be brightening too


Now this is in spite of far more stringent controls and high energy prices.
It's not the only reason for a bright outlook but it's one of them.
Europe is doing more with fewer resources and benefitting from it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

And yet China, with virtually no Green Policy --is outperforming both Europe and North America.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> so ludicrous as a 2050 date for mandatory GHG controls.


First, practically, there are no mandatory targets because the timelines extend too far beyond political horizons. The plan is a soother for voters on GHGs. Also, if you'd like to attribute a date to the fake plans anyway, mandatory parts ostensibly kick in earlier than 2050 -- 2020, I think.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Typical MF _ comparing emerging economy with a mature one to make a spurious point completely unrelated to the Stern report.

The master of obfuscation.

as for your China diss.....



> September 07, 2006
> 
> Green GDP in China?
> 
> ...


http://www.env-econ.net/2006/09/green_gdp_in_ch.html

The didn't need the Stern report to understand economic losses due to poor environmental stewardship.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> http://www.env-econ.net/2006/09/green_gdp_in_ch.html
> 
> The didn't need the Stern report to understand economic losses due to poor environmental stewardship.


Good sub-link in your link:

http://www.chinadialogue.net/articl...ent-the-inevitable-choice-for-China-part-one-

Note that China's green push was largely due to enormous air quality problems (water too?) and resource issues that also connect back to a semi-planned economy. But if GHGs get pulled into the equation, then yippee. The West, including the U.S. and Canada, has much tighter overall regulations regarding the sources of air quality problems; China was playing catch-up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Doc: While well-meaning, your posts generally confuse scenaria involving imminent disaster with economic efficiency--never mind whether that efficiency is a "green" efficiency or any other. 

The problem in North America is an unwillingness to assign a cost of polluting common areas--land, water and air not privately controlled. This is is one of the few areas where I see government having a rightful and useful role--and yet it abrogates it constantly in favour of meddling with markets that really require no attention. Once costs are established, I would bet on the North american economy doing much better with efficiency than the overly-regulated Europeans.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The problem in North America is an unwillingness to assign a cost of polluting common areas--land, water and air not privately controlled.


So what you are saying is that the big oil companies should be reducing their profits and cleaning up their act?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So what you are saying is that the big oil companies should be reducing their profits and cleaning up their act?


Using the oil example, most of the pollution is from the final consumer. Refineries, pipes etc. should all be included in a comprehensive framework, but the consumer may not like being held to account for their emissions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The oil companies should include the cost of damaging common space in producing the oil. The consumer should be held responsible for the damage inflicted in consuming it. 

Practically, however, all company costs are passed onto the consumer--just as are taxes passed on to the consumer, no matter how cleverly they are constructed to inflict punishment on target groups through government policy.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Using the oil example, most of the pollution is from the final consumer. Refineries, pipes etc. should all be included in a comprehensive framework, but the consumer may not like being held to account for their emissions.


Okay, so lets start with GHG. 
I have these numbers 
http://www.pollutionwatch.org/pressroom/releases/20061011.jsp
Provincial Rankings: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (reported by large industrial facilities in 2004) 

Province 
Total all Gases (tonnes CO 2 equivalent) 

Alberta 
109,503,697 

Ontario 
77,273,825 

Quebec 
22,904,613 

Saskatchewan 
22,425,303 

British Columbia 
13,842,489 

New Brunswick 
12,953,875 

Nova Scotia 
11,683,931 

Newfoundland and Labrador 
5,368,923 

Manitoba 
2,460,523 

Northwest Territories 
366,134 

Prince Edward Island 
107,000 

Nunavut 
No facilities reported 

Yukon 
No facilities reported 


PollutionWatch also ranks reported emissions by sector and company. The fossil fuel electric power generation sector reported the highest total greenhouse gas emissions with 119,124,339 tonnes CO 2 equivalent, followed by the non-conventional oil extraction sector (31,675,983 tonnes CO 2 equivalent), and petroleum refineries 

What numbers to you have for individual contribution to GHG?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS, if you're talking about the oil industry (presumably that's the point underlying the provincial data) it involves a lot being exported and a lot being imported (emissions overseas -- not included). Yes, the industry should be responsible for what they do. But, for a given barrel of oil, most emissions are at the end use stage and consumers must be responsible for what they do. It's not just a matter of holding industry to account, but consumers too and that's where voters pull back. 

Also, for electric power, all costs will be passed directly to the consumer except in AB where the market may result in some being absorbed by industry (ultimately passed on to consumers, but not so directly).

Gasoline, for example, should be taxed to include road costs, land use, policing, related accidents (in how they exceed some benchmark) and tailpipe emissions of pollutants and GHGs. We're not there.

Industry should be taxed for their externalities. We're not there. From data I saw regarding some EU countries, even though they're ahead of us, their taxation portions lean heavily on the consumer (related to politics, competitiveness and MF's point). So Canada isn't that far out of line with regards to industrial taxation, but I'd still like to see the ideal: science-based polluter pay.

[Edit: Note, industrial competitiveness is where things get messy. You don't want to raise a tax, kill the industry, then just import the same product from somewhere else, if GHGs are your worry. But polluter-pay is also needed. Not easy, but workable, in my opinion.]


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The EC site was slow, but according to the NRCan site, the transportation sector (Trains, Planes and Automobiles) the emissions are 176 million tonnes of CO2e, including 98 based on gasoline. Still, note my Edit in the previous post. There are more considerations. For taxing consumers, an example would be redistributing the revenue to maintain progressivity in the tax system, for industry it's to ensure that something is actually accomplished, not just moved. Canada's federation further complicates the matter. However, in the end, it really is about voters.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> AS, if you're talking about the oil industry (presumably that's the point underlying the provincial data) it involves a lot being exported and a lot being imported (emissions overseas -- not included). Yes, the industry should be responsible for what they do. But, for a given barrel of oil, most emissions are at the end use stage and consumers must be responsible for what they do. It's not just a matter of holding industry to account, but consumers too and that's where voters pull back.
> 
> Also, for electric power, all costs will be passed directly to the consumer except in AB where the market may result in some being absorbed by industry (ultimately passed on to consumers, but not so directly).


I was not singling out the oil industry - Electric power generation produces more GHG - but some of that power is consumed for the transformation of oil in Alberta's case.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The EC site was slow, but according to the NRCan site, the transportation sector (Trains, Planes and Automobiles) the emissions are 176 million tonnes of CO2e, including 98 based on gasoline.


Would these not be considered part of industry?
There is much more commercial traffic than passager traffic when it comes to Trains, Planes and Trucks).
How would you divide dual role commercial/passager air traffic emissions?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I was not singling out the oil industry - Electric power generation produces more GHG - but some of that power is consumed for the transformation of oil in Alberta's case.


I recommend the NRCan database. It is energy-based, and thus doesn't include other GHG sources/sequestration which are quite large, but it helps for the key policy issues. It also has calculations for emissions including electricity.

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/st...tables/index.cfm?fuseaction=Selector.showTree


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Would these not be considered part of industry?
> There is much more commercial traffic than passager traffic when it comes to Trains, Planes and Trucks).
> How would you divide dual role commercial/passager air traffic emissions?


The database includes an estimate. I think it's about 70 MT for passenger cars and passenger light trucks. However, airplane charges (for non-biz travellers) would be directly passed on to individuals as well as public transit (through property taxes), so I'm not sure what the "instantly effective total" is.

Another way to look at it is the emissions breakdown for a given barrel of oil between exploration, production, transport, refining and end use. I don't know a link off-hand, but it does not bode well for consumers.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_2_185/ai_n12937459

I can't speak to the reasonableness, but here are 'life cycle estimates'.

.............
TABLE 2: EMISSIONS COMPARISON

a) FCHV C[O.sub.2] Emissions:
Fuel production 54%
Vehicle production 13%
Material production 32%
Others 1%

b) Gasoline Vehicle C[O.SUB.2] Emissions:
Driving 72%
Fuel production 8%
Vehicle production 6%
Material production 12%
Others 2%
.............


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

But really do you not have to parse the problem down into leverage points.

GHG reduction at fuel source/production is obviously a lever and currently the industry can well afford it.

GHG for new buildings and retrofits is also a big leverage point with substantial gains.
The NextEnergy Company in Ontario built a 26,000 sq ft facility to green standards - buys Bullfrog power at a premium - and has a total electric bill of $450 a month. There are times when my HOUSE gets near that at consumer rates.

The building cost about $150,000 more - they will recoup in 4-5 years.

Making that part of the building code requires political will but places like Portland Oregon have done so. We don;t need to reinvent the process - just copy cat it for major urban centres.

These are the big leverage points. 

Fixed facilities ( buildngs, condos industrial processes, )
Fuel and power production facilities as far upstream as possible.

Transport is very difficult in the short term and really demands new technologies which the two above do not.

I really think consumers are ready and willing to do their part and there is a lot of creativity bubbling in that area.

I think govs are not willing to make the building codes and provide the financing incentives for retrofit and new facility greening.

The Canadian government in particular is unwilling to face down the oil industry and even in Ontario put the electricity pricing into play to fast track greener power. They only dabble.

It's too easy in this to get bogged in comparative % when the big question should be what can be done NOW - with the greatest impact.

THAT question is fairly straight forward in my mind.

But with no sense of urgency at all by the Cons........turf the bastids


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The biggest immediate impacts are:
Power billing in every unit (apartments; commercial rental).
Transportation (fuel taxes -- there's huge waste just based upon speeding).

The biggest short-term impacts are consumer-based.

Longer-term: Property tax structures that dramatically favour low-density need changing, sequestration, industry needs regulating/taxing, and building codes and transport regulations could gradually be advanced (not the panacea some think it to be...think hidden costs). Add in bio-fuels and careful efficiency funding (not pork-barreling) and there's much to do. But the quickest and most immediate impacts that don't kill jobs and government revenues are still at the consumer end.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think we are discussing opposite things.

I'm looking at leverage points where the greatest reduction can be achieved in the shortest time period.

You speak of power billing to reduce consumption but I speak of GHG reduction at the source of the power. BOTH need doing.

Green building codes and retrofit incentives are not new, nor hard and the payoff is huge - where's the political will at ANY level. 

The oil industry - in particular the oil sands need stiff regulation and are not getting any. It's disgusting.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I think we are discussing opposite things.
> 
> I'm looking at leverage points where the greatest reduction can be achieved in the shortest time period.


That's what I was looking at. It is indirect through electricity, but the huge potential is there, especially when looked at globally as it should be. Think QC and BC -- the less hydro power we consume, the more we export, which displaces U.S. gas/oil/coal generation. Our GHGs may be the same, but the world's will decrease. With some states implementing cap-and-trade programs, we may actually get additional economic credit for that soon. 

Metering is also the quickest way to make these gains in that formerly unmetered customers, in a matter of months, start rationing consumption.

In ON it's clearer: shutting down the coal plants can only happen, in the short-term, with dramatic consumption reductions, particularly off summer peak load.

For transportation, higher prices show up against consumption almost immediately too; not to mention a shift in sales of new vehicles.

Most other mechanisms operate beyond the 1 year mark, or just involve shutting down industries without an economic basis for environmental policy.

Building codes do take effect immediately but only apply to new stock (in a significant way). That's a very long-term mechanism. The payoffs aren't always what proponents expect, but there is room for regulation to "pull the market".

As I said, the biggest short-term impacts are consumer-based.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061029.wwindd1029/BNStory/Business/home

An article on the limits of wind power and, tangentially, the importance of a well-connected power grid. Not worth a whole new thread, so I put it here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So where is the argument now for not acting on a war footing.



> Report's stark warning on climate
> Analysis
> By Robert Peston
> Business Editor, BBC News
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096594.stm

The ONE thing, not terrorism, that requires the very most investment now to lead to the greatest returns later.....and this supposed "conservative" government barely even pays lip service to it.

I'm pleased to see that there is growing awareness of this in the public perception.
Let's hope this will lead to real action on the matter - at all levels.

It's too late to change the situation back to 1990 levels....it's NOT to late to ameliorate the worst outcome.

Damn the lack of action by gov at all levels is simply mind boggling. 

and the Cons the worst of all. Disgusting is too mild a pejorative.

Too bad Harper didn't listen to his mentors about "owning green".

at least his counterpart in Britain "gets it".



> With David Cameron putting the environment at the heart of his Tory rebranding, Brown and Blair will enjoy flashing their green credentials.





> A recent report by economists at PricewaterhouseCoopers suggested carbon emissions could be cut to 60 per cent below expected levels in 2050, at a cost of just a year's economic output; but only if the rich world takes the initiative, and gets started now


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1922632,00.html

That would be NOW.....and the oil sands are a perfect place to start.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

And on the "oh it will cost jobs" front....what a crock.



> In a separate study carried out for Shell, researchers for the first time quantify the businesses opportunities of developing technologies or services to combat climate change.
> 
> The study suggests that demand for these products and services could rise as a result of government action and provide a host of new opportunities for SMEs by the year 2010.
> 
> ...


By Shell of all organizations and Canada is ideally suited with the windfall profits and a strong manufacturing base to get a "green engendering" industry in gear quickly.

Alberta wonders what to do with the profits???....knock knock....that's opportunity to extend the value of the oil wealth for decades.

10 years....$60 billion for Britain alone. 

Let's hear the excuses from those that want to "confront the dictators"...here's the opportunity to accost and contain the most powerful dictator of human life ever......an angry climate bent on destruction the way it's going now.

Ma Nature doesn't negotiate.

This is the REAL war coming up.....lots of skirmishes engaged already.
A dozen Manhattan level projects please.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Using the oil example, *most of the pollution is from the final consumer*.


I'm trying to ascertain if this is true.
In a sense, since we consume the goods, it is.

I've focused on GHG effects because it's easier to get numbers.
There was an interview with a Quebec minister stating that the largest GHG polluter in Quebec was transport trucks. 

It seems that many put profits (obscene lately) ahead of being a good corporate citizen.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That cannot be possible in the case of the oil sands. I suspect it could be for the oil pumpers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere

I'm not sure why that is meanigful tho.
Big leverage is on replacing oil and natural gas and coal where it can be.

I think transport will be much further out for any significant change.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> That cannot be possible in the case of the oil sands. I suspect it could be for the oil pumpers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere
> 
> I'm not sure why that is meanigful tho.
> Big leverage is on replacing oil and natural gas and coal where it can be.
> ...


Quite possible. Oil sands emissions (including upgrading) per barrel are 80 to 139 kg, according to Pembina. Further refining adds a little too.

Emissions per litre of gasoline (to use one example) are about 2.4 kg per litre. There are about 159 litres in a barrel, resulting in about 380 kg of emissions, at end use, per barrel.

Please do some poking around too, I'd like a double-check on the numbers.

The quickest leverage is at the consumer end. Sequestration, for example, requires years of research and then construction of a carbon pipeline system. A good way to kick that off is announcing a GHG tax path. $5 this year, +$5 every year for the next 10 years (need to address export/competitive issues). That would get industry moving.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> It seems that many put profits (obscene lately) ahead of being a good corporate citizen.


And citizens are putting the status quo lifestyle ahead of being good citizens. It's a collective failure, from individuals to businesses and, therefore, requires public policy.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'm very glad to see some of our right-leaning free-market capitalists making constructive suggestions here. The simple fact is that we live in a relatively free market, and the free market is demonstrably very efficient at what it does. So if we can tweak the market forces (i.e. using GHG taxes on consumption and tax credits for the industries developing alternatives), we may be able to enjoy the innovation and efficiency the free market is so good at stimulating.

I certainly agree that there has to be some public policy, and that both federal and provincial leadership will be required. This is where I see Harper's government as abject failures (not that I'm suggesting the Liberals were any better). The citizens of Canada have to hold the politicians accountable on this one. We all need to start writing letters, and making it clear that this is *the* big election issue.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I still see the problem as one of not establishing costs. If you get to produce any by-product for free, there's simply no reason to move quickly to eliminate it. Essentially, polluting common areas (ground, water, air) isn't so much a laissez-faire concept as an extremely socialist one--pollute and everyone else pays to clean it up, each according to their abilities.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I still see the problem as one of not establishing costs. If you get to produce any by-product for free, there's simply no reason to move quickly to eliminate it. Essentially, polluting common areas (ground, water, air) isn't so much a laissez-faire concept as an extremely socialist one--pollute and everyone else pays to clean it up, each according to their abilities.


This is the well-know 'Tragedy of the Commons' and yes, this is the root of the problem.

However, our current economic system has no mechanisms for valuing things other than comoditizing them and assigning ownership. Living trees have no value, but cutting them down and turning them into lumber 'creates' value. Living reefs have no value, but dynamiting them, collecting the fish and selling them 'creates' value. It's obvious in both of these cases that the majority of the real value has been lost, not created, but our economic system reacts to it the other way around because the real value isn't accounted for.

One route might be to commoditize everything and have someone own it (air, water, land, wildlife, trees, fungi, biodiversity, human traditions, etc.) so that these owners could sue for any losses caused by someone else's activity. But this is both impractical (most of these 'commodities' are international, and impossible to quantify) and philosophically very disturbing. So that doesn't look like a good way to go.

Alternatively, we can employ some kind of government regulation system, where economic activity that affects the environment, has to be done within some agreed-upon set of regulations that minimize the damage done. This is obviously our current model, but it's not working very well because the regulations are neither sufficiently strict, nor sufficiently well enforced, and worst of all, if we fix our regulations, it puts our industries at a competitive disadvantage. So the problem is to fix the international agreements such that improved environmental protection becomes *advantageous* rather than *disadvantageous*. If we can do this, then the free-market will drive things in the right direction, rather than making things worse, as is currently the case.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061030.wgreen1030/BNStory/Science/home

.............................
While more people are becoming aware of environmentally-friendly, energy-efficient, and organic products, when it comes down it, the majority of consumers apparently would prefer to save some money than try to save the planet, according to the study.
.............................
Even the most conscientious consumer group, the exceptors, still have what Dr. Young refers to as "blind spots."

While they may spend a lot of effort researching almost all of their purchases, they still have certain luxury items - most often electronics like iPods or computer game systems - that they purchase on a whim without any consideration for the environmental or social impact of the purchase.

"They wouldn't have looked at the environmental policies of that company, or if an NGO had rated that company," Dr. Young said. "They see it as a reward for being good most of the time. They'll just go to the shop and buy it."
.............................


I thought this article was doubly appropriate to this thread.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Excellent point. It runs the risk of stating the obvious, but it's important to note how rarely we tend to vote our conscience with our wallets. Definitely spot-on about the personal reward remark.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Which leads back around to legislating in the form of both incentives ( retrofit and new buildings, alternate non GHG breaks , extended/lower cost financing for say hybrids) and disincentives in the form of caps, carbon taxes and higher consumption taxes to pay for offsetting GHG production.

If wallet drives is in conjunction with some conscious effort then the carrot needs to be developed AND the stick.

I'd say home lighting has been a reasonable mix - higher electricity costs and lowrer long term costs for the greener bulbs has lead to a wide spread acceptance.

That needs to be applied to buildings - especially new right away - in the form of codes and extended financing for green level buildings and similar for retrofit of the largest and oldest (least efficient ) existing buildings.

Once more - IF Portland Oregon can do it and be the greenest city in North American there is zero reason it cannot be applied to Canada's major cities....right now.

Transport for Canada is a bear given the size of the country but given the enormous GHG output of the oil sands production that level should be applied right at the source and legislate a choice between sequestering or nuclear and be damned about the whining and crying.

How is it that offshore say in NL have to be enormously environmentally sound for their drilling while the sands can spew GHG with no penalty in their production methods?

What we develop in GHG reduction by way of expertise and industry standards will be of enormous economic benefit as $60 billion in new green related /GHG reduction related economic activity as envisioned for Britain in the Stern report.

But enough talk from govs - do it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

If you've ever been to Portland, it is a beautiful city, and their citizens seem very pleased with the results of their efforts to live in a way that reduces their impact on the environment.

I have a friend who lives down there, and I visited last year. It really is an amazing place. Great transit (really... it's the only transit system I've ever encountered that both works well and is a pleasure to use), bike-friendly, lot's of green space, no garbage anywhere to be seen, and of course there all the big things that you can't see (water treatment, power conservation, etc.).

Wonderful place. That would be my first choice of places to live in the US.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thanks for the eyes on Bryanc :clap: - I've even sent a note to Miller about using Portland's green dept as a blueprint for Toronto.

I must admit I like Miller and he has made SOME progress but on the green front - very little in my mind.
But then so much bickering - the Feds have way too much of the GTA's money


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Showdown........ 



> *Tories get ultimatum on climate plan*
> Oct. 31, 2006. 08:11 PM
> CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...


I may just have forgiven Jack if he pulls this off. Good for him :clap:

Now this is what good minority government is about.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I may just have forgiven Jack if he pulls this off. Good for him :clap:
> 
> Now this is what good minority government is about.


Those are the two main thoughts I had on this front today, too. I doubt it will come to a non-confidence vote, but the Con bill may well die. Thank God. And oh look, there is already an alternative! No need to study endlessly.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think they mean it beyond killing the bill - they mean to rewrite and pass it.
Canada must have this....Jack knows he has a huge support base from Canadians for this......

Even Preston Manning said green was critical - the conservatives in Britain have anchored their platform on this and the Stern report is front and centre.

There is no reason not to push this to limit - not just to kill the bill but to put the proper legislation in place.
No better timing and Harper is NOT looking good on other fronts including his US fellow travellers in disarray.

I think this is very high in Canadians minds and will really test the Cons.
Jack "Russell the Terrier" Layton.......sic em...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Now this is what good minority government is about.


This will get interesting.

I am not convinced Harper will back down and I am also not convinced the opposition is willing to force an election.

Should the opposition vote to bring the government down, I predict the Conservatives will come of out it looking good. The electorate is tired of constant elections and could punish the opposition for forcing an early election.

The opposition also don't have much money to fund an election while the Conservatives coffers are flowing with cash. 

Once again I say... bring it! :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Bring...it...ON!!!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The opposition also don't have much money to fund an election while the Conservatives coffers are flowing with cash.


Oil money does that....

I predict that the Cons will loose seats in Quebec - bring it on!

PS - why is Fortier so afraid to run then?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Oil money does that....
> 
> I predict that the Cons will loose seats in Quebec - bring it on!
> 
> PS - why is Fortier so afraid to run then?


It has little to do with oil. Corporate donations are only a small component. Most funding comes from individuals.

You can't predict Quebec until the final week of the election.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

And Harper as blinked! Excellent. The bill will now go to committee to be rewritten. One step closer to something useful.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> And Harper as blinked! Excellent. The bill will now go to committee to be rewritten. One step closer to something useful.


Good to see that Harper is willing to compromise on some issues.

I think he should draw his line in the sand on the top 5 priorities. Everything else should be negotiable, including the Clean Air Act.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> And yet China, with virtually no Green Policy --is outperforming both Europe and North America.





> If there is a silver lining, it is that the Chinese government knows the situation is dire, as do a rising number of environmentally conscious people and groups. In recent years, activists say, both camps have made efforts to stem the damage. Sustainable development is now the political buzzword, and China's top leadership has vowed to push through various green policies.
> 
> A new law mandating the use and development of renewable energy was passed in February. Last week brought news that up to 1.5 trillion yuan (S$321 billion) would be invested by 2020 to boost renewable energy consumption to 15 per cent of national energy consumption, up from the current 7 per cent.
> 
> ...



Not entirely true.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Worth reading



> *Why Canada must step up to the climate-change plate*
> DAVID RUNNALLS
> Special to Globe and Mail Update
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061102.wcomment1102/BNStory/National/home

:clap: Good on the Globe :clap: are you listening Mr. Harper???


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Speaking of heat.......Canada roasted....not toasted....



> MPs, environmentalists plan media blitz to get Canada to live up to its 'obligations'
> 
> BILL CURRY
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061113.wxambrose13/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> _*What makes this so interesting from a Canadian perspective is that we have an opportunity to be a world leader in these technologies.*_


Sure, if we just pony up all the capital, we'll be ahead of everyone. Mind you, the world won't necessarily be buying the stuff from us. While the article is interesting, I don't like the false argument that we will be leaders in successfully exporting technology if we're the ones to develop it. 

Note: I'm not saying to avoid developing this technology, but developing it with a false promise opens up this line of research for criticism later.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Sure, if we just pony up all the capital, we'll be ahead of everyone. Mind you, the world won't necessarily be buying the stuff from us. While the article is interesting, I don't like the false argument that we will be leaders in successfully exporting technology if we're the ones to develop it.
> 
> Note: I'm not saying to avoid developing this technology, but developing it with a false promise opens up this line of research for criticism later.


In a sense you are correct when it comes to protecting intellectual property rights specifically around patents. There is little incentive to go through the expense of being first when other parts of the world have no interest in respecting patents.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How embarrassing..... fossil of the day award for Canada 



> Canada lags in climate fight
> Sweden, Britain and Denmark doing most
> Nov. 13, 2006. 03:21 PM
> ELIZABETH A. KENNEDY
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No point chasing impossible goals. Kyoto has been flawed since day one and Canada was warned its lofty goals were not achievable . Give the Conservatives credit where due. At least they are trying, something Martin and his merry band of crooks never did. As for the fossil award, they're environmentalists. Cutesy digs are their specialty.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Continuing a myth there SINC….
Kyoto is not perfect but it is attainable, one only has to look at England to see it work and not ruin the economy as some fear mongers on the right like to perpetuate. 

Credit to the Cons on the environment? Well they never to fail to disappoint. 
Targets that are 50 years off, excuses that it’s too hard, deals made by the oil barons to the detriment of Canadians, turning Canada into a laughingstock were our credibility on international treaties becomes a joke. 

Funny how this minority government pretends to speak for all Canadians whilst Greenpeace, the Bloc, the Libs and a few other groups are able to stand united and shame Ambrose and the Cons for the hypocrites that they are….

Now Ambrose, not contend in killing Kyoto federally, is doing the best she can to kill it on the world stage and you have dinosaurs like SINC and MF encouraging her. 

I can see SINC blaming this on the Libs somehow, even if the Libs were less than perfect it does not negate that the Cons are truly regressive in their approach. 

Meanwhile the oil sands are the biggest cause of global warming in Canada and will likely threaten water supplies – but it’s good for your economy right SINC?

SINC, for one that always talks about honor and respecting our commitments (Afghanistan and whatever the US wants), you’d think that we should respect our commitment via Kyoto – or do you just agree when it suits your little cowboy world?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good post AS.
No insititution is perfect and there has to be a starting place.
The Cons are a planetary embarrassment and I'm glad there are other voices at the conference to make it clear their idiotic stance is not that of most of Canada.

Day two - Fossil Award II



> Updated Tue. Nov. 14 2006 9:28 AM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


World peace is hard to attain, a peacable society is hard to attain, it in no way means it should not be attempted and if we fail to hit targets than dammit try harder.
If England and others can do it so can Canada - it's a smokescreen to let the oil snads pollute the planet AND reap enormous profits doing so.

Every person involved knows that's the heart of the issue and there is simply NO excuse beyond intransigence of the Conservatives who kowtow to the oil patch.

It's criminal and the rest of the planet knows it.
It would NEVER be allowed to happen if these were deep sea rigs - it should NEVER be allowed as it stands and it has a huge impact on Kyoto targets.
If only ONE thing were done ........clean up the tar sands pollution.....the world would applaud even if the rest of the targets were lagging in transport etc.

The Cons are digging a hole they will never crawl out of.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Good post AS.
> No insititution is perfect and there has to be a starting place.
> The Cons are a planetary embarrassment and I'm glad there are other voices at the conference to make it clear their idiotic stance is not that of most of Canada.
> The Cons are digging a hole they will never crawl out of.


No, "CANADA is a planetary embarrassment" directly due to the inaction of the Liberals in the years since they signed Kyoto.

The Cons are at least attempting to right that inaction with SOME action. Be angry all you like, but get the facts straight first.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Doc: You flying to Africa soon? Take a sailboat. Your GHGs are embarrassing me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure love the denials and attempted distractions from what THIS government is doing. Change the subject classic Neo-Con tactic - blame the Liberals anything but don't criticize Lord Harper.

What the Liberals did or didn't do is irrelevant to THIS government policy. The Libs lost power for a variety of reasons. They were not on the carpet for severe pollution and not doing enough - Harper IS - and not even paying lip service. He is being criticized, rightly so by both the international community and Canadians.
If the same level of pollution was being dumped into the ocean it would be a national and internation disgrace and Canada would be in court in a heart beat.
There ARE international laws regarding sea pollution and they are stringent.

That the GHG laws are just emerging in no way removes the stigma attached to Canada's allowing the oil sands to pollute as they are doing in ever increasing amounts.
The world knows this, the Canadian populace is disgusted by it.
It's pandering to an industry that can well afford to reduce GHG emissions.

The Harper approach is as juvenile and irresponsible as some of the comments just made.

IT'S AN EMBARRASSMENT - it's getting far worse every day. It will cost Canada in many ways.

You can damn well bet if we were dumping pollutants into the sea we'd be hauled up for it. The same goes for the atmosphere.



> *French PM wants to hit Canada with carbon tax*
> BILL CURRY
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> OTTAWA — The Prime Minister of France is urging the European Union to impose a punitive import tax on goods from countries such as Canada that refuse to sign on to a tougher second phase of the global warming deal.
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061115.wnairobi15/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Sure love the denials and attempted distractions from what THIS government is doing. Change the subject classic Neo-Con tactic - blame the Liberals anything but don't criticize Lord Harper.


Nope, just pointing out that even the most outspoken supporters of Kyoto are sometimes globe-trotting, jet-setting gas bags.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Let me put it more kindly. You want everybody to live under your Greenhouse Gas regime, but don't mind upping your own emissions on a whim. As they used to ask in WWII: "Is this trip really necessary?"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Sure love the denials and attempted distractions from what THIS government is doing. ......
> 
> - Harper IS - and not even paying lip service. He is being criticized, rightly so by both the international community and Canadians.
> 
> ...


MF being the little boy that he is does not seem to understand the difference between one trip and a whole industry effing up - how many trips would the Doc (and divide the output by "x" passengers) have to do to equal what the oil sand productions spew in one hour? 
I'm glad that you are such a socialist that you find it alright for all Canadians to subsitize the oil industry with money and our environment.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: It's a matter of setting a good example. I don't want to hear any more; "How will my li'l old trip to Africa mean anything in the grand scheme of things?" 

Think globally, act locally. Is this too much for you to grasp?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Think globally, act locally. Is this too much for you to grasp?


So does that mean that you'll be pushing for the oil barons to start paying for effing up the environment, or does your philosophy only applie to individuals and not business? 
But coming from someone that does not agree with global warming, it's surprising to see you so concerned with one trip....
Maybe you can muster some of your outrage and stear it towards the farce that the "Clean Air Act" is....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> AS: It's a matter of setting a good example. I don't want to hear any more; "How will my li'l old trip to Africa mean anything in the grand scheme of things?"
> 
> Think globally, act locally. Is this too much for you to grasp?


Great advice. Please forward that exact sentiment to Harper and Ambrose.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Nope, just pointing out that even the most outspoken supporters of Kyoto are sometimes globe-trotting, jet-setting gas bags.


You are completely wrong about my eco footprint - aside from being a general ass.
That would *ass*...not gas.
Why not put a cork in the continuing stupid inane comments and at least save the planet that misery.

You can't hold a dialogue with out reverting to grade 6 pejoratives and smart ass snickers and when challenged you run.

•••

THIS government has the obligation and opportunity to reduce GHG on large scale and has a population willing to support that.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Doc: You flying to Africa soon? Take a sailboat. Your GHGs are embarrassing me.


Talk about embarrassing...
The hypocrisy of this statement is enormous. You have clearly stated you don't think GHGs are a concern and now you are trying to make MacDoc look bad for a trip when you don't even believe what you are saying.
Get real.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm certianly not hypocritical. MacDoc would see me kowtowing to his GHG regimen, while making excuses for himself.

I couldn't care less about Doc's Africa trip on the face of it. I do care about someone spouting GHG calamity while taking a plane trip to Africa. By Doc's chronometer we're on the edge of environmental catastrophe--but let's just squeeze in a li'l ol plane trip to Africa. It doesn't really count, because other people are polluting worse than me--tee-hee.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

As I said, embarassing.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm certianly not hypocritical. MacDoc would see me kowtowing to his GHG regimen, while making excuses for himself.
> 
> I couldn't care less about Doc's Africa trip on the face of it. I do care about someone spouting GHG calamity while taking a plane trip to Africa. By Doc's chronometer we're on the edge of environmental catastrophe--but let's just squeeze in a li'l ol plane trip to Africa. It doesn't really count, because other people are polluting worse than me--tee-hee.


Yes you are a hypocrite and I'll add guilty of throwing in a few nose stretchers...
How big of a "problem" is one plane trip (divided by the amount of passengers) versus what is spewed by the production of oil in Alberta in one hour? 

I've hardly seem macdoc throwing "his GHG" regiment around - the warning are coming from a well researched body of science and academics.

The Libertarian is you is always saying how we should be accountable for what we damage cause - so where are you on decrying the oil industry and electricity productions that is effing up the environment for all. Sound to me that you believe very few should benefits and have the whole pay for those that do the most pollution. 
Instead of decrying the damage done and doing something about it, you prefer to make juvenile remarks about one trip (ignoring the fact that MacDoc likely has a smaller "ecological" footprint than most of us).

So do you believe that some have the right to use up all the resource for their needs and having the community pay for the damage that they cause? If anyone can pay for research it's the oil companies with record profits and government welfare... Me thinks that you need a new definition for that label that you like to espouse.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think Martman, this is typical of the thinking of rank-and-file GHG gas enthusiasts--perhaps yourself included: "Please don't make me give up my favourite GHG-producing activities anything until I enforce my regimen on the rest of you."

Flying to Africa on the edge of environmental catastrophe is irresponsible. Flying to Africa under normal circumstances is not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: If you check my posts elsewhere, I've suggested frequently that we need to come up with a cost associated with using the "commons." Your post is largely misinformed. I have no problem with airplane flight, just airplane flight on the edge of environmental catastrophe.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I think Martman, this is typical of the thinking of rank-and-file GHG gas enthusiasts--perhaps yourself included: "Please don't make me give up my favourite GHG-producing activities anything until I enforce my regimen on the rest of you."
> 
> Flying to Africa on the edge of environmental catastrophe is irresponsible. Flying to Africa under normal circumstances is not.


I don't know of anyone that is a GHG enthusiast except for those producing the largest amounts - maybe we could lock you in a room with CO2 for a few hours since your lot does not think it's a problem.

If I recall, Martman has switched power companies to try and do his part, and quite likely doing other things. 
You prefer unfettered wholesale GHG pollution as long as those producing the largest amounts have the rest pay for it (all other the guise of "profits").

Irresponsible is the "Clean Air Act" that defies all common sense.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> You prefer unfettered wholesale GHG pollution as long as those producing the largest amounts have the rest pay for it (all other the guise of "profits").


Knock! Knock! Did you read that post. I've said several times that I believe those who use "common air" by dumping anything into it, need to have a price associated with it. I don't know why you're having so much trouble with this. 

Martman has purchased Bullfrog Power--great. But fun plane trips are OK? Or is he balancing Doc's plane trip against his purchase of Bullfrog?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Knock! Knock! Did you read that post. I've said several times that I believe those who use "common air" by dumping anything into it, need to have a price associated with it. I don't know why you're having so much trouble with this.


No problem with it at all - now what are YOU doing to ensure that it happens?


Being responsible, does not mean banning everything "fun" out of your life.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Airplane travel could be one of the biggest contributors to GHG problems, occurring in the upper reaches of the atmosphere as it does:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~murty/planetravel2/planetravel2.html

I think there's a consensus on this. Airplane travel is looking like a stake in the heart of the environment for those who choose it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/query/s...5&Classes=16&Classes=17&Classes=18&Classes=19



> While Canada contributes only about 2% of total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it is one of the highest per capita emitters, largely the result of our resource-based economy


http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/about/gases_e.cfm

Again, what are YOU doing?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've chosen to put off all flights to Africa until the problem is solved.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And I quit flying altogether to do my part.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> And I quit flying altogether to do my part.


Coming from someone with a huge RV.....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think we should all calibrate our comparo-meters, virtue-meters, hypocri-meters and disastro-meters to common baselines. Then we can find out when we are getting conflicting readings.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> virtue-meters, hypocri-meters


Cons at near zero on the virtue-meter - middling high on hypocrometer ......heading quickly for off the scale on the disastro-meter...at home and abroad.....by any calibration.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Guys, don't forget yer flatulometers and hypeatometers.. they're just going to redline on this forum.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

'Bout where the atmosphere in general seems headed


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Max said:


> Guys, don't forget yer flatulometers and hypeatometers.. they're just going to redline on this forum.


Fun to watch, isn't it?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, fun sometimes, sure - but most often more like watching a train wreck pile up alongside you. Fascinating yet repulsive, all this relentless bickering and sniping over the issues of the day. Ego mixed up messily with intellect and emotion. Nero fiddling while Rome burns?

But there has to be some kind of sane middle ground between constantly crying wolf and denouncing all who disagree with one's prognosis as morons screaming 'junk science!'

... I mean, right?

The planet will outlast us, no problem. The planet is fine. It's we who are the contagion. The sooner the planet rids itself of its most persistent parasite the swifter it can move towards a new equilibrium, one blessedly sterilized of mankind's wondrous meddling.

Now if I really believed the above I could merrily hurl myself off of an office tower and be done with it. The problem is that I'm romantic enough to hope we all might collectively, one day, 'get it.'

Is arguing on a chat board 'getting it?' I doubt it. But one has to do something to communicate one's fears to the rest of the hive.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The "train wreck" is Ambrose and this Con government.



> *Ambrose blasted for making partisan speech*
> Updated Wed. Nov. 15 2006 9:44 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...ate_conference_061115/20061115?hub=TopStories


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> The "train wreck" is Ambrose and this Con government.


Not really. Some would view the "train wreck" as the obsessive compulsive anti Con know-it-alls who never fail to try and dominate both the board and the world. 

Problem is they just don't "get it" that it is they who are wrong.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

So. If someone disagrees with the conservatives clean air act and wants better, you're 'anti-con'.

Well so be it.

We had one government who merely paid lip service, and now one who simply blames it on the previous one, and does nothing too.

Bravo.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> So. If someone disagrees with the conservatives clean air act and wants better, you're 'anti-con'.
> 
> Well so be it.
> 
> ...


Gee, read much? The current government has enacted a new clean air act. Not perfect and under review, but THE PREVIOUS LIBERAL GOVERNMENT DID NOTHING!


HELLO?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

YOU don't get it.......this Con government has NO cerdibility



> Imperial's oil sands project under attack
> SHAWN MCCARTHY
> Globe and Mail Update
> Ottawa — Imperial Oil Ltd. has come under fire for proposing a new oil sands project that opponents say will be among the country's worst greenhouse gas emitters, even as the federal government faces increasing pressure to toughen its approach to climate change.
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061115.woilsandz1115/BNStory/Business/home

*This is growing every hour*....finally what science has been saying for a couple decades is sinking in.....

Imperial will pay, Canada will pay for intransigence in this.......

If it was the ocean they were polluting they would never dare - they'd be stopped in a heart beat.
Both the government position and the oil sands attitudes are disgusting in the face of Canadian and international outrage.

NOTHING you can say will change THAT reality.

Only a total about face by the Cons on the environment..... ..might.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Gee, read much? The current government has enacted a new clean air act. Not perfect and under review, but THE PREVIOUS LIBERAL GOVERNMENT DID NOTHING!
> 
> 
> HELLO?


Is there an echo in here??

you seemed to have not bothered to read what I posted. HELLO?

I believe I said that the liberals did nothing. So I don't know what got you excited enough to repeat it in bold. 

You are so excited to defend the conservative clean air act, that you will brand anyone who disagrees with it as anti con. Come on don't insult people with that sort of nonsense.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, as long as Doc gives up air travel--an easy commitment considering the dire state of the planets fragile ecosphere, I'll be more likely to tune into his message. If the state of global warming is a s dire as he says it is, flying to Africa on a trice would surely be criminal.

I note by the way, that the number of hurricanes and severe storms was down this year, not up as predicted by many GHGers. Good flying weather.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I note by the way, that the number of hurricanes and severe storms was down this year, not up as predicted by many GHGers. Good flying weather.


This prompted me to research just how much GHG Canada produces in relation the the rest of the world.

Turns out is is 2.2%. That means if we tried to close the country and stopped the oil sands and every other form of pollution including the family car the best we can ever do is reduce world emissions by about 2%.

So, what's everyone ragging on Canada for? Most of the countries doing the complaining are far worse polluters than us.

Take a look for yourself:










http://www.ivig.coppe.ufrj.br/doc/Ghent_Muylaert_et_al.pdf


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

A hundred people living in a house, all agree to quit smoking. 5 of them fail to honour that commitment. When one of the 5 individuals who said they'd quit is criticized, they say, "I'm not the problem... go hassle those other four guys."

Obviously Canada's 2.2% is not the *whole* problem, but it is the part of the problem we can do something about, and it is the part of the problem we committed to do something about, so it is the part of the problem we should focus on.

The Liberal's performance on this issue was shameful, and I'm glad to see them out of office. The Conservative's performance has so far been almost as bad, and, combined with their other egregious policies, that makes them a much worse government in my opinion.

I hope Rona gets tarred and feathered in Nairobi.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> I hope Rona gets tarred and feathered in Nairobi.


And I hope she tells 'em to PO and go pick on a real polluter.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Turns out is is 2.2%. That means if we tried to close the country and stopped the oil sands and every other form of pollution including the family car the best we can ever do is reduce world emissions by about 2%.
> 
> So, what's everyone ragging on Canada for? Most of the countries doing the complaining are far worse polluters than us.



Sinc, that is a pretty simplistic view point. Now take those numbers and divide it by population... Canada isn't on the bottom of the list anymore is it?

Our GHG production/person ration is abysmal. Which is why the rest of the world is point a finger at us.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Canada has a rather cold climate and, as Doc has pointed out, personal transportation really can't be beat for getting us around when all of our destinations are so widespread.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Sinc, that is a pretty simplistic view point. Now take those numbers and divide it by population... Canada isn't on the bottom of the list anymore is it?
> 
> Our GHG production/person ration is abysmal. Which is why the rest of the world is point a finger at us.


Spin it any way you want in ranking. Bottom line is we only contribute 2.2%.

Best the other 97.8% stop pointing fingers at us.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Spin it any way you want in ranking. Bottom line is we only contribute 2.2%.
> 
> Best the other 97.8% stop pointing fingers at us.


But that is like saying that Canada is a country of millionares when only the top 1% of the people in Canada are worth millions of dollars.

Do not understand the notion equality?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Spin it any way you want in ranking. Bottom line is we only contribute 2.2%.
> 
> Best the other 97.8% stop pointing fingers at us.


Like I said, I think I'll stop paying my taxes because I contribute so little to the whole budget....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> But that is like saying that Canada is a country of millionares when only the top 1% of the people in Canada are worth millions of dollars.
> 
> Do not understand the notion equality?


What I understand is that we only contribute to 2.2% of GHGs. Millionaires have nothing to do with it.

Therefore, even if we could reduce our GHGs by 50% the net effect would only be 1% of world GHGs, an entirely insignificant amount. We are but a very tiny player and should not be singled out for ridicule by far larger contributors.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> ....and should not be singled out for ridicule by far larger contributors.


Our "Clean Air Act" is deserving of ridicule for it's one large farce. 

Ambrose should be pointed out for her irreality bubble that she lives in - not that she is not aware of the lies she is spreading...


> Meantime, *Quebec's environment minister joined the critics who were shaking their heads about Ambrose's speech.*
> *''I don't have any more confidence in her today, than I did yesterday or the day before*,'' said Claude Bechard, who was invited by Ambrose to join the Canadian delegation.
> 
> ''We would have really liked her to talk about the Quebec plan. It's a plan that's not only a source of pride of Quebecers, but that should also be a source of pride of Canadians.''
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=0d304f2d-070c-4755-9a46-3be4c70b02d0&k=364&p=2

I wonder if they have air conditioning in the Alberta oil executives bunkers?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Militant environmentalism is the new Puritanism.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Apart from a few quick comments, we still don't know what YOU are doing....
apart from cheerleading the inept "Clean Air Act" and acting as a general Con fart catcher around here...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: As I have never taken dire global warming scenarios seriously, what would you expect me to do? I support a structure for attaching a price to all air pollution--whether that is water vapour, CO2 or something more toxic. 

I find it amusing that you see me as a cheerleader for the Conservatives, despite supporting only some of their policies, as I supported some Liberal policies. This from Jean Chretien's waterboy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Our "Clean Air Act" is deserving of ridicule for it's one large farce.


Far worse than a farce more a tragedy- the target setting points were simply criminal given current conditions and the unbridled growth of the oil sands.
That Bill was a "Made in Alberta we don't give a damn" kowtow to the oil industry - if NL or Britain or Norway tried to do the same thing offshore there not chance in hell it would even get to the drawing board.

It's the nature of the extraction process that has people livid, in Canada and worldwide.



> The oil sands are projected to contribute up to 47% of the projected business-as-usual growth in Canada's total emissions between 2003 and 2010, making them the single largest contributor to GHG pollution growth. This fact sheet highlights the key findings of Pembina's full report entitled Carbon Neutral by 2020: *A Leadership Opportunity in Canada's Oil Sands and provides a sample cost analysis showing how oil sands companies could achieve "carbon neutral" (no net GHG pollution) production for as little as a few dollars per barrel of oil.*





> The mining-extraction process requires about 750 cubic feet of natural gas for every barrel of bitumen, according to the non-governmental Pembina Institute report "Oil Sands Fever". The "in situ" process that pumps super-hot steam 1,000 metres underground requires *1,500 cubic feet of natural gas to produce a single barrel of oil.*
> 
> Currently, about 0.6 billion cubic feet of gas is used every day in the oil sands region -- enough to heat 3.2 million Canadian homes, the report says.Producing one barrel of oil from oil sands emits *three times more greenhouse gases (GHG) than production of conventional light or medium crude oil. *
> 
> ...


http://www.energybulletin.net/18624.html

$2.50-$3 a barrel = carbon neutral.

Irresponsible......verging on criminal. It would NOT be allowed in the sea, it should not be even contemplated in the air.

It CAN be neutralized......there is ZERO rational for not doing this immediately, the world knows it, Canadians know it......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If the Europeans would hurry up and deliver hydrogen power, all this oil nonsense would stop.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> What I understand is that we only contribute to 2.2% of GHGs. Millionaires have nothing to do with it.
> 
> Therefore, even if we could reduce our GHGs by 50% the net effect would only be 1% of world GHGs, an entirely insignificant amount. We are but a very tiny player and should not be singled out for ridicule by far larger contributors.


It's an analogy. I can explain what those are, but I'm pretty sure you already know.

_"In 2001 Canada was the seventh largest primary energy consumer in the world and the energy sector was responsible for 80% of total GHG emissions. The greatest contributions came from the electricity and petroleum industries (38%), followed by the transportation sector (25%), with automobile travel increasing by 9% between 1990 and 2000. According to EIA, energy intensity stood at 15 029 Btu/$ 1995 in purchasing power that year, well above other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and development (OECD) countries. Its carbon intensity, at 0.19 t of carbon per thousand $ 1995 PPP, was also the highest among industrialised economies. Environment Canada (EC) attributes this to the 15% increase in its total energy consumption and the 21% increase in fossil fuels consumption over the preceding decade, during which Canada generated 156.2 million t of energy related carbon emissions, an 18.5 % increase, making it one of the world's greatest carbon emitters. At 402.6 million Btu per person, Canada's 2001 per capita energy consumption is significantly higher than many other countries, even surpassing the US level of 341.8 million Btu per capita."_

http://www.hydrocarbonengineering.com/Hydrocarbon/HE_regional_briefing_june05.htm

The issue as you can see is that per citizen we consume more energy than most nations (including the US) and produce more CO2 per person than most nations.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

One of the leading candidates for leader of the Alberta Conservative party is advocating the use of nuclear power, rather than natural gas for oil sands extraction. That should dramatically reduce GHGs if implemented.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> If the Europeans would hurry up and deliver hydrogen power, all this oil nonsense would stop.


Why can't we, or the Americans, deliver hydrogen power? 

The only reason our government is collaborating with the worst polluters in the the history of the world is that they're also the richest SOBs in the history of the world. The Harper government is nothing but a shameless prostitute doing whatever the oil companies want it to, with no consideration for the future of Canada and the world.

I'm not saying the Liberals were any better... they're all disgusting.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> The issue as you can see is that per citizen we consume more energy than most nations (including the US) and produce more CO2 per person than most nations.


That's because we live in a much colder climate than the countries who point fingers at us. I guess that old saying, "Let the northern bastards freeze in the dark" is alive and well in nations who do not share our climate and the energy required to live here.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> One of the leading candidates for leader of the Alberta Conservative party is advocating the use of nuclear power, rather than natural gas for oil sands extraction. That should dramatically reduce GHGs if implemented.


I didn't know that. Who's proposal is this? I'm certainly not instinctively opposed to nuclear power, but, in its current form, it's not exactly environmentally benign either. Nonetheless, as a short-term solution, it has some merit, and I'd like to see it carefully considered.

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> That's because we live in a much colder climate than the countries who point fingers at us. I guess that old saying, "Let the northern bastards freeze in the dark" is alive and well in nations who do not share our climate and the energy required to live here.


Too bad the source of GHG is not heating (yes it is part of) but the transformation of oil sands. 

There is also other prices to pay for the oil extraction


> Voracious water consumption by Alberta's oilsands threatens the quality and quantity of water available to Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories through the Mackenzie River system, according to a study released Monday.
> 
> A further *50-per-cent increase in water requirements from the Athabasca is expected* when currently planned oilsands projects proceed.
> 
> The Athabasca is already losing flow due to the effects of global warming, and its summer flow at Fort McMurray *declined almost 20 per cent from 1958 to 2003, says the study.*


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2006/11/13/oilsands-water.html


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> I didn't know that. Who's proposal is this? I'm certainly not instinctively opposed to nuclear power, but, in its current form, it's not exactly environmentally benign either. Nonetheless, as a short-term solution, it has some merit, and I'd like to see it carefully considered.
> 
> Cheers


The candidate is front runner Jim Dining and you can read about it in this Edmonton Journal report:

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=c4b2b119-01aa-4e52-9565-f20942862630

I happen to know Jim personally through his relationship with my daughter many years ago who taught his children in pre-school when he served on the school's board as a parent rep and my daughter as president of the school/parent association. I met him on many occasions and found him to be a bright and down to earth guy with a sincere interest in whatever he pursued. He will make a fine Premier for Alberta.

I applaud his interest in alternative and cleaner power sources for the oilsands.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> If I recall, Martman has switched power companies to try and do his part, and quite likely doing other things.


Indeed I am. One of the biggest power savers I have found is to unplug appliances when not in use. Many TVs etc. use 80% of their draw when on standby. When I started turning off the power bars our electricity bill dropped noticeably. I would report on the amount of GHGs I no longer produce but I already have recycled the bill from Bullfrog. Other things we are doing: turning down the heat to 15 C at night and during the day if we are away, We replaced the light bulbs in areas of the house we don't spend time in with compact fluorescents. We do this in our enclosed porch, hallways bedroom and basment. This has save money and electricity especially in our basement where I leave a light on all the time to slow the growth of mold caused by the incredibly damp conditions found there. (If only there was a such a thing as a power efficient fan for our basement as well).

I can't stress the importance of unplugging appliances that use standby mode for conserving electricity. Turning off you monitor when not in use makes a big difference from leaving it on stand by all the time.

I'd love to hear recommendations others might have.
I use a bike in the Summer and TTC the rest of the time.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This should be a wake up call to ANY party. 12 new mayors in the GTA and many with a green agenda.



> *New mayors win on green hopes*
> Voters display anti-development streak
> 
> Seven rookies defeat incumbent mayors
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...geid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1163544613689

green up or wilt.

Ontario and Federal elections coming up......905 has big clout.....green is up thre on the agenda....so is a better deal for the GTA.



> With an Ontario election slated for next October and a federal election likely in the not-too-distant future, Miller and mayors across Ontario — indeed, across the country — hope to ratchet up enough pressure to get the new financial deal they've been starving for.
> "There's an opportunity coming that only comes once in a couple decades, and it's because of the elections that both the provincial and federal governments are facing," said Toronto Councillor Brian Ashton. "The one thing that will drive both levels of government in the next year is counting ridings. That's ... what it's all about."
> "Other countries are investing in their cities," Miller said in an interview with the Star this week. "It's very clear what needs to be done in Canada. There's no doubt about it, except political doubt (by senior levels of government). We change that with political clout. One would assume (Prime Minister) Stephen Harper wants a majority government. If he's going to do it, he's going to need seats in Montreal and Toronto and Vancouver. He's going to need seats in the 905."
> A glowing Miller told a TV audience after Monday's landslide win that Toronto and other Canadian cities need a share of the federal Goods and Services Tax or provincial sales tax revenue. While his gun was still smoking, both senior levels of government shot him down. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty pulled a handful of lint from his pockets while federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, flush with cash, pretty much told the mayor to take a hike.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...geid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1163803814042

Knock knock.......Feds/Prov .....listen up??


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Polly wants a better deal, better deal...awk! 

Miller spent too much money and now he wants the rest of the country to make it up. I'm glad the province and the feds slapped that pipsqueak Miller into the dirt on this one. Show us you know how to take care of the money you have, instead of pissing it away like you were putting out a fire--then maybe you can prove you know how to spend an allowance wisely.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Considering ALL THE MONEY comes from Toronto (alright some comes from Alberta too) for the province and the Feds I'd say this was the usual disengenius comment from our resident ultra-rightwing Macfury.

I find it laughable that you live in Toronto but want Toronto to continue to bankroll the entire rest of the country while it is left to starve in the dark. Have you no civic pride? Why do you live here if you hate it so much? Wouldn't you be happier in Calgary?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I love my house, hate my civic government. They should spend what they have, not what they wish they had. Having Toronto bankroll other regions is state socialism in action--from Toronto, according to its abilities, to others, according to their needs. When I complain that I have to bankroll services I don't use or want, I'm told to buck up and do my share for the common good. Toronto pols should shut up and live within their means--and work for the common good of non-Torontonians.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

We ARE LIVING IN OUR MEANS!
In case you haven't noticed we bankroll the whole country! One city! Then we are given way too little to make do. The TTC is the only major transit system in the world that recieve almost zero federal funding. No one is sugesting the end to transfer payments but that is no excuse for robbing Toronto blind. The only reason this is allowed is the rest of the country has ganged up on Toronto. Provincially it is the same mess. 
This is why the Conservative party sucks wind in the GTA.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> The candidate is front runner Jim Dining and you can read about it in this Edmonton Journal report:
> 
> http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=c4b2b119-01aa-4e52-9565-f20942862630
> 
> I applaud his interest in alternative and cleaner power sources for the oilsands.


I applaud his guts for admitting that nuclear energy has to be considered. That's an exceedingly controversial move for a politician to make.

However, even if no GHGs were emitted in order to extract the oil from the oilsands, there'd still be a lot of emission associated with burning the fuel that is made from the extracted oil, not to mention the environmental catastrophe that the oilsands projects are in many other ways, or the entirely unsustainable use of water they entail. So going nuclear may reduce the GHG problem in the short term, but it's just a bandaid solution, and it obviously creates a lot of long-term problems itself.

The only long term solution is to wean ourselves off of oil as a fuel. And increasing production from the oilsands, with or without nuclear energy, isn't helping that at all.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> We ARE LIVING IN OUR MEANS!
> In case you haven't noticed we bankroll the whole country! One city!


Saying this again, with exclamations (!!!) doesn't make it true. 

The larger urban centres generally subsidise the rural regions. Ontario and Alberta pay for MB, QC and Atlantic Canada (AB in much greater $ per capita) and everybody is kicking in for past debt. Toronto doesn't come close to bankrolling the whole country unless you are referring to actually administering the financial system itself (for which it is richly rewarded...Bay Street). 

It's good to see ON and TO start waking up to the loud draining sound, but the pendulum need not swing from ignorance to falsehoods.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Martman: With an attitude like that, I can see why some Canadians have no use for Toronto.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed. Giving in to arrogant hyperbole only paves the way for more pointed sneers about the centre of the universe being a home for obnoxious types. The city has real problems but it sure isn't the only thing propping up the rest of Canada. Give me a break!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's 25% of the national GNP inthe GTA and kicks out about $6 billion more to the Feds than it gets back..
That said Miller has the power to tax and is reluctant to do so and I understand his concern in that regard.
Engines need maintenance and overhauls -Toronto's is long overdue and should have Superfund support from the Prov and Feds for major undertakings like the waterfront ( so should other infrastructure projects elsewhere ).

London England is considering raising the current $17 a day "congestion fee" for vehicles that drive into London to $68 a day for Chelsea tractors (aka SUVs and limos ). Any oversized gas guzzler.
That'll change a few things.
We need to see more creativity like that in the GTA.

Miller can do more, I suggest a sizeable increase in rent for Queens Park as a start 

With urban populations growing and rural dropping dramatically a "new deal" needs to be struck to facilitate higher density, lower energy footprint and better and more efficient transport.
Tokyo didnt do it alone - .

The Feds suck on Toronto's tit far too much as does Queen's park.

Someone suggested that instead of reducing the GST 1% again that the 1% be put towards urban renewal and superfund projects.
It's a pretty sizeable chunk and I think it's a good idea.

Just in immigration support Toronto gets a raw deal compared to Quebec.

There is a limit to a city's citizens tax bearing capabilities. If too much flow eleswhere....as it is now - there are limits as too how much can be added.

Harper's an ass.....McGuinity not far behind wen it comes to the GTA 

Secede.....Hazel for Queen.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Miller can do more, I suggest a sizeable increase in rent for Queens Park as a start


Queen's park belongs to U of T not to the city. Otherwise a great idea.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Max said:


> Agreed. Giving in to arrogant hyperbole only paves the way for more pointed sneers about the centre of the universe being a home for obnoxious types. The city has real problems but it sure isn't the only thing propping up the rest of Canada. Give me a break!


Sitting around being polite about it isn't working. What do you think will convince the Province and the Country to give back a reasonable portion? We take most of the immigrants and get the least from the Feds. The province does the same with dumping of programs on the city. We are supposed to close our schools and pools for schools because the province and the feds can't see fit to fund Toronto like it should. I repeat: The TTC is the only major transit system in the world that gets almost Zero federal funding. The roads are falling apart and there is no infrastructure cash coming in yet there is always money to be taken FROM Toronto. Considering the number of people in the GTA this shouldn't even be allowed to happen but alas a vote in Kapuscasing is worth two or more votes in GTA. That's right a riding in GTA contains 2 to 4 times the number of people in rural ridings. So we have way less power than we should. 
This has nothing to do with "Toronto the centre of the Universe" and everything to do with a constant drain on Toronto and nothing in return to show for it. Did the feds jump in with the Expo bid? NO
Are we getting money for the waterfront? NO
Are the feds continuing to use the port authority as a weapon against the wishes of the majority? YES

As I pointed out: no wonder the Conservatives can't get votes in the GTA. The whole party is based on taking from Toronto and giving nothing back. Centre of the Universe my a**!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:

•••

Secession....Hazel for Empress.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So how much of the $6 billion do you think Toronto deserves, and who should they take it from?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*Take* it from.....interesting viewpoint....prespins the answer.....how NeoConish.

Had a look at Ottawa's infrastructure lately????

I have.....Toronto's turn.

How about "leave it here". 

this applies in spades to Toronto



> In 1995, the amount Ontarians gave the federal government for distribution in the rest of Canada was $2 billion. Ten years later, it's $23 billion - a 1,000 per cent increase.
> 
> Ontario welcomes more than 50 per cent of all new immigrants to Canada and gets $819 per capita, while Quebec receives 18 per cent of immigrants and gets $3,806 - a shortfall of $400 million.
> 
> ...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> *Take* it from.....interesting viewpoint....prespins the answer.....how NeoConish.
> 
> Had a look at Ottawa's infrastructure lately????
> 
> ...


Exactly! Toronto is entitled to the SAME funding period. 
We don't get it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Ontario and Alberta pay for MB, QC and Atlantic Canada (AB in much greater $ per capita) and everybody is kicking in for past debt. Toronto doesn't come close to bankrolling the whole country


Nice how you use Ontario's transfers as less than Alberta's as proof that Toronto doesn't pay more. Well guess what? Toronto pays out more per capita than Alberta. Much more. And don't forget our money is also the major funds for the province too who shafted us with downloading during the Harris / Eves era.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> So how much of the $6 billion do you think Toronto deserves, and who should they take it from?


I believe we have something called a surplus in the Federal budget.
:greedy:
I'd add it is not just a matter of deserve. Toronto IS the economic engine running the country and as we let its infrastructure crumble we are starting to see how (as usual) spending some money now will prevent the need to spend much more later. Unfortunately the political ambitions of people like Harper are tied in with a punish Toronto policy. Why should he care? Harper will be drooling in an old folks home in Lethbridge or wherever by the time Toronto's infrastructure is so bad there will be no choice but to fix it at many times the present cost.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So that surplus should all go to Toronto? That's not even the beginning of a reasonable suggestion.

You've identified $6 billion that Toronto should get its share of. I'm asking again--how much, and who should it be taken from?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> So that surplus should all go to Toronto? That's not even the beginning of a reasonable suggestion.
> 
> You've identified $6 billion that Toronto should get its share of. I'm asking again--how much, and who should it be taken from?


{sarcasm}yes all the surplus to Toronto{sarcasm}  
I never said or suggested that but as usual you need to do your best to promote misunderstanding instead of arguing honestly.

Frankly I am not sure what the correct amount is but I do know the status quo is way off. And yes it should come from the surplus (ie it should come from Toronto where the surplus came from).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

And by the same logic, much of the surplus should also go back to Alberta...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> And by the same logic, much of the surplus should also go back to Alberta...


Because of Alberta's budgetary problems? Or because of Alberta's raw deal with immigrant funding? Or do you mean Alberta's infrastructure problems? 

The feds are already giving everything to Alberta. Look at the "clean air act". Ontario should take the burden of anti-pollution measures while Alberta and the tar sands get a free ride. Could it be any more blatant and you still not accept it Macfury?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If Alberta needs superfunding for infrastructure then of course.
Perhaps a Superfund project for sequestering carbon is a concept that might be entertained.

For starters the SAME deal for Ontario as for others would work.

The uneven funding is indefensible. Ontario as been taken for granted as "confederation glue" for far too long.

No question there have and are inequities with other provinces and regions but they are far too great with Toronto and Ontario right now to be sustainable.

Once more without a cogent answer to the Toronto/Ontario issues you divert the subject to Alberta's situation.
There is a bit of difference between pumping money out of the ground and creating and sustaining/renewing a long term manufacturing centre and national city....just ask China what THEY are spending in infrastructure or Singapore for that matter.

Removing the GST from municipal purchases and the gasoline tax rebate were nods in the rght direction and giving Toronto some extra taxing power as well but it's only a small start.

It requires both fund allocation at all three levels and a long term plan for the city and surrounds.
A START would be to get the various inequities in existing funding formula addressed, that's just plain wrong.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> Nice how you use Ontario's transfers as less than Alberta's as proof that Toronto doesn't pay more. Well guess what? Toronto pays out more per capita than Alberta. Much more. And don't forget our money is also the major funds for the province too who shafted us with downloading during the Harris / Eves era.


I'm not trying to prove Toronto doesn't pay more. I'm trying to get you to stop making stuff up. 

"Toronto pays out more per capita than Alberta." : Prove it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> I never said or suggested that but as usual you need to do your best to promote misunderstanding instead of arguing honestly.


:lmao: 

Good, so you'll stop then?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> You've identified $6 billion that Toronto should get its share of. I'm asking again--how much, and who should it be taken from?


I'll take a shot.

If the $6B was calculated like ON's $23B, then it has got problems right from the start, but programs can be changed anyway.

So start here:

Acknowledge that some people are all of a sudden more angry about this because it is Harper and not the Liberals. Ignore them. MD has been consistently complaining about this, though.

Remove regionalisation formulae from EI -- make it the same across the country so it operates to transfer money to people in need, not regions in need.

Put the I in EI: companies that more frequently lay-off people and people who more frequently use EI should pay a higher rate. Not full cost-recovery, but noticeably more. Make it about helping people in need, not subsidising seasonal companies.

Make the per capita CHST the same for AB and ON as the other provinces.

Tell the provinces to stop whining and raise their sales tax 1% and switch to an HST if they haven't already.

Offer some reward money for the provinces to create national systems (like securities regs) run by themselves.

Acknowledge that places like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal and some others are different (but not nations  ) and that when a "cities" agenda/pot o' gold is announced, it doesn't need to be spread out to every city in the country. For example, infrastructure and immigration programs.

Add about $1-$2 billion to the equalisation program and fix the formula to make it less punitive of success. Yes, this goes in the opposite direction to Toronto's "needs", but it isn't always about them. 

So, in short, none of the $6B directly (except, possibly, under a revamped, "Cities Agenda"). But the $6B would shrink with the other changes. Regarding CHST changes and sales tax, it's up to the ON government to distribute the spending/tax cuts.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It's nice to see people in agreement that the transfers from a relatively prosperous area and, to be more specific, from the relatively prosperous people and corporate sector in that area, to less prosperous areas are excessive. So what's the best way to stop them darned rich Toronto people and companies from being forced to help out the rest of Canada in an excessive and damaging manner?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

People will tend to readily embrace these things in principle. It's when we get down to specifics or when the principle technically applies to them that things get sticky. It's like suggesting to nuclear power proponents that they should be totally cool with a plant across the street from them.

Nimbyism distorts the process and often shreds all that general good will lying about. We seem to have a hard time moving beyond it.

I think Toronto needs its cut of the money. I just don't think demanding it will work. It _will_ if enough Ontarions elect effective leaders (who listen to their constituents) at the federal level (meaning if enough Ontarions also rid themselves of lame-duck leaders - there must be punishments as well as rewards in this ongoing process). On the provincial level, the leaders ought to be working more closely together to form a common cause, a united front for dealing with Ottawa. But in order for it to really work well, everyone in the country has got to be at least in principle on side, ready to sit down at the mediating table.

We have the huge distancing forces of regionalism to contend with in Canada. Heck, even Ontarians can't agree with one another about what's best for the province. The splits are so numerous and so wide we get bogged down in fighting those smaller fights. This country as a whole lacks a viable long term energy policy and it also doesn't understand that we have transitioned from being rural to urban. It's not just Toronto which has issues; it's every large city at the heart of an local economic engine and industrial core.

We're going to be having this discussion for a long, long time.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*Clean Air Act treats Canadians like 'idiots,'...*

*Clean Air Act treats Canadians like 'idiots,' says author Monbiot*

In "Heat," Monbiot says greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced worldwide by 90 per cent by 2030 in order to prevent catastrophic climate change.

And what does he think of Canada's Clean Air Act?
"Oh!" he says, his disgust clear in that single syllable. "It seems, to a complete outsider, to be a misreading of the national mood. That bill was treating people like idiots, both lumping together local pollution with carbon dioxide pollution, and talking about the intensity of carbon emissions. It's almost like putting up a sign saying 'I think the people of this nation are suckers."'

The Harper government, he says, is becoming an international embarrassment because of its environmental policies.

"You (Canadians) think of yourselves as a liberal and enlightened people, and my experience seems to confirm that. But you could scarcely do more to destroy the biosphere if you tried."
-
"When they (the Conservative government) say that Canada cannot reach its Kyoto targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, they mean that they do not intend to try. ... (it's) an astonishing instance of political cowardice."

Please see: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/books_george_monbiot


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> :lmao:
> 
> Good, so you'll stop then?


If you are going to accuse me of arguing dishonestly then at least tell why you are making this accusation so I may respond.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> I'm not trying to prove Toronto doesn't pay more. I'm trying to get you to stop making stuff up.
> 
> "Toronto pays out more per capita than Alberta." : Prove it.


You accuse me of making stuff up and offer no proof yourself.
Where is your link?
I thought so.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Acknowledge that some people are all of a sudden more angry about this because it is Harper and not the Liberals. Ignore them. MD has been consistently complaining about this, though.


This is BS I've been bitching about this since Cretien was in power.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

> 4.2.2 Federal and Provincial Deficits in Alberta’s Major Cities
> Figures 8 and 9 each graph these same four calculations for the years 1986-2002 for Calgary and
> Edmonton, respectively. Concentrating on the hatched bars showing the budgetary deficit after
> adjusting the federal and provincial budgets to be balanced, Figure 8 shows that the government
> ...


http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...re&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=16&client=firefox-a
Here is a link for you Beej. Now since you accuse me of being dishonest I expect one from you. 
Oh that's right you don't provide links you only demand them.
:lmao:

edit: oh ya here is the rest:


> Looking first at Figure 5, we observe that the federal government has in every year during the
> period 1986-2002 collected more in revenue from the citizens of Toronto than those citizens
> received in the form of federal transfers or other expenditures. This imbalance, indicated by the
> solid grey bars, has varied over time, falling almost to zero in 1993 but growing to over $3,000
> per person in 2000.


same source as above.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"but as usual you need to do your best to promote misunderstanding instead of arguing honestly"

That's your quote mm. It applies quite well to:

"Nice how you use Ontario's transfers as less than Alberta's as proof that Toronto doesn't pay more." (mischaracterising my argument instead of dealing with it)

and

"In case you haven't noticed we bankroll the whole country! One city!" (promoting misunderstanding instead of arguing honestly)	
So now I ask you to back up a specific claim:
"Toronto pays out more per capita than Alberta." (Much more.) 

And your response is for me to prove it:
"You accuse me of making stuff up and offer no proof yourself.
Where is your link?" 

It's your claim, not mine. And yes, were I to use Fraser Institute data, I could prove it for you (GTA, maybe not CofT). Using the Board of Trade numbers that are widely quoted for Toronto, AB appears to have a larger outflow per capita. But you didn't do that, you asked me to (dis?)prove your claim.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Thanks for link instead of asking me to (dis)prove your claim. I was asking for proof that Toronto, per capita, transfer more out (fed+prov) than Alberta (fed).

I didn't make the claim because the numbers are tricky and I don't have an axe to grind. 

http://www.iseee.ca/images/pdf/Backgrounder1_18Nov2005_2column.pdf

The AB figure estimated at over $3000k in 2002. It would be higher now.

http://dept.econ.yorku.ca/schwartz/paper/The Problem of Fiscal Imbalance.pdf

The TO figure at under $3k (assuming 2.48 million people) in 2004.

But, mm, to make sure you understand. You made a false claim (bankrolling the country) which I pointed out, then made a questionable claim that I questioned, and then proceeded to go after me for not (dis)proving your claim that I questioned. Nice.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Thanks for link instead of asking me to (dis)prove your claim. I was asking for proof that Toronto, per capita, transfer more out (fed+prov) than Alberta (fed).
> 
> I didn't make the claim because the numbers are tricky and I don't have an axe to grind.
> 
> ...


GTA is way bigger than 2.48 million people.


> With a population of 5.3 million in 2003, the GTA is Canada’s largest metropolitan area and accounts for 43.2% of Ontario’s population. By 2031 the total population of Toronto region is expected to reach 7.4 million. The City of Toronto has the largest population concentration with 47.4 percent of the total population of the Greater Toronto Area.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> You made a false claim (bankrolling the country) which I pointed out, then made a questionable claim that I questioned, and then proceeded to go after me for not (dis)proving your claim that I questioned. Nice.


No you accused me of making stuff up with no proof of your own.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and many scientists long before me - what has changed tho is the understanding of the speed and scale of climate change and the understanding that there is little time in which to avoid the most dire effects.

Even a moderate change is going to and already is having very costly effects and for once there is an atmosphere ( pardon the pun ) in many nations that this HAS to be addressed and addressed NOW!

Canada - or rather the Con government is way out of step on this.

That said NIMBY is far too prevalent especially in the GTA and perhaps ONLY sticker shock will make major changes.

A 500 sq' apartment in Tokyo is $4,000 Cdn a month to rent and has to be very energy efficient as Japan imports all it's energy except nuclear.

The scale of climate change and speed really requires a crash program ala Manhattan project on a full first world scale while developing nations need to preserve forests on a similar crash program.

How this is to happen with populations still growing 50% in the next 30 years and idjits like Harper and Bush in power is entirely beyond me.

Good for Blair and Cameron to at least get it way up on the political radar in Britain.
Commissioning the Stern report was boon to the planet. :clap:

There is a lot of energy being pumped into the atmosphere and kept there.....it is already having some severe affects....this is nothing as to what will come as the energy builds. .

Yeah Ontario, even Canada as a whole may actually benefit but that makes doing nothing about the obscenity at the tar sands even more odious in the eyes of the world.

McGuinty could do a bit less talking about nuclear and get on with it too.

Less talk ....more building



> World is banking on a nuclear future
> 
> THE world has moved to overwhelmingly embrace nuclear energy as the first response to high oil prices and climate change.
> 
> ...


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...-nuclear-future/2006/11/19/1163871272090.html



> World urged to build more N-plants
> By Carola Hoyos, Chief Energy Correspondent
> Published: November 1 2006 22:36 | Last updated: November 1 2006 22:36
> 
> ...


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/723802b0-69e3-11db-952e-0000779e2340.html


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> GTA is way bigger than 2.48 million people.


And the Board of Trade study is Toronto, and you used the term Toronto. So what's your point?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> No you accused me of making stuff up with no proof of your own.


You did. With this:
"In case you haven't noticed we bankroll the whole country! One city!"

You want a link to prove that? Aside from it being a ridiculous statement? I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you actually expected me to prove that Toronto (one city!) doesn't bankroll the whole country. Is that a Toronto thing? It's too late now though, your link already proves that obvious fact.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Here is where we dissagree MacDoc.
Nuclear power is merely trading one ecological disaster for another in this case. Perhaps the GHG problem is more pressing but the longterm responsibilities in dealing with the site of the power plants (after decommissioning) and the waste create a long term problem that is so great the we can't begin to assure that future generation will even understand what the waste is or how to deal with it.
There have been several "dark ages" and if we happen upon another one who will even remember what nuclear waste is let alone how to contain it for thousands of years. 

This of course ignores the more imminent threat: accident.
So far we have had Chalk River, Three Mile Island, and my personal favorite: Chernobyl. There is also the under reported accidents that have happend at facilities that create the fuel from the raw ore like this one:


> 1999
> Sept. 30, Tokaimura, Japan: uncontrolled chain reaction in a uranium-processing nuclear fuel plant spewed high levels of radioactive gas into the air, killing two workers and seriously injuring one other.


I really don't think nuclear is the way to go here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej quit nitpicking hyperbole.

Toronto is a major economic engine for the nation and is need of an overhaul.
If you have 25% of the national GNP concentrated in a small area that needs a "better deal" or even a "fair deal" to continue it's success and growth then the wise "conservator" would pay attention.

Starting with appling the same amount of "fertilizer" as other regions get.
And I don't mean the bull pucky currently offered up.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Martman - ALL energy sources have trade offs and you are way off base with a view of "disaster".

You have not one single shred of basis in fact or science on that stance.

Ontario and many other regions around the world HAVE safe reliable nuclear energy and THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.

People are killed everyday in every sort of human activity and nuclear has an enormously good safety record that can always be better.

All you do is scare monger with no basis in fact.

There has been a nuclear reactor sitting in a residential neighbourhood in Hamilton quietly putting out a modes amount of power and aiding research for 60 years.

Weaponization diverted nuclear energy to technologies that were less safe early on.

New technology cannot ony provide the clean GHG free energy but consume the detris of the nuclear standoff as well - something that HAS to be achieved.

The sooner this is undertaken the better.......there is no other choice given the poplulation and aspirations.
It'll either be a nuclear based future or fossil based one - I'll take the minor nuclear risks over the upcoming monster that is climate change.

It will take EVERY technology - alternative/efficient fuel use as well as nuclear to get us throught the crunch without doing irreparable damage.

Do you actually understand how much power demand is coming??
•••

And Beej - the GTA also represents a major lever for reducgin GHG WHILE renewing infrastructure.
The lake cooling is just one such effort that could be extended as coud a mjor retrofit of every single apartment building as part of the renewal.
Other major cities have had to do it.....Toronto is desperate to make amajor change.

Just compare your Ottawa infrastructure to Toronto's and you'll see th eunfair application of funding.

Our turn....NOW!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Martman, a recap may help:

I responded to this line: "In case you haven't noticed we bankroll the whole country! One city!"

By giving general perspective on the 'bankrolling' with: "The larger urban centres generally subsidise the rural regions. Ontario and Alberta pay for MB, QC and Atlantic Canada (AB in much greater $ per capita) and everybody is kicking in for past debt. Toronto doesn't come close to bankrolling the whole country unless you are referring to actually administering the financial system itself (for which it is richly rewarded...Bay Street)."

To which you twisted the meaning by saying, "Nice how you use Ontario's transfers as less than Alberta's as proof that Toronto doesn't pay more. Well guess what? Toronto pays out more per capita than Alberta. Much more. "

I responded with, "I'm not trying to prove Toronto doesn't pay more. I'm trying to get you to stop making stuff up." And said "Prove it" with regards to your claim that "Toronto pays out more per capita than Alberta." (I even dropped the Much more.)

and because you just warped the intent of my post after claiming TO bankrolled the whole country, added, "Good, so you'll stop then?" with reference to your post to MF of, "I never said or suggested that but as usual you need to do your best to promote misunderstanding instead of arguing honestly." 

And you expected me to (dis)prove your claim within that context?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej quit nitpicking hyperbole.


Hyperbole can lead to misunderstanding. A reason why I'm not in the doomsday set of climate changers. A policy notion built on hyperbole is fragile and, if it doesn't deliver, just breeds more distrust. The global cooling thing caused much distrust and ,more recently, quick attribution of Rita and Katrina didn't help. It's the broader story, built upon fact, that can take hold and deliver.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You have not one single shred of basis in fact or science on that stance.


What exactly do you mean by this MacDoc?
I'd be happy to elaborate if you'd be more clear as to where it is needed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Martman - ALL energy sources have trade offs and you are way off base with a view of "disaster".
> 
> You have not one single shred of basis in fact or science on that stance.
> 
> ...


Hyperbole against nuclear for years has led to what you are trying to combat MD. It does matter that it is pointed out. I don't agree with "No" alternative. Price is part of the equation.
..............
No argument about Ottawa. I encourage everyone in Canada to come see where their money ends up.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You have no basis beyond speculation that extention of nuclear power is unsafe - the industry has a terrific safety record and the risk of not replacing GHG producing energy sources with nuclear is clear and present.

You enjoy ( 40+% in Ontario ), 70% of France enjoys, a huge portion of Japan enjoys GHG free nuclear power and it can get better. It's here - it exists and it provides part of the solution to get through the population/energy bottleneck occuring in the next three decades.

There is good reason one of the major green leaders switched to supporting nuclear solutions.
The benefits far outweigh the risks.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> and because you just warped the intent of my post after claiming TO bankrolled the whole country, added, "Good, so you'll stop then?" with reference to your post to MF of, "I never said or suggested that but as usual you need to do your best to promote misunderstanding instead of arguing honestly."
> 
> And you expected me to (dis)prove your claim within that context?


If you think I was not fair with this post you are referring fine, but you were using Ontario numbers to back up an argument that Toronto doesn't pay out too much. This is something I supported with my above link showing that in 2002 Torontonians payed out almost $1000 per capita MORE than Calgarians (presumably the highest paying Albertans).

Granted "bankrolling the country" is an exageration but it is not that far off the mark.

Now on to MF's comment. He was (clumsily) putting ridiculous statements in my mouth when what I wrote had no relevance to what he was trying (so desperately and repeatedly) to attribute to me.

Beej I think your claim is off base.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Martman - you may find this information very interesting - someone coming from your stance....



> In the Beginning
> 
> Filed under: Blog, Gia — July 21, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
> 
> ...


http://www.potentialenergyuk.com/?p=74

It may be hard to shift life long attitudes....but it's needed.

It's a good read as he goes through his thoughts and looks at the reality.

••••

Here's Patrick Moore's thoughts...he was the co-founder of Greenpeace.



> April 28, 2005
> 
> “Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.”
> 
> ...


rest of the speech and also an enlightening read.

http://www.greenspirit.com/logbook.cfm?msid=70


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Martman: I'm not desperately attempting to do anything. Your suppositions had no basis in fact and you don't have a good idea of what you think would be fair.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You have no basis beyond speculation that extention of nuclear power is unsafe -


And you have no proof it is safe. I however can point to three major accidents that have already happened and point to the law of averages that as the number of power plants increase so to does the risk of accidents. 

The three accidents are not the only accidents only the most major. 

As for the speculation: How do you propose to safeguard the future generation from our waste? What make you think in 10,000 years people will be able to read our warning signs or know what to do with leaking concrete (or whatever) vaults of radioactive waste.

You offer the same as me in scientific evidence of the long term safety of nuclear power: SPECULATION.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> to back up an argument that Toronto doesn't pay out too much.
> .....................
> Granted "bankrolling the country" is an exageration but it is not that far off the mark.
> .....................
> He was (clumsily) putting ridiculous statements in my mouth when what I wrote had no relevance to what he was trying (so desperately and repeatedly) to attribute to me.


No, I wasn't. Read it again.
.....................
Do you think Toronto is bankrolling more than half? If not, how about the GTA? Or, more to the point, what do you mean by, "not that far off"? Somebody had it right earlier. This sort of stuff doesn't help others' stereo-type of Torontonians. I don't share the stereo-type but can see where it comes from.
.....................
Yes. See my first point.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Martman: I'm not desperately attempting to do anything. Your suppositions had no basis in fact and you don't have a good idea of what you think would be fair.


This is not true I have already posted my proof and you have posted (as usual) none.
See above links Macfury before you accuse me of offering no evidence.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I have much proof that it is safe- 50 years worth. I also have clear proof now that unless ghg are curbed dramatically there will be little poitn in 100,000 year "speculation".
There have been natural reactors on earth for millions of years.

Would you like to compare stats of any other industry as far as deaths go.

ALL energy sources have risks attached - both strategic and immediate.

We cannot afford wishful thinking......or denial of reality.

There IS a safe and proven technology that is getting better all the time that can along with all the other needed strategies ameliorate the slow motion eco disaster that is upon us.

Denying it's necessary role is as idiotic and unfounded as those denying climate change.

Do you think it was an easy journey for Patrick Moore or for the blogger quoted - have you even read it.?
It will address your exact views.

You look to the science community for rational thought and guidance. Do so again.

•••

Beej - why are you persisting in trying to nail a is it 50% is it 30% - who cares - it's wrong and needs correcting...period. 

I notice you don't mention Ottawa's lovely infrastructure by comparison.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> No, I wasn't. Read it again.
> .....................
> Do you think Toronto is bankrolling more than half? If not, how about the GTA? Or, more to the point, what do you mean by, "not that far off"? Somebody had it right earlier. This sort of stuff doesn't help others' stereo-type of Torontonians. I don't share the stereo-type but can see where it comes from.
> .....................
> Yes. See my first point.


Except this is what was written:


above postings said:


> Beej said:
> 
> 
> > Ontario and Alberta pay for MB, QC and Atlantic Canada (AB in much greater $ per capita) and everybody is kicking in for past debt. Toronto doesn't come close to bankrolling the whole country
> ...



Now I showed that in 2002 Torontonians payed out almost $1000 more per capita than Calgarians (presumably the highest payers in Alberta). 

Who is bankrolling who here?
I already admitted to exaggeration so you can nit pick till the cows come home. I have proved my point: Toronto pays way more than it's fair share and is left to rot from neglect because it has a disproportionately low representation in both Provincial and federal parliament.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> ALL energy sources have risks attached - both strategic and immediate.
> ..................
> There IS a safe and proven technology that is getting better all the time that can along with all the other needed strategies ameliorate the slow motion eco disaster that is upon us.


Important context. Absolute safety is hardly a useful standard. Perhaps I'll just stroll across the street and test that.

As a personal experience aside, I've seen the nuclear regulator speak and worked with someone on a possible tour of a nuclear facility. After what I learned, I'd feel safer next to one of those than being surrounded by homes with heating oil tanks. In fact, it might be a good way to get some cheap property if I had a job in the area, what with the potential market being scared. beejacon


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej - why are you persisting in trying to nail a is it 50% is it 30% - who cares - it's wrong and needs correcting...period.
> .................
> I notice you don't mention Ottawa's lovely infrastructure by comparison.


That's the point. The statements keep getting made. Such notions need to be pointed out to help prevent their spread. Nuclear debate anyone? 
.................
What do you mean? I agreed. Ottawa is overdone. Recall:
"No argument about Ottawa. I encourage everyone in Canada to come see where their money ends up. "


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's exactly right Beej. There is no absolute safety in any industry.
More died in the construction of JUST the Niagara Falls hydro facilities over the years than in nuclear accidents.

Then looking at the horror of coal mining, the radiation it releases let alone the toxins and not one bit of coal would ever be mined or used if the industry had to start from scratch today.

••

There is clearly a provable imbalance in Federal funding per capita inot Ontario and Toronto in particular where immigrants end up.
Why cloud that FACT with trying to determine a set percentage.
How about going about analysing how to correct it best.
It's not a myth or a "notion".

Ottawa is not "over done" ..Toronto is "underdone".


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Do you think it was an easy journey for Patrick Moore or for the blogger quoted - have you even read it.?
> It will address your exact views.
> 
> You look to the science community for rational thought and guidance. Do so again.
> ...


I haven't had time to yet but I assure you I will.

I will give you my first criticism of the first link however. It says 47 people died from Chernobyl. This is not true. This figure omits the people who have died of the effects since the accident and I am also talking of the cancers from the widespread contamination in particular Belarus:


> Estimates and figures vary widely. The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that as many as 9,000 people among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed, may die from some form of cancer (one of the induced diseases).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> Now I showed that in 2002 Torontonians payed out almost $1000 more per capita than Calgarians (presumably the highest payers in Alberta).
> ..................
> Who is bankrolling who here?


Your claim about what my post was attempting to do was wrong. You don't seem to have addressed that.

Also, my links show AB slightly higher than Toronto. It's not a simple matter and I don't know the answer. Both pay a lot. 

However, if one is higher and your question is, "Who is bankrolling who here?" then you don't understand what's going on with 'bankrolling'. 

First, we're talking about supplemental transfers, areas still generate their base funding. ON and AB combined don't actually pay for all the other governments...do you expect me to prove that?. 

Second, on the supplemental transfers, your report shows a number of cities doing the bankrolling. And that's just a cities look. Who is bankrolling who? Many places bankrolling many others. Many well off individuals and corporations, to be more precise.

Did you think anyone doubted that TO paid more than it took in? MF raised the issue of defining "fair"; that wasn't dealt with. I just suggested good policy with whatever outcome being ok.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Martman why would you pick on a single episode where human error and poor design coincided as representative of an entire industry.??

It's like condeming all shipping because of the Titanic, or all flying because of two 747s colliding on the runway - both of which involved enormous loss of life.

Chernobyl was a horror and an instructive one for future designers both of systems and the human training of operators.

Mine disasters, oil platform disasters, dam disasters all occur and hopefuly lead to better and safer industries.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Why cloud that FACT with trying to determine a set percentage.
> How about going about analysing how to correct it best.
> It's not a myth or a "notion".


Because it isn't just about Toronto eek: ), and an important public policy issue like this should not be polluted with misinformation. It's that simple. Just because I agree with an idea doesn't mean I'll always abide such stuff. Only when I'm tired.  If you want to, go ahead.

As for correcting it best, I posted a number of things that need change. It's not about a lump sum transfer, but about a number of underlying problems. There are more if you want them. Industry bailouts, especially agriculture, roads etc. At heart though, the money is taken from individuals and businesses and handed to other individuals, businesses and governments. It is not sourced in gov-to-gov transfers. It is directly connected with progressive taxation, for example. That changes much for the politics. That's also why I don't think there's a number, there are policy and program choices, deemed to be fair, that give an end result. Just looking at the end result doesn't mean much without knowing the pieces.

And, throughout all of this, are value judgements. MF hit it early on. If the status quo is unfair, then what is fair? Back to energy...is a community entitled to the economic profits that accrue from their local hydro-resource? Things get real messy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well some progress.

How about we start with "fair" as being the same base formula for all immigrants etc.

I am sure the GTA and Ontario would consider that a good start.

I would also like to see an infrastructure fund composed of 1 % gst being set aside ( like Alberta's heritage fund) to provide capital for municipal projects.

If it gets drawnon proprotionally and wasted then there is no complaint - if used wisely it can provide long last value.
Hazel would use it wisely, Lastman piss it away.

Bottom line tho Canada is becoming urban rapidly - rural areas are declining 8% a year.
A source of funding needs to be available for renewed/enhanced cities.
Instead each time municipalities have to go hat in hand to Prov or Fed instead of setting their own agendas for renewal and knowing the funds are there.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No it's not "just" about Toronto - but "just' about Toronto involves 25% of the National GNP so starting there is a good idea and Toronto clearly needs it.

Also clouding resources with transfers I think is very unwise as it muddies the water.

It's one reason I think funds shuld be accumulated federally ( that's one debate as to how )

Funds should be spent and directed locally.

So rural projects are different than urban projects and a cookie cutter approach will not work.

But it's stupid to NOT have a consistent infrastructure fund to be drawn on.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> How about we start with "fair" as being the same base formula for all immigrants etc.
> .................
> I would also like to see an infrastructure fund composed of 1 % gst being set aside ( like Alberta's heritage fund) to provide capital for municipal projects.
> .................
> ...


Yes. If I recall correctly, QC got a special deal a while back. I'm not sure about other province's funding.
..................
Disconnecting a governments' spending from it's revenue should be minimised to help voters. The GST was just cut; the provinces should have raised (and harmonised) their taxes or handed the power to cities. Having yet another topic for fed-prov-muni wrangling, will not help. 
..................
I'd like to see the provinces tossed and replaced with rural and urban regional governments, but that's not feasible. The provinces must become more sensible in how they approach the major cities (e.g. not the same as all the rest). To help the Feds can free up taxes, offer some key national mega-project funding, like trade corridor upgrading, and fix their warped national programs like EI.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

As an aside, MD, you keep using GNP. Why not GDP, which is more commonly used? They are both relevant, but I'm curious because I rarely see GNP used. A more international take or something else?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well I'd like to see regional govs - Toronto and PEI in the same political sentence is clearly irrational.

The party system is drifting into a regional structure but the funding and tax structure is still archaic.
Toronto has some extra powers to raise money but there are limits and an offsetting reduction in excess out versus in remains in my mind the key point.

Is $6 billion imbalance too much - clearly.
Is zero too little - likely.

So the debate is where is the right balance point.

There was an analysis that showed giving the 1% GST rebate flowing into the GTA would just about correct the deficit. Not a bad place to start.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Martman why would you pick on a single episode where human error and poor design coincided as representative of an entire industry.??
> 
> It's like condeming all shipping because of the Titanic, or all flying because of two 747s colliding on the runway - both of which involved enormous loss of life.
> 
> ...


The problem is that a mining disaster or an oil disaster doesn't last thousands of years. The Exclusion zone in Chernobyl will be contaminated for a very long time. IT make Exxon Valdez seem trivial in comparison. I'd add that according to Greenpeace the exclusion zone is too small and that extreme level of radiation exist well outside the zone.

Why do I take this example? Because any thechonology is only a good as it's weakest link as we found out in Chalk River, three Mile Island, and Chernobyl. As well this is the accident to point to as it begins to show just how bad things can get.

Nothing is fool proof and as the technology gets more dangerous so does the potential for accidents. 

Accidents of course are only part of the problem what about war? Remember Israel bombing Iraq's nuclear facilities? What about Iran's? How about when a terrorist decides to drop a plane on an active facility? 

These possibilities are not that far out. There are plenty of desperate idiots who value numbers dead above all else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


In the first link the blogger mentions my objection about future generations and NEVER come up with an answer for it.

As I said above he totally cherry picks the casualty results of Chernobyl.

He also compares mining and oil accidents with nuclear accidents the difference being that you can go to the coast of Alaska where the Exxon Valdez spilled oil. Want to visit the exclusion zone?

I thought not. How about in ten years?
No?

Also I see no mention of Uranium mining accidents or illness from uranium mining. (exposure to radon gas in mines) So I think his blog is very biased.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I tend to use them interchangeably - I see the Economist is well tilted to the GDP use tho not completely.

The Ontario budget comes up 306 hits for GDP and none for GNP so I will adjust my usage accordingly.

I wonder how GNP versus GDP inpacts the GTA - lot of income flows from outside to the head offices here.
Interesting point.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Martman you are still examing warts on tree trunks when the entire forest is in danger.
There is no alternative.

The nuclear industry also is the only way to address the "weapons to plowshares" issue of existing nuclear arm stockpiles and existing nuclear waste.

Later gen reactors can consume 95% of the fuel incuding the spent fuel from slow reactors and from arms stockpiles.
These EXISTING issues have to be dealt with as does GHG.

If fusion was available we would not have a problem - it isn't and we HAVE a problem both with GHG and existing nuclear arms and inefficiently processed nuclear waste retaining 95% of it's energy.

The technology is available to resolve both issues over time and to reduce the already very small nuclear waste to even a smaller phsyical problem and by using existing facility areas as Ontario is doing by building on the same site.

As Beej mentions when you actually go into the plants and their technology ad safety you feel safer living next to one than anywhere else.

NOTHING is perfectly safe or an ideal solution.

Unfortunately NOTHING will replace nuclear energy to cushion the GHG crisis and the nuclear industry has a enviable record.
Akin to the aviation industry versus driving.

Wishing for an alternative does not make it so.

We will have 9 billion upwardly mobile people on the planet in 30 years.

When I asked you about the size of the power demand you did not respond. Here it is.

The demand is such that if we built one 10 megawatt reactor a DAY for the next 20 years......it won't be met at todays power growth figure.

So all the kings horses....including nuclear, alternative, conservation.......are going to have a very difficult time keeping Humpty earth intact.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.toronto.ca/finance/pdf/2004profile.pdf

The GDP appears quite a bit lower than 25% of the country, unless that's a real $ number based a few years back, which is consistent with its status as a finance centre. Now I want to find GNP vs GDP data for other regions, just because I'm a geek.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> As Beej mentions when you actually go into the plants and their technology ad safety you feel safer living next to one than anywhere else.


To be clear, the tour didn't go through. It was the security procedures that applied to potential visitors, combined with what the regulator talked about that I was impressed by. The Simpsons is just fiction, after all.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc: Moore's argument is much better. I agree with much of it but still see no solution being offered about the impact on future generations. As well I forgot that many facilities are being built right on fault lines. Remember this controversy?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emdot/11040625/
I sure do. People were protesting and getting arrested over this colossal stupidity for weeks. 

As the GHG problem gets more acute I admit I am becoming less anti-nuke but I still see way to many problems. I think a greater reliance in truly clean technologies is preferable. We need to expand wind and solar facilities as much as possible nukes should be a last resort and NO facilities should be built on fault lines. I'd like to see this technology fazed out because of the possible terrorist implications but I do admit that hydro electric dams have an even greater potential for terrorist induced mass disaster.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Here is another viewpoint on nuclear safty:


> Nuclear Plant Safety: Will the Luck Run Out?
> 
> December 15, 1998
> 
> ...



Please take special note of the part I made bold.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

All analysis point to alternatives as at best 20-30% of requirements.

No matter what there will be human stupidity in design and people will live on the slopes of volcanoes.

But we do not have a century - not even half a century to deal with GHG. and we cannot do anything about population levels nor human aspirations.

So we need to play the cards we are dealt.
We HAVE nuclear.
Best of a bad series of choices.

The sooner late gen faster breeders start consuming weapon and existing slow reactor stockpiles the smaller the risk becomes.

I'm not sure if you know but the world only has about 50 years of uranium available for slow reactors that we use now.
This MUST be managed and soon not later.

We have to stop trying to imagine a different world and deal with the one we actually have to the best we can.
The nuclear genie is out - what we command it to do and how wisely is the key.

If a hammer is the only tool you have to save your life - you use it to the very best of your ability even if you 'd prefer a rope.
Nuclear is our GHG hammer and we have to start knocking the GHG levels down NOW.

Lucky for us we HAVE 60 years of nuclear energy to draw on and major centres like Ontario and France and Japan as examples.

•••

Nothing you quote about a specific incident aplies to the safety record of the industry as a whole nor to the insight of scientists who have evaluated the problem and see nuclear as a needed large scale component of GHG reduction.

3rd and 4th Gen reactors are very different than those created during the Cold WAr and I notice you are not using Canadian or French or Japanese examples.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

But I have shown you data that sugests a 45% probablity of major accident every 20 years per 100 reactors. Do you have any comment on this?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> 3rd and 4th Gen reactors are very different than those created during the Cold WAr and I notice you are not using Canadian or French or Japanese examples.


Another good point. There are different nuclear technologies across basic design and ongoing technological/safety advancement. CANDU is very different, for example. And Soviet technology/safety/care was different, aside from the basic design.

Sort of like how a Model T and a Honda F1 use internal combustion (I could be wrong, but the idea of the analogy stands  ).


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> 3rd and 4th Gen reactors are very different than those created during the Cold WAr and I notice you are not using Canadian or French or Japanese examples.


This information is hard to come by and the US is the best source of information because of its huge number of reactors. Besides even if new technology is safer the fact is old plants are still online and few are being shutdown. Pretending they don't exist will not make them any safer.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Data that suggests.

How about using data that exists. 
Current and planned reactors are far different than the cold war era reactors in the US.

Indeed was there a buoyant industry moving forward many of those ole dangerous designs would be and should be mothballed.

There is a reactor in China that is walk away - it cannot over heat.

Planes used to crash - more people were killed on highways - there are risks always and an industry using technology to it's max can be safer, is safer.
Roads, food, the Great Lakes, air safety and nuclear safety have all improved and new designs can take that further.

GHG is a monster. It's appetite for destruction will not be denied. Only assuaged a bit.
Nuclear technology - built to today's goals - will help.

I ask you plain out.....what is the alternative.....that's isn't wishful thinking.

I don't think you comprehend the scale of the problem or the engineering challenges.

Ontario alone is facing a huge crunch and we are unprepared and moving too slowly.
And we HAVE the resources at hand to deal with.

Perhaps only Japan and France and soon Britain are moving quickly enough, Finland too.

••

Providing new gen alternatives to them so they CAN be shut down and also the inefficient fuel and weapons material consumed WILL make us all safer.

So you'd prefer coal?? Shut all the nukes down???


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Data that suggests.
> 
> How about using data that exists.


That is not fair. Did you even read my quote from David Lochbaum a nuclear safety engineer? Is he just full of sh*t? What makes your data more concrete than his testimony before the NRC?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This is an excellent case in point of life cycle.



> Latest News - 25 July 2006
> Dungeness A nuclear power station gains consent to decommission
> 
> British Nuclear Group, the nuclear site management, decommissioning and clean-up specialist, has received formal consent from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to decommission Dungeness A power station once it ceases electrical generation at the end of 2006.
> ...


Rational, large scale and long term planning ...yes ....but it must start now or the GHG monster's bite will be far far worse.

•••

Because his data "suggests"......look at data that is actual. Look at the Japanese and French and Ontario actual records not the US maybe records based on coldwar issues that decreased safety immmensely.

Yes the existing plants of that type in the US are a risk that has to be dealt with but that in no way reflects on other nations and on the future designs which are based on all that is learned.

GHG threat is real, it's now and nuclear is the only heavy lifting source that can help in the near term.
It will take all the other aspects, cleaner fossil fuels, sequestration, conservation to cope as well....and it will still be bad.

A nuclear solution to the oil sands pollution has huge leverage on emmissions. Not a NIMBY issue either - just plain lack of will.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I ask you plain out.....what is the alternative.....that's isn't wishful thinking.


Invest in wind energy. I do every time I pay my electricity bill. You can too. If we all invested in micro projects closer to home I'd bet we could do better than nuclear power. 
I admit I have no numbers to back this up however but I've yet to see a convincing study showing that nukes are the only alternative.

If you have any links I'll read them too.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Look Martman - don;t you think the best and the brightest have analysed this.

It will take ALL of what you suggest PLUS nuclear to cope. I really think you need to understand the size of the problem.

There WILL be 50% more people in the GTA in the next 30 years. Do you think you can supply them via alternative energy??
ALL the studies show consistently alternatives in the 20-30% of total range and that would be terrific.
Where does the other 70% come from???

and the power requirements are growing dramatically even in theface of conservation - there are more people period, and more people wanting some of the first world energy benefits.

So there is rising population and a rising % of total population needing/wanting energy.

That's the problem and it knows of no one solution.

Even if GHG were NOT an issue - the demand for power and how to meet it would be.

The GHG crisis makes it horrendous as the time frame for dealing with it is so short and comes right at a population peak and a rising expectations wave.

Lotusland thinking is not going to deal with the reality the world faces in the next 30 years.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

One thing that most don't want to recognize is that the era of cheap energy will have to end, one way or another.

All this talk about oil sands, drilling deep below the Gulf of Mexico with technology that hasn't been invented yet, bringing over liquid natural gas and going on a massive nuclear power plant building binge is just grasping at straws. I don't think MacDoc overestimates the building huge demand for energy and it's clear that even by the most optimistic outlooks that fossil fuels are already at peak or will be peaking within most of our lifetimes.

The world, especially the part of the world that is used to having a robust economy subsidized by cheaply available energy is in a pickle. Alternatives cannot replace the massive energy amounts required in coming years, nor can any one solution. If we pretend that we can just carry on with our cheap energy based industrial society forever, I think we will be coming upon a hard landing. Many in the lands of abundance may be in for surprises.

But if we start to recognize the enormity of the problem and the urgent need to migrate from fossil fuels soon, we can cushion although not completely mitigate the blow to our economy and lifestyles. I am sometimes quite doubtful that this is possible.

Energy has always been expensive throughout human history, except for the very brief last century and a bit of fossil fuel use. I think we will all have to reacquaint ourselves with expensive energy and change our lifestyles accordingly in coming years. We either accept this and start to change voluntarily now while preparing alternatives or we will be forced to change as necessary energy becomes more expensive. Even if we had endless pools of fossil fuels for millennia at our disposal global climate change will force us to act.

It's been known for decades that fossil fuels were only a short term ride, yet collectively we seem to be incapable of planning for the future. Me, I'm planning on learning about farming.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But if we start to recognize the enormity of the problem and the urgent need to migrate from fossil fuels soon, we can cushion although not completely mitigate the blow to our economy and lifestyles. I am sometimes quite doubtful that this is possible.


You may be on to something there. Most of our assumptions in these and related threads have involved an ever-increasing appetite for energy. Perhaps that's unsupportable and the sustainable version of the future may involve individuals and entire nations using markedly less energy - as opposed to pinning our hopes on cheap new forms of renewable energy and acting accordingly with our continued ramp-up of energy consumption.

Other scenarios, those involving war and famine, nuclear and/or biological contagion, would also help ensure (perversely enough) that there will be enough energy to go around... for the survivors. I am not convinced we will be able to skip past those calamities. We may even be setting ourselves up for it but are too busy with other matters to notice.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

OK Doc, I'm all for increased nuclear power. We agree on something.

Fossil fuels are by no means as scarce as some people imagine; if we wanted to rely on them for another century we could easily do so. Any plan that relies on a shortage of fossil fuels to succeed may find itself failing--alternative energy plans should be based on real data, not wishful thinking.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Fossil fuels are by no means as scarce as some people imagine; if we wanted to rely on them for another century we could easily do so.


Sources? Details?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Aside from coal? Methane hydrates. Oil shale etc. It is the GHG context that changes the future for fossil fuels, although I agree that energy will become more expensive, even without a carbon-constrained policy framework. There is a difference between running out of cheap oil and gas, and running out of fossil fuels.

An interesting read is Sustainable Fossil Fuels. Too optimistic in some of his choices, but still worth it for perspective on the challenge and what may or may not work best.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Sources? Details?


You'll be lucky if you get those - MF is into fiction most of the time...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Even if the coal figures are too high, I figure a century would be a fair bet:

_U.S. Department of Energy: "The United States has the world's largest known coal reserves, about 275 billion short tons. This is enough coal to last over two hundred years at today's level of use."_

And:

_The World Energy Resources Program of the United States Geological Survey produces the official estimates of the world oil resources for the U.S. Federal Government. They estimate that the remaining world oil reserves are about 1,000 gigabarrels, and current estimates place the exhaustion of the remaining known reserves within the next 50 years. Estimates of undiscovered reserves range widely from 275 to 1,469 gigabarrels (44 to 234 km³). (It should be noted that one barrel equals 42 US gallons, or 158.97 litres.) The Middle East has about 50% of the known remaining world oil reserves. The USGS estimates the total reserves are about three times the known amount._


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Layton unveils proposed changes to Clean Air Act
> Updated Sun. Nov. 19 2006 10:25 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...yton_clean_air_061119/20061119?hub=TopStories

Showdown .....it's about time.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Cometh the back pedal. :clap:



> Climate groups try to decode Ambrose hints
> Is Canada's position on Kyoto changing, or was minister just swept up in fervour of climate conference?
> Nov. 19, 2006. 05:30 PM
> DENNIS BUECKERT
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...l_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News

and heat from a different quarter..



> Greenhouse gas could boost oil production: Shell
> 
> SHAWN MCCARTHY
> Global and Mail Update
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061119.wshell1119/BNStory/Business/

Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.......


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2006/11/18/mrmay18.xml

A fun read, lest we take ourselves too seriously.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

There seems to be a fair amount of Alberta bashing in this thread, but there are a few alternative energy projects around here. The wind farms in the South West corner of the province is one example, this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/living-green/index.html is another.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Beej said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2006/11/18/mrmay18.xml
> 
> A fun read, lest we take ourselves too seriously.


Good article, I always find the "Top Gear" folks to be entertaining...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Even if the coal figures are too high, I figure a century would be a fair bet:
> 
> _U.S. Department of Energy: "The United States has the world's largest known coal reserves, about 275 billion short tons. This is enough coal to last over two hundred years at today's level of use."_
> 
> ...


In that coal is a fossil fuel then I guess we have lots left. I don't dispute those figures. Your premise that we should be complacent about a potential energy crunch because we have lots of fossil left sort of falls down if you are thinking that coal will easily solve the problem. If we can easily replace things like food production, home heating, auto use and air travel with electricity generated from coal, great, but at present that couldn't be done without massive infrastructure changes and some yet to be invented tech coming along. We don't have planes that run on electricity ready to be deployed, we don't have fully electric vehicles or farm machinery in production on any kind of large scale and the hydrogen economy produced by cheap electric power is still a big maybe. To use coal on the massive scale proposed would also require some yet to be implemented tech to reduce the huge problem with air pollution never mind massive carbon release leading to accelerated climate change.

If you think we should simply be complacent because coal will just magically slot in as the cheap energy source to keep our industrial society humming along without a hitch, I'd say you are either not really carefully looking at the problem or the one who is indulging in wishful thinking.

Your USGS quoted figures about oil reserves are in dispute by many experts and governments. Even almighty Chevron is admitting the world is heading for a crunch. Of the figures I've seen quoted the USGS ones are by far the most optimistic by a fair margin to the point of being an outlier. (A reasonable critique of the USGS methodology can be found here.) But even the USGS at their most optimistic estimate are saying we only have 50 years of oil left, (not mentioned here but I guess that is accounting for their estimates of hugely rising demand? Or maybe that wasn't factored in). Their estimate that there is a Rumsfeldian unknown known of reserves that equals 3 times what we know about is quite interesting in light of the fact that new discoveries have been falling ever shorter of demand since the 1960s. The graph of demand shows a curve bending upwards, while the graph of new discoveries shows a curve doing exactly the opposite. It's estimated that the world will need 10 new megafields on the scale of the winding down North Sea to keep up with expected world demand by 2020. There isn't even one on the radar.

The other thing about saying the world has (pick a magic number) say 50 years of oil left that most people don't recognize, is that a good percentage of the oil left once the first half is used starts to become uneconomic to pump. Uneconomic in terms of the energy invested to produce the energy that oil will return. An oil field doesn't produce easy free-flowing oil from day one until the last drop. It gets to a point where you use more than a barrels worth of energy to extract a barrel of oil. That's why there are dormant oil fields all around the world containing vast amounts of sludgy hard to pump oil. At that point oil could sell for $1000 a barrel and it still wouldn't be worthwhile to extract it, at least for use as a fuel, because you would be using cheaper priced energy to get at it. What would be the point? Even current tech solar power starts to become competitive at this point.

As I said earlier, when we are talking about things like shipping LNG, expensive drilling below the Gulf of Mexico with yet uninvented tech or relying on the oil sands or shale oil as our fossil fuel then we are grasping at straws and we are saying that the era of cheap energy is over. All of these things require much more energy invested to energy returned than the easy flowing crude that we have gotten our industrial society hooked on, which is something like 1 barrel of oil to produce 30. Oil sands are only barely economic at close to 1:1. Yet there are notions about going on a massive nuclear power plant building binge to convert 1 unit of nuclear power into 1 point something units of syncrude (oh yeah, including environmental cleanup cost that may make energy return on energy invested uneconomic). In my mind that's truly scraping the bottom of the barrel (pun intended) and being complacent doesn't cut it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GA: You've mentioned that "close to 1:1" thing for oil sands before. What is that based upon? 

Also, coal-to-liquids is an old technology, and there are many ways to dramatically reduce air pollutants from coal. The bigger challenge is GHGs.

On "peak oil" CERA has done some work: http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm guessing but a combination of natural gas BTUs and the mining effort - it takes a barrels worth of energy to extract a barrel of oil.

••••

BTW the oil shales in the US - even hard to extra have huge reserves as well.

•••

THIS is the crash program I'm like to see the continent take on.

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00003872-159C-1498-959C83414B7F0000

No new technology - only very expensive application of proven technology.
Solves the problem.
..circa 1 Trillion dollars......or about 1.2 Iraq wars.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

<2 GJ's of gas for 6-7 of oil, minus refining, transmission and facilities. My guess is about a 3:1. Relative to 30:1, that can be called close, but it's not close in the sense of being barely economic energy-wise. Doubling or tripling something is pretty good. But maybe my numbers are off and it's well below 2:1.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Hydrogen is going to come down to transmission and storage versus batteries...oh yeah, and government mega-subsidies. Beyond fossil fuel reformation (with sequestration), renewable clean hydrogen comes from electricity, is transported and stored, and then coverted back to electricity with not-so-great efficiency unless excess heat is captured and used. That's where good batteries can beat it. No middle-man. Cue Estor. 

I increasingly see a one-grid future but, for the next 50 years, the most efficient way to go about things is largely conventional while researching the exceptional. Buying early, as us tech-geeks know, is not always that good a thing to do.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2006/11/20/pulp.html

Old habits die hard.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> GA: You've mentioned that "close to 1:1" thing for oil sands before. What is that based upon?


Calculating energy return on energy invested (EROEI) is certainly no exact science, but what I've seen around the net generally puts Alberta's oil sands in the range of 1:1.5.

Better technologies may improve that somewhat, but if we are really considering the huge reserves of oil sands as our mainstream supply of oil, then the environmental devastation to Alberta is going to be massive. If we are planning on going down this road and don't want to externalize the cost of environmental cleanup (if that is even possible at the scale being contemplated, which I'm skeptical of) then you would have to add in the huge energy costs of doing something about the leftover effluent. That would have to have a large impact on the EROEI.

If Alberta has a trillion barrels of oil, lumping that into the world's reserves as if it was light sweet crude, as the energy optimists do is disingenuous and misleading. If it takes close to a trillion barrels of equivalent energy to bring that oil to the world then the net energy doesn't really improve the situation much. Even that we are now seriously considering depending on low return tar sands shows limited options in our ability to meet the world's future energy demands. Tar sands would be better put to use for producing essential plastics in a post fossil fuel world, not as a crutch to keep us clogging up freeways.



> From Richard Heinberg, excerpt from "The Party's Over"
> 
> Oil sands are likewise reputed to be potential substitutes for conventional oil. The Athabasca oil sands in northern Alberta contain an estimated 870 billion to 1.3 trillion barrels of oil -- an amount equal to or greater than all of the conventional oil extracted to date. Currently, Syncrude (a consortium of companies) and Suncor (a division of Sun Oil Company) operate oil sands plants in Alberta. Syncrude now produces over 200,000 barrels of oil a day. The extraction process involves using hot-water flotation to remove a thin coating of oil from grains of sand, then adding naphtha to the resulting tar-like material to thin it so that it can be pumped. Currently, two tons of sand must be mined in order to yield one barrel of oil. As with oil shale, the net-energy figures for oil sands are discouraging. Geologist Walter Youngquist notes "it takes the equivalent of two out of each three barrels of oil recovered to pay for all the energy and other costs involved in getting the oil from the oil sands.
> 
> ...





Beej said:


> On "peak oil" CERA has done some work: http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444


Some call it work, some call it a hatchet job.  I think that the technical rebuttals from the "peak oil" crowd are quite reasonable. The CERA work reminds me of some of the "institutes" that have been set up to debunk climate change, a lot of PR with little evidence. Here and here are some rebuttals to CERA from Energy Bulletin a fairly open and balanced site on energy issues.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

What is the 1.5 based upon? 

And no, a lot of the peak oil crown is unreasonable. But that's just opinion to some. You will choose what you want to. 

Also, your rebuttal links don't really say much. Actually go through the logic (not rhetorical devices) and methodology (not spite) of the various approaches. And remember, oil production peaked in 2000. 

I don't expect to convince you that many of the peakers are way off base, but just tossing the CERA work as equivalent to debunking climate change is more an act of acting like the deniers. Choosing the belief then selecting the evidence. Deal with the information. Do you choose the stories or evaluate the information?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One can hope.












> Ministers to sign fusion accord
> 
> ITER - NUCLEAR FUSION PROJECT
> 
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6165932.stm

The thing I like about the hydrgen grid is it solves both storage and transport fuel AND transmission losses.

Ideal world - 
Hydrogen grid gets built and ALL power sources store electricity as hydrogen or feed the grid on demand.
Fusion comes on-line for the heavy lifting once the fissionable weapon materials and low efficiency waste are reduced to 5% of the current physical volume by fast breeders on the same sites as slow reactors.

One could wish but then I'm sure the whale oil age would be astounded at the current electrictiy grid.

Anyone that has not spent the time to read that entire SciAm article and is interested in meeting future energy needs cleanly - it's very worthwhile reading.

The same effort that buit the railroads and highway infrastructure and the current continental energy grid needs another page added...now.

France with it's nuclear infrastructure and electric trains sure is further along than North America.

and isn't this a nasty twist...for Ontario as well as the planet.



> Oilsands threatening water reserves: study
> Updated Mon. Nov. 13 2006 11:50 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061113/wwf_study_061113/20061113?hub=SciTech

Put a lid ....err ....a CAP on it....now.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> What is the 1.5 based upon?


According to Heinberg's book it's from the published work of Walter Youngquist, professor of Geology at the University of Oregon. I don't have a link, although I've seen the reference around the net. Do you have substantiation of 1:3 or whatever you think it is? (Other than from Syncrude advertising ...  )


Beej said:


> I don't expect to convince you that many of the peakers are way off base, but just tossing the CERA work as equivalent to debunking climate change is more an act of acting like the deniers. Choosing the belief then selecting the evidence. Deal with the information. Do you choose the stories or evaluate the information?


Well that's the point of the links I posted. They point out how the methodology of peak oil theorists is all over the internet on a huge array of sites. And they don't all agree on dates or methodology. It's a complex subject.

The CERA study is available for $1000. The opponents to it who happen to be private citizens can't critique it unless they have a spare grand kicking around. So for now all they can do is critique what little has been released in press releases by CERA. Yet CERA accuses those that disagree with them of not making their info available.

I imagine it's only a matter of time before one of the peak oil geologists get their hands on a report and analyzes it, but unless CERA is party to some info that's never been made available before I don't see how it changes the debate much.

Please tell me what's unreasonable about Energy Bulletin? The tone of the site seems to be one of questioning, open debate and considering a variety of viewpoints.

I'm sure all your opinions are grounded in peer reviewed research that you can bring up at a moments notice - right? Or maybe you choose who to attribute substance to things because somehow in your experience an idea seems credible. Did you purchase the CERA report or do you just think their company looks solid and official, and therefore credible? beejacon

My experience with "official" sources leads me to believe they are as capable of lies and misinformation as much as non-official sources, although the packaging may be slicker.

Not being an expert myself, speaking personally, it comes down to my own internal BS detector. I'm not interested in misleading myself or anyone else, but no doubt I am biased, as is everyone on this board. But I won't support an idea that sounds _to me_ like BS, even if it happens to agree with other ideas I have. I know you always like to paint yourself as the voice of reason here in "Everything Else" so you may not want to admit that you do the same thing too.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://sustainability.syncrude.ca/sustainability2005/environment_health_safety/air_quality.shtml

Syncrude at about 1.5 mmbtu per barrel; purchased around 0.8 mmbtu. I don't know the definition of purchased, meaning that the 1.5 could include using by-products (Suncor used to use an oil sands diesel product in its trucks...maybe still does). Either way, Syncrude is, as a mining project, at the low end compared to thermal in situ. However, considering something like the OPTI-Nexen project will operate largely with internally processed energy (not GHG friendly), there is extra energy.

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications...t02-03/annualReport-31.cfm?text=N&printview=N

8.84 GJ per m3 which is, again, <2 GJ per barrel. Add transportation, refining etc. 

So, I can see 1.5 in a specific situation and, possibly assumptions about the refinery, but it seems off as a general rule.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> Project estimated to cost 10bn euros and will run for 35 years
> It will produce the first sustained fusion reactions


It will?

Could be our get out of jail free card, but I've always assumed this is just a research project with no assurance that anything may come of it. If limitless, no-risk, cheap, clean energy is the pay-off, of course that would be huge and our whole debate in this thread becomes moot.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Yes my analysis is based on much reading on the topic, and no I don't keep a little box nearby to provide you with links. Sorry. In your defence, if the peakers keep pushing their target back every few years, eventually they will be right. 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050...who knows? All that matters is that eventually someone gets to brag. :lmao: 

The links posted didn't really address CERA's points. A lot of their space was actually spent on just questioning CERA itself. If you want to bring up an evaluation, build up a remaining recoverable resources profile that you consider reasonable and we can go from there. 

Or, if you don't want to start there, start with questioning an argument that is too common:
.......................
The “peak oil” argument is frequently supported with data indicating that new exploration finds are not sufficient to replace annual production. Their data sets have serious deficiencies. The peak argument is an incomplete and therefore misleading analysis because it ignores the role of development (vs exploration) projects in expanding reserves, fails to understand economic factors that can point company and national strategies to emphasize development vs exploration work. By focusing on “discovery” and ignoring the increased knowledge and confidence about field volumes, it disregards the fact that revisions, additions and exploration together have generated resource growth of 320 billion barrels – 80 billion barrels more, or one-third more, than total production – during the period from 1995 to 2003. CERA draws both on its own data bases and those of its parent company IHS, which has the world’s most complete proprietary data bases on oil production and resources.
.......................


So aside from trying to worry over a consulting firm not handing out its details for free eek: ), is there a problem with this? Note, I'd prefer to start with fundamentals and build up a remaining recoverable resources pic. It's more fun.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Could also use this as a common starting point from which to move up or down:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html

But that wouldn't involve just tossing up a link and nodding that you don't want to use USGS numbers. Remember, question ALL sources and look at the methodologies and rationale, not just using a personal BS detector that lets too much through on a day pass.

[Edit: "But I won't support an idea that sounds to me like BS" Get all the information and analysis you consider appropriate (set aside ample time for actual fun in life  ) and then, after analysis, if inconclusive, go with your detector. Otherwise, just call it a belief from the start.]


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Also, to provide my share of "opinionator" links:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36645.html

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/01/226-supposedly-discredited-usgs.html

Not that they mean much anyway. Also, proved reserves (1.2 trillion barrels, according to BP), an extremely narrow definition of available oil that attributes under 17 billion barrels to Canada, keeps going up. I thought it would wiggle up and down a lot. Go figure. That alone means very little though. To get a small feel for resources versus reserves, U.S. proved reserves were, according to BP, 29.6 billion in 1994 and 29.3 billion in 2004. They produced an average of over 2.5 billion per year over that timeframe.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The reason I like the hydrogen grid infrastructure is it addresses the problems of storage, fuel for transport, transmission efficiency and ANY and all power sources including alternatives can be fed into it.

Either the sources power the grid or produce hydrogen.

Long term - 100 years out it's going to be needed no matter what power sources we employ - whether it's electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell or a combination the hydrogen jacketed super conducting grid makes any mix work at extremely high efficiency as loads can be idealized for any technology.

It may mean a 50% smaller power source aggregate because peak load is immaterial.
The amount of power stored in a single kilometer of grid is astounding.

The North American power grid is already in need of renewal. The rights of way are there - some of the power sources are in place.

I think JPL has a test system on the design bench for use within their grounds.

The positive aspects of this approach are incredible.

Just as the current electricity and gasoline distribution systems have served quite well for a century and are in need of renewal this will be a long term - change the planet - just as gas and electricity did a 100 years ago.

It requires no technological break throughs. It can use and distribute power AND fuel extremely efficiently and can use any power input from a roof top array to a tidal system to a nuclear plant and get the power where it's needed and WHEN it's needed as part of the design is the power storage.

Fuel in the form of hydrgen for vehicles.
Fuel in the form of hydrogen to peak loads.
Storage and distribution of both fuel and electricity in almost lossless grid.

1 Trillion dollars to build it.

I would suspect a $1 a gallon tax on fossil fuels dedicated to this would provide the funding to build it out.
Beej got a number for North America for gasoline, oil and the equivalent BTU for coal and gas??

Is this right??

US. gasoline consumption of 320,500,000 gallons per day  in 2005!!!!

another source
In a year, therefore, the U.S. consumes about 146 billion gallons a year.

That's just gasoline.

$1 a gallon pays for the hydrogen grid in just 3 years ........

Political will anyone??

Europe already pays more than that.

••

Just a teaser hydrogen production can be an easy byproduct of oil sands and natural gas extraction.
How about we start with a hydrogen grid corridor AT the oil sands straight south to California - the furthest ahead in hydrogen.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Your premise that we should be complacent about a potential energy crunch because we have lots of fossil left sort of falls down if you are thinking that coal will easily solve the problem.


I'm not suggesting complacence. I'm saying that energy alternative arguments based on the premise that fossil fuels are on the verge of running out are better off justifying themselves on a more sound basis.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Even without GHG issues or reserves there is a huge energy crunch coming just from sheer scale of demand.

Delivering that energy is as big an issue as supplying it in the first place.

GHG issue places a severe "time to change" restriction on planning/execution windows.

Population peak/demand peak is in my mind a greater issue than oil peak.

GHG makes the solution extremely difficult within the time frames needed to stay below 500 ppm co2.

It does however offer a political window to fund the needed changes IF there is some leadership on a grand scale.

$1 a gallon.....would you pay it??? I would.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The reason I like the hydrogen grid infrastructure is it addresses the problems of storage, fuel for transport, transmission efficiency and ANY and all power sources including alternatives can be fed into it.
> 
> Either the sources power the grid or produce hydrogen.
> 
> ...


First, while promising, there are gaping uncertainties. So I hope they keep up the research and get a couple pilot projects in different areas going. $1 trillion buys what and is based upon? How efficient is the whole system? Etc. All stuff that, as we've both seen many times, can get very quickly over-hyped. What did Ontario's CANDUS cost?  

Still, considering somewhere somebody is probably being paid to research prostitute economics (why not me :-( ), this project sounds worthy.

A barrel of oil is about 6 mmbtu. That should roughly work for a barrel of gasoline. Coal? No idea. A megawatt hour is almost 4 GJs, which are only slightly smaller than an mmbtu, so you can just use total electricity numbers.

Also, hydrogen is not an easy by-product, unless you just mean technically feasible. It ain't cheap.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Could also use this as a common starting point from which to move up or down:
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html
> 
> But that wouldn't involve just tossing up a link and nodding that you don't want to use USGS numbers. Remember, question ALL sources and look at the methodologies and rationale, not just using a personal BS detector that lets too much through on a day pass.
> ...


Beej, have you honestly questioned all sources as well as the methodology and rationale of the EIA and the USGS or is there something less rationale in your distaste for the peak oil theorists? Do you really believe that the geologists of ASPO are just extreme nutbar loonies and that the US government agencies are always only honest brokers and paragons of rationality. Honestly.

I suspect you're trying to corner me into defending the peak oil theorists as a group and if not then simply accept the US government agency's predictions. I won't do either. The subject is highly technical and I have seen too many arguments between pro and anti peak oil adherents as well between peak oil adherents. But I do believe my reading on the subject is enough to say that anyone who says "don't worry, be happy" about the future of fossil fuels is wrong. 

It's not so much an argument about if oil will peak, but when. This I don't know, nor do I have the expertise to evaluate much of the data on my own. Even the guys on your debunked site are arguing about when, not if. So they're not really debunking peak oil, just peaking oil right now, or in a year or two. 

I hope it's later rather than sooner for the sake of us all, but I also hope that people realize our industrial society cannot turn on a dime and action is required soon, even if we believe the optimists who say the peak won't be until 2030 - 2050. My rapidly advancing years have informed me that 24 - 44 years is not a whole heck of a lot of time and a decade is really nothing. 

Just as in the climate change area, I think it is prudent that we seriously consider that there may be something to the worst or medium-worst case scenario. I would hate to find out in 2020 that we did zip because CERA or the US government told us not to worry, only to find out they were wrong or deliberately misleading us. But beyond that, I'll leave it to actual experts to slug it out.

Maybe we have some basis for agreement here - or not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

None of this is cheap but even if you discount the Stern numbers 50% it's REAL cheap in a 1/2 century time frame.

Did you read the entire article? This is well structured and thought through plan.
There are no technology gaps.

The electricity grid we have now is inadequate for growth. Some parts are a century old and the losses in transmission are horrid.

No question a hydrogen grid requires a core seed area - that's why I think California is ideal ( the oil sands line would be well out ) but I do hope JPL gets funding for the test.
But the whole effort requires a Manhattan project level of investment and political will...not a patchwork.

What would the cost be of building the national highways or the electricity grid these days. Enormous yet we will need 50% more capacity - likely more given upward mobility for a large portion of the planet in the next 30 years.

The high speed train systems in Japan and Europe were huge engineering undertakings and transform the nations and provide for the future.

What has North America done in comparison....?...../diddly squat for 50 years.

••••

GA - there really is a lot of fossil fuel - I don't think we're even close to a fossil peak - perhaps an easy access oil peak yes but deep water is still uncertain.
Why should it matter given the GHG issue.

The planetary choice is how clean the next round will be.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Why should it matter given the GHG issue.


It don't. Climate change is more important, peak or later-peak or no-peak. Facing up to a worldwide energy crunch is just another reason for us to build alternatives and re-evaluate how we are doing things. But there is massive inertia to doing that.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Beej, have you honestly questioned all sources as well as the methodology and rationale of the EIA and the USGS
> ......................
> Do you really believe that the geologists of ASPO are just extreme nutbar loonies and that the US government agencies are always only honest brokers and paragons of rationality. Honestly.
> ......................
> ...


All, as in all in existence? No. Yes, if it's the USGS report I'm thinking of. I actually read large portions of it. You? I've also read previous peaker (simply a quick way to refer to what are really 'imminent' peakers) calculations and seen deep flaws. The CERA comment I re-posted gets at one of them.
....................
I've read a lot of both (obviously not everything) and saw which was superior analysis. Honestly. Can you say the same? What makes you lean towards one instead of the other? General distrust of government? A sympathy for the little guy? Honestly now.
....................
Nope. Pick one, pick none, whatever.
....................
What do you mean by don't worry be happy? If someone says 2030 or 2050 as a likely peak? I understand what you're getting at (warranted caution) but that's not the same thing.
....................
You refer to them as optimists? So your basis for "centre" and then pessimist and optimist is? How did you arrive at that basis (ie. give precedence to...)?

Personally, 2040 seems too much without counting coal-to-liquids and bio-fuels but we may actually see demand peak before supply. It depends on the global climate change response.
....................
The "peak" has been around since the 1970s or earlier. Caution is good, but it can be overdone and distract from what is at hand. Even a prominent current peaker has recently revised his numbers, and I recall that 2000 was the peak according to someone, but memory is vague. 

Again to use the CERA example, what was your BS detector based upon and why didn't the links you provided in response set it off to an equal or greater degree? You seem to be playing the "I'm no expert card" and then with not insignificant confidence, picking experts. 
......................
There is plenty. The devil, as they say.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

And back to oil sands. So is it about 1.5, or do you question that now? 

I'm interested in any sources you can provide.

[Edit: Also, did my anecdotal U.S. data example and Canadian caveat at least make you question any estimate that starts with something anywhere near just 1 trillion barrels left or relies on the 'discovered' argument?]


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Did you read the entire article? This is well structured and thought through plan.
> There are no technology gaps.


I can't speak for technology gaps. I mean as being analysed as more efficient ($$$ and energy) and real costs. Gaping uncertainties. Worth furthering, but there have been many great ideas (fuel cells...still) that didn't meet their "known" cost targets. Implementation is a b***h. Research, develop, demonstrate, re-develop etc. Batteries too. It'd be great if this thing works out to be efficient, but good cheap electricity storage, if it's even possible, can be much cheaper and less energy intensive (no cooling, electrolysis or fuel cell waste energy). They could also work together if the idea is efficient in that you'd just keep the h2 in the grid (maybe have some fuel cell emergency backups placed where local (and simpler) grid takes over.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Just a trillion dollars and we've got us a working hydrogen grid? Don't let this big secret out, or private companies will want to build it themselves. I wonder how they're beating them off now?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's not a lot of money to resolve this problem but you don't get it - never will - so keep the penny ante comments coming......illuminates the quality of mind behind them.

Here's your fellow traveller
••••










You think this is going to be cheap



> This article appears in the October 27, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
> NERC Forecast: 22 Necessary Actions
> Required To Save U.S. Electric Grid
> 
> ...


http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3343power_shortages.html



> Yeager estimates a $100 billion price tag for a retrofit. But he says improved reliability would more than compensate: "Thursday was an extreme situation, but there are smaller events that happen all the time that have economic implications." Those episodes already cost the economy close to $100 billion a year, he says.
> 
> Warnings of problems
> 
> ...


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-17-power-cover_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-17-power-cover_x.htm

So - bandaid?????......... or solve/reduce multiple problems doing it properly?

There is no reason it can't e built out in the most effective areas first. Hydrogen grid and electrical grid are complementary.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:.......reality dawns



> *The ghostly flickers of a new dawn*
> 
> Nov 23rd 2006 | SYDNEY
> From The Economist print edition
> ...


http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8330382


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

For the flat earthers......
Let's see the energy companies are onside.
They anticipate a US gov rule change....

Where are the Cons........oh let's just wait 50 years ....it'll all blow over by then......indeed it may....literally.



> *Energy Firms Come to Terms With Climate Change*
> 
> By Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> ...


no concensus eh......??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401361.html

Harper fiddles....

The rest of the planet gets out the fire extinguishers..


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yawnnnn. They'll just do what makes good sense from a marketing perspective. It was ever thus.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yawnnnn. They'll just do what makes good sense from a marketing perspective. It was ever thus.


I guess you are talking about the Cons and their little reality bubble...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No. I was talking about oil companies...this purposeful misreading of messages is becoming tiresome AS. You're only entertaining yourself.


----------

