TransCanada CEO Russ Girling promoting Energy East (Canadian Press)
MONTREAL – A new report says proposals to pipe oilsands crude to Quebec refineries would only deliver negligible economic benefits to the province.
An economist who co-authored the study says job creation and spinoffs from several active pipeline-and-processing proposals would be insignificant to Quebec’s overall economy.
At the same time, Brigid Rowan says a pipeline accident could cost lives and put taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars — particularly if a spill takes place in an urban area like Toronto or Montreal.
The report was conducted by California-based consulting firm The Goodman Group Ltd. at the request of the Greenpeace and Equiterre environmental organizations.
Earlier this year, the National Energy Board approved Enbridge’s controversial plan to reverse the flow and increase the capacity of Line 9, a project that would transport crude eastward to refineries in Ontario and Montreal.
The board said its decision would allow Enbridge to “react to market forces and provide benefits to Canadians, while at the same time implementing the project in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner.”
The federal government welcomed the decision, saying the project would protect high-quality refining jobs in Quebec, open new markets for oil producers in Western Canada and replace more-expensive foreign crude.
Opponents of the Line 9 project often highlight Enbridge’s 2010 spill in Michigan, where 20,000 barrels of crude leaked into the Kalamazoo River.
VANCOUVER – Kinder Morgan is asking for more time to respond to over 10,000 questions submitted to the National Energy Board about the proposed expansion of its Trans Mountain pipeline.
The company says it cannot meet that deadline with such a large number of requests, and it has asked for a delay until June 27.
Kinder Morgan’s Scott Stoness says questions cover everything from marine operations to finance and spill response, and the company is working around the clock to answer every one.
Under new rules introduced two years ago by the federal government, the regulatory process has strict time limits for hearings and a final decision, but Stoness says he’s hopeful the extension will not affect the overall timeline.
If the definition of good governance includes the sound management of public monies and resources, then Canada has very bad governance.
The manufactured health care crisis is a case in point. Solutions to challenges of cost, quality, and access are fairly straightforward but wilfully ignored, and current trajectories towards corporatization are leading us in the wrong direction.
If the challenges are responsibly addressed, every Canadian will have access to exemplary health care, based on need rather than ability to pay. Additionally, Canadians will save money, and the economy will be positively impacted.
3 big ideas
Dr. Danielle Martin – family physician, V.P of Medical Affairs and Health Systems Solutions at Women’s College Hospital, and Assistant Professor in Medicine and Health Policy at the University of Toronto – is eminently qualified to offer solutions.
She argues that we could immediately implement “Three Big Ideas” within an expanded medicare system. Martin describes these ideas as follows:
“20 Drugs to Save a Nation”
“Less is More”
“Sick with Poverty”
The first idea, “20 drugs to save a nation” would save lives while improving the economy.
Currently, one in ten Canadians can not afford their prescription medications.
Consequently, their medical conditions often worsen, which invariably leads to more expensive care, including hospital admissions. A study by the New England Journal Of Medicine, appropriately titled “Dead Man Walking” , shows that when heart attack patients fail to adhere to their prescriptions, they are more likely to be readmitted to hospital.
National public drug coverage also saves lives. As Alan Cassels explains in “Opinion: A prescription for cutting costs” , public drug plans screen drugs for value and safety better than their private drug plan counterparts. He explains:
[quote]… out of the top 50 most costly drugs covered by private drug plans, several of them wouldn’t merit coverage by public drug plans because of their poor value: they were branded drugs which had cheaper equivalent generics.[/quote]
The Vioxx tragedy
The tragedy of Vioxx resonates with this opinion: premature release of the brand drug Vioxx caused between 4,000 – 7,000 deaths in Canada.
Bulk buying through a public drug plan also means that one purchaser (versus many) can secure lower prices for medications. New Zealand, for example, pays 2.4 cents for one Lipitor pill, while Canada pays 32 cents for the same pill.
A national pharmacare program with first dollar coverage (a best case scenario) would save Canada as much as $10.7 billion per year.
Dr. Martin’s “Drugs to Save a Nation” plan would be a first step towards national pharmacare. She argues convincingly that we could start bulk-buying 20 generic drugs, and that such a step would not only improve patient-adherence rates to medications – and their health – but it would save a substantial amount of money.
Less is More
The next idea, “Less Is More”, would also save money, and lives. According to Martin, numerous medical tests, treatments, and procedures are administered more often than necessary. Consequently, health outcomes can be negatively impacted, and additional costs accrued. A sobering study by Dr. Ray Sahelian reinforces the message. He notes that “Radiation from CT scans done in 2007 will cause 29,000 cancers and kill nearly 15,000 Americans.”
The top five tests, treatments, and procedures that are done more often than necessary are:
The final big idea, “Sick with Poverty” explains that poverty is basically a disease. The corollary of this is that if poverty can be eliminated – and 1 in 7 Canadian children live in poverty – then we will be a much healthier (and productive) society.
Canada’s failure to understand this aggravates and perpetuates an unnecessary situation – poverty. If all Canadians had adequate income, housing, nutrition/food security, as well as early childhood education, our population would be healthier, while societal costs for health care, policing, and other social services would be reduced, and we would collectively be more productive.
Evidence shows that Canada would save $7.6 billion per year on reduced health care costs alone if the lowest group of earners moved up by one “quintile” (to two) on a scale of earnings with the top quintile being five.
This could be financed by discarding Canada’s current welfare system
And replacing it with a Guaranteed Annual Income system which would redistribute monies through taxes.
Clearly, we have the tools and the funds to make Canada a better and stronger nation, but it won’t happen until the current theology of predatory economics that is poisoning the economy, and our collective mindset, is rejected.
Instituting Dr. Martin’s “Three Big Ideas” would be a huge step in the right direction.
Because we enjoy relatively pure air, clean water and healthy food systems, Canadians sometimes take the environment for granted. Many scarcely blink if oil from a pipeline spills into a river, a forest is cleared for tar sands operations or agricultural land is fracked for gas. If Arctic ice melts and part of the Antarctic ice sheet collapses, well… they’re far away.
Some see climate change as a distant threat, if they see it as a threat at all. But the scientific evidence is overwhelming: climate change is here, and unless we curb behaviours that contribute to it, it will get worse, putting our food, air, water and security at risk. A recent White House report confirms the findings of this year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment report, and concludes global warming is a clear and present danger to the U.S.
Climate change already affecting America
“Climate change is not a distant threat, but is affecting the American people already,” says White House science adviser John Holdren in a video about the report.
[quote]Summers are longer and hotter, with longer periods of extended heat. Wildfires start earlier in the spring and continue later into the fall. Rain comes down in heavier downpours. People are experiencing changes in the length and severity of allergies. And climate disruptions to water resources and agriculture have been increasing.[/quote]
Recognizing the problem’s severity is a start, but whether the U.S. will actually do anything is another question. Action to curb climate change is constantly stalled — thanks to the powerful fossil fuel industry, political and media denial, extensive fossil fuel-based infrastructure and citizen complacency.
Canada lags behind
But at least the U.S. and its president have unequivocally called for action. It’s disturbing that political leaders in Canada — a northern country already feeling impacts, with a long coastline particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels — ignore the issue in their drive to make Canada a petro-power.
Our government prefers to spend taxpayers’ money to support the fossil fuel industry with advertising campaigns and billions of dollars in subsidies. A recent New York Times ad, worth US$207,000, touts oil sands and pipelines as “environmentally responsible.” Despite opposition from communities throughout B.C. and the rest of Canada, including many First Nations, approval of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project is expected next month.
Perceived economic benefits (mostly short-term) trump the needs of all Canadians and their children and grandchildren for clean air and water, healthy food and a stable climate. Droughts, floods, water shortages, insect-plagued forests, extreme weather events, rising sea levels and melting glaciers don’t matter as much as getting the oil, gas and coal out of the ground and sold as quickly as possible.
BC fracking its way to “prosperity”
B.C. once showed promise with climate policies such as a carbon tax. Now the government in my home province is also pinning its hopes on the fossil fuel market, fracking our way to “prosperity” at the expense of long-term human and economic health, farmland and climate.
How can we allow governments and industry to continue leading us down this destructive path?
Some people say we must choose between the human-created economy and the natural environment — an absurd argument on many levels, and a false dichotomy. Even within the current flawed economic paradigm, it’s far more financially sound to invest in renewable energy and diversification than in a dying industry.
Others, often driven by fossil fuel industry propaganda, doubt the evidence and question the credentials of thousands of scientists worldwide studying the issue.
Reputable groups all agree climate change is real
The IPCC report involved hundreds of scientists and experts worldwide who analyzed the latest peer-reviewed scientific literature and other relevant materials on climate change. The White House report was overseen by 13 government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, Department of the Interior, Department of Defense and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It was written by close to 300 scientists and experts and reviewed by numerous others, including the National Academy of Sciences. It was also vetted by groups ranging from oil companies to environmental organizations. As an article on Desmog Blog points out, “If anything, this report is conservative in its findings.”
The IPCC and White House reports are clear: solutions are available. But the longer we delay the more difficult and expensive they will be to implement. We can’t just sit by and do nothing.
With contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.
BC Minister of Natural Gas Rich Coleman opens his government’s LNG conference (BC govt flickr photo)
Last week, the BC Government held its second annual LNG In BC Conference, with over 1,400 delegates representing some of the world’s top players in the natural gas industry. The province’s Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman noted that this year’s conference saw an increase of almost 1,000 delegates.
Most panels centred on the potential opportunity for a BC LNG industry, but the elephant in the room at the Vancouver Convention Centre was a natural gas pipeline deal signed between Russia and China on the eve of the conference. Though barely addressed from the stage, it provided a powerful reminder to delegates of the competitive international market the province will have to navigate to make its LNG vision a reality.
Bad timing for BC LNG players
Russia’s completion of a $400-billion deal to satisfy approximately one third of China’s gas needs is bad timing for BC LNG, as companies such as Chevron and Petronas look towards final investment decisions over the next year.
Natural gas will be supplied to China for the low cost of $10-$11 a unit, providing China a bargaining advantage to reduce energy prices from other potential trading partners in North America. Canadian exporters has their hopes set on $16/unit, based on the higher prices Japan is paying following the Fukushima-driven shutdown of its nuclear sector.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin said that this is the biggest contract in the history of the country’s gas sector, a reality which was absent from virtually all conversation on the global natural gas market discussed at the conference.
Clark downplays contract’s significance
Premier Clark and Shell Oil Company CEO Marvin Odum (BC govt flickr)
Premier Clark brushed off questions as to whether this agreement would have a negative impact on BC’s race to export LNG, saying that her government had anticipated the deal. Much of this hinges on whether the province can secure final investment decisions and nail down competitive tax rates quickly enough to be a credible player in the LNG market. Given that many of these details are far from being confirmed, questions arise as to whether LNG is the ‘generational opportunity’ it is being presented as for BC.
With 14 LNG projects proposed alongside intense global competition, Premier Clark acknowledged that so far, only two of these projects are nearing final investment before the next election. The smaller Woodfibre LNG near Squamish looks like the best bet for the first project, but it is meeting with growing opposition from local groups.
Pressure to speed up BC LNG
These delays don’t bode well for BC, a fact which Andy Calitz, CEO of the Shell-led partnership LNG Canada, responded to by saying, “That is why we need to move quickly.”
For her part, Premier Clark suggested Canada is potentially a more reliable supplier than politically volatile Russia:
[quote]I don’t think there is a country in the world that today wants to depend on Russia as their sole supplier of natural gas.[/quote]
Whether BC can be a reliable supplier, however, depends on whether these LNG projects actually come to fruition. Clark is depending on LNG to fulfil the election promise of a ‘debt free BC’, a multi-billion dollar prosperity fund, jobs and economic development. The fact that news of this Russia-China deal dropped right before the conference with minimal discussion of its effect on BC LNG may be symptomatic of the government’s desire to sell LNG instead of fostering a frank conversation about its opportunities and challenges.
Honest discussion in short supply
China has long been considered an important market for BC, and the impact of billions of tonnes of natural gas that will flow from Russia to China must be analyzed. One of the only comments made by Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman on the deal came at the end of the conference:
[quote]We beat the Russians at hockey and we’ll beat them at liquefied natural gas.[/quote]
Determining the potential for a BC LNG industry requires frank discussion and tough questions, not more hot air about this cold gas.
VANCOUVER – The B.C. government’s controversial new recycling program took effect Monday, irking some local business owners who say that additional costs will drive up the price of consumer goods.
The new regulations require that all businesses that supply packaging and printed paper to B.C. residential customers be responsible for collecting and recycling the material once customers are done with it.
Anita Huberman, CEO of the Surrey Board of Trade, says this will create additional costs for businesses, which will pass the extra expenses onto consumers.
“Producers will be adding costs to food, newspapers, and other things distributed to retailers, then retailers will extend their traditional markup to consumers,” wrote Huberman in an email. “This additional cost will make them less competitive with competitors from other provinces and countries.”
[quote]In Ontario, cardboard is being charged at eight cents a kilogram while in B.C. this program is at 29 cents a kilogram — this is huge.[/quote]
Huberman says that B.C.’s recycling fees should be reduced to match those in Ontario.
MMBC says it’s addressing concerns
However, the director of the non-profit organization overseeing the new recycling program on behalf of 940 companies says the increased costs from the new rules would only hurt small businesses, who are generally exempt from the new regulations anyway.
“I think the exemptions that have been announced by the government address many of the concerns with respect to small business,” said Allan Langdon of Multi-Material BC in an interview.
He says businesses that either make less than $1 million in sales, produce less than 1,000 kilograms of print and packaging or businesses that do not operate as a chain or franchise are exempt from the new program.
“From our perspective that’s really taken away the impact on the kind of small businesses that maybe have had a problem with the administration or costs,” he said.
3,000 businesses affected
Langdon says up to 3,000 corporations are affected by the new regulations and those companies who are not signed onto Multi-Material BC will have to co-ordinate their own recycling efforts.
About 1.25 million households started receiving service from the non-profit organization as of Monday, he said.
In municipalities where there are already recycling trucks, Multi-Material BC has offered cash incentives to help foot the bill, while some areas that don’t have curbside service will be seeing pickups for the first time.
Collection services for the North Okanagan, the Trail area, Rossland, the Castlegar area, Coquitlam, Anmore, Prince George and Quesnel will be phased in during the next few months starting Monday, Langdon said.
For consumers who are already putting out their recycling bins, perhaps the most noticeable change will be that some municipalities will be asking their residents to separate glass from other recycled goods.
Langley, Richmond and possibly Burnaby will implement separate glass collection bins, Langdon said.
This will prevent glass from being shattered and contaminated, which ensures that it will get recycled, he said.
The change is being implemented because Multi-Material BC is required to measure how much material is recycled — not just how much is picked up, he said.
Vancouver urban farm mixer (Photo: www.urbanfarmers.ca)
“Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably will not themselves be realized.” That was American architect Daniel Burnham’s city-planning advice at the turn of the 20th century.
More than 100 years later, he couldn’t be more wrong. Big, top-down building projects no longer stir the imaginations of North American city dwellers. Now people are excited about little changes to our urban fabric.
Small projects sprout up through cracks of urban landscape
Small, creative projects that make cities more livable are popping up in unexpected places: alleys, front yards, vacant lots and parking spaces. Whether its yarn-bombed street furniture, roadway parking turned to mini-parkettes or guerrilla gardens in overlooked spaces, these often-unauthorized interventions are helping to transform properties and neighbourhoods, one light, quick, cheap tweak at a time.
Passersby were encouraged to write their desires for green improvements. Neighbours began meeting. One family filled a perpetual pothole with flowers. Others put benches in their front yards to begin “parkifying” the block. Graffiti knitters yarn-bombed the chain-link fence. An artist and local kids created a DIY outdoor version of fridge magnet poetry with plastic pipes cut in half, painted with words and hung on the fence with simple S-hooks. Two garden planters were dug into spots where trees had perished.
From asphalt to bee haven
This spring, residents successfully funded a project to replace the entire stretch of asphalt with a large pollinator-friendly garden. There’s even talk of removing the fence. The ripple effect: People from nearby streets have started organizing their own interventions, like a pollinator garden at the neighbourhood daycare and moss graffiti in an alleyway. As resident Anjum Chagpar said, “Inspiration breeds inspiration. Simple, fun interventions are contagious.”
Replacing pavement with a pollinator garden on one small street won’t solve the vast issues our communities face, but little spaces perhaps hold the greatest potential. To make our cities truly green, we must bring nature to the oft-neglected bits between parks and existing green areas. Streets and sidewalks alone account for about 80 per cent of a city’s public space. Private spaces like yards, rooftops and balconies cover more than half the urban landscape. Stretching our visions of urban green space to include these allows us to reimagine the city as a vibrant green mosaic.
Homegrown Design Challenge
Squeezing more nature into cities requires creativity. It also needs buy-in from homeowners, property managers and experts from fields like landscape architecture and urban planning.
That’s why the David Suzuki Foundation and Workshop Architecture launched the Homegrown Design Challenge, an open competition that provides an opportunity to present ideas for low-cost, easy-to-implement landscape design solutions for front yards, backyards, balconies, schoolyards and laneways that provide environmental benefits, like capturing storm-water during severe weather events and providing habitat for birds, bees and butterflies.
“While we expect interest from architects, landscape architects, designers and planners, the competition is open to anyone with innovative green design ideas,” said Helena Grdadolnik, Workshop Architecture competition organizer.
Daniel Burnham lived in a time when telegrams were cutting-edge. Today good ideas can spread from community to community across the globe almost instantaneously.
Growing design ideas
So it’s no surprise that a growing number of design competitions and events are celebrating urban interventions, from PARK(ing) Day, which highlights the transformation of parking spots into temporary public spaces in 35 countries, to 100-in-1 Day, which will be held this year on June 7 in Toronto, Halifax and Vancouver to celebrate citizen-led initiatives that “raise awareness of urban and social issues, inspire ideas, and motivate leaders to consider new approaches to old problems.”
If a project requires start-up dollars, crowd-funding websites help organizers raise money in mere days or weeks. Sites like Projexity.com enable groups and individuals to fund, design and build projects in their neighbourhoods.
What can we take from this revolutionary wave of small, creative interventions? That residents can play an active, hands-on role in transforming the places they live, work, play and share. Making your community truly greener is a tall order. But starting small can pay big dividends.
With contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Homegrown National Park Project lead Jode Roberts.
An oil pipeline crossing the Tanana River in Alaska
By Dene Moore, The Canadian Press
VANCOUVER – The federal government announced new measures Wednesday to ensure pipeline companies pick up the tab for any spills, as cabinet prepares to announce its decision on the contentious Northern Gateway pipeline project.
Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford said the new rules are not tied to any particular project but put in place an unmatched regime for pipeline safety.
“Even in the most extreme, rare or unlikely circumstances, the government will ensure that the environment, landowners and taxpayers are protected and the polluter pays,” he said in Vancouver.
“There is no country in the world that transports oil and gas as safely as Canada.”
“Absolute” liability
Under the new rules, pipeline companies will have absolute liability in the event of a spill. It means they will have to pay all costs and damages related to oil spills, without needing to be proven negligent or at fault.
Pipeline operators will also be required to have a minimum amount of cash available for cleanup costs. The National Energy Board will have the power to order reimbursement of spill costs and to take over spill response should the pipeline company be unable or unwilling to do so.
The federal government will cover any spill-related costs a company cannot pay, and the national energy regulator would recoup the money from industry.
Changes come amid pipeline debates
B.C. is in the midst of a divisive debate about two major pipeline proposals — Enbridge’s Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan’s expansion of its Trans Mountain line — both of which would traverse the province with diluted bitumen from Alberta.
The changes, which have yet to be tabled in Parliament, are the latest in a slew of amendments aimed at appeasing public concerns over the two proposals.
Rickford said the federal government will also develop a strategy to increase First Nations’ participation in pipeline safety planning, monitoring and spill response.
“Working in full partnership with aboriginal communities, with our provincial and territorial counterparts and industry, Canada will become a supplier of energy to the world,” Rickford said.
Rickford was joined Wednesday by B.C. Transport Minister Todd Stone.
Provincial governments support changes
The B.C. government has set out five conditions for supporting any oil pipeline project, including an undefined “world-leading” oil-spill response and prevention on land and at sea.
Stone wouldn’t say whether the measures meet that criteria but called them “a step in the right direction.”
“Are we all the way there? I think there’s always more that can be done, but what I think is demonstrated by the federal government here today is a very strong commitment towards ensuring that the standards here in Canada will be world-leading,” he said.
Alberta Premier Dave Hancock said the new rules “strengthen the responsible development of energy resources.”
“Every Canadian, no matter what province or territory they call home, expects that energy development is done with a high degree of environmental safeguards,” he said in a statement.
Government claims companies “responsive” to spills
Natural Resources officials said there are 825,000 kilometres of pipelines throughout Canada — 73,000 of them are cross-border pipelines regulated by the National Energy Board.
There has never been an incident in Canada where a pipeline company was not responsive to a spill, they said.
And there has only ever been one pipeline spill that exceeded $1 billion to cleanup. That was a 2010 spill from an Enbridge pipeline into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, which is still being cleaned up.
Ziad Saad, vice-president of safety for the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, welcomed the changes. There are measures in place now for extreme circumstances, he said.
“We are clarifying and strengthening those provisions to ensure the public that they won’t be on the hook in case of a pipeline incident,” he said.
The federal government is expected to announce its final decision on the contentious Northern Gateway pipeline next month.
Listen to the rebuttals against opponents of oil pipelines, coal, and fracking and a familiar refrain emerges – it goes something like this:
[quote]It’s hypocritical to attack fossil fuels, because we all depend on them and will continue to do so well into the future.[/quote]
In other words, renewable energy is too pie-in-the-sky to solve our present energy challenges, so quit standing in the way of much-needed expansion to our fossil fuel infrastructure.
The problem is that this sort of thinking is based on where renewables were at a decade ago, ignoring the enormous, lightning-speed progress the sector has made – pretty much everywhere in the industrial world, except Canada.
Here are 6 reasons why renewable energy is the real deal:
1. Solar is really, really cheap now
The combination of advancements in photovoltaic technology and the mass-production of solar – with China leading the way – has contributed to a remarkable decline in the cost of solar. According to the Huffington Post:
[quote]In the last 35 years prices have gone from $77/ watt to around $.75/ watt. That makes solar 99 percent cheaper than it used to be. Since 2008, the cost of coal has risen 13 percent. In some parts of the market, solar has already reached parity with coal![/quote]
Ironically, the cost of solar has fallen so much that to some, it’s almost too cheap. China’s exports of low-cost solar technology have sparked trade tariffs from the US and Europe, each trying to protect their own booming clean tech industries.
China leapt from 1% of the global solar market in 2004 to a staggering 50% – of a much bigger market – by 2012, demonstrating the rapid scalability of the industry, given the right public policy and investment capital.
2. (Green) jobs, jobs, jobs
It used to be – and still is in some corners of the world, like Canada – that the argument for fossil fuels was all the jobs they create. Well, by far the biggest job opportunities today lie in the renewable sector, not oil and gas.
[quote]In 2011, there were 372,000 people working in [Germany’s] clean energy sectors and the projections are such that these numbers are expected to be in the 400,000 to 500,000 range by 2020.[/quote]
Many of us have heard about Germany and Denmark in the wind space (28% of Danish electricity comes from wind), but Spain has also become an overnight wind energy success story.
China, for its part, had generated 150,000 jobs in the wind sector by 2009, which is predicted to rise to half a million by 2020.
Now, a cautionary note about the cost of renewables, particularly in Europe, where we’re seeing a rise in “energy poverty”. In places like Germany and Spain, there is mounting criticism that policies directed toward promoting clean tech – such as feed-in-tariffs – are unnecessarily driving energy costs out of reach for less affluent consumers. This problem highlights the need to achieve an effective balance between renewable energy promotion and social equity. Certainly, higher power costs can help stimulate conservation, but there is a point where that can go too far, souring citizens on green energy.
But these are problems that affect any energy choices we make: questions of scale, cost, environmental benefits vs. trade-offs, and, importantly, fairness to the citizen and energy consumer. Policies that neglect these concerns will only hinder the potential of renewable energy in the long run.
4. America gets in the game
Besides China and Europe – the clear global leaders in the green economy – the US is catching up.
According to Will Dubitsky:
[quote]Renewable energy capacity in the US doubled in the 5 years from 2008 to 2012…Between 2007 and 2012, oil consumption as a percentage of total US energy consumption dropped from 39.3% to 36.7%. The consumption of coal also dropped from 22.5% of total US energy consumption in 2007 to 18.1% in 2012.[/quote]
Meanwhile, the world’s largest solar array was just completed in the desert outside of Phoenix, Arizona. The Agua Caliente plant is set to power up to 230,000 homes at its peak capacity of 290 megawatts.
The Agua Caliente solar power array, near Phoenix, Arizona
According to Scientific American, the plant’s world record likely won’t last for long. “Other massive solar panel facilities, such as Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One in California’s Mojave Desert, are rapidly springing up across the Southwest.”
Adds Robert Margolis of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “This series of large plants that are being built really mark the transition from the technology being something experimental to real energy on the grid.” Scientific American expects to see solar’s contribution to the US electrical grid – currently just 1% – rise dramatically in the coming years.
[quote]The average amount of electricity consumed in U.S. homes has fallen to levels last seen more than a decade ago, back when the smartest device in people’s pockets was a Palm pilot and anyone talking about a tablet was probably an archaeologist or a preacher.[/quote]
5. The Solutions are real
In spite of all of these examples of the miraculous growth of renewable energy, you may be thinking, “Yeah, but can it really replace fossil fuels?”
In a word, “Yes”.
I interviewed Professor Robert Howarth at Cornell University last week. Howarth is famous for changing the way we think about “natural” gas, demonstrating that fracking has a much higher carbon footprint than coal, as a result of “fugitive methane emissions” – small but persistent leaks of the potent greenhouse gas, throughout the extraction and transmission processes (methane can be up to 86 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, over a 20 year period).
The fact that these fugitive emissions are actually between 3.6% and 7.9% – much higher than previously thought – renders the terms “clean” or “natural” gas oxymorons, putting to bed the idea of gas as a “bridge fuel” (anything over 2.8% and gas is worse than coal).
But Howarth and a group of US Ivy League professors are doing much more than complaining about greenhouse gas-intensive fossil fuels. They are also the braintrust behind the “Solutions Project”, which is developing real, customized plans for each US state to get 100% off of fossil fuels by 2050. On their website, they show exactly how we could realistically get there.
Meanwhile, according to CNN, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren said climate change “already is affecting every region of the country and key sectors of the economy.”
The government’s fixation on fossil fuels is puzzling, given that job creation is the sole justification on which it hangs its hat. When the National Energy Board recommended in favour of the proposed Enbridge diluted bitumen pipeline from the Alberta oil/tar sands to the west coast, the only reason we were given was that it was in Canada’s economic “national interest”.
But, as we’ve observed in these pages, the evidence doesn’t support this dogmatic notion. On the contrary, Canada saw just 16,500 jobs created in the entire oil and gas sector from 2000-2011, while it shed 520,000 manufacturing jobs over the same period. Even Industry Canada acknowledges that something like a third of those manufacturing jobs were lost due to “resource-driven currency appreciation” (i.e. our petro-dollar is artificially high, thus hampering exports).
It would seem that Canada is locked into a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy feedback loop. We tell ourselves we must invest in fossil fuels because that’s where all the jobs are…which is because we refuse to create jobs in alternate, sustainable sectors.
The necessary project of transitioning off of fossil fuels is no mean feat, to be sure. It requires a network of related solutions – reducing energy demand through public transit, urban density, more efficient homes, businesses, and machines; not only diverting fossil fuel subsidies to renewable energy, but pricing carbon effectively; finally, taking advantage of the amazing improvements and cost-reductions in renewable energy.
That and we’ll have to be willing to make a few sacrifices – but not the kind that necessarily diminish the richness or quality of our lives; in fact they may offer surprising improvements in these areas.
But we’ll only get there if we have the necessary public and political will. And that begins with no longer allowing governments and representatives of the fossil fuel industry to get away with tired, old cop-outs, like renewables are impractical for providing our future energy needs.
Renewable energy is no longer a joke, just like climate change is no laughing matter.
SAINT JOHN, N.B. – The federal government says it is aiming to make polluters pay as it makes changes to legislation and regulations on oil tanker safety.
But under proposed changes announced today by Transport Minister Lisa Raitt in Saint John, N.B., Ottawa stops short of following a recommendation from an expert panel to remove the current $161-million liability limit for a spill in favour of unlimited liability for polluters.
The report on tanker safety done last year by a three-member panel of experts made 45 recommendations for improving Canada’s preparedness for oil spills from tankers and barges.
Raitt says the government is removing the existing liability limit of $161 million under Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund.
Instead, the full amount for a single accident will be made available from the fund, which the government says currently stands at about $400 million.
Raitt says if all domestic and international pollution funds are exhausted, the government will ensure compensation is provided and recover those costs from the industry through a levy.
She says with ship owners’ insurance, and international and domestic pollution funds, about $1.6 billion will be available to cover damages from oil spills.
