Checkin’ In
November is coming.
November 2010 - not fast enough.
If the editors at Maclean’s magazine were watching the latest council performance I would expect an update to their recent survey of best/worst run municipalities to follow putting our fair city into a class of its own. If they checked out the local Canwest/Global tabloid news they would be stupefied. Yep, welcome to Crazy Town.
Today I read two posts that I want to share. The first relates to the shenanigans and carryings-on of our political and industrial leaders. Read this , "When Honesty Becomes Threatening" by Charles Smith at of two minds.
The other post is from Ilargi at The Automatic Earth, "The Worth of the Earth ". It reminded me of my recent (wow, that was 2 months ago? ) post relating to "the problem". It speaks to the dilemma of doing what has to be done to stop hurting the earth and doing the things we have to do in our culture to survive.
Post Feedback
I find so much misinformation when it comes to things we can do for the environment.
We see CAW and some other Windsor environmental groups supporting big box on Sprucewood
We see ethanol being promoted with the omission that 10% ethanol will reduce your cars mileage by 25%.
We see the Ontario Government justifying inaction on scrubbers on coal plants because scrubbers won’t reduce CO2. How about fighting good old fashioned pollution.
We see our government doing everything it can do to reduce coal power plants while increasing coal shipments to China whose power plants have far less controls, pollute more and simply drift back over BC.
We see country’s like france decrying carbon emissions and polutions of our Oil sands while investing in them.
We see carbon offsets being purchased which in my opinion is as effective as http://www.cheatneutral.com/ (ya gotta check out this site) In a system that Enron drooled over that has shown to be inneffective in Europe.
Thankfully we have good news announcements like finally stopping our raw sewage from going into the river and lakes and great lakes cleanup funding.
Here’s an update. Of Two Minds posted reader responses to the post that I linked to. Here it is. Some interesting observations.
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct09/rights10-09.html
The notion of carbon offsets is absurd. Seriously, paying to pollute and further destroy the environment. You better bring your “Visa” card because Mother Nature doesn’t take “American Express”. But, Mark you are correct, no matter what you think you’re doing to “make the world a better place” Suncor (as an example) is making it a million times worse. However, if they buy “carbon credits” it’s all O.K. I guess anyone living downstream from the Oil Sands will feel that much better as they screw in their CFL and turndown the thermostat because Suncor is “doing their part” too.
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/orgs/institute/bigproblems/Energy/BP-Energy-Illinois-Coal.pdf
Actually CO2 can be separated or “scrubbed” at Coal Power plants.
But it does look like the cost is rather high - both financially as well in the efficiency of the generating station.
However, what I’d like to see is a cost comparison between huge public subsidies being utilized for equally inefficient wind and solar farms and coal power plants equipped with CO2 scrubbers.
Burning coal in north america produces about 34% of all CO2 emissions.
The best way to control this is to charge consumers the actual cost of using energy (environmental as well as financial).
Cheap power has allowed technologies to improve air quality and efficiency to stagnate. Implementing a cost-incentive would speed up this process
Because if anyone believes that wind and solar farms are “cost” effective - they are not.
They are only cost-effective because of the public subsidies they receive - with minimal power output - which we are going to pay for at some point in time.
So, increase the cost through various means - either directly or on the coal extraction and the incentive to reduce power consumption and develop alternative “efficient” energy sources will increase.
“The best way to control this is to charge consumers the actual cost of using energy (environmental as well as financial).”
Sorry, Chris but you cannot “charge” energy users for the environmental costs of burning and or extracting fossil fuels or for any of the other damaging activities required to live the way we do. Even if world governments collected one dollar for every dollar spent what good would it do? Despite what I wrote above, Mother Nature doesn’t take American Express or cash.
Hell! I would just like the drivers of cars, trucks etc., pay for the real cost of building and maintaining the roads that they drive on and then throw in a distance driven tax. Lets start there!
Sure charging consumers the real cost of electricity would be great, in a perfect world. But realistically many people would be left out in the cold paying the true obscenely high cost of energy (hey but the CEO’s still get their golden parachutes). Forgive me it I don’t subscribe to people freezing in the winter or cutting back on food in order to pay a heating/electric bill.
Dave, your thoughts are perfectly normal. Therein lies the real problem of the big problem of saving the environment. It doesn’t matter how many CFL’s we screw in, or Prius’ we drive or high-speed trains we build we are still damaging the environment.
If we don’t subsidize industry, then things won’t get made or wind-power can’t get developed and the folks clinging to the lowest rungs of the ladder will be getting their fingers stepped on as the crowd higher-up begins to slide back down the ladder.
Things not getting made means fewer resources exploited; means less damage to the environment; means fewer can afford those things that do get made; means the wealth gap grows wider; means the people at the bottom can’t afford unsubsidized electricity or food; means…
It is a conundrum. How do we stop damaging the environment without damaging society?
I think we will damage the environment regardless of what we do. I think the excercise is how do we minimalize the damage we do?
The gov’ts are off to a good start, somewhat, with subsidizing “green” technology” and by making our houses more efficient (though the red tape and “audits” are a pain).
I find the biggest threat to our environment is our sprawl. If we curb sprawl and not allow “developers” to do whatever they please whenever they please we might get on track. Another big thiing is toll roads. If we had more toll roads people would be more inclined to use alternative transport without having to lose the freedom of owning one’s own vehicle.
When new houses are built LEED programs should be instituted and offset by gov’t funding. When the technology becomes more efficient and the price drops for such technology the funding can be stopped.
I really believe our gov’t uses money for the most silly things when there are a lot more pressing areas where those funds could be used.
Dave I never said that. Programs can be developed to assist those who are unable to pay. Additionally, those who are least able to pay - please explain?
I was in a neighbours’ publicaly subsidized housing unit and they had a nice LCD screen television complete with home theatre. Can’t pay? Please - I can’t even afford an LCD screen TV.
It’s about personal choices.
I hear everyone, and pardon my bluntness, bitching and moaning about the environment, yet very few willing to make the sacrifices to do anything about it. I hear people complaining about the impact of the automobile; but very few willing to give it up.
I hear some clucking over a person’s choice to live in the “suburbs”; and yet fail to see any realistic responses to the situation as to how to improve the efficiency of suburbia. Just more clucking. IF this was parliament I’m sure I would hear “shame!” “shame!”.
And when it comes to the cost of electricity, oh no, you can’t charge the full price.
Placing onus upon we the consumer to reduce our consumption - both of electricity and those goods that require it - is truly the only effective means which also limits the growth of a bureaucratic government.
Wait until Stephen Harper gets his opportunity to implement his Cap and Trade regime - which they admit as plain as day in their documentation will pass a significant cost onto consumers.
Gas taxes will rise. Electricity prices will be forced upwards and remain there to pay for teh subsidies of inefficient wind and solar farms. And wait until you see the prices rise for basic necessities, housing, public transit etc.
Rather than looking to the government to “force” eco-friendliness on us; what are you going to do voluntarily?
Chris you don’t have to be dirt poor to not be able to pay for high heating/electricity bills. When people budget for their up coming months and whether the temp. is very high or low that will increase those bills significantly. As it is I know of many people who don’t turn up their thermostat past 69 in winter and no lower than 78 in summer.
That money has to come from somewhere and usually at the detriment of one’s food bill because they still have to pay the credit cards, loans, mortgages etc. Not to mention that not everyone has a new house, can afford all new windows, new furnace HVAC, insulation etc.
In a country with such an abundance of natural resources (not to be squandered but used properly) I don’t see why the gov’t shouldn’t be able to control electricity because let’s face it the pure capitalist approach of free market when it comes to electricity and/or gas isn’t working very well.
As i stated earlier I would rather the gov’t subsidize this than many of the things they already do.
As for the spineless Harper, he is doing exactly what the lobbiests want.
And since you need to know what I am doing voluntarily, I can tell you that I am one of the people above that keeps my house fairly hot inthe summer and damn cold in the winter. I also have one of those programmable thermostats that enwin can shut off anytime, I have done work on my house to combat drafts, trying to save for new windows (cripes have those prices gone up since the “eco” warriors have bent the public’s ear) and have installed insulation. Yet my bills haven’t gone down much because they have been raised (thanks enwin) and seem to almost every other year.
I do what I can but there are far more areas that can be cut from the gov’t teat (hey didn’t they just have a mock crisis “epidemic” where half didnt’ show up for work yet the gov’t ran just as smooth??). Let’s start there.
Dave - you missed the point.
If the concern as expressed many times is “consumerism”; how do you effectively combat that with the least amount of bureaucratic interference?
If the concern is urban sprawl, how do you combat that within the parameters of the current legal framework?
If the concern is global warming; how do you guide economic behaviour with the least amount of government bureaucracy/intervention?
You make those things which contribute to the problem, much more expensive; and you make the healthier alternatives, cheaper.
Health care is the perfect example. Buying cheap smokes, beer and fast food versus more expensive “healthiful” foods. And we wonder why obesity and health problems are growing?
It should be the reverse, expensive smoke and booze, and cheap lettuce and tomatoes.
But no - that would be politically unpopular. People would scream because we demand our cheap smokes, booze and fast food.
I see the logic behind the Federal Government’s cap and trade program, though I do not believe cap and trade is the most effective means to address the problem.
People are very resourceful - and you proved my point in your explanation.
If energy costs rise to market value; people will curtail/redirect their spending; or find ways to improve efficiency. There is no meaningful incentive right now.
It needs to be a multipronged approach.
But instead we get howls of indignation from people calling out to Big Brother saying save us; and yet aren’t willing to make the sacrifices to achieve their goal.
My previous comment was over generalized - but like an episode from desperate housewives, I see a large number of people speaking platitudes towards the environment; making statements of “people should” or “suburbs bad” from on high like a bunch of housewives sitting in their made in indonesia leather chair sipping tea imported from China clucking like hens over the news on their made in japan television.
My observation is we’re very quick with should haves and could haves; but when it comes to paying the piper, we point to our neighbour saying not me or its their fault.
Do I want to pay higher energy costs? Nope.
I like cheap power. It allows me to continue to rack up my debt and buy useless crap from the Brick - feeding the cycle of consumerism.
But from an economic perspective - it is the most effective means to address the issues raised in the public sphere with respect to the environment.