This shouldn’t be necessary. But I’m going to acknowledge that the new federal Environment minister John Baird at least made the connection between the wind storm that devastated Stanley Park and climate change.
“Weird weather … is a ‘wake-up call,’ ” Baird is reported as saying in today’s Sun. “‘It’s another reason why we have to act on climate change.”
We’ll see if appropriate policy follows, but at least we have a responsible politician making some connections – unlike Gordon Campbell, our provincial Premier, who has managed to be almost totally oblivious on this issue.
I pursue that theme in my column in the latest issue of Business in Vancouver.
I think we just had a Katrina Moment – a weather event so sudden, so severe, it disturbs not just the landscape but the status quo.
The December 15 windstorm, the third in a week, reinforced the usual fear about the vulnerability of our technological web and added the fear of retribution. Was nature’s wrath a consequence of the progress that has made us fat and happy? Has the climate-change issue turned personal, and moral?
At this point, it is compulsory to note that a single extraordinary event does not an argument make. Even those who believe that the science is clear on climate change will issue that standard disclaimer.
But the burden of proof has shifted. Now it’s the skeptics who are obliged to argue that an event consistent with climate-change theory that projects more extreme weather is not a cause for worry of worse to come. With every Katrina Moment, it becomes tougher to defend indifference.
Most politicians would prefer to avoid addressing global warming and are so far doing an excellent job of it. The B.C. Hansard of 2005 shows a total of two paragraphs devoted to climate change. I asked a selection of people, some of whom are Liberal supporters: “True or false – Gordon Campbell has had nothing to say about climate change.” Without exception: “True.”
It’s understandable. Why take on climate change when the danger is distant, the costs unknown and the global difference we would make almost insignificant? The 3-D strategy of doubt, deny and delay has worked pretty well so far. But the evidence keeps getting worse. With each Katrina Moment, more and more people wonder how our leaders are going to respond to our anxiety. Normally dry debate over “sustainability” is turning emotional.
Marc Jaccard, the author of Sustainable Fossil Fuels and a past chairman of the B.C. Utilities Commission, recently wrote that our provincial politicians will be asked: “What did you do for the atmosphere, Daddy?”
“My bet is,” he concluded, “that B.C.’s cabinet ministers will avoid telling their children about the difference they could have made.”
Jaccard was questioning the province’s decision to allow coal-burning power plants with no carbon capture. To do so, given available technology, is like saying, not only are we ignoring climate change, we don’t believe there will be any unexpected economic consequences over the life of the project.
That’s pretty much the position of Don Potts, the executive director of the Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee, who represents the major industrial users of purchased electric power in B.C.
“To reject these facilities now,” he argues, “sends a costly message to those in the private sector who may want to help supply the growing need for electric power in B.C.”
That’s an astonishing position, given the likely economic retribution that will occur as other jurisdictions take action.
California is considering prohibiting the state’s investor-owned utilities from buying power from any source that emits more carbon dioxide than does a modern natural-gas power plant.
Says Jaccard: “This will force coal plant developers to move more quickly to coal plants with carbon capture and storage – which will still be cheaper than natural gas plants, nuclear and most renewables.”
In the next few weeks, a new energy strategy will be announced by the province. The premier, who has had nothing of consequence to say so far, will have his chance. A leadership vacuum, like a natural one, does not remain unfilled.
Gordon Price is the director of Simon Fraser University’s city program and a former Vancouver city councillor. His e-mail address is pricetags@shaw.ca. His column appears monthly.
MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R5
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy sources must change.
“Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. “Let’s face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy.” The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc. The source of energy must by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, etc. including utilizing water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption.
The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy.
In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.
A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task.
This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (this will also creat a substantial amount of new jobs) It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
Jay Draiman
Northridge, CA. 91325
1-9-2007
P.S. I have a very deep belief in America’s capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis–the one in 1942–President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.
Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs)the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.
Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X’s 5 hrs per day X’s 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 24 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?
Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence.
It is definitely possible to create electricity with out polluting the air, add to global warming, yes, even without the use of any non-renewable fuel source, including nuclear. It is not dependent on solar or wind conditions. It uses a free source of power, unlimited in supply which will not diminish in quantity nor quality by its usage.
It can be used worlwide, is the safest way to generate power and a lot less costly in building facilities for same. Outputs are limitless and can be build to suit anyone. For more info, leave a message on my website, featuring other innovative ideas. Is going to be jointly developed with a University specialising in research and development of alternate power reneration ideas.