A Green Canada Includes The West!

Canada may be out of the Kyoto protocol, but even our own non scientific target of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 won`t be reached at this rate. Due to Harper`s indifference on climate change Canada is falling behind most nations not only when it comes to environmental action, but also maintaining past successes. Harper made Canada the only country not to stay on the UN convention combating droughts.

In Canada emissions are going up. Canada is way above it`s Kyoto agreements. Right now Canada emits 690 Mega tonnes of CO2. Nearly 20 tonnes of CO2 per capita, which makes us one of the biggest polluters  in the developed world. Who is to blame? Alberta. I think it is an over simplification to blame everything on Alberta. And yes while it is true that Alberta over represents itself in CO2 emissions in Canada compared to it's portion of the population. 

Alberta isn't a bad province, because it has oil, and yes oil isn't a bad thing. Oil is a vital resource in today's modern economy. The problem though is that Alberta's Tar Sands are polluting to much, and will hinder Canada ability to reach any target. The Problem is that Alberta is built on this vital resource. Alberta's low unemployment rate and usually* decent public finances are all due to the cash cow that is the OIL!

Quebec and other eastern provinces who don't have as many resources like Alberta, haven't found it too hard to reduce CO2 emissions. Ontario is 6.5% below 1990 levels (That means Ontario reached it's Kyoto target) Quebec is 2% below 1990 levels. Both these provinces have pledged to reduce CO2 emissions by  15% in Ontario and 20% in Quebec from 1990 levels by 2020. For Quebec and Ontario it is much easier to be green and so far these provinces are leading by example. 

The western provinces don't fair so well. BC emission are up 28% above 1990 levels, Manitoba 10%, Alberta 37% and Saskatchewan 69%!!!!!! Harper has taken no action on these frighting numbers. For me even though I live in Quebec I see that Canada can't reach any target no matter how low emissions are in Central Canada.

My Vision for a green Canada include's the west. In order to create a green Canada we need to get the west off fossil fuels, and yes that means getting rid of the old economy and creating a new economy. For this we can't just say to Alberta your on your own. The federal government must help the west invest in green energy to create a new western economy off fossil fuels. A green Canada doesn't mean high unemployment in Alberta. It means new and sustainable employment in the west. 

Let's get Real On Climate Change!

Many people like to point to the oil companies for the blame of Climate change, but households contribute to 45% of all emissions. That means if we wish to achieve the goal most climate scientist say will help us avoid disaster we need to reduce household emissions. We must reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050. So even if all industries close there doors today we would still need to cut household emissions by more than half. An easy way to start reducing emissions considering the energy sector is responsible for 82% of emissions is a shift to cleaner sources of energy such as wind and hydro instead of oil and gas for heating and for industry.  Since motor fuel use is increasing it's share of emission promoting public transit will curve that. Products that we buy which contribute heavily to emission as in order to make and distribute a product CO2 a byproduct is released. In order to make it easier for consumer for consumers to by more Eco friendly product without hurting their bottom line. I have urge this forever a Carbon Tax that gives consumers a rebate so that the more Eco friendly product is actually the more cheaper product and can actually save you money. All of these proposals will make a big scratch, but all Canadians as citizens of the world must act together to conserve energy and the planet for generations to come. We must get real on climate change.

Read more here

Maybe to Nuclear Energy!

When I heard about the nuclear meltdown in Japan I was ready to hate nuclear all together, but sometimes we have to see all the facts in front of us. nuclear is a non renewable resource, but so is coal and oil. Now if I had to chose between Oil which is a non renewable resource, has caused major climate change and deaths every year(ex: of oil spills like the gulf oil spill or the Alaska oil spill) I would choose nuclear. Slate news even found out that if you take all the deaths Oil has caused (not including disease caused by pollution) compared to the deaths nuclear has caused. You see that for every unit of energy oil kills 18 times more people than nuclear. There has also been more Coal mines crumbling down (like the one in Chile and west Virginia from last year) then there has been nuclear meltdowns. And more people have died from crumbling coal mines and sickness from working at a coal mine than have died in nuclear energy. Nuclear meltdowns like the one in Chernobyl only happen because it was poorly designed here in the U.S and Canada we have regulations that make are nuclear plants safer from nuclear meltdown. The Three Mile Island in the U.S nuclear reactor meltdown caused no deaths, no significant radiation leaks and no illness came from this meltdown. The reason for the Japanese reactors melting is because of poor regulation.

Dr Masashi Goto, a nuclear engineer, resigned from his job at the Toshiba Corporation over safety concerns.

Dr Goto criticised his country's record on nuclear safety.
"We have the government commission overseeing nuclear safety standards and in my opinion they are not doing their job," he told ABC correspondent Eric Campbell last Thursday in Tokyo in an exclusive interview for Four Corners.

Dr Goto alleges that in Japan's nuclear industry profits take precedence over safety standards.
"No-one says it officially or openly. When setting standards for future earthquakes, the thought is of money - how much is it going to cost?" he said.

Although Nuclear regulation in the U.S are weaker than Japan you have to take in consideration that the U.S doesn't and isn't expecting a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. Now I do think that nuclear regulations should be prepared for the worst case scenario. Which in Japan they were not. But the U.S worst case scenario isn't magnitude 9.0 earthquake. Now I am not supporting nuclear energy in fact I don't support nuclear energy at all.I think that we should start to eliminate our nuclear reactors in North America as the U.S has done for the past decades. Currently there is debate in Vermont whether to close a nuclear power plant I fully support ending that Nuclear power plants license, and starting to build cleaner energy to replace it. Now to be realistic I don't think that all nuclear power plants be destroyed tomorrow, but rather all nuclear power plants must first be inspected, and if any pose problems fix the plant. All Nuclear energy plants should be given a timetable in which they have to leave as the city starts to build cleaner energy to replace it. Nuclear should slowly start to leave the North America as should fossil fuels, but Because efficient nuclear power plants with strong regulations emits much less and is safer than coal or oil it would be smart to start eliminating more coal and oil plants first then move to eliminate Nuclear (when they're time is up). So Nuclear is good it is bad , but when compared to the other things we use it is much better, but no new Nuclear power plants should be built.
Read more here
Click here for Fareed's view

Canada Believes in Climate Change.

The vast majority of Canadians and a majority of Americans believe in global warming.The Climate change skepitics haven't won this war, and this should be no surprise.In Canada another vast majority of us believe that our federal, provincial and municipal goverments should all be a part of the solution. some kind of a Carbon tax is very popular in Canada. 73% of Canadians would be willing to pay 50 extra dollars a year in energy so that other resources would be used instead of oil. In the U.S this is also popular 55% said they would be willing to pay more in energy cost for more renewable energy.When asked about a carbon tax derictly the a poll found that 61% of people would support it. It seems that a carbon tax isn't as politically suicide as many have thought, and a surprising figure made 5 years ago is that the majority (54%) of the oil rich Stephen Harper country of Alberta actually support a carbon tax. Another surprising fact is that People who support the Liberals believe in Climate change more than people who support the Green Party. In the U.K green taxes have 63% support. A carbon tax isn't a bad word, I can't wait till other parties besides the Green party start putting a carbon tax on there platform like Stephan Dion.

See the polls here
Read more here

Seven Billion People

By the end of 2011, it is expected that the world population will exceed seven billion. With more people in the world, we must plan. The world's problems will grow larger if we do nothing. We must ensure access to clean drinking water and make sure we do not waste, as our fresh water reserves are just going to decline. Probably most important of all, we must invest in cleaner, greener energy. Seven billion people are going to need more energy than ever before and peak oil looms. The tar sands are a symbol of our desperation to find oil. This non-conventional way of exploiting oil shows how far we have to go to get our oil. We must shift the economy to use alternative energy that will not peak and at the same time, does not pollute as much.

Tar Sands Need to be Checked.

A new report showed that the Tar sands haven't really been checked on what it is doing. The Tar sands in Alberta has been seen the most dirties oil in the world. This is true! The oil sands aren't being monitored, and they should be. We can't just give oil companies a free licence to do whatever they want like Stephen Harper does. I am not saying that the tar sands should be destroyed. Absolutely not, but I say that if we use the this resource we should put to good use. First mandatory monitoring on the Oil sands, and enforce changes on the oil sands that must be complied with. Next insure that any new development in the oil sands have to be done clean and environmentally friendly, but of course the oil sands will never be truly green. That doesn't mean we should destroy the whole industry. What we need to do is that considering many countries need and run on our oil, so we tell countries who want our great oil resource that they need to ensure us that they will have some sort of plan to reduce there oil demand. Considering our oil has so  much influence let's use it for a force of good to make everyone else reduce there oil consumption. Last enforce a carbon tax to reduce our oil consumption.

Biofue vs. Regualr gasoline.

Biofuel and regular gasoline are both two types of energy used for fueling cars. Energy is the ability to do work. In this case energy is the ability to move a car. Regular Gasoline is a non-renewable resource that many people tend to use for their car fuel. Biofuel is a renewable resource that comes from corn that farmers produced. Currently there have been many discussions about the two on which one is a better car fuel.

Biofuel has been seen as the solution for future car fuel, but in order to make biofuel you need energy. Meaning in order to make more Corn for biofuel you need to use energy to process the corn into a fuel, and currently most of the energy used to make this fuel is coal and natural gas which are non-renewable resources. The highest amount of corn based biofuel used in a car can only go up to 85% biofuel and 15% gasoline. Biofuel has a EROEI ratio of 1.34. (EROEI is the ratio of how much energy is invested to how much energy you get out) This means that for every unit of energy used to make the fuel you only get 1.34 unit of biofuel, so if you wanted to be really be green in using biofuel as the energy to make the biofuel rather than coal or natural gas you would be keeping ¾ of the biofuel you made this year into making more for the next year. Only ¼ of the biofuel you made would actually go to be made as a fuel. This shows that using biofuel as car fuel can’t work as it takes too much energy just to make it without using nonrenewable resources. Some would say that oil isn’t a renewable resource and we can’t keep using it. Yes that is true there will not be enough oil eventually to continue being a fuel or an energy source, but even if you convert every single field in the in the U.S into a corn field for biofuel you will not have enough biofuel to run the U.S. Oil may not be able to be an energy source in the future, but corn can’t even be the source of energy today.



Biofuel made from corn has been seen to be the solution to global warming. The theory is that if you use biofuel you will have a zero CO2 output in total even if a car running on biofuel emits CO2, but any CO2 realest when used is taken away because the CO2 was sucked up when the biofuel was a plant. This argument doesn’t hold water. When you actually put it to the test in the real world you see in order to have Biofuel you need to plant more crops, but where? If you take Grassland in the U.S, and change it into a field of Corn for biofuel CO2 even before you start planting will be released. Grass and trees stores Carbon in them in fact the amount of Carbon in Plants across the world stores 3 times the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere , so when plants are cut there Carbon goes out and is transformed into CO2 that goes out into the atmosphere. Meaning when you change grassland to a field of corn 134 Metric tons of CO2 will be released per hector. In order to actually pay off this 134 metric tons of CO2 it will take 93 years of using that land for Biofuel and nothing else. Changing jungles or rain forest into corn fields will take centuries to pay off the carbon debt. By this time there won’t be any oil left to mix the oil with biofuel. This proves that biofuel isn’t as green as it claims to be. Some would say that Oil is no greener. True, but if we instead plant more trees rather than making more corn fields we could have more forest sucking up more CO2 than the amount Cars create running on Oil.

In the future we should look at different sources of biofuel like cellulose a biofuel that comes from waste products, but having looked at the impacts that corn made biofuel can do environmentally, and seeing how inefficiently it is corn based biofuel is defiantly not the answer to Global warming or a proper alternative to regular gasoline.

A National Energy Strategy

Canada has been called an energy giant, or as Stephen Harper likes to put it, an "energy superpower." However, with Canadians still remembering the National Energy Policy from he 80's, thirty years ago yesterday, no party is willing to propose a policy to help manage the resources that we've got. It is not just a provincial responsibility. There should be at least a Ministry of Energy to manage the development, import and export of energy. Energy demand will continue to rise in the future. It's time to get over the NEP and propose a new plan to make smart energy choices for the future.

A decent first step for Ottawa would be creating a department that integrates energy and environment, similar to what Britain has done with its Department of Energy and Climate Change. Today the two departments in Ottawa with nominal responsibility -- Environment and Natural Resources -- are at each other's throats, ensuring stasis on oil sands policy.

Read more at the Ottawa Citizen.

Hope for the Future

The world's freshwater supply is getting depleted. Demand will only rise as more of the world develops and the population increases. However, there are desalination plants that remove the salt from sea water. That's all very good except that these plants use enormous amounts of energy that is usually fossil fuels. But, in our own country, a Vancouver-based business called Saltworks Technologies has designed a way to separate salt and water while at the same time, cutting down energy use by half, maybe 80%. This kind of innovation will be important in the next few decades. Water will become valuable and there could be wars over it. This kind of desalination technology, that won't require a lot of energy provides us with hope for the future.

The world isn’t facing a water shortage. Anyone who lives by the ocean knows that.

What we are running short of is fresh water. Only 3 per cent of the water on this planet is considered fresh water, and of that about two thirds is locked up in glaciers.

Most of the rest isn’t close to the people who need it most, with parts of Australia, India and the U.S. southwest being some of the better known water-scarce regions.

Read more at the Toronto Star.

A win, win situation.

Quebec will sell hydroelectricity to Vermont. This deal will give Vermont 225 megawatts of energy this will give enough energy for 200,000 homes in Vermont. By 2012 for another 26 years Vermont will have energy that is clean and cheap. Vermont has now proven again that it believes in enviromentally and cheap energy for it's citezens and future citezens. I think that we here in Quebec are lucky to have so much lakes that we can make the new enviromentaly energy of the future. I hope Quebec continues to sell more of it's energy so it can first get more revenue and to get U.S to start moving away from oil and coal enrgy use.

Vermont will purchase 225 megawatts of power starting in November 2012 and ending in 2038 - 225 megawatts of electricity is enough power to maintain about 200,000 homes.

Read more here

Oil spill stoped ,but side effects could last decades.

On day 107 of the oil spill or should I say now capped oil spill the problewm is not intierly over. Even though a big part of the oil was taken out of the ocean the oil is still there. First the Exon Valdez spill (which by the way was the worst oil spill in american history now is second to the BP oil disater). which spilled 11 million barrels, and the BP spill which spilled more than the Exon Valdez spill. The spill from Alaska 20 years ago that spilled 11 million barrels has seen to have still damage to the area, so even though the oil is no longer spilling the current spill could still do damage to the gulf of mexico. The problem is no way far from over. The oil spill will stay with the gulf for decades to come. This enviromental disater could really be avoided if we have inspectors go to the oil rigs to inspect the safety of the oil rig. then make the oil companies pay for it. The company with the best safety will have more oil contracts while the oil comapnies that are deem unsafe will face fines and could lose some drilling sites to other oil capanies.

Au revoir Hayward!

Hayward has just been fired. They finally fired him. He was clearly not good enough. When he was asked to come to congress, and was asked questions about the rig all we got was "I was not informed" or "I was not a part of that". First if he was a part of allowing the rig to explode he should be fired automatically. If he didn't know what was going on and was telling the truth then what in the world was he doing. If he does not know what is happening in all the rigs BP owns in the country then there is not just a big problem in BP , and he should be fired for not knowing was is going on in his own business. The new leader of BP is Robert Dudley. Now I hope for everyone that he does better than Mr. Hayward.

Like Hayward, Dudley is a long-time BP employee with more than 30 years in the oil business. A chemical engineer by training, Dudley was put in charge of the day-to-day leadership of the Gulf Coast clean-up operation in June.

The company also plans to nominate him as a non-executive director of Russian oil and gas venture TNK-BP. Executives at TNK-BP said they did not know whether Hayward would replace an existing director, nor did they provide any details about what Hayward's day-to-day involvement in the business would be.

No Cap and Trade!

Good news and bad news from Washington DC. Good news is that there will be no cap and trade initiavtive in the U.S, because the energy bill will be changed. The bad news is that the reason it was changed is because there are not nough votes for the bill to pass. I think this is in total good news considering the U.S will not have a fony cap and trade system that just let's polluters keep polluting. I think the U.S could do so much better with a carbon tax. Obama has even talked about putting a price on pollution, but I doubt that if they can't pass a cap and trade legeslation then how will the pass a carbon tax legislation.

"Many of us want to do a thorough, comprehensive bill that creates jobs, breaks our addiction to foreign oil and curbs pollution," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters Thursday.

Harry Reid should realize that a carbon tax system does all of that and more. First a carbon tax will curve pollution as it puts a price on it. It will also reduce oil cosuption as diffrent sorces of energy that are renewable are cheper. With the extra money from the carbon tax the money can go to lowering income tax that will employ more people.

Hate the oil sands not the People.

As many people start to attack the province of Alberta because the oil sands , and telling them now to avoid the province all together. I think that is a bit to far. They should avoid using oil from the oil sands, but they shouldn't avoid the province itself. I say they should criticize the government for doing this, but to punish the local economy that needs tourist the people who have nothing to do with the oil sands shouldn't get punished. I think avoiding the province would hurt the people who might actualy not like the oil sands. I think these environmental groups should encourage there city or there state to do what some has already have to just avoid the oil from the oil sands. This would effect more on punishing the oil sands then the people of Alberta. This would be a better initiative on the environment .

Read more here

climate truth.

 People came up to Washington DC , and told the US government that they need to have a climate bill based on true science and not denials. They brought an ice sculpture that has the globe on top and is under an ice sculpture that says "climate deniers". As the day went on the ice sculpture kept melting till the globe fell off the ice sculpture.  I think they're message was clear. They want clean jobs on clean renewable energy. They talked how the climate is changing , and how the US with their current climate bill has to be on stopping climate change. Now I don't support a cap and trade bill, but I support a carbon tax. Let's face it the U.S needs money what better way to get then from the big oil companies that are getting those big tax cuts. I say they could save billions of dollars that can go to spending on clean energy, and helping stimulate the economy even more or just reduce the deficits.

watch ice sculputure here

Oil sands are not clean!

Jean Charest a supporter of reducing edmissions has said he would be fine with future development in the oil sands. He said he was misqouted in Copenhagon when he said he was against future development. Priemeir Jean Charest who has attaked the Conservative Goverment on it's lack of enviromental actions. I think that the oil sands are a not clean source of oil. I say that if we can't use diffrent places for oil then there should be first enviromental protection imputed on all extraction sites. This means in any place in the oil sands they will have strict enviromental laws , and rules. More importantly there will be a Carbon Tax on the oil site. These taxes should go to reducing income tax, but also new money should go to renewable resources, so that the minumum comes out of the oil sands. I think we can't see the oil sands never being used, becuse of the mass need, but we should look at other cleaner not so polluting oil to be used, and use diffrent sources of energy the most we can to preserve oil. I would like to state I don't support the oil sands. The oil comapnies that exploit the oil should pay for the best secure enviromental protection, and all enviromental cost.

Stop it before they suffer.

These two ads show that there is another side to climate change. It is happening now, but it will have even more worse effects on the next generation. Look at the top of this blog. It states "we do not inherit the planet from our ancestors we borrow it from our children". These ads show that the next generation will hurt more than us. So I guess the question I am asking is do we care about the future generation?

Train ad

you might of thought that ad was too extreme, but it brings a valid point even if you think the problems will be in years away someone will get this problem. I would also like to be clear we are today seeing global warming taking into effect.

My partner on the blog states that poorer countries get effected by this more than us, but I would like to state it will not matter where you live everyone is feeling global warming. The question really is how long are we going to wait before we start realizing it . In 2040 California will face a water shortage that will make 85% of people unable to get water so save are planet now and not have to regret it later.

tick tock ad here

There is no "ClimateGate"

An Independent report released Wednesday shows that the so called "Climategate" is not real it cleared the scientist. So if anyone just thought that the hacked emails prove that there is no such thing as Global Warming I regret to inform you that this is the second time the climate scientist were cleared. So all the words like Trick was just meaning  "A way to handle information". So let's stop arguing about the science because it is clear that there is Climate change. We need to keep trying to reduce our CO2  from the air to help stop Global warming. If you are still a skeptic I say that look at the science, and Climate change is not just temperature changes oil is leaving and is dangerous, so think of renewable energy that is not leaving. So don't think that climate change is just the  environment it is also energy needs and economics.

In his submission, Jones told the review that "the word 'trick' was not intended to imply any deception, simply the 'best way of doing or dealing with something.'"

The scandal fueled skepticism about the case for global warming just weeks before world leaders met to agree a global deal on climate change at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen last December.

Two Billion for Solar Power

Obama announced yesterday an investment of two billion American dollars for new solar power plants. The starting capital for building solar power plants is huge. That's why Obama has made a good decision on behalf of the United States of America. Clean energy is necessary for countries to go green. Obama recognizes this fact and is therefore investing in solar power. This energy must be developed and subsidised so that it is on the same level with oil, coal and natural gas. The polluting energy companies should have to pay a premium to be allowed to pollute (carbon tax). Investing in green power is a good start, but to really advance into the future, emissions must be taxed.

The U.S. government is handing out nearly $2 billion US for new solar plants that President Barack Obama says will create thousands of jobs and increase the use of renewable energy sources.

Obama announced the initiative in his weekly radio and online address Saturday, saying the money is part of his plan to bring new industries to the U.S.

"We're going to keep competing aggressively to make sure the jobs and industries of the future are taking root right here in America," Obama said.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama announces $2B for solar power (cbc.ca)
• Obama Announces Loan Guarantees for Solar Firms Abengoa, Abound (businessweek.com)

Nuke the spill?

Some people are saying that the solution to the leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico is to set off a nuclear blast to blow it up. In fact, former Soviet physicist Viktor Mikhailov is saying, "I don't know what BP is waiting for, they are wasting their time. Only about 10 kilotons of nuclear explosion capacity and the problem is solved." Of course, this might cause enormous damage to the environment and maybe even people living on the shores of the Gulf. I'm no expert, but the benefits and disadvantages of a nuclear explosion in the area must be weighed against waiting for the relief well. But, we should not have to be considering these extreme measures. If we just just invested in alternative energy instead of giving presents to the oil companies, our country and world would be a better place. Fossil fuel subsidies are ancient and need to be killed.

MOSCOW/WASHINGTON -- His face wracked by age and his voice rasping after decades of chain-smoking coarse tobacco, the former long-time Russian Minister of nuclear energy and veteran Soviet physicist Viktor Mikhailov knows just how to fix BP's oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

"A nuclear explosion over the leak," he says nonchalantly puffing a cigarette as he sits in a conference room at the Institute of Strategic Stability, where he is a director. "I don't know what BP is waiting for, they are wasting their time. Only about 10 kilotons of nuclear explosion capacity and the problem is solved."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Should BP nuke its leaking well? (financialpost.com)
• Special Report: Should BP nuke its leaking well? (reuters.com)