Tag: climate change

Remember the chart from the article on Carbon Tax? It showed where energy comes from and how it’s used by every household. Well, there’s an additional source of emissions that you ought to know about—it comes from everything you buy.

Whether it’s footwear, televisions, or the cups in your cupboard, everything which sustains you comes from some kind of business. And business uses the exact same chart to make their goods. So if you buy a lot of things, you put up a lot of carbon. That’s what young Greta was trying to say.

Every sweater you own comes with a carbon price tag. As a matter of fact, it’s even bigger than what you directly cause.

• Direct (23%) – the electricity, gas, and heating material you use on a daily basis.
• Consumption (77%) – the electricity, gas, and heating material used to generate and transport everything you buy.

Greta was talking about overall consumption and asked us to buy less. It’s the dirty little secret of climate change. The one politicians never tell you because it involves shrinking economics. CBC’s Rosemary Barton pushed Elisabeth May on the issue and she said, “Our plan doesn’t ask people to give up anything.” (Start at the 21-minute mark.)

Conclusion

When climate change first hit the scene many were emotional about it. “We have to save the planet, we have to save the planet.” But now warning about the problem isn’t good enough, practical people want to see a plan. And like it or not, until we green the grid and move to electric motors, it involves consumption. Politicians don’t tell you this because consumption is what drives the workplace. So if everyone bought less, GDP would be less. Not welcome in a world full of debt. 

Remember, the economy works like this: raw material comes from Mother Nature and we add labour to bring it to you. So the furniture in your home used to be a tree, and the chainsaw used to cut it was also made from elements. Every step of the process causes carbon. From mining, to farming, to manufacturing, to distribution—everything puts up emissions. So if you want to be an activist and reduce global warming, over the next 20-30 years you’ll have to consume less.

That’s what a 16-year-old just told you.

Note: President Obama recently met Greta and said they would become great friends. This summer he bought a humongous mansion by the sea. Can’t wait til she visits.

The problem with economics is people have difficulty seeing the point where theory ends and practicality begins, so nobody understands it. That’s why countless arguments revolve around theories that really don’t fit. Such is the case with carbon tax. 

Now to get anything from this article you must accept that climate change is real. That, for the purpose of this discussion, there’s no doubt the dangers claimed by earth scientists are 100% accurate and not politically motivated. Once done, swallow, and focus on your nation’s role in addressing this crisis. 

Sources and uses

We have many types of energy, used in different ways, that come from multiple sources. To simplify things, let’s start with a chart:

Follow the green arrows and you’ll see the solution is to generate clean electricity, and then use it for everything. That’s what’s happening in transportation. Electric cars are surely coming and we now have electric buses. Back in the 80s, my aunt’s home used electric heat and all modern appliances are energy efficient. So we’re getting there on the consumption side. What we don’t know is how to make power that’s completely green. 

Green

You’ve heard it before that hydro is clean. So if the world had waterfalls and dams everywhere we wouldn’t be talking. Unfortunately, not every region has a Niagara Falls. That’s why fossil fuels are still being used. And since nuclear seems to be off the table, we‘re stuck with natural movements like wind and, of course, solar. 

But Canada has done little in either regard. Windy places like Newfoundland only have a few mills and sunny Alberta has hardly a panel. Clean abundant provinces like Ontario, BC, and Quebec—that generate over 90% of their electricity from green—have spent more on both than anyone. So to me, it seems like we’re unorganized. Enter carbon tax.

Carbon tax

Carbon tax is aimed at reducing direct consumption. The theory goes if you’re forced to pay an additional 10-30 cents per litre for gasoline, you’ll drive less or switch to a smaller car. Then maybe you’ll go electric when your type of vehicle becomes available. 

Well, I don’t see anyone driving less. And currently electric vehicles are all small. So trading my fuel efficient Corolla for one of these doesn’t make sense. We’ve seen high gas prices before. Likewise with home heating. Granted my aunt had electric, but today there isn’t an alternative to gas—so you can only move to a smaller house. But when you factor in discomfort and the real estate fees, you’ll probably stay put.

They also say when faced with higher energy charges business will innovate—so they save money. Nice pipe dream. Most large businesses in Canada operate within a co-opoly. So for them, as costs go up, prices do too. It’s not like Bell will invent a waterfall to get a leg up on Telus. That’s not the way it works.

Long story short: carbon tax in Canada is mostly a tax. It may work when electric cars are fully available and home heating comes in alternatives, but right now it’s mostly a tax. And dwelling on direct consumption isn’t really solving the problem. We need more technology.

Challenge

Over two billion people are entering the middle class with another two billion coming. So in a world of that many, our country’s role isn’t to show everyone how to consume. It’s to help develop green. Specifically, generating electricity from non-carbon sources.

We need a project of a NASA-like nature, to focus on earth. Specialty centres where scientists can create without budgets or bottom lines—and economics doesn’t do that. 

Instead of acting like some kid looking for a participation award, Canada should be leading the charge by hosting its own NASA centre. Hey, the world needs more carbon-free power and who’s going to do it? The Africans?

The plan

During WWII, Winston Churchill and FDR talked to the masses. They used radio for countrywide meetings to explain things and rally the troops. This held everyone focused because people knew what the plan was. And it made sense because this was a crisis.

So who’s in charge of solving climate change? Business, billionaires, or government? If government, which ones? Canada, the EU, or China? Truth is, we’ve inspired hundreds of tiny spikes traveling in all sorts of directions without any mission control. And though this approach can be very creative, it doesn’t work with a crisis. 

We can build batteries for buses but can’t make one for the Ford F-150. Tesla can electrify larger vehicles but doesn’t know how to make cars. GM knows how to make cars, but when it comes to electric vehicles they can only build smaller ones. So, while earnest and worthwhile, efforts haven’t been coordinated. When faced with an epidemic, the World Health Organization doesn’t operate in millions of cells. The body takes charge. And when faced with natural disasters, every country has a system. But when it comes to climate change we have only one organization to detail the problem. Nothing to find the cure. That’s not good.

Summary

A popular line used by crusaders is “what are you going to tell your grandchildren?” As if it’s all the consumer’s fault. Here’s what I’ll be telling mine. We spent an awful lot of time staring at the wrong end of the dog. 

Politics and mankind require strong leaders to operate and we didn’t have a Churchill or FDR. We had only naive do-gooders unqualified for their job. Not bad people, just ones who shouldn’t have been in charge. Then again, maybe there is no solution to this grave situation. Maybe it’s just not possible to make enough energy that is green? Maybe the species who developed the Hubble telescope and landed on the moon isn’t capable of this task? And maybe inventions like the computer and nuclear power were all just flukes.

Hey, wait a minute.

Back in 2006, Al Gore told the world about climate change. The planet was warming and it was all our fault. He said both nature and man put up greenhouse gases—and though nature puts up more, it brings down its fair share. What man puts up, stays up. So the idea was for man to emit less, until we get to none.

Citizens of the world united and along with industry and government, we began to make change. New methods of generation were invented and we became creative in lessening our needs. So how are we doing at controlling this mess? And where’s the report on getting us green?

People generated greenhouse gases (GHGs) come in two forms: making energy and using it. Making energy is the process of generating electricity and things like exploring for oil. Using it includes light bulbs, transportation, and heat.

Electricity

Other than veal parmesan, electricity has to be the greatest invention yet. Unfortunately, it’s also a major cause of GHGs. Here’s where your power comes from:

• coal-fired plants
• natural gas fired plants
• nuclear
• hydro (e.g., Quebec’s Churchill Falls)
• wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and other

Coal is dirtiest. Natural gas is 50-60% better, but still not green. Nuclear is green, but in decline. So only the bottom two are viable non-emitters. Hydro is great, but can be hard to get to. Wind is now real (no joke), solar is selling, and some of the others are showing results.

To make dirty better, coal-fired plants are being replaced by natural gas and carbon recapture is being developed for both. Canada is number two for hydro and we’ve been at it a while. In fact, we get 60% of our power this way. Denmark generates 42% of its electricity from wind. And solar is being used for remote locations and in much of the third world.

In total: coal is being phased out and much more power is coming from green.

Oil and gas

Other than the above, natural gas is used for heating homes and olive oil isn’t what drives your car. So though Canada can boast about power, we still have long winters and travel pretty far.

Our fuel industry has taken flack over how they capture their goods, especially in Fort Mac. But extraction methods are now better and the oil sands is a different place than when Leonardo first visited (causing such fuss), but it’s not the same as digging a hole. In terms of regular production, lots of improvements have been made and the future looks bright.

Long story short: whether for power generation or personal use, the harvesting and burning of fossil fuels is getting cleaner.

Consumption

We’ve also been working on use. Between fancy light bulbs, putting on a sweater, and taking the rickshaw, we’re actually gearing down. Over the past 10 years, energy use in the first world has remained flat, despite population growth. This means the increase in people is being offset by per capita reductions, and there are some really cool stories. For example, 39% of Norway’s cars are now electric (and this figure will be 100% in seven more years).

Closer to home, Edmonton just bought 40 electric buses and three provinces (ON, QC, and BC) have incentives to buy green cars (hybrid or electric). Insulation in new homes has been improved greatly and every furnace and appliance is much more efficient. So conservation is up.

And it’s no secret higher density areas were the quickest to act. Why? Because though a truck in Iowa spews the same GHG as a truck in LA, the one in LA causes pollution you can see. That’s why many supporters didn’t need science to believe—they were sold by the smog.

Carbon taxation is another way to entice people into doing more. It raises the price of home heating and gasoline so you’ll turn down the thermostat and get a smaller house. Then maybe use transit or buy more efficient wheels. It worked in BC because they lowered provincial tax at the same time (so it was a shift). In Australia they made it an additional cost and voters revolted. Tossing the party and policy after only two years.

Deniers

The media still hosts one-sided debates over the validity of the cause. Crusaders say it’s a crisis while doubters call it a hoax. But that’s not what’s happening on the street. Regular people are never so radical. Most of us know it’s best to leave the campsite clean and that air quality counts.

And for the most part, the fight appears to be dead. It never made its way into boardrooms and the most maligned players are leading the charge. Every country is sensitive to global warming and each company has a plan. So what we’re really talking about is speed.

Most of this is normal. Whenever we face change there is one group in favour and another to resist. Modern day battles are louder because more people get involved, but no matter what delusion your party has you under, green energy is happening and we’ll get there when we can.

Summary

Understanding energy isn’t easy, but it comes down to electricity, transportation, and heat. One plan is to get all power from clean sources and then use it for everything. And in the short term, use fossil fuels the best we can. Here’s how we’re doing:

• Wind is now real. The US gets 6% of its power this way, up from zero just twenty years ago. In Germany it’s 13%, India 10%, and you already know about Denmark (42—going to 80 in a few years).
• Electric vehicles are also real. Not only in Norway, but now that technology is improving it’s sure to succeed. Already a number of countries have indicated they’re going this way and if Edmonton can buy these sorts of buses, it’s gotta be real.
• And solar is being put into the craziest of places. Why? Because powerlines don’t run everywhere. So if it’s a crew in the boonies or some guy in a hut, you need a TV. And believe it or not, Italy is leading the way with 7% of its power coming from sun.

Of course, lots of this gets subsidized and many projects have failed, but that’s normal for new innovation. You don’t hit a home run your first time out. So solar and wind simply needed some breaks (no different than older resources). And remember, hydro has always been good.

Bottom line: the decision has been made and we’re headed for green. Leaders aren’t taking us back to horse and carriage, they just want lower emissions. And though some saw the election of Trump as a major setback, he didn’t tell Tesla or GE (because there’s no stopping this).

One day we might invent a spaceship that goes up with a carbon broom to clean, but until then we’re watching the planet. Industry and government make up the plan, our job is to support it. And if you’re still really confused, pretend we’re fighting air pollution—with a twist.

Note: A shout out goes to people who bought the first generation hybrids—those things were ugly. And how about all the potheads in Holland? Who would have thought they’d come up with such an invention?

If I ever catch a genie in a bottle, I’ll ask for two things: bring back debating into high schools and stop unqualified people from saying things like, “And of course, we all know.”

Nothing highlights these wishes better than the debate over climate change. There are literally no public videos where qualified experts discuss the matter all together. We just have clips from those representing one side or the other, or unqualified salespeople pushing an agenda. So if no debate exists, let’s make one.

IPCC

We’ll open with the opinions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then present a contrarian and an endorser.

• IPCC Video 
• FAQ Brochure

Dr. Patrick Moore

For the anti team, from sunny British Columbia, we have Patrick Moore. Dr. Moore is an ecologist and founding member of Greenpeace. To hear his story, click below.

• The Sensible Environmentalist 
• Moses Znaimer’s Ideacity 
• Website 

Dr. James Hansen

And for the pro side, we have James Hansen. Dr. Hansen is an earth scientist from Columbia University and former NASA scientist. To hear his story, click below.

• Self Made Video
• Ted Talk 
• Climate Matters (Paris 2015) 

Now if five qualified technicians analyzed your computer or six mechanics looked under your hood, do you think they’d be this far apart? And wouldn’t they temper their proposals with comments like, “It’s our best bet” or “We’re pretty sure”—like medical doctors do?

Knowledge vs. trust

The truth is: you and I don’t know anything about this issue. We’re not scientists, we’re not scientists in this particular area, and even if we were—it doesn’t mean we’d be any good at it. So we have no idea how much of this is guesswork. All we can do is trust.

We trust all the time and sometimes we get scammed. Americans trusted George W. about “weapons of mass destruction,” Canadians trusted Bre-X that there was gold in that mine, and Germans trusted Hitler. So could carbon tax be another one? If it were, here’s how they’d do it.

Brainwashing

Social brainwashing is the act of manipulating the public mind. It has three components:

• Flood people with information
• Appeal to their emotions
• Make it a crisis

The article, Opinions, says your thoughts are partially controlled by what you’ve been taught. If I keep teaching that Quebec is a net contributor to the tax system or that the holocaust didn’t really happen, you’ll start thinking my way. The article, Why School, says most people are equipped to learn and reason, but light when it comes to critical thinking. So educated people form a perfect target—give them five pieces of information and they’ll think they know something.

The article, Power, Pleasure, Purpose, says people are motivated by one of three drivers. Hitler used power to rally his troops (appropriate since 1920s-30s German families weren’t known for warmth and the country had just been decimated). Today’s motivators connect with purpose. Left-wing documentaries and speeches emotionally assault us into believing only Lucifer himself could see things differently. And so do American conservatives when they make fun of the Christian right.

Lastly, major issues are always presented as a crisis to force people into acting before they give other considerations their due. This method of eliminating all opposition was used during the financial crisis of 2008. US politicians had only a weekend to authorize an $800 billion bailout.

Conclusion

If five out of six mechanics told me to change my muffler, I’d probably do it. But if it meant greatly altering my lifestyle, I’d try really hard to understand what that sixth mechanic was trying to say.

The determining questions are:

• Is the planet warming?
• Is this warming dangerous?
• Is CO2 the cause of warming?
• How much of CO2 buildup is related to human activity vs. nature?
• How sure are we of these answers?

In the work world, we don’t pay attention to unqualified comments. If we need a new copier, we don’t ask the postman. But for some reason, when it comes to climate, we’ll listen to almost anyone and take them seriously.

Personally, I’m leery of movie actors explaining to me scientific facts. I feel scientists are perfectly capable of doing this themselves. They teach at universities, don’t they?

And why is this even a public issue? When we introduced laws to control pollution, ban DDT, eliminate asbestos, and a host of other items—they just did it. I don’t remember the caravan of do-gooders running around soliciting public approval. So if we need to save the planet, go ahead and save it. Then again, what do I know—I’m not a rock star.