Three cheers for us!

Congratulations to Jack Layton and the Federal NDP, who have now successfully sheparded their climate change accountability bill into Third Reading.
Well done!

US Senate CLEAR Act

Full Text here: http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/copenhagen2009/climate_cantwell_bill.pdf

The bill in question is the newest attempt to provide a hard cap on carbon reductions, culminating in what is being called a 'cap and dividend' system, as opposed to the already know and understood 'cap and trade' scheme of carbon emission reduction.
The main difference between cap and trade and cap and dividend is that three quarters of all government revenue from carbon share auctions would be returned to the citizens in the form of a monthly dividend cheque. Independant analysis indicates that these dividends could reach as high as twelve hundred dollars a month per qualifying individual. The remaining twenty-five percent of the proceeds would be held in a government trust which could be used to finance targetted infrastructure upgrades meant to decrease carbon dioxide emissions and act as a form of economic stimulus.
This is the kind of proposal that we should be getting behind and focusing on for ourselves in the NDP. It most assuredly accomplishes our progressive aims to lower carbon emissions in a safe, economically viable method, and its almost impossible to tar this as a cap and tax regime, considering that the vast majority of people will receive some kind of rebate without having to pay any initial fee. Furthermore, this type of policy, with its reinvestments in the community, gives the party a chance to put some actions to our rhetoric on standing up for middle and working class British Columbians.
The most important part of this bill would be what is done with the money from the carbon share auctions; if the NDP were to champion such a bill it would be necessary to focus on the rebates that would be given to individuals, which could be far higher than rebates from the carbon tax.

Federal NDP bills move forward

There's a reason why New Democratic Party polling numbers have been climbing higher and higher in recent weeks and months; its because the NDP is getting things done in Parliament instead of playing partisan games with our country. Just this week, two NDP private members' bills have move through Parliament. Bill C-304, a housing act sponsored by Libby Davies (Vancouver East) passed through committee. Once again, the bill proceeded through the House without support from the governing Conservative Party. Ensuring affordable housing for Canadians wasn't the only goal the NDP got closer to accomplishing this week; bill C-311, the party's bill that would cap greenhouse gases and reduce emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and an astonishing 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, goals that are backed by leading scientists around the world. Bill C-311 also made it through committee this week, with absolutely no amendments attached to it, leaving the bill ready for Third Reading, where it should pass and become Canadian law.
Congratulations to Jack Layton and the Federal NDP team for fighting for Canadians and Canadian values!

Bill C-311 and the Copenhagen Summit

The global stage is coming, will Canada be prepared? December is the month in which the nations of the world gather to discuss and debate the changes needed to combat climate change. Right now, Canada has no plan. Nothing. Not a single idea in the country on what to do, because of successive Conservative and Liberal governments who don’t care or who pay lip service to this increasingly global issue. There is one bill trying to pass its way through the halls of Parliament though, and its the private member’s bill C-311, sponsored by Jack Layton and the NDP. Bill C-311, otherwise known as the Climate Accountability Act, has already been through the Parliamentary system, save for Royal assent that was withheld before the last election, forcing it back to first reading. Now that there’s a need for the bill and for Canada to show leadership on the world stage, the Liberals and Conservatives are doing everything in their power to stall the bill and prevent Canada from having a chance to act in a responsible, coherant manner in Copenhagen. This is unacceptable. The two supposedly national parties are using the earth and environment as a political tool to try and boost their poll numbers, while Canadians from across the political spectrum are calling for action. Call your MP and your party leaders, its time for Canadians to come together and show that when it comes to protecting the world we live in, political games aren’t acceptable, and to expedite the passage of C-311.

Environmental proposal

Many people here have heard of a "carbon tax" which would increase the costs of energy. The idea behind such a tax is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and other carbon producing energy sources, which are a direct cause of global climate change. Instead of a government imposed carbon tax, what would the effects be of a carbon REBATE, whereby corporations and individual homes were give a cash rebate for reducing their annual carbon production? The administration of such a proposal would be challenging, as a baseline annual total would have to be compiled by a government entity before the program could begin. What I'm proposing is that for every ton of carbon dioxide that has been reduced from the baseline numbers, homeowners and businesses could receive a refund of say, $15.00. Theoretically, this would cost the government money, but any reduction in income would be absorbed by consumer purchases of more expensive but environmentally friendly technology. In comparison, the costs of purchasing "greener" appliances would be covered by the rebates being paid to the homes and businesses, resulting in a new micro-economy regarding green tech. As such technologies begin to gain popularity, price would be controlled through competition to ensure greatest number of sales, making the switch manageable for business as well as the government and the consumers. As an incentive, the rebate could increase at certain points when exceptional amounts of reduction have occurred, an example being at one ton per household or thirty tons per business.
EDIT: I got some numbers off of the BC government website, so theoretically this would be the measure in which this policy would proceed, matching the carbon tax and making both revenue neutral to each other.



Liquid Fuels
Gasoline ¢/Litre 2.41 3.62 4.82 6.03 7.24
Diesel ¢/Litre 2.76 4.14 5.52 6.89 8.27
Light Fuel Oil ¢/Litre 2.76 4.14 5.52 6.89 8.27
Heavy Fuel Oil ¢/Litre 3.11 4.67 6.22 7.78 9.33
Aviation Gasoline ¢/Litre 2.45 3.67 4.90 6.12 7.34
Jet Fuel ¢/Litre 2.62 3.93 5.25 6.56 7.87
Kerosene ¢/Litre 2.56 3.84 5.12 6.40 7.68

Gaseous Fuel
Natural Gas ¢/GJ* 49.88 74.82 99.76 124.70 149.64
Propane ¢/Litre 1.53 2.30 3.06 3.83 4.60
Butane ¢/Litre 1.76 2.65 3.53 4.41 5.29
Ethane ¢/Litre 0.98 1.46 1.95 2.44 2.93
Pentane ¢/Litre 1.76 2.65 3.53 4.41 5.29
Coke Oven Gas ¢/GJ* 42.31 63.47 84.62 105.78 126.93
Still Gas ¢/GJ* 51.22 76.83 102.44 128.05 153.66

Solid Fuels
Coal - Canadian Bituminous $/Tonne 20.79 31.18 41.58 51.97 62.36
Coal - Sub-Bituminous $/Tonne 17.72 26.58 35.44 44.30 53.15
Coal - US Bituminous $/Tonne 24.39 36.58 48.78 60.97 73.16
Coke $/Tonne 24.87 37.30 49.74 62.17 74.60
Petroleum Coke ¢/Litre 3.67 5.51 7.34 9.18 11.01
Tires - shredded $/Tonne 23.91 35.87 47.82 59.78 71.73
Tires - whole tires $/Tonne 20.80 31.20 41.60 52.00 62.40

* Gigajoule

If the means to measure these fuels were produced, a proper carbon rebate could be created. Since this is problematic, a pragmatic solution would be to focus specifically on liquid fuels and coal, which are easily tracked and can be rebated easily each year to stack with the carbon tax. This could be done by using the more easily detected CO2e (carbon dioxide equivilant) emissions created by all fuel sources, which would be calculated at the following rates for each of the coming years.

July 1, 2010 - $20 per tonne of CO2e emissions
July 1, 2011 - $25 per tonne of CO2e emissions
July 1, 2012 - $30 per tonne of CO2e emissions
July 1, 2013 - $35 per tonne of CO2e emissions

In order for this to be revenue neutral, 1.849 billion dollars in eco-friendly sales have to be purchased, which is returned to the consumer via both lower carbon tax payments and a carbon rebate equal to the amount of CO2e reduced from the previous year's consumption will be sent to each household.

further thoughts on energy and the environment

The problem isn't just our unhealthy reliance on petroleum products and the insane gorging of oil we have as a society. Its about the psychology behind it; we all see the issue and its a smaller number each day that claims its a falsehood that we're too dependant on oil or that climates are indeed changing. The problem is that people don't think that anything they do will have any kind of impact on the issue.

When governments talk about the issue and even when scientists talk about the math involved, its always at a national or global scale. They present numbers that, to the vast majority of people, are too large to properly comprehend; people think that against a backdrop of such vast use of oil, what will their small contribution mean in the grand scheme of things? Its this intentional shrinking of personal impact that allows our society to forever expand its grasp on oil and increase the amount of energy wasted per year or even per day.
What needs to be done is to show the personal impact. We need to stop talking about it as a global issue because no one cares about something unless they think it directly affects them. So instead of all this well-intentioned but useless ranting about how billions of tons of CO2 is released by America each year, we need to talk about how each individual citizen releases THOUSANDS of tons of CO2 each year, and then people will see that "oh, I'm doing THAT much and causing THAT much of an issue?"

That change of mindset will make people more open to the ideas that we do infact need to embrace in order to save our planet. Things like a carbon tax (which I oppose on economic grounds), cap and trade policies and a marked shift to renewable energy can only be done once the population comprehends how much good can be done for such a little change in their personal finances and lifestyle. Look at the history of recycling; once people realized that they would infact be saving money by recycling, it became something everyone wanted to do instead of something that was forced upon the population by a vengeful government bent on psychotic control. Similar solutions have to be proposed in order to combat this environmental challenge; small changes that cumulatively can have a large effect on the environment.

Of course, that isn't to say that we should completely back off making major changes at a state/provincial/national/global level. Its pretty clear to anyone with sensory appendages that we are running out of oil, and that the climates of our respective homes have changed somewhat from even a decade ago. Something has to be done, but it should be in tandem with local projects and coordinated through a completely non-ideological organization.
Something I've proposed in the past (and is sadly incompatible with painting every roof white) is to have greenspace on the roof of each building. Not only does having a small garden upon each roof provide environmental benefits such as increased carbon dioxide capture by the plants and subsequent release of oxygen needed to not die, but these gardens can, if properly maintained, reduce the need for importation of food from outside sources and make the food we eat more local, which will reduce the cost of the food and provide economic benefits for those that work in that field.
Another thing I've proposed in the past is creating a "greenbelt" around each population area. This greenbelt would be one hundred meters (or about 100 yards for you yanks) deep and would completely surround each populated area, making exception for roads leading out of the city or town. The depth of the greebelt would increase by fifty meters for every one hundred thousand citizens, so a city with a population of one million would have a greenbelt of 600 meters, and so on. This greenbelt would be considered protected government property and could only be used in ways consistant with the governing principles of the national parks for that country. Naturally, the purpose of this greenbelt would be to capture carbon emissions from the city, preventing htem from entering the atmosphere and adding to the current climate change predicament.

**deep breath** Well, that's about all I've got, if any of you survived and read it all, kudos to you and please send feedback regarding my two proposals.

Policy: Energy

River rights: Independant power projects are an important part of the British Columbia economy, and a moratorium on these vital projects would stagnate our already endangered fiscal position. However; British Columbians gain nothing when their jobs and their natural resources are shipped out of province, which is why I support local businesses being given preference for the rights to IPPs, all other aspects of the bids being equal. Local businesses, with roots in our communities and employing our people to promote our values and economy, can power our way through the recession and into a new bull economy, while protecting the natural resources we hold dear.
Renewable Energy: British Columbians are proud to have such a strong tradition of renewable energy providing for our needs. We proudly say that almost all of our electrical needs are provided by renewable, carbon neutral hydro-electricity. But in order to keep our edge in energy technology, we must expand into new, promising areas of research. The expanding energy needs of our province has begun to make hydro-electricity less efficient, as more rivers must be dammed to provide new energy sources. These rivers can no longer be used for salmon spawning, and entire stocks of pacific salmon die without replenishing their numbers.
If elected, I will work hard to ensure that more is done the ensure that any new hydro dam is built in rivers that will not affect salmon spawning grounds, and to push for renewed interest in geothermal energy to provide where hydro-electricity is not feasible.
Lowering Carbon Emissions: Like most British Columbians, I'm concerned about the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted in the air. I believe the best way, the way that will cost everyday people the least amount of money, is to instigate a cap and trade system on industries as opposed to a straight carbon tax. The carbon tax we have lived with for the past year has done nothing to curb emissions, it has simply strained the pocketbooks of the most vulnerable in society in an already dangerous economic time. Meanwhile, businesses continue to enjoy record profits by passing the costs of the tax onto the consumers.
This is why I support a cap and trade system, whereby businesses and industries will be forced to purchase permits to emit a set amount of greenhouse gas. Under my plan, the allowable amount of permits would decrease by 2.5% of the 1990 levels each year, ensuring that our carbon footprint stays minimal and that new energy sources are used that are pollutant-free.

Energy Policy (mine)

We're facing an energy crisis. Not just Canada, not just North America. The whole world is facing an energy crisis in the face of climate change and the increasing price of fossil fuels. But what is being done? In America, China and India, the three biggest producers of carbon emissions, efforts are either being stonewalled by the legislative process or is simply non-existant. This is unacceptable, as the costs both financially and in terms of damage to our environment and our health is becoming too high, and cannot be paid for at our rate of consumption indefinately.

Firstly, and rightly so, we must begin to curb our appetite for energy and decrease our rates of consumption. In twenty-nine years, Canada has managed to double its energy consumption rates, and annually produces enough energy to run the Montreal subway system for almost 8,000 years. This kind of reckless consumption has only one cause and no justification; a lazy society that would rather a machine do what we would ourselves do in earlier generations. Reducing our energy needs starts right at home, simple things such as just turning off lights and appliances that aren't being used saves hundreds of dollars in energy bills every year, and it reduces our need on dirty energy sources to power our everyday lives. More than just using less energy, we need to use smarter energy. Everyday things like changing lightbulbs to the new flourescent bulbs or ensuring good tire pressure can reduce the need for oil in our cars and electricity in our homes, both of which can save money and reduce our carbon emissions.

Naturally, reducing our need for energy is an important way of reducing our carbon footprint, but the fact remains that we will still need to consume some energy unless we revert to a pre-industrial society. Rather than continuing to pour money into a solution that is growing both more expensive to maintain and more dangerous to the environment, we must begin prioritizing research and development of alternative fuel and energy sources. Our country is greatly varied in geography, and sadly there is no one form of "alternative" energy that we can use and apply to the nation as a whole, but that is how it should be anyways. The people in each province know their homes; the innovative Canadian spirit in every corner of the land can and should be tasked with finding solutions to the energy crisis that work best for that area of the nation, not something that would have widespread, ineffectual use. We must develop all energy sources that can prove themselves to be clean and affordable. This means looking not just at hydro power, but solar, wind, tidal and geo-thermal energy.

Many of these energy sources are already being developed, but without further funding we risk losing our chance to become leaders in the fields and profiting from the innovations and new technologies. Switching to these technologies should no longer be viewed as an attack on entrenched interests, but instead as a business opportunity to expand into new markets and obtain a greater profit in areas with less competition. And there will be competiton, nations around the world are beginning to come together and find the technology, perfect it, and produce it in order to better serve their own nation. We have a choice in this; we can either be the seller of new technology and reap the rewards of it, or we can be purchasing that technology and forever be left behind as a minor nation. What will you decide as an individual?

Dirty Fuel

Lets have a look at the oil sands, one of the crowning jewels of the Alberta Oil Industry. According to the oilsands website (how corporate), oilsands are "naturally occurring mixtures of sand or clay, water and a thick, heavy substance called bitumen." The mixture is removed from the earth in two different ways, either through traditional drilling or bi in situ (in place) drilling. This mixture is separated with hot water to free the bitumen, which can then be sold on the market as a form of crude oil.

There are supposedly over 170 billion barrels of crude oil that can be extracted through these oilsands, but there are a few causes for concern.

First and foremost; it is STILL oil. You can call it anything you want, but its still oil and its still polluting our air and contributing to climate change. The Alberta Government says that there are stringent measures in place to protect the environment, yet greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands continues to increase, not decrease.
Second; both in situ and traditional drilling practices do considerable damage to the ground and environment that is being drilled upon. What is being done to protect and regenerate the environment after drilling has taken place? Not much. All that needs to be done is that the land is "reclaimed" and left alone. More importantly, water from the Athabasca River is used to separate the bitumen from the rest of the oilsand. Where does this now-polluted water go? Right back in the river, downstream of where it was taken out and used.

A better solution, both economically and environmentally, would be to stop developing these oilsands and demand more investment in alternative fuel sources. Right here in Vancouver we are pioneering new fuel sources everyday, sources that have zero carbon emissions and are cheaper to produce than current fuels.

Translink, the entity in charge of public transportation in Metro Vancouver, has been experimenting with many new fuel sources, including nitrogen, natural gas and hydrogen fuels. Furthermore, the city has been a leader in the use of electric buses, with almost the entirety of the downtown core equipped with electrical wiring designed for the buses' use. These technologies, with additional funding and support, could quickly and cheaply be a replacement for the fuel sources of the past. We have an opportunity to innovate and lead the world in finding clean, cheap, profitable energy sources for our vehicles, but instead we continue to defend these oilsands because its easier and its a known commodity. No more oil, no more destruction, just clean simple fuels.