Subsidies to Fossil Fuel

You know I have often heard discussion at the local Timmie's regardin goil and cola corporations.  Folks are sympathetic when they consider  how sickly  - how impoverished - oil companies are in Canada.  Ditto those poor, poor coal mining corporation s- hardly make enough to feed and clothe their CEOs.   Why, fossil fule corporations barely made a hundred billions last year worldwide.

No?  You haven't heard that either?  Why in hell is the federal government subisdizing them?
http://www.rabble.ca/news/2011/02/its-time-end-canada%E2%80%99s-billion-dollar-handout-big-oil-and-coal

Meanwhile, the federal government subsidizes oil companies to the tune of $1.4 billion every year, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). It's more if you factor in other fossil fuels such as coal.

If the government ended those subisidies, and directed them to the clean energy industry, wouldn't we all be better off in the long run? 

And why doesn't the mainstream media mention those subsidies more often?

The Climate Action Network is working to get the federal government to end those irresponsible tax breaks.
Please go to
http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/fossil-tax-breaks/index.php
and add your voice to those protesting this.

Ahem !

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/13/deepwater-dividend-post-oil-economy

But the deeper lessons of the oil spill concern the future of our energy supplies, of regulation, and the shape of our society and economy....Out of crisis comes damage, but also opportunity. This is the opportunity to make a decisive turn in the road towards a post-oil economy: for the US, and for the world. But it needs politicians on both sides of the Atlantic to say it with gusto, rather than spend their time attacking BP. We cannot stop our reliance on oil and gas tomorrow. They are an essential bridge to our energy future. But the question is whether they are a bridge or a stopping point....The renewables industry struggles for finance – while investments in tar sands and other projects get the green light. It is the worst of short-termism: for the planet and for all our economic futures.

But there is no point in railing against the short-termism of markets: it is what they do unless the rules are right.  The job of government is to change this short-termism. The obvious opportunity comes as we consider the future of our banking system.As the oil gushes into the Gulf, this is the time to stand proud and declare that we want a hi-tech clean-tech future faster than ever before. The countries that make the leap first will be the successful economies of this century, exporting technology around the world to cities seeking cleaner air and lower emissions.

What did I just tell you?

Positives from an Oil Spill

The extraction of oil pollutes and destroys livelihoods, lives, and ecosystems. Not much room for argument there: look at the results of BP’s gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, Royal Dutch Shell’s presence in Nigeria, and Chevron’s inherited mess in Ecuador. Then, once the oil is out of the ground our use of it pollutes even more. Burning fossil fuels increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - warming the planet. W also create deadly smog in our urban areas by zipping around in our cars instead of taking public transit. Moreover, we destroy vast areas of pristine boreal forest by mining tar sands. (“Reclaimed” land is never as biologically diverse as untouched land.) Moreover, those toxic tailings ponds produced by tar sands mining are really nasty - and 7 out of 9 tar sands extractors do not plan to comply with Regulation 074 on capturing and reducing toxic tailings between 2011 and 2013. The decision is in: our use of oil is disastrous.

But, in a bizarre way, BP’s gusher may turn out to be a positive.

Have I gone mad? No – not exactly – I just spotted a glimmer of hope. The Friday, June 11, 2010 Report on Business section of the Globe and Mail contained several promising items. The lead headline reads “Spill Puts New Oil Frontiers at Risk.” (page B1 ) In other words, politicians and regulators and the public are now aware that another spill is inevitable if we continue drilling as we have. A smaller headline reads “Cheap, abundant, politically secure oil in no longer available.” That article continues on page B5. “According to a new Deutsche Bank report, this is the end of the oil age as we knew it….and our behaviour must change to recognize that. “ So this spill, horrible an environmental disaster that it is, is also an opportunity for environmental activists.

We should use increased awareness on the part of the public and politicians to prevent the lifting of the moratorium on drilling for oil off the coast of British Columbia. Write Mr. Campbell and tell him offshore drilling is too risky. We should also work to shutdown the Enbridge Gateway North Pipeline to coastal BC as, once it is in place, oil tankers will sail BC’s pristine coast – and eventually spill oil. (The Dogwood Initiative Project is already fighting this – check out their website at http://dogwoodinitiative.org/ if you want to work on this project.) Thirdly, we should push both provincial and federal governments to invest in light rapid transit and clean energy.  Encourage everyone you know to write to the Right Honorable Stephen Harper, to their federal MP, and to the provincial representatives.

We Are Insane

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/drilling-clash-puts-arctic-oil-at-risk/article1567542/

Canadian oil companies say they will not be able to drill in Arctic deep waters unless the National Energy Board drops a provision that requires them to be able to quickly complete a relief well in the event of a blowout.

The board had agreed to review its rule for requiring companies to be able to deal with a blowout by drilling a relief well in the same season. After BP's Gulf of Mexico blowout, the regulator suspended planned hearings on the issue, and said this week that it will examine its entire regulatory approach, including the same-season relief well policy.

In its March submission, BP said the same-season relief well policy “ought to be rescinded, and replaced by a series of goal-oriented regulations” that would include preventive measures and mitigation efforts that would include longer schedule for drilling a relief well.

In fact, Imperial Oil Ltd. had asked the NEB for an exemption from that relief-well regulation as it prepares for a drilling program in Ajurak property, which lies 120 kilometres off shore in 650 metres of water.

A strict application of the rule “would essentially preclude the drilling of deepwater wells, such as the Ajurak exploration well, which require multiseason operations,” Imperial said in a submission to the board earlier this year.”

Hmmm - the NEB is worried about the propect of oil belching into the Arctic ocean.  Frivolously and needlessly?  After all, it has been easy to stop the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico and to prevent damage to delicate ecoystems, there. Am I  right? 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-environment-gulf-oil-spill-cap-leak/

If efforts fail to cap the leaking Deepwater Horizon wellhead in the Gulf of Mexico, oil could gush for years—poisoning coastal habitats for decades, experts say. "We don't have any idea how to stop this," Simmons said of the Gulf leak. Some of the proposed strategies—such as temporarily plugging the leaking pipe with a jet of golf balls and other material—are a "joke," he added.

And the next hurricane season is about to begin.  http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATWOAT+shtml/302338.shtml

I have always assumed that oil company executives are doing the best that they can in the corporate environment  - that they do not really wish to despoil ecosystems or warm the entire earth.  After all, they are under enormous pressure to produce short term profits for their shareholders. Therefore, they cannot take measures to protect the environment if the compettition is not doing the same - which means no company will do so unless forced by regulations.

If we don't pressure our  governments to prevent such environmental disasters, we're collectively insane. 
Write the Prime Minister and ask him to have place a moratorium on deep water drilling in the Arctic.  Ask him to fund alternative energies in the same letter.  

Do The Right Thing, Mr Harper

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/05/harper-barroso-europe-climate-change-bank-tax.html

Canada shouldn't keep waiting for the rest of the world to act on climate change before making its own changes, the president of the European Union Commission said Wednesday in advance of a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Brussels..... He said that if every country adopts Canada's position that it won't start taking drastic action to combat climate change until most other countries in the world agree to do the same, "no one will move in the end."

Do the right thing Mr Harper - pay attention to climate scientists ans pass meaningful legislation limiting greenhouse gas emissions.  Invest in clean energy and green technology.

Peak Oil

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply

The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.  The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel. 
"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

http://www.jeffrubinssmallerworld.com/2010/03/31/new-price-peak-by-next-year/

Does anyone still believe the reassuring forecasts from discredited feel-good organizations like the International Energy Agency about new sources of cheap supply, like those that once flowed from places like Prudhoe Bay in Alaska or the North Sea? If so, where is that supply of new affordable oil coming from? Surely not from tar sands or from ultra-deep water fields six miles below the ocean’s floor.  By the fourth quarter of this year, oil prices will be back in triple-digit range, and by next year oil prices will rise to record highs, taking out the high-water mark of $147 per barrel that was set back before the recession began in 2008.

Shouldn't we be using the cheap energy aka oil remaining to build a more sustainable way of life?  Obviously, cheap oil isn't going to last forever:  why not use what we've got left to create light rapid transit, local food supplies, alternate sources of electricity, and a happier way of life?
 
Moreover, we'd be working to solve the problem of climate change instead of playing of  "Last One Standing."    Why live in denial until disaster strikes?

Jim Prentice Wants Your Input - actually, He is Legally Required to Ask for It.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/dd-sd/default.asp?lang=En&n=E19EE696-1

To maintain our standard of living in the 21st century, Canada must address the challenge of environmental sustainability. The issues are well known; we need to address climate change and air quality, maintain water availability and quality, and protect our natural heritage. Environmental issues must be balanced with economic considerations. By doing so, we can make long-term sustainable progress on the environment that is integrated with progress on the economic and social agenda for Canadians.  I am pleased to present to Canadians this consultation paper, Planning for a Sustainable Future: A Federal Sustainable Development Strategy for Canada, that will both strengthen how government promotes environmental sustainability, and improve the transparency and accountability of how we do it....Your comments on the draft Federal Sustainable Development Strategy can be provided by email to sdo-bdd@ec.gc.ca or mailed to the Sustainable Development Office at Environment Canada at the following address by July 12, 2010.

Please reply to Mr Prentice by June 25, 2010 as the comment period closes two weeks after the final strategy is required to be completed. (The pertinent law requires 120 days of consultation with the public - and prorogation forced the consultation period to end after the deadline for completion of the enviornmental sustainability strategy.) Please instruct the Honorable Mr Prentice to take climate change seriously and invest in clean energy and green jobs.  Additional new funds should be made available to the  Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. 

NASA and Climate Change

Pondering Syncrude's potential legal liability  for despoilation of the commons brought greenhouse gas emissions and climate change to mind.  I wondered what, if anything, NASA had to say about the nasty winter the east is suffering through.  Is is proof that climate change is not happening?  No such luck.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=270

Hansen explains that the 5-year and 11-year temperature averages, i.e. the planet's annual average temperature, averaged over 5 or 11 years, are valuable because they place less emphasis on single-year variability. These running averages show a consistent rise in the Earth's temperature over the past 30 years.  Allowing for this variability, global warming theory does not posit a linear, year-to-year increase in temperatures. Nor does it say that harsh winter weather will simply end. What it does say is that increasing concentrations of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, with unchecked growth, will contribute a greater and greater warming influence on the world's climate.

Climate change is happening as I write.  Please send a letter to the Right Honorable Stephen Harper asking him to implement science based reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions.  Ask him to invest in clean energy and green technology a la Germany if  he wishes to stimulate the economy and get people back to work.
UPDATE:  NASA found water on the moon!

Using data from a NASA radar that flew aboard India's Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft, scientists have detected ice deposits near the moon's north pole. NASA's Mini-SAR instrument, a lightweight, synthetic aperture radar, found more than 40 small craters with water ice. The craters range in size from 1 to 9 miles (2 to15 km) in diameter. Although the total amount of ice depends on its thickness in each crater, it's estimated there could be at least 1.3 trillion pounds (600 million metric tons) of water ice.  "The emerging picture from the multiple measurements and resulting data of the instruments on lunar missions indicates that water creation, migration, deposition and retention are occurring on the moon."

I wonder if climate change deniers will also deny that water exists on our moon....

The Olympics Are Over

Vancouver is waking up to a hangover this morning: the Olympics are over. They ended well  for Canada - we won two gold models in hockey.  Will they end well for the Right Honorable Stephen Harper?  Have Canadians forgotten about the torture of Afghan detainees?  Has the best ever Olympics afterglow gone to our heads - have we fogotten our anger at the  proroguing of Parliament and the dirty tricks to shut down the committee investigating the torture of Afghan detainees?

 Has Mr Harper crafted and perfected a vision to inspire the nation as he "recalibrated" during the extended winter  break?  Will the throne speech and the new budget presented by his Finance Minister demonstrate leadership?  Will the Conservatives fund clean energy and sign on to meaningful cuts to Canada's greenhouse gas emissions?  Will we actually do something about climate change  ?  Will Canada begin a velvet climate revolution instead of playing follow the leader with the Americans?

It should be an interesting week.....

Ummmm - We're Actually Increasing Emissions?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-outlines-greenhouse-gas-targets/article1450606/

The federal government formally notified the United Nations that Canada will cut its carbon emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels over the next 10 years as part of the Copenhagen accord on climate change, Environment Minister Jim Prentice said Saturday. ...While the government's previous emission targets, announced in 2006, would have resulted in a 3-per-cent reduction in emissions over 1990 levels, these latest targets will actually increase emissions by 2.5 per cent, said Dave Martin, a climate and energy co-ordinator with Greenpeace.

I presume that Mr Martin means that GHG emissions will now increase by 2.5 per cent over 1990 levels.
Meanwhile, as I've posted elsewhere, Portland, Oregon will reduce its emissions to 10 per cent below 1990 levels in 2010. AND - this is a big point - reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating clean energy sources creates more jobs than investing in fossil fuel industries.  Numerous win- win opportunities exist that Canada is neglecting.  Moreover, the risks posed by inaction are far higher than taking action now as pointed out by Lord Stern.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not take action without being pressured due to the short term time line imposed by politics. Let's pressure him: please send him a letter on the benefits of creating a green economy.

Bright Idea of the Year - Not!

Did I mention earlier that American Senators and Congresspersons are not  whipped into line by their party as Canadian Members of Parliarment are?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/21/lisa-murkowski-epa-greenhouse-gases

In a speech to Congress, a Republican senator from Alaska announced she would use an obscure and rarely used measure to try to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as a dangerous pollutant....In an ominous sign for supporters of a climate law, she had the support of three Democratic Senators, further underscoring the unease in Obama's own party in enacting legislation to tackle global warming. In her speech, Murkowski argued that giving the EPA the authority to act on global warming would cost jobs and hurt the economy: "Under the guise of protecting the environment, it's set to unleash a wave of damaging new regulations that will wash over and further submerge our struggling economy."

With all due respect to the Senator, she is wrong . Dead wrong. Nicholas Stern found that doing nothing about climate change will cost the economies of the world twenty (20!!!) per cent of their GDP.   Taking action will cost two (2) per cent of GDP.  A research study carried out at the University of Masschusetts predicted that a federal government investment of 100 billion dollars would create 2 million jobs over two years.  Moreover, this money would "Create nearly four times more jobs than spending the same amount of money within the oil industry and 300,000 more jobs than a similar amount of spending directed toward household consumption and Create roughly triple the number of good jobs—paying at least $16 dollars an hour—as spending the same amount of money within the oil industry."
http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/releases/2008/09/peri_report.html

So Senator Murkowski is attempting to  hit our economies very, very hard.  Sounds like a good plan.....

Giant Windfarms / Giant Monies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/08/uk-offshore-windfarms-100bn

The UK government announced a £75bn programme today to build thousands of offshore wind turbines that will kickstart the next phase of renewable power generation in Britain.  The developments could create tens of thousands of new jobs, which will be crucial if the UK is to meet its targets for clean energy and carbon emission cuts.  Gordon Brown said: "This new round of licences provides a substantial new platform for investing in UK industrial capacity. The offshore wind industry is at the heart of the UK economy's shift to low carbon and could be worth £75bn and support up to 70,000 jobs by 2020."

I presume these windfarms will be part of Europe's renewable energy supergrid that I posted about earlier. And how much is Canada investing in windfarms?   Our capacity right now is 3,3319 MW.  The UK has  2,764 turbines that generate 4,070 MW right now, and, according to the Guardian above, has plans to build thousands more.  The federal government had a program (announced January 2007)  to support the deployment of 4,000 MW of renewable energy by 2011. The program was not expanded or extended in the 2009 federal budget. (http://www.canwea.ca/farms/wind-farms_e.php )
The Prime Ministers of our respective countries have a vastly different outlook and ideology...

Good News For A Change

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/03/european-unites-renewable-energy-supergrid

Europe's first electricity grid dedicated to renewable power will become a political reality this month, as nine countries formally draw up plans to link their clean energy projects around the North Sea.  It would connect turbines off the wind-lashed north coast of Scotland with Germany's vast arrays of solar panels, and join the power of waves crashing on to the Belgian and Danish coasts with the hydro-electric dams nestled in Norway's fjords.

The network, made up of thousands of kilometres of highly efficient undersea cables that could cost up to €30bn (£26.5bn), would solve one of the biggest criticisms faced by renewable power – that unpredictable weather means it is unreliable.  With a renewables supergrid, electricity can be supplied across the continent from wherever the wind is blowing, the sun is shining or the waves are crashing.

Good news for a change:  governments with the acumen and political will to prepare for a low carbon future.  I am going to email the Canadian Prime Minister (again) and bring this Northern European example to his attention.  I wil also email the Premier of this povince as a renewable energy super grid may be something the members of the Western Climate Initiativewill be interested in.

Federal Provincial Spat Continues

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/12/23/quebec-canada-charest-harper-copenhagen-climate-talks.html

In 25 years in politics, Charest says, he's never seen a federal government rely so heavily on the White House before taking a position on an issue, with Ottawa now saying it will model its climate policy on Washington's.  Charest says the Harper government has displayed hostility toward environmentalists.  Charest cited an on-camera argument between Harper press secretary Dimitri Soudas and Canadian environmentalist Steven Guilbeault.

That spat featured Soudas accusing Guilbeault, with cameras rolling next to them, of being behind a spoof designed to embarrass the Canadian government. That accusation enraged Guilbeault, and American pranksters later claimed responsibility for the stunt.

"You saw it like I did," Charest told TVA. "His press secretary attacking an environmentalist — on the basis of false information."

Quebec, British Columbia  and Ontario are far ahead of the federal government on this issue.  Environmental issues are a shared responsibility of the provinces and the federal government. The provinces named above, along with Manitoba, are members of the Western Climate Initiative, a collaboration if states and provinces working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and grow a clean energy economy. 
http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/   Perhaps environmental activists should concentrate their consciousness raising and lobbying  in the above provinces: their efforts would ensure that ambitious targets like Quebec's are actually met.  

Kyoto Protocol Targets

 A friend asked me whether any countries had met their targets under the Kyoto Protoccol.  Kyoto sets out an agenda for Annex 1 countries for reducing GHG emissions by 5.2 %  from 1990 levels. (By the way, Portland, Oregon will have reduced its GHG emissions to 10 % below its 1990 levels by 2010 in spite of an 18% percent growth in its population.)  According to Wikipedia, the answer to my friend's question is yes. Denmark, Germany,  and the United Kingdom have all reduced their GHG emissions by at least 14 % without including land use, land use change, and forestry in the calculations. France has met its obligations as well if land use is included.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Change_in_greenhouse_gas_emission_since_1990

Implicit in my friend's question was "Could Canada have reduced its GHG emissions if it had tried?"  Denmark and Germany are relatively cold countries and Germany is a large country.   So the answer is yes - if Canada had made any effort at all, we could have achieved reductions.  Germany has cut its emissions by 17 % partly because it has actively supported green industries and clean energy. ( Please see my earlier post on Germany and clean energy at "Sunshine and Power. )

I'm Not the Only One

who thinks Canada is an international disgrace.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/26/canada-criticised-over-climate-change

Prominent campaigners, politicians and scientists have called for Canada to be suspended from the Commonwealth over its climate change policies.
Canada's per capita greenhouse gas emissions are among the world's highest and it will not meet the cut required under the Kyoto protocol: by 2007 its emissions were 34% above its reduction target. It is exploiting its vast tar sands reserves to produce oil, a process said to cause at least three times the emissions of conventional oil extraction.

We can change this. We must change this.  If we do not, each of us is morally responsible for killing people by drowning or drought in Bangladesh, the Maldives, Kenya, et al.

The Living Planet City

http://community.wwf.ca/livingplanetcity/
Click on the above link for an interactive experience.   You will find lots of information on alternate energy sources, green roofs, amd green beer!  And the site is fun!  And there is always the "Take Action." link you can click on .......
And one of the best actions to take right now is sending the Right Hon. Stephen Harper a message: tell him you want to ensure that Canada is on the right side of history.  Instruct the Prime Minister (he does work for us, the electorate) that you wish him to send our negotiators to the UN Climate Change Conference with a commitment to legally binding, science based greenhouse gas reduction targets.