Canada facing Kyoto crunch
Canada faces far greater obstacles in reaching its Kyoto Protocol commitments than the public has been told because its targets are more stringent than commonly understood, according to experts on the treaty. The target all federal parties talk about -- a 26% cut in carbon emissions by 2012 -- is just the start, say Kyoto insiders. That's far behind Canada's legal requirements. The single most important part of the protocol is a twist seldom mentioned in public: Canada's target is a five-year average, not a goal to reach by the end of the Kyoto period. "We can't just hit the target once at the end of the period," said economics Prof. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph. "If we are 100 megatonnes over in the first year, we have to be 100 megatonnes under the target another year to offset the first year." Canada's average emissions over Kyoto's full 2008-12 measuring period must be 26% below today's level.
The country hasn't made any reductions, with the Jan. 1 start of the Kyoto period just 271 days away. Carbon emissions have risen steadily for years. This means that by 2012, Canada must reach reduction levels far deeper than 26%. By any calculation, meeting Kyoto targets would require huge restrictions in access to fossil fuels. Canada can cut its use or pay other countries to cut theirs or pursue a mix of both ways. Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998. It obliges the country to reduce emissions to 6% less than the level that existed in 1990. Politicians are soft-selling Kyoto to Canadians with over-optimistic numbers, glossing over the hard truth that Canada is legally required to stop using up to half the gas, oil, gasoline and coal it now uses in the coming five years. "I think that even if we make even some reasonable progress, we would get recognition for that," said Ottawa's Jim Bruce, who is part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change group that will announce its latest findings Friday. Canada's federal government has not yet presented a Kyoto plan.
(Calgary Herald 070405)
Not surprisingly, the fingers in Ottawa are pointing all over the place trying to lay blame for the lackadaisical attitudes that have pervaded for the past ten years on Kyoto. Now the job is even bigger and more costly than anyone would have thought possible because everyone was too busy pigging out at the trough in the late 90s and early 00s. Now things got to get really creative to address the cuts that need to be done. Oh well, it seems that absolving your legal reponsibilities is the way things are done these days, so I assume Canada will do the same in this case.
Report spells out winners and losers in global warming
Climate change has already started washing over the North American economy, and as the Earth heats up, there will be a deep, and possibly painful economic transformation, according to significant new research. Canada's agriculture, fishing and forestry industries are on the front lines, but the physical effects of global warming will alter the bottom lines of companies in the utilities and energy, tourism, infrastructure, financial services, transportation, health care and real estate sectors, according to draft findings. The findings are part of a heavily footnoted 67-page report on North America that will be issued tomorrow as part of a larger assessment on the impact of global warming by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It's the second installment of the IPCC's authoritative research, compiling the work of more than 1,000 of the world's top scientists.
In North America, warmer temperatures will offer some limited benefits, at least initially, the draft says, but the costs are already mounting. “Over the past several decades, economic damage from severe weather has increased dramatically, due largely to increased value of the infrastructure at risk,” the report states. “Annual costs to North America have now reached tens of billions of dollars in damaged property and economic productivity, as well as lives disrupted and lost.” For Canada, the main economic effects stem from assessments that sea levels are rising, the levels of the Great Lakes are probably dropping, winters will be shorter, permafrost will thaw, and temperatures will grow warmer. On the bright side, farming seasons will be longer, the report says, although some agricultural areas won't have enough water to boost their yields. In forestry, trees will be increasingly vulnerable to insects, diseases and fire, but warmer temperatures will make northern climes more receptive to commercial tree production. Cold-water fisheries will be hurt by climate change, but warm-water fisheries will likely gain. In some parts of the country, tourism will flourish with warmer weather, and ski hills can likely adapt by producing more manufactured snow. But snowmobiling and other activities will likely take a hit. Remote communities that depend solely on natural resources for their livelihoods will almost definitely be hurt by crumbling infrastructure and disproportionately warmer climates in the north, the report adds.
(Globe and Mail 070405)
For Canada in particular, what will the end result be? More good than bad? I honestly believe things are going to be generally much worse for pretty much everyone and everywhere on the planet. The fact that everything living, either individually or collectively, is going to need to uproot and migrate in order to survive is going to be stressful enough on the world's ecosystems. I worry about the positive feedback loops that we might not even know about yet -- how one collapse can trigger a cascade of others. It's all very frightening.
05 April 2007
04 April 2007
Bett'r
I had a great time with Jeff, Doug, Ryan and Matt last night. We had an inordinate amount of conversation yesterday about everything and lots of laughs (as usual). It only takes a few minutes with Jeff and Doug to put me in a good mood. We have so much fun together!
I had intentions of going to the gym tonight, but I got out of work late so I just went home and masturbated instead. Easy enough. Things start to get crazy with the OutGames tomorrow with registration and a lot of running around like a chicken with my head cut off on Friday, so here's hoping everything gets done.
There'll be lots of pictures from the weekend, so next week should be grand (plus the fact I'm taking two short weeks coming up). I guess that means Happy Bunny Day to all you heathens and Happy Guy Who Comes Back to Life After Three Days Day for all you believers out there. Goodness gracious!
03 April 2007
In the toilet
...that's where my motivation is. Ever since I've gotten back to work, I've been performing at less than stellar levels of output. I'm not sure what the problem is. I know I'm pretty much fed up with this job right now and just biding my time until we find out whether we're on the cutting board and getting a severance package, or if they're going to make any effort to find another position here for us at the company. Gob I hope not. I don't have any desire to stay here anymore. I'll miss the flexibility in my hours and the chance to fuck the dog for a couple days here and there, but the morale here has gotten so caustic and so many people I liked to work with have left, I really see no reason to stay.
But then, what do I do next? I've been trying to do some soul-searching over the past few months and haven't come to many good conclusions. I still bite my tongue when I think about continuing to work in corporate business. I find it all so tedious and artificial. It sucks my soul out a little more each day. And the way I see things going in our society, my role as a computer systems specialist will be one of the first to go into the dustbin of non-essential positions. As will most positions in the business world. Oh, why don't they pay cashiers at Safeway more? I could go and do that. It's just about as stimulating as what I do now.
The OutGames preparations are pretty much wrapped up. Go day is Saturday. I have a whole list of things to do each day from today to Saturday, but it looks like things are coming together. They'd better be for all the effort I've put into this. I gotta thank all the others on the organizing committee for everyone has done more than their fair share of jobs and put in effort where they didn't really have to. Ah, the joys of Type A....
This weekend should be a lot of fun. Joe's got the entire weekend off so we will be able to hit all the events together, which should be fun. Tonight is a Mixer for Matt's company at the Backlot, so I'm meeting Jeff, Doug and Matt there in about an hour. It will be fun to see the guys again. I think it's been nearly three weeks! If it weren't for my friends and personal interests, my motivation would truly be permanently in the toilet.
But then, what do I do next? I've been trying to do some soul-searching over the past few months and haven't come to many good conclusions. I still bite my tongue when I think about continuing to work in corporate business. I find it all so tedious and artificial. It sucks my soul out a little more each day. And the way I see things going in our society, my role as a computer systems specialist will be one of the first to go into the dustbin of non-essential positions. As will most positions in the business world. Oh, why don't they pay cashiers at Safeway more? I could go and do that. It's just about as stimulating as what I do now.
The OutGames preparations are pretty much wrapped up. Go day is Saturday. I have a whole list of things to do each day from today to Saturday, but it looks like things are coming together. They'd better be for all the effort I've put into this. I gotta thank all the others on the organizing committee for everyone has done more than their fair share of jobs and put in effort where they didn't really have to. Ah, the joys of Type A....
This weekend should be a lot of fun. Joe's got the entire weekend off so we will be able to hit all the events together, which should be fun. Tonight is a Mixer for Matt's company at the Backlot, so I'm meeting Jeff, Doug and Matt there in about an hour. It will be fun to see the guys again. I think it's been nearly three weeks! If it weren't for my friends and personal interests, my motivation would truly be permanently in the toilet.
02 April 2007
The heart of the problem
Majority in favour of pollution tax
More than three-quarters of Canadians believe the country's environmental regulations are too weak, while nearly 60% of the population would favour a new green tax on consumer and industrial products to crack down on pollution, a new government study has concluded. The statistics, included in an Environment Canada public opinion survey, come as the minority Conservative government and opposition parties face off over whether to beef up legislation on air pollution and climate change that was tabled last fall. The newly released survey of 2,000 Canadians was published in February, and found that 31% of Canadians strongly favoured a new tax, and 27% were somewhat in favour, for a total of 58%. Overall, 76% of Canadians who answered the survey said they believed the current environmental regulations were not strong enough. In more specific sectors, 52% of people were concerned about regulations on food products, while 51% were worried about environmental standards for consumer products. The Conservatives have insisted their original plan from the fall to introduce mandatory regulations to crack down on pollution from industry is sufficient. But the opposition parties have argued that the plan does not require any absolute reductions in emissions for about 15 years, and they have used their majority on a special Commons committee to introduce tougher targets into the government's legislation, along with new penalties or fines for companies that do not comply. Environment Minister John Baird has said the opposition measures are part of a Liberal plan to introduce a carbon tax that wouldn't actually work. But according to the survey, which was conducted in December, only one in five respondents said the federal government was doing a good (19%) or excellent (3%) job at preventing or controlling pollution. By comparison, 74% of respondents said the government's performance was either fair (39%) or poor (35%).
(Calgary Herald 070402)
Ten who think green
We are a greenhouse-gas spewing, Kyoto-snubbing, resource-based nation, a fact seemingly not lost on the politicians whose months of grappling with the federal Clean Air Act still has not produced any legislation that can knock down emissions without also busting the kneecaps of the economy. At the same time, images of melting polar ice caps and stranded polar bears are tugging at the heart strings of Canadians who hold little sympathy for the industries they blame for releasing a ceiling of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. Those very same Canadians, however, are unwilling to pay for change. A recent poll in British Columbia, which recently committed itself to one of the greenest policies on the continent, found 84% of residents believe global warming is happening and have felt its impact. A full 46% called it the single greatest global threat (only 22% chose terrorism). But when asked whether they would spend even $100 more every year to green up the country, 50% said no. Clearly, we will only walk the path to a greener future if dragged along. Meanwhile, the environmental problems that confront us have drawn forth a remarkable current of ingenuity. Much of it comes from those who believe it is only by marshalling the soldiers of technological discovery we will fend off the disasters that loom from a warming planet and dwindling energy supplies. Today, the Financial Post profiles 10 of Canada's most promising green technology companies: Iogen; Paradigm Environmental Technologies; TIR Systems; VRB Power Systems; Sunarc of Canada; Enwave Energy; Railpower Technologies; Whale Power; HTEC; and Hydrogen Link.
(National Post 070402)
These two reports seem to be saying the opposite thing about the same issue. Or maybe they are saying the same thing, I'm not sure. People are willing to pay money to address the problem, just not too much. That's what I get out of it. The environment is important, but only to a certain point, I guess. What got me were the results of the survey. 50% say no to $100 a year? Are you kidding me? We're so disgustingly affluent here compared to 90% of the world and we are against coughing up a less than $10 a month for a cleanup program -- something that we caused collectively ourselves. Give up that second Starbucks Coffee a day and you've already made it up, losers. Yeesh. Is lip service all we're good at anymore?
Our expectations are so high and our belief in the 'truth' of getting something for nothing so strong that we've absolved ourselves out of personal responsibility for the consequences of our actions. That's the heart of the problem, and I'm not so sure how we can address it quickly enough to save anything. Asking North Americans to consider pulling up their bootstraps and sacrificing for the common good is as reasonable today as asking them to grow a tail.
More than three-quarters of Canadians believe the country's environmental regulations are too weak, while nearly 60% of the population would favour a new green tax on consumer and industrial products to crack down on pollution, a new government study has concluded. The statistics, included in an Environment Canada public opinion survey, come as the minority Conservative government and opposition parties face off over whether to beef up legislation on air pollution and climate change that was tabled last fall. The newly released survey of 2,000 Canadians was published in February, and found that 31% of Canadians strongly favoured a new tax, and 27% were somewhat in favour, for a total of 58%. Overall, 76% of Canadians who answered the survey said they believed the current environmental regulations were not strong enough. In more specific sectors, 52% of people were concerned about regulations on food products, while 51% were worried about environmental standards for consumer products. The Conservatives have insisted their original plan from the fall to introduce mandatory regulations to crack down on pollution from industry is sufficient. But the opposition parties have argued that the plan does not require any absolute reductions in emissions for about 15 years, and they have used their majority on a special Commons committee to introduce tougher targets into the government's legislation, along with new penalties or fines for companies that do not comply. Environment Minister John Baird has said the opposition measures are part of a Liberal plan to introduce a carbon tax that wouldn't actually work. But according to the survey, which was conducted in December, only one in five respondents said the federal government was doing a good (19%) or excellent (3%) job at preventing or controlling pollution. By comparison, 74% of respondents said the government's performance was either fair (39%) or poor (35%).
(Calgary Herald 070402)
Ten who think green
We are a greenhouse-gas spewing, Kyoto-snubbing, resource-based nation, a fact seemingly not lost on the politicians whose months of grappling with the federal Clean Air Act still has not produced any legislation that can knock down emissions without also busting the kneecaps of the economy. At the same time, images of melting polar ice caps and stranded polar bears are tugging at the heart strings of Canadians who hold little sympathy for the industries they blame for releasing a ceiling of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. Those very same Canadians, however, are unwilling to pay for change. A recent poll in British Columbia, which recently committed itself to one of the greenest policies on the continent, found 84% of residents believe global warming is happening and have felt its impact. A full 46% called it the single greatest global threat (only 22% chose terrorism). But when asked whether they would spend even $100 more every year to green up the country, 50% said no. Clearly, we will only walk the path to a greener future if dragged along. Meanwhile, the environmental problems that confront us have drawn forth a remarkable current of ingenuity. Much of it comes from those who believe it is only by marshalling the soldiers of technological discovery we will fend off the disasters that loom from a warming planet and dwindling energy supplies. Today, the Financial Post profiles 10 of Canada's most promising green technology companies: Iogen; Paradigm Environmental Technologies; TIR Systems; VRB Power Systems; Sunarc of Canada; Enwave Energy; Railpower Technologies; Whale Power; HTEC; and Hydrogen Link.
(National Post 070402)
These two reports seem to be saying the opposite thing about the same issue. Or maybe they are saying the same thing, I'm not sure. People are willing to pay money to address the problem, just not too much. That's what I get out of it. The environment is important, but only to a certain point, I guess. What got me were the results of the survey. 50% say no to $100 a year? Are you kidding me? We're so disgustingly affluent here compared to 90% of the world and we are against coughing up a less than $10 a month for a cleanup program -- something that we caused collectively ourselves. Give up that second Starbucks Coffee a day and you've already made it up, losers. Yeesh. Is lip service all we're good at anymore?
As long as someone else makes the effort to address the problem, then I don't have to.
Our expectations are so high and our belief in the 'truth' of getting something for nothing so strong that we've absolved ourselves out of personal responsibility for the consequences of our actions. That's the heart of the problem, and I'm not so sure how we can address it quickly enough to save anything. Asking North Americans to consider pulling up their bootstraps and sacrificing for the common good is as reasonable today as asking them to grow a tail.
01 April 2007
California
*Le sigh* The great trip ended last night, as we landed in Calgary after a week of cycling and touring around Southern Calfornia. I had a great time and will let the pictures tell the story!
View from the deck
L.A. Criterium
Redondo Beach volleyball
Universal Studios CityWalk
The gang at Universal Studios
Spongebob at Universal Studios
Hollywood at night
Huntington Beach
The view from Glendora Mountain
The guys on Glendora
Just another jam on the 405
ADT Center
The view over Palm Desert
Newport Marina
Laguna Beach
The ADT Center crew
Newport Beach
I was still pretty sick when we landed in Los Angeles, so I skipped out on the Food Park Ride on Saturday (although we went to South Coast Plaza in the afternoon) and the L.A. Criterium on Sunday. While the guys were racing on Sunday, I rode through Westchester to Marina Del Rey and along Manhattan, Hermosa and Redondo Beaches.
By Monday I was feeling well enough to ride, so we went for a spin along the San Gabriel River to Anaheim and back to Newport Beach. Then we hopped in the van and went to Universal Studios for the day. The rides were a lot of fun, and thank god the lines were short. I can't imagine having to stand in line for an hour for some of those rides -- how do you say disappointment? In my opinion, the new 'Shrek in 4-D' ride was the best, maybe because it was the funniest. The Mummy ride was cool too, but short. The Universal Studios Tour is definitely a must-do. We ate, drove down Sunset and Hollywood Boulevards, and then made the long trek back to Newport.
Tuesday morning was extremely windy and Frank, Reid and I went for a ride along the Pacific Coast Highway into Long Beach and back to Newport. We had thought that open track at the ADT Center was Tuesday, but it ended up being on Wednesday and Friday evening instead. We went to the South Coast Plaza mall again in the afternoon instead.
Wednesday was the Glendora Mountain ride and the drive to the track in Carson in the evening for a workout.
Thursday was the 150km ride from Tom's Farm through Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Temecula, Aguanga, and Anza to Palm Desert.
Friday was a coffee ride from Newport to Laguna Beach and back and then an afternoon at Fashion Island finishing our shopping. Frank, Reid and I went and did a hard workout at the ADT Center again on Friday evening, and despite a volleyball tournament going on, we pretty much had the track to ourselves, which was nice.
Saturday we packed up, ate breakfast on the Newport Beach boardwalk, attempted to find parking at Venice Beach to go walk around (to no avail) and then fought traffic, security and crying babies to make it to our flight back to Calgary from LAX intact.
It's unfathomable how much driving Angelenos do to get from point A to point B. Everything is so spread out. Traffic jams are a normal part of life there and something you always have to factor into your travelling time. It's nuts. The weather was gorgeous though, and despite the one windy day, most of the other days were ride-perfect weather.
Now I can't wait to experience Northern California in 11 short weeks!
View from the deck
L.A. Criterium
Redondo Beach volleyball
Universal Studios CityWalk
The gang at Universal Studios
Spongebob at Universal Studios
Hollywood at night
Huntington Beach
The view from Glendora Mountain
The guys on Glendora
Just another jam on the 405
ADT Center
The view over Palm Desert
Newport Marina
Laguna Beach
The ADT Center crew
Newport BeachI was still pretty sick when we landed in Los Angeles, so I skipped out on the Food Park Ride on Saturday (although we went to South Coast Plaza in the afternoon) and the L.A. Criterium on Sunday. While the guys were racing on Sunday, I rode through Westchester to Marina Del Rey and along Manhattan, Hermosa and Redondo Beaches.
By Monday I was feeling well enough to ride, so we went for a spin along the San Gabriel River to Anaheim and back to Newport Beach. Then we hopped in the van and went to Universal Studios for the day. The rides were a lot of fun, and thank god the lines were short. I can't imagine having to stand in line for an hour for some of those rides -- how do you say disappointment? In my opinion, the new 'Shrek in 4-D' ride was the best, maybe because it was the funniest. The Mummy ride was cool too, but short. The Universal Studios Tour is definitely a must-do. We ate, drove down Sunset and Hollywood Boulevards, and then made the long trek back to Newport.
Tuesday morning was extremely windy and Frank, Reid and I went for a ride along the Pacific Coast Highway into Long Beach and back to Newport. We had thought that open track at the ADT Center was Tuesday, but it ended up being on Wednesday and Friday evening instead. We went to the South Coast Plaza mall again in the afternoon instead.
Wednesday was the Glendora Mountain ride and the drive to the track in Carson in the evening for a workout.
Thursday was the 150km ride from Tom's Farm through Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Temecula, Aguanga, and Anza to Palm Desert.
Friday was a coffee ride from Newport to Laguna Beach and back and then an afternoon at Fashion Island finishing our shopping. Frank, Reid and I went and did a hard workout at the ADT Center again on Friday evening, and despite a volleyball tournament going on, we pretty much had the track to ourselves, which was nice.
Saturday we packed up, ate breakfast on the Newport Beach boardwalk, attempted to find parking at Venice Beach to go walk around (to no avail) and then fought traffic, security and crying babies to make it to our flight back to Calgary from LAX intact.
It's unfathomable how much driving Angelenos do to get from point A to point B. Everything is so spread out. Traffic jams are a normal part of life there and something you always have to factor into your travelling time. It's nuts. The weather was gorgeous though, and despite the one windy day, most of the other days were ride-perfect weather.
Now I can't wait to experience Northern California in 11 short weeks!
26 March 2007
Happy Make Up Your Own Holiday Day!
Go ahead, make up your own holiday.
March 26th is Make Up Your Own Holiday Day!
I think mine will be 'Raoul Bova in Spandex Day'!
Yay! What a great day!
22 March 2007
Flu blues, Green beer and Orange County
Last Friday was another work crew gathering to say farewell to a couple more co-workers that are jumping ship. We went to Melrose and proceeded to get out of control again, however I managed to slip out around 9:30pm and promptly go home to bed. I slept in on Saturday, skipping my running, workout and anything else productive. Jeff and Matt came by and picked me up at 6:30pm and we headed to Lisa's St. Patrick's Day party in Chestermere. Jeri-Anne and Doug showed up before us, and Rachel and Marowshka showed up soon after. Lots of laughs and lots of food ensued.
Oddly, the guy who was so sick this weekend couldn't even get up for the pictures, and now, a few days later, I'm the one suffering with a bout of viral nastiness???I was feeling the need to have a mental break this weekend which I think was a pre-cursor to catching the flu on Tuesday. I've been in bed for about 34 hours straight and managed to crawl into work this morning to get a few loose ends tied up before leaving on vacation tomorrow. The accumulation of OutGames planning, Synergy beginning-of-season management, training and work concerns have been too much lately. I think my body's finally had enough and said, 'screw you, dude. You're getting the flu and sleeping for two days, end of story'. Of course, it's obligatory that three days before vacation I get sick anyways, but all of this has been a perfect storm of sorts. Let's just say that even though this trip isn't happening at the best time, I'm glad it's here and after April 8th, I'll be so relieved.
I got my first haircut in, oh, maybe three years today? I'm starting to feel quite attached to my beard and just didn't feel right going back to the overall hairless look, so the beard got to stay a little longer and I splurged for a trim. Go figure that the only thing I got out of bed for yesterday was my waxing appointment. Weird harriness/baldness existentialism ensues...
Now the flu symptoms are turning to sinus congestion. Maybe it was a cold afterall, and not the flu? It's possible, and would make be feel a bit better that I continued to resist getting a flu shot again this year.
We leave for Los Angeles tomorrow evening and land at our condo in Newport Beach (on the beach!) late in the evening. Craig's been the main planner of the trip (which is a godsend since he used to live down there) and Reid, Frank and myself are tagging along as well as Craig's wife Karen. The guys have a Food Park Race planned for Saturday morning. We have rides along the PCH, Glendora Mountain, Temecula to Palm Springs and 2 or 3 days of training at the ADT Center Velodrome planned for the week. We have a day off next Wednesday, and we're trying to figure out what we could do that would be distinctly Californian for the day. I think it's going to be a day at Disneyland, which will be a lot of fun. I'll try to take as many pics as possible and write an update when I get back, but of course OutGames will be looming by then so that report might be delayed by a week. Nah...screw OutGames. Buh-bye! Ta-ta for now!
19 March 2007
Uh-oh...is it time to pull out the big guns already?
Scientists eye odd climate fixes
Last Updated: Monday, March 19, 2007 | 9:44 AM ET
The Associated Press
When climate scientist Andrew Weaver considers the idea of tinkering with Earth's air, water or sunlight to fight global warming, he remembers the lessons of a favourite children's book.
In the book, a cheese-loving king's castle is infested with mice. So the king brings in cats to get rid of the mice. Then the castle's overrun with cats, so he brings in dogs to get rid of them, then lions to get rid of the dogs, elephants to get rid of the lions, and finally, mice to get rid of the elephants.
That scenario in The King, the Mice and the Cheese, by Nancy and Eric Gurney, should give scientists pause before taking extreme measures to mess with Mother Nature, says Weaver of the University of Victoria.
However, in recent months, several scientists are considering doing just that.
Desperate measures
They are exploring global warming solutions that sound wholly far-fetched, including giant artificial "trees" that would filter carbon dioxide out of the air, a bizarre "solar shade" created by a trillion flying saucers that lower Earth's temperature, and a scheme that mimics a volcano by spewing light-reflecting sulphates high in the sky.
These are costly projects of last resort — in case Earth's citizens don't cut back fast enough on greenhouse gas emissions and the worst of the climate predictions appear not too far away. Unfortunately, the solutions could cause problems of their own — beyond their exorbitant costs — including making the arid Middle East even drier and polluting the air enough to increase respiratory illnesses.
Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said mankind already has harmed Earth's climate inadvertently, so it's foolish to think that people can now fix it with a few drastic measures.
But at Trenberth's same Boulder, Colo., research centre, climate scientist Tom Wigley is exploring that mock volcano idea.
"It's the lesser of two evils here [the other being doing nothing]," Wigley said. "Whatever we do, there are bad consequences, but you have to judge the relative badness of all the consequences."
Studying the concept of how volcanic pollutants could lessen global warming — the Earth was slightly cooler after the eruption of a Philippine volcano 16 years ago — was brought to the forefront of scientific debate last summer by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen.
"It was meant to startle the policymakers," said Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end, we have to do experiments like this."
In the past, scientists and others have avoided talking publicly about these ideas, known as "geoengineering," even though the concept was first raised in 1965. They worried that the hope of a quick technological fix to global warming would prevent politicians and the public from making the real energy sacrifices that they say are necessary to slow climate change.
David Keith, a University of Calgary engineering professor and one of the world's experts in geoengineering, says that just because tinkering with the air, water and sunlight are possible, they should not be substitutes for cutting emissions just because "we've been politically weak-kneed."
Instead, he said, such options should be researched as an "insurance policy" in case global warming is even worse than forecast. And that prospect has caused climate scientists to talk about the issue more openly in recent months.
There is also a chance that discussion of such radical ideas as a volcano or sun shade could shock the world into acting to reduce fossil fuel emissions, Keith said.
However, White House science adviser Jack Marburger said spending money on geoengineering doesn't make sense. The U.S. federal government, which spends about $2 billion US on climate change science, invests nearly all of its research on energy sources that produce fewer or no greenhouse gas emissions.
"I don't think it's scientifically feasible at this time to consider a plan like that [geoengineering]," Marburger said. "The real urgency is to reduce carbon dioxide."
In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change looked at geoengineering as part of its report on how to lessen global warming.
It found some promise, worried about unexpected side effects, legal and ethical implications, and concluded that "unlike other strategies, geoengineering addresses the symptoms rather than the causes of climate change."
Even proponents of geoengineering research are wary.
"We are playing with fire here," Keith said. "Those of us suggesting we do something are suggesting it with real nervousness."
Last week at the Gwynne Dyer presentation, he said that he talked to James Lovelock quite regularly, and one of Lovelock's main concerns was that as humans continue to increase our dominance and control all of the ecosystems on the planet, we are inadvertently becoming 'global climate engineers' -- that at some point in order to keep the climate, the atmosphere and the ecosystem balanced and regulated against our influences, we will have no choice to start intervening with technology. After that point, there will be no going back. We will forever afterwards be monitoring, predicting and inventing new technologies to keep the planet habitable into the far future. Scary thoughts, but it already looks like it might be the less of two evils (as mentioned in the article above). The worse evil? Doing nothing.
Last Updated: Monday, March 19, 2007 | 9:44 AM ET
The Associated Press
When climate scientist Andrew Weaver considers the idea of tinkering with Earth's air, water or sunlight to fight global warming, he remembers the lessons of a favourite children's book.
In the book, a cheese-loving king's castle is infested with mice. So the king brings in cats to get rid of the mice. Then the castle's overrun with cats, so he brings in dogs to get rid of them, then lions to get rid of the dogs, elephants to get rid of the lions, and finally, mice to get rid of the elephants.
That scenario in The King, the Mice and the Cheese, by Nancy and Eric Gurney, should give scientists pause before taking extreme measures to mess with Mother Nature, says Weaver of the University of Victoria.
However, in recent months, several scientists are considering doing just that.
Desperate measures
They are exploring global warming solutions that sound wholly far-fetched, including giant artificial "trees" that would filter carbon dioxide out of the air, a bizarre "solar shade" created by a trillion flying saucers that lower Earth's temperature, and a scheme that mimics a volcano by spewing light-reflecting sulphates high in the sky.
These are costly projects of last resort — in case Earth's citizens don't cut back fast enough on greenhouse gas emissions and the worst of the climate predictions appear not too far away. Unfortunately, the solutions could cause problems of their own — beyond their exorbitant costs — including making the arid Middle East even drier and polluting the air enough to increase respiratory illnesses.
Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said mankind already has harmed Earth's climate inadvertently, so it's foolish to think that people can now fix it with a few drastic measures.
But at Trenberth's same Boulder, Colo., research centre, climate scientist Tom Wigley is exploring that mock volcano idea.
"It's the lesser of two evils here [the other being doing nothing]," Wigley said. "Whatever we do, there are bad consequences, but you have to judge the relative badness of all the consequences."
Studying the concept of how volcanic pollutants could lessen global warming — the Earth was slightly cooler after the eruption of a Philippine volcano 16 years ago — was brought to the forefront of scientific debate last summer by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen.
"It was meant to startle the policymakers," said Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end, we have to do experiments like this."
In the past, scientists and others have avoided talking publicly about these ideas, known as "geoengineering," even though the concept was first raised in 1965. They worried that the hope of a quick technological fix to global warming would prevent politicians and the public from making the real energy sacrifices that they say are necessary to slow climate change.
David Keith, a University of Calgary engineering professor and one of the world's experts in geoengineering, says that just because tinkering with the air, water and sunlight are possible, they should not be substitutes for cutting emissions just because "we've been politically weak-kneed."
Instead, he said, such options should be researched as an "insurance policy" in case global warming is even worse than forecast. And that prospect has caused climate scientists to talk about the issue more openly in recent months.
There is also a chance that discussion of such radical ideas as a volcano or sun shade could shock the world into acting to reduce fossil fuel emissions, Keith said.
However, White House science adviser Jack Marburger said spending money on geoengineering doesn't make sense. The U.S. federal government, which spends about $2 billion US on climate change science, invests nearly all of its research on energy sources that produce fewer or no greenhouse gas emissions.
"I don't think it's scientifically feasible at this time to consider a plan like that [geoengineering]," Marburger said. "The real urgency is to reduce carbon dioxide."
In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change looked at geoengineering as part of its report on how to lessen global warming.
It found some promise, worried about unexpected side effects, legal and ethical implications, and concluded that "unlike other strategies, geoengineering addresses the symptoms rather than the causes of climate change."
Even proponents of geoengineering research are wary.
"We are playing with fire here," Keith said. "Those of us suggesting we do something are suggesting it with real nervousness."
Last week at the Gwynne Dyer presentation, he said that he talked to James Lovelock quite regularly, and one of Lovelock's main concerns was that as humans continue to increase our dominance and control all of the ecosystems on the planet, we are inadvertently becoming 'global climate engineers' -- that at some point in order to keep the climate, the atmosphere and the ecosystem balanced and regulated against our influences, we will have no choice to start intervening with technology. After that point, there will be no going back. We will forever afterwards be monitoring, predicting and inventing new technologies to keep the planet habitable into the far future. Scary thoughts, but it already looks like it might be the less of two evils (as mentioned in the article above). The worse evil? Doing nothing.
16 March 2007
Yeah, I know. Another Blogthing.
| You Are Kermit |
 Hi, ho! Lovable and friendly, you get along well with everyone you know. You're a big thinker, and sometimes you over think life's problems. Don't worry - everyone know's it's not easy being green. Just remember, time's fun when you're having flies! |
From Sean.
Shopper, Repent!
The leader of the Church of Stop Shopping explains how consumerism corrupts us - and how "not-buying" is our salvation.
by Bill Talen, aka Reverend Billy
In our strange worship at the Church of Stop Shopping we recently took a shiny Sunbeam toaster and put it in the center of the altar.
A young man named Jonah walked up the aisle of the church for his exorcism. As he walked toward the Sunbeam his obvious admiration for it, competing with his faith in the potential of his own buylessness, was very clear. The congregation prayed that he would somehow not grab that sleek chrome bread heater (it resembled a Mercedes coupe and had computerized controls, including a woman's voice that purred "Your toast is done"). I placed my hand on the forehead of this shaking soul as he pleaded with us, "Oh, I don't need your help, I'm just browsing!" How could we possibly blame him for the bald lie? We had positioned the Sunbeam beautifully on a red velvet cloth.
As Jonah reached for the product we prayed hard. The choir hummed and the deacons moved forward to lay hands on the craven consumer as the devil pulled the young man's begging fingers toward the toaster. Jonah was pretty far gone. "Oh ... toast and butter ... toast and butter ... it's more than a smell ... Oh, my God! Black currant jam on the butter, oh, oh!" The cry was hideous.
But wait! Jonah's hand hesitated, and then pulling out of that force field, it flew back and wavered there in the air. Jonah stared, in shock, at his released fingers. Then he ran around the church as if proving to a Pentecostal TV audience that now he could walk. Held aloft by the preacher, his hand was shaking with new freedom, unburdened. The Stop Shopping Gospel Choir was swaying with the power of a receiptless God-Goddess that surpasseth all valuation. The object looked cheated, cuckolded. Finally the Sunbeam deluxe toaster was just fucking junk.
Not-buying is a brave thing to do. At first it may induce vertigo, identity weirdness, and a desire for an unwanted pregnancy, but most often a new believer will have an abnormal kitsch-acquisition fit. The first response to the break in buying may be a huge sucking sound in your hands - you want to buy something, anything. You are headed for a relapse, a spree. My pastoral advice is to steer clear of Ralph Lauren, Kenneth Cole, or any other fashion designer who is trying to anticipate the not-buying revolution by copping a look of weatheredness, offhandedness, or lack of manufacture. Their sales departments think all day about your escape, admiring it and blocking it. They study you via surveillance feeds as they sit in their easy chairs, thoughtfully rubbing their chins.
When you lift your hand from the product and back away from it, a bright, unclaimed space opens up. Consumers think it is a vacuum. It is really only the unknown - full of suppressed ocean life, glitterati from Bosch, DNA twists, and childhood quotes that if remembered would burn down the Disney Store. Many Americans consider this withdrawing gesture a dark thing. Officially, it is absurd, an antigesture, like an American who didn't go west, who didn't go into space, who had sex without a car.
In the Church of Stop Shopping we believe that buying is not nearly as interesting as not-buying. When you back away from the purchase, the product may look up at you with wanton eyes, but it will slump quickly back onto the shelf and sit there trying to get a life. The product needs you more than you need it - remember that.
Now, if you try this - if you lift your hand from the product, pull that hand back into the aisle, back away from the product, and carefully move toward the door - you may feel turbulence deep in your muscles' memory. You may feel the old grab, the lift, the swipe of plastic, and finally the bagging for the road. The ex-consumer can easily lose his or her footing, buffeted by all those ghost gestures.
Like crack cocaine or membership in the National Rifle Association, shopping is an annihilating addiction that must be slowed down to be stopped. Or flooded with new and different light. But people, please - do something! Think of something quick. The research phase is over. How many times do we have to hear that seven percent of the world's population is taking a third of the world's resources? How many neighborhoods need to be malled? When will our foreign policy be violent enough to turn our heads? Recently a local Starbucks rang with shouts of "We are from the Church of the Necessary Interruption!" We try many strategies. Enacting a purchase in a formal church ritual on Sunday or acting out a comic version of being born again might help those parishioners when they are cornered in Temptation Mall. Sweatshops are truly shocking, and I've seen the sheer force of the information stop a shopper. We make dramas, we sing and shout, and chain ourselves to Mickey Mouse. We are desperate to access the bright and unclaimed space that the corporations must desperately hide.
In another time, long, long ago, maybe you could have gone ahead and had a life without shopping. But now life without shopping is something that takes years of practice, since shopping is so virulent and ubiquitous that mothers are bathing their wombs with sounds of Mozart so that their fetuses will score higher on their SATs. Now everything from the most intimate disease to daydreaming is a pretext for the avant-fascism of convenience, comfort, and closure.
We might call that unclaimed space "ordinary life". And how do we design that back in? How much of real life hasn't made it into our fully mediated consumption? Can we ever go home again? We have made thousands of purchases - thousands of times the doors have closed behind us as we walked farther into that big, big sale.
The bumper sticker says Birth, Shopping, Death. Well, birth and death are a part of ordinary life. And ordinary life is itself amazing; the intriguing mystery that precedes birth and follows death does not stop when we are alive. Perhaps the great con began when churches made us pay our own arrival and departure. Life itself has as much unknown in it as death; it is just as inexplicable. That's the thrill of the ride. We say, Put the ODD Back in God!
We shop because we fear life. We shop because we want to banish from life something we identify with death, the unknown. It waits for us in that bright, unclaimed space. Of course, we are trained to think of what we can't know as a bad thing. Actually, it is the source of the brightness; it is why this space has no owner.
I'm claiming that the rejection of living-by-products opens up a sensual and peopled life, and it also has in it an acceptance of the unknown, which is always waiting with the glorious indifference of the fires that float above us in the night sky. Is it a contradiction that accepting this unknown is what makes it possible for us to live together? Well, there is nothing more thoroughly mysterious than love, thank God. Those who organize defenses against the Unknown (such as religious fundamentalists and consumer fundamentalists) foment numbness, hatred, and war. Unfortunately, they have perfected their imitation of ordinary living, and that comes to us as the comforting ghost gesture of shopping.
Ordinary life will feel counterintuitive, to put it mildly. But what will happen to the American consumer when the consuming stops is about as fascinating a question as we can ask.
_____
Excerpted from What Should I Do if Reverend Billy is in My Store? by Bill Talen (The New Press, 2005). Reprinted with the author's permission.
Bill Talen is an actor and activist who, as the Reverend Billy, leads the Church of Stop Shopping, an anti-consumerist communion devoted to putting the "Odd into God". He lives and preaches in New York City, but has been feted and arrested in several countries. For further information, visit revbilly.com.
Copyright (c) 2007 SoMAreview, LLC. All Rights Reserved
by Bill Talen, aka Reverend Billy
In our strange worship at the Church of Stop Shopping we recently took a shiny Sunbeam toaster and put it in the center of the altar.
A young man named Jonah walked up the aisle of the church for his exorcism. As he walked toward the Sunbeam his obvious admiration for it, competing with his faith in the potential of his own buylessness, was very clear. The congregation prayed that he would somehow not grab that sleek chrome bread heater (it resembled a Mercedes coupe and had computerized controls, including a woman's voice that purred "Your toast is done"). I placed my hand on the forehead of this shaking soul as he pleaded with us, "Oh, I don't need your help, I'm just browsing!" How could we possibly blame him for the bald lie? We had positioned the Sunbeam beautifully on a red velvet cloth.
As Jonah reached for the product we prayed hard. The choir hummed and the deacons moved forward to lay hands on the craven consumer as the devil pulled the young man's begging fingers toward the toaster. Jonah was pretty far gone. "Oh ... toast and butter ... toast and butter ... it's more than a smell ... Oh, my God! Black currant jam on the butter, oh, oh!" The cry was hideous.
But wait! Jonah's hand hesitated, and then pulling out of that force field, it flew back and wavered there in the air. Jonah stared, in shock, at his released fingers. Then he ran around the church as if proving to a Pentecostal TV audience that now he could walk. Held aloft by the preacher, his hand was shaking with new freedom, unburdened. The Stop Shopping Gospel Choir was swaying with the power of a receiptless God-Goddess that surpasseth all valuation. The object looked cheated, cuckolded. Finally the Sunbeam deluxe toaster was just fucking junk.
Not-buying is a brave thing to do. At first it may induce vertigo, identity weirdness, and a desire for an unwanted pregnancy, but most often a new believer will have an abnormal kitsch-acquisition fit. The first response to the break in buying may be a huge sucking sound in your hands - you want to buy something, anything. You are headed for a relapse, a spree. My pastoral advice is to steer clear of Ralph Lauren, Kenneth Cole, or any other fashion designer who is trying to anticipate the not-buying revolution by copping a look of weatheredness, offhandedness, or lack of manufacture. Their sales departments think all day about your escape, admiring it and blocking it. They study you via surveillance feeds as they sit in their easy chairs, thoughtfully rubbing their chins.
When you lift your hand from the product and back away from it, a bright, unclaimed space opens up. Consumers think it is a vacuum. It is really only the unknown - full of suppressed ocean life, glitterati from Bosch, DNA twists, and childhood quotes that if remembered would burn down the Disney Store. Many Americans consider this withdrawing gesture a dark thing. Officially, it is absurd, an antigesture, like an American who didn't go west, who didn't go into space, who had sex without a car.
In the Church of Stop Shopping we believe that buying is not nearly as interesting as not-buying. When you back away from the purchase, the product may look up at you with wanton eyes, but it will slump quickly back onto the shelf and sit there trying to get a life. The product needs you more than you need it - remember that.
Now, if you try this - if you lift your hand from the product, pull that hand back into the aisle, back away from the product, and carefully move toward the door - you may feel turbulence deep in your muscles' memory. You may feel the old grab, the lift, the swipe of plastic, and finally the bagging for the road. The ex-consumer can easily lose his or her footing, buffeted by all those ghost gestures.
Like crack cocaine or membership in the National Rifle Association, shopping is an annihilating addiction that must be slowed down to be stopped. Or flooded with new and different light. But people, please - do something! Think of something quick. The research phase is over. How many times do we have to hear that seven percent of the world's population is taking a third of the world's resources? How many neighborhoods need to be malled? When will our foreign policy be violent enough to turn our heads? Recently a local Starbucks rang with shouts of "We are from the Church of the Necessary Interruption!" We try many strategies. Enacting a purchase in a formal church ritual on Sunday or acting out a comic version of being born again might help those parishioners when they are cornered in Temptation Mall. Sweatshops are truly shocking, and I've seen the sheer force of the information stop a shopper. We make dramas, we sing and shout, and chain ourselves to Mickey Mouse. We are desperate to access the bright and unclaimed space that the corporations must desperately hide.
In another time, long, long ago, maybe you could have gone ahead and had a life without shopping. But now life without shopping is something that takes years of practice, since shopping is so virulent and ubiquitous that mothers are bathing their wombs with sounds of Mozart so that their fetuses will score higher on their SATs. Now everything from the most intimate disease to daydreaming is a pretext for the avant-fascism of convenience, comfort, and closure.
We might call that unclaimed space "ordinary life". And how do we design that back in? How much of real life hasn't made it into our fully mediated consumption? Can we ever go home again? We have made thousands of purchases - thousands of times the doors have closed behind us as we walked farther into that big, big sale.
The bumper sticker says Birth, Shopping, Death. Well, birth and death are a part of ordinary life. And ordinary life is itself amazing; the intriguing mystery that precedes birth and follows death does not stop when we are alive. Perhaps the great con began when churches made us pay our own arrival and departure. Life itself has as much unknown in it as death; it is just as inexplicable. That's the thrill of the ride. We say, Put the ODD Back in God!
We shop because we fear life. We shop because we want to banish from life something we identify with death, the unknown. It waits for us in that bright, unclaimed space. Of course, we are trained to think of what we can't know as a bad thing. Actually, it is the source of the brightness; it is why this space has no owner.
I'm claiming that the rejection of living-by-products opens up a sensual and peopled life, and it also has in it an acceptance of the unknown, which is always waiting with the glorious indifference of the fires that float above us in the night sky. Is it a contradiction that accepting this unknown is what makes it possible for us to live together? Well, there is nothing more thoroughly mysterious than love, thank God. Those who organize defenses against the Unknown (such as religious fundamentalists and consumer fundamentalists) foment numbness, hatred, and war. Unfortunately, they have perfected their imitation of ordinary living, and that comes to us as the comforting ghost gesture of shopping.
Ordinary life will feel counterintuitive, to put it mildly. But what will happen to the American consumer when the consuming stops is about as fascinating a question as we can ask.
_____
Excerpted from What Should I Do if Reverend Billy is in My Store? by Bill Talen (The New Press, 2005). Reprinted with the author's permission.
Bill Talen is an actor and activist who, as the Reverend Billy, leads the Church of Stop Shopping, an anti-consumerist communion devoted to putting the "Odd into God". He lives and preaches in New York City, but has been feted and arrested in several countries. For further information, visit revbilly.com.
Copyright (c) 2007 SoMAreview, LLC. All Rights Reserved
15 March 2007
Sequestration considerations
Albertans 'willing to pay' to fight climate change
A plan to pipe and store massive amounts of carbon dioxide underground could cost as much as $5 billion, Environment Minister Rob Renner said Wednesday. The announcement came as Carbon sequestration is a major component of the government's plan to deal with the threat of climate change. PM Stephen Harper was in Edmonton last week to announce funding that would help pay for such a project. The multi-billion-dollar cost would cover more than an extensive pipeline network linking the province's carbon emitters to gas dumping grounds ranging from old oil wells to coal beds and deep saltwater aquifers. Much of the cost will be incurred in actually stripping the carbon dioxide from emissions. In many cases, that will mean expensive retrofits to coal-fired power plants, refineries, upgraders and chemical plants whose smokestacks currently belch the gases into the air. The innovations would help push the province towards "zero-emission coal" generation, which Premier Ed Stelmach's throne speech mused about last week.
Renner unveiled the government's plans to update its climate change blueprint in the coming months, but only after it seeks Albertans' input from 10 public consultation meetings across the province between late March and late April. The government's position that all Albertans, and not just large emitters, need to put a greener foot forward in the climate change fight garnered praise from the oil and gas industry. Environmental groups, meanwhile, charged the government is dragging its heels in crafting a true environment plan. Marlo Raynolds, executive director of the Alberta-based Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank, questioned why the government is further delaying on its climate change plan. "I'm wondering how much of it is a recognition their (greenhouse gas) regulation is so weak that they need to build public confidence," Raynolds said. However, Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said the province's public consultation is key to moving the conversation beyond just one involving government and industry. "If we're going to get to the heart of this, end-use (public) consumption has to be a bigger part of this debate," Alvarez said. "It's not just an industry issue. Every single Albertan is an energy consumer." Opposition parties immediately assailed the consultation as a "public relations exercise" designed to stall for time while the government determines what to do on climate change.
Renner said the government's newly introduced greenhouse gas legislation, which requires large industrial emitters to meet 12% emissions intensity reductions (carbon dioxide per barrel of oil), will drive up industry costs, which will ultimately be passed on to the taxpayer. The minister said he's seen a rough number of the additional costs and promised it to the media, but his staff later said those numbers haven't yet been calculated. Renner also revealed that plans to capture carbon dioxide and build a pipeline that would ship CO2 from Alberta's northern oilsands to the western sedimentary basin could cost as much as $5B -- far above earlier estimates of $1.5B. A final climate change plan will be released by the fall.
(Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal 070315)
Well, I imagine most of this $5 billion will come from us, the taxpayers, through government subsidies. I assume the corporations that run and build these plants will not have to pay a whole lot to retrofit their own technologies, since the government is their bitch. They'll justify raising rates to the consumers (taxpayers) because of the huge costs involved, when they are actually getting the upgrading all paid for by the taxpayers anyways. What a great scam that is?
Underground carbon storage backed
A panel of scientists yesterday urged the US to speed up efforts to store carbon gases underground to keep coal use viable in the face of growing concerns about global warming. Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said in a report that coal, the dominant fuel for electricity in the US and China, will remain an attractive energy source if greenhouse emission issues can be resolved. The report, The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World, assumes that some limits will eventually be imposed on carbon dioxide (CO2), most likely in the form of a cap or tax on emissions. Coal has been blamed by environmentalists as a major culprit in global warming because of its high level of CO2 emissions. But it supplies about half the electric power needs in the US and two-thirds of energy needs in China, since it costs less than most alternatives and both countries have ample domestic supplies. The study concluded there are no scientific obstacles to the use of "carbon capture and sequestration," or burying CO2 in underground geologic formations. The report maintained that the US government-funded "clean coal" programs are vastly underfunded, and called for three to five subsidized coal-fired plants that would capture and store all carbon emissions. Such technology will add about 50% to the wholesale cost of electricity and roughly 25% to the retail costs, the panel concluded. This would still allow coal to compete with other energy sources such as nuclear energy and natural gas, assuming that carbon emissions are limited or taxed.
(National Post 070315)
Despite the fact that sequestration would lessen the EROEI of coal power generation even further, technology to make the process more efficient might balance out the extra energy required for sequestration. At any rate, everyone is starting to look at the greenhouse gas problem very seriously, which is a very good thing. It's unfortunate that we have to continue to look at coal as a reliable energy source despite its shortcomings, but we really don't have any choice at this point in time.
A plan to pipe and store massive amounts of carbon dioxide underground could cost as much as $5 billion, Environment Minister Rob Renner said Wednesday. The announcement came as Carbon sequestration is a major component of the government's plan to deal with the threat of climate change. PM Stephen Harper was in Edmonton last week to announce funding that would help pay for such a project. The multi-billion-dollar cost would cover more than an extensive pipeline network linking the province's carbon emitters to gas dumping grounds ranging from old oil wells to coal beds and deep saltwater aquifers. Much of the cost will be incurred in actually stripping the carbon dioxide from emissions. In many cases, that will mean expensive retrofits to coal-fired power plants, refineries, upgraders and chemical plants whose smokestacks currently belch the gases into the air. The innovations would help push the province towards "zero-emission coal" generation, which Premier Ed Stelmach's throne speech mused about last week.
Renner unveiled the government's plans to update its climate change blueprint in the coming months, but only after it seeks Albertans' input from 10 public consultation meetings across the province between late March and late April. The government's position that all Albertans, and not just large emitters, need to put a greener foot forward in the climate change fight garnered praise from the oil and gas industry. Environmental groups, meanwhile, charged the government is dragging its heels in crafting a true environment plan. Marlo Raynolds, executive director of the Alberta-based Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank, questioned why the government is further delaying on its climate change plan. "I'm wondering how much of it is a recognition their (greenhouse gas) regulation is so weak that they need to build public confidence," Raynolds said. However, Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said the province's public consultation is key to moving the conversation beyond just one involving government and industry. "If we're going to get to the heart of this, end-use (public) consumption has to be a bigger part of this debate," Alvarez said. "It's not just an industry issue. Every single Albertan is an energy consumer." Opposition parties immediately assailed the consultation as a "public relations exercise" designed to stall for time while the government determines what to do on climate change.
Renner said the government's newly introduced greenhouse gas legislation, which requires large industrial emitters to meet 12% emissions intensity reductions (carbon dioxide per barrel of oil), will drive up industry costs, which will ultimately be passed on to the taxpayer. The minister said he's seen a rough number of the additional costs and promised it to the media, but his staff later said those numbers haven't yet been calculated. Renner also revealed that plans to capture carbon dioxide and build a pipeline that would ship CO2 from Alberta's northern oilsands to the western sedimentary basin could cost as much as $5B -- far above earlier estimates of $1.5B. A final climate change plan will be released by the fall.
(Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal 070315)
Well, I imagine most of this $5 billion will come from us, the taxpayers, through government subsidies. I assume the corporations that run and build these plants will not have to pay a whole lot to retrofit their own technologies, since the government is their bitch. They'll justify raising rates to the consumers (taxpayers) because of the huge costs involved, when they are actually getting the upgrading all paid for by the taxpayers anyways. What a great scam that is?
Underground carbon storage backed
A panel of scientists yesterday urged the US to speed up efforts to store carbon gases underground to keep coal use viable in the face of growing concerns about global warming. Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said in a report that coal, the dominant fuel for electricity in the US and China, will remain an attractive energy source if greenhouse emission issues can be resolved. The report, The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World, assumes that some limits will eventually be imposed on carbon dioxide (CO2), most likely in the form of a cap or tax on emissions. Coal has been blamed by environmentalists as a major culprit in global warming because of its high level of CO2 emissions. But it supplies about half the electric power needs in the US and two-thirds of energy needs in China, since it costs less than most alternatives and both countries have ample domestic supplies. The study concluded there are no scientific obstacles to the use of "carbon capture and sequestration," or burying CO2 in underground geologic formations. The report maintained that the US government-funded "clean coal" programs are vastly underfunded, and called for three to five subsidized coal-fired plants that would capture and store all carbon emissions. Such technology will add about 50% to the wholesale cost of electricity and roughly 25% to the retail costs, the panel concluded. This would still allow coal to compete with other energy sources such as nuclear energy and natural gas, assuming that carbon emissions are limited or taxed.
(National Post 070315)
Despite the fact that sequestration would lessen the EROEI of coal power generation even further, technology to make the process more efficient might balance out the extra energy required for sequestration. At any rate, everyone is starting to look at the greenhouse gas problem very seriously, which is a very good thing. It's unfortunate that we have to continue to look at coal as a reliable energy source despite its shortcomings, but we really don't have any choice at this point in time.
14 March 2007
I Left My Heart.....
Yay! We all bought our flights to San Francisco this morning. $342 each! As soon as I got into the office, checked my email and saw the Air Canada Seat Sale message in my Inbox, I was on the horn with Jeff, Doug, Matt and Joe to get our tickets bought. The flurry of emails that followed was disturbing (I think Jeff found so much humour in it he's posting them on his blog tonight), yet in the hub-bub, I misunderstood what day we were flying to San Fran since we had earlier discussed not wanting to be there an entire week, but I think I missed out on the conversation Jeff had about our hotel booking at Hotel Fusion and that in order to get some discount on the rate we had to be there for 7 nights. Long story short, three are arriving on Wednesday, Joe and I are arriving on Thursday. Not a big deal, really.
What with my trip to Newport Beach coming up on the 23rd, San Francisco in June and Canadian Track and Road Nationals in Quebec in July, I think a day less travelling might be an okay thing on the pocketbook.
I'm so EXCITED! It will be great to finally check out this city (beyond the airport), plus meet all of the Bloggers. This will also be the first time a large chunk of the gang will be vacationing together, after the Vancouver debacle of August 2003 (I can't believe that happened almost four years ago already).
Let's Get Nuclear
Global warming: Province against province?
A get-tough strategy to combat global warming could produce multibillion-dollar transfers from coal-fired provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan to provinces like Quebec and Manitoba that rely on hydroelectric power, says a new study from CIBC World Markets. Jeffrey Rubin, chief economist with CIBC World Markets, said he expects Canada will have to adopt an effective emissions credit market that includes strict limits on carbon dioxide emissions and large fines for companies that exceed those limits. Rubin said yesterday that governments in Ottawa and Alberta are pursuing a minimalist policy that will actually lead to significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions. Eventually, he said, Canada will have to get tougher, prodded by a growing movement in the US to combat global warming. “There is more than enough at stake to get all the premiers' attention,” Rubin wrote. “The carbon wars promise to be anything but regionally neutral.” He said a Canadian-based cap-and-trade credit system would entail “very significant transfers” between oil- and coal-rich Alberta and Saskatchewan and provinces that rely less on fossil fuels. Alberta recently imposed new limits on greenhouse gas emissions based on so-called intensity targets. The government said it would fine companies that exceed their limits $15 for every tonne of additional CO2, a figure the former Liberal government and the current Conservative government have also embraced. But environmentalists complain that the $15-a-tonne penalty is simply too small to induce companies to invest in efforts to reduce emissions, and Rubin agrees, seeing $30 per tonne as the minimum level necessary to induce changes.
Alberta and Saskatchewan currently account for 40% of Canada greenhouse gas emissions, and represented 60% of the growth in those emissions between 1990 and 2004. While critics have focused on Alberta's oil sands as a potential source of major increases in greenhouse gas emissions, Rubin said the current interprovincial breakdown has as much to do with how the provinces generate their electricity. Those that rely heavily on coal would be major purchasers of emission credits under a cap-and-trade system, while those that depend on hydro and nuclear could be sellers of credits. Alberta gets 74% of its electricity from coal - the worst emitter of greenhouse gases among fossil fuels - while Saskatchewan relies on coal for 63% of its power, and Nova Scotia, 60%. On the other end of the spectrum, Manitoba generates 98% of its power from hydroelectric, Quebec 95% and Newfoundland 95%. And each of those provinces are planning major hydro expansions. Ontario has the greatest mix of sources, relying on nuclear for 49% of its electricity generation, hydro for 25%, coal for 18%, and natural gas for 7%. Rubin said Ontario would likely be a net seller of credits under a cap-and-trade system, particularly if it proceeds with plans to shutter its coal-fired plants.
(Globe and Mail 070314)
Whee! My native land of Manitoba could make out fairly well with the emissions credit market scheme. Alberta - time to start thinking about electrons.
A get-tough strategy to combat global warming could produce multibillion-dollar transfers from coal-fired provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan to provinces like Quebec and Manitoba that rely on hydroelectric power, says a new study from CIBC World Markets. Jeffrey Rubin, chief economist with CIBC World Markets, said he expects Canada will have to adopt an effective emissions credit market that includes strict limits on carbon dioxide emissions and large fines for companies that exceed those limits. Rubin said yesterday that governments in Ottawa and Alberta are pursuing a minimalist policy that will actually lead to significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions. Eventually, he said, Canada will have to get tougher, prodded by a growing movement in the US to combat global warming. “There is more than enough at stake to get all the premiers' attention,” Rubin wrote. “The carbon wars promise to be anything but regionally neutral.” He said a Canadian-based cap-and-trade credit system would entail “very significant transfers” between oil- and coal-rich Alberta and Saskatchewan and provinces that rely less on fossil fuels. Alberta recently imposed new limits on greenhouse gas emissions based on so-called intensity targets. The government said it would fine companies that exceed their limits $15 for every tonne of additional CO2, a figure the former Liberal government and the current Conservative government have also embraced. But environmentalists complain that the $15-a-tonne penalty is simply too small to induce companies to invest in efforts to reduce emissions, and Rubin agrees, seeing $30 per tonne as the minimum level necessary to induce changes.
Alberta and Saskatchewan currently account for 40% of Canada greenhouse gas emissions, and represented 60% of the growth in those emissions between 1990 and 2004. While critics have focused on Alberta's oil sands as a potential source of major increases in greenhouse gas emissions, Rubin said the current interprovincial breakdown has as much to do with how the provinces generate their electricity. Those that rely heavily on coal would be major purchasers of emission credits under a cap-and-trade system, while those that depend on hydro and nuclear could be sellers of credits. Alberta gets 74% of its electricity from coal - the worst emitter of greenhouse gases among fossil fuels - while Saskatchewan relies on coal for 63% of its power, and Nova Scotia, 60%. On the other end of the spectrum, Manitoba generates 98% of its power from hydroelectric, Quebec 95% and Newfoundland 95%. And each of those provinces are planning major hydro expansions. Ontario has the greatest mix of sources, relying on nuclear for 49% of its electricity generation, hydro for 25%, coal for 18%, and natural gas for 7%. Rubin said Ontario would likely be a net seller of credits under a cap-and-trade system, particularly if it proceeds with plans to shutter its coal-fired plants.
(Globe and Mail 070314)
Whee! My native land of Manitoba could make out fairly well with the emissions credit market scheme. Alberta - time to start thinking about electrons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)