Clinton pushing climate change initiatives in Canada

Bill Clinton was in Canada last Saturday promoting climate change initiatives and free health care.

Of course, Canada already has free health care, but the point is still made. The United States is just starting on the road to free health care, for every uninsured child, senior and adult in the United States.

Clinton tried to pass free health care during his 8 years in the White House and only managed a few meager initiatives, health care programs for uninsured children. His goal of free health care for Americans was shouted down by Republican bigots in Congress worried about the overall cost and "Communist-style health care" (which is nonsense, because the USA up until 2009 was the only western country that didn't have free health care).

When George W. Bush got into power America's public health care system took one step forward and two steps backward. Bush signed into law a Medicare drug benefit program (something even Canada doesn't have), but later vetoed State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation which would have expanded free health care to ten million American children (and would have been funded by a modest increase to cigarette taxes).

Since getting into power President Obama has quickly managed to do what Clinton couldn't do because he didn't have support from Congress, and what Bush refused to do because he doesn't give a damn about poor people. Less than a month in power and riding on overwhelming support and a Democratic majority in Congress, Obama signed the United States into a new era of free health care.

The issue is still being discussed in Congress, but its essentially a done deal. Better yet Obama already found a way to pay for it by decreasing the amount wealthy people get back from the IRS when they make charitable donations. Wealthy Americans used to get back 35% of their donation, but now they only get back 28%.

And poof! Free health care in America finally became a reality. Done and paid for.

Now if only we could do the same thing for the environment?

Clinton is effectively an unofficial ambassador for the Obama administration. So whenever he visits Canada or other nations overseas to give speeches, he's not just acting as a former president who cares about the USA, he's acting as a global ambassador for the USA to the rest of the world. That is how a former American president should act... help the USA and the world by being a spokesperson. (You will note Bush in comparison avoids the spotlight as much as possible.)

The problem is that selling the environment is a much tougher sell than health care (and we can see how long it took Americans to join the rest of the civilized world).

Think of it like a car... when you buy a new car from the Ford Motor Co. you expect it to work properly. But lo and behold they bought cheap brakes from China and the next thing you know you are upside down in a ditch, the car is on fire and in order to rescue you the firemen have to amputee your leg.

Afterwards you sue the Ford Motor Co. for damages (because they imported faulty brakes from China) and are awarded millions. Ford then promises to only buy quality brakes built in North America and has to recall thousands of cars to replace the brakes on each one.

But what about the tailpipe? Try and make the argument that cars pollute, produce greenhouse gases, which locks in heat, which causes global warming, which causes climate change, which causes a host of other environmental problems like polar ice caps melting and rising sea levels.

You can't sue Ford for damages. You'd have to sue the entire automotive industry, the coal industry and any other industry producing excess amounts of greenhouses gases... and it wouldn't just be the United States. It would be a global lawsuit. Its so ridiculously huge it would just plain never happen.

Thus trying to sell green initiatives to Americans can be very tricky. We can't even do it in Canada because we currently have a corrupt Conservative government under the "do nothing" bogus Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper has no intention of setting caps on greenhouse gases. He's been bought and paid off by the Alberta oil industry and the Atlantic coal industry.

Name one thing Harper has done to help the environment since getting into the PM's chair in February 2006? He announced some new national parks. That is it. The man epitomizes the "do nothing" approach to politics.

There has been no new "climate change initiatives" in Canada since Paul Martin left power in 2006.

And thus we come full circle. Now we understand why Bill Clinton is pushing such initiatives in Canada. Its because our own government is too lazy and corrupt to do it themselves.

83% of Canadians support initiatives to combat global warming and climate change. So why can't we elect a government that will actually make good on its promises?

Its because Canada has three separate left-wing parties: The Liberals, the NDP and the Greens. The NDP and the Greens will NEVER get elected and win a majority government, but the vote splitting between the three has resulted in the Liberal party being held back from winning majority governments. Its the reason we keep getting minority Conservative governments.

Remember Stephane Dion's idea to put a tax on carbon emissions? He bet an election on it and failed, despite the fact that it was originally a Conservative idea. What happened was the Reform Party (which has since changed its name to the Canadian Alliance Party, and changed it again to the Conservative Party) held a discussion back when Jean Chretien was still in power. Chretien wanted to put a cap on carbon emissions, but the Reform Party under Stockwell Day thought it was a better idea to just tax carbon emissions instead.

Stephen Harper later replaced Stockwell Day as leader, but because Harper is a puppet of the oil industry (whereas Stockwell Day is a puppet of right wing Christians) they had to abandon the carbon tax idea... which left it to be picked up by the Liberals and touted.

The problem is there really is no other ways to combat climate change. We have to cut carbon emissions somehow, and the only ways to do that is:

• Cap Carbon Emissions.
• Tax Carbon Emissions (and hope companies reduce the amount they release).
• Make cars more efficient (which we've already done).
• Increase sales of more fuel efficient cars like hybrids, electrics, hydrogen, etc. (which we are currently doing).
• Phase out coal powered plants by building lots of solar/wind alternatives (which we are doing already).

Which implies we will eventually start taxing/capping greenhouse gases anyway. Its just a matter of who will do it first, Canada or the United States?

Judging by the fact Obama has a majority of Democrats in Congress the USA might beat Canada to it.

India to build Wind Turbines in Ontario

Asia's largest maker of wind turbines is thinking of setting up in Ontario for a new manufacturing plant, believing Ontario has the right combination of policies, infrastructure and local desire for more wind power.

Tulsi Tanti, founder and chair of Suzlon Energy Ltd., says that the Ontario government's proposed Green Energy Act is a "very strong" initiative that helps set the province apart from other jurisdictions in North America. The decision to come to Canada could come soon. "Based on our analysis, 2010 is the right time for us to start business operations in the Canadian market."

Tanti, also called the "wind man of India," was ranked by Forbes magazine in 2008 as the 33rd richest man in India, with a family wealth of $1.1 billion. That is billion with a B... and he sells wind turbines...?

15 years ago Tanti was a thirty-something engineer trying to grow his textile company with a new line of polyester yarns, but the problem was India's unreliable electricity system and the high cost of power... so he decided to purchase two wind turbines in 1995. By 2000 he was so impressed he decided to sell off his textile business and start manufacturing wind turbines.

Today his company Suzlon is the fifth-largest wind turbine supplier in the world with $3.34 billion in revenues in 2008, 13,000 employees and sells wind mill and wind turbine products in 21 countries. Tanti also owns a majority stake in German wind-turbine maker Repower AG, which has already secured contracts for developing wind-power projects in Canada.

Because of high transportation costs of shipping wind towers and rotor blades, its cheaper to set up manufacturing close to project locations. To build them they need to determine the availability of skilled manpower, the logistical costs and local government support.

In countries such as India, Brazil and Australia, Suzlon doesn't just sell wind turbines, it also designs, engineers and constructs the wind farms. In India Suzlon also builds the transmission lines that connect them to the country's power grid. In countries where they just build turbines, they build everything from scratch: the gearbox, rotor blades, generator, control systems, towers, etc. Everything is built locally by the company to save on shipping costs.

Despite the American recession Suzlon is expecting 20 to 30% growth by 2010.

New Incinerator in Ontario

Ontario is contemplating building a garbage incinerator and has contacted North America's largest incinerator company to build and operate an incinerator in Clarington Ontario that will burn 140,000 tonnes of garbage every year from Durham and York regions.

Covanta Energy Corp., based in Fairfield, New Jersey, operates 35 facilities in the United States, is waiting to be approved to construct the $236-million plant. It will be capable of generating 20 megawatts of power by burning unusable garbage (material that currently can't be recycled or turned into compost) once the facility begins operating in 2013.

(If this feels like a step backwards, you're right. What they should be doing is building a recycling plant that can recycle ANYTHING.)

The Durham council will receive the proposal on April 22 – Earth Day – and a final vote is expected June 24.

The new incinerator will be the first to be built in Ontario in nearly 20 years, and if approved, Covanta would design, get the necessary permits, build and operate the new incinerator under a 20-year contract. They would also get two options for five-year extensions. The plant will also be built with the option to expand to 400,000 tonnes per year... suggesting they may decide to take in more garbage from the Greater Toronto Area.

Covanta will also be paid $14.7 million a year to run the facility and would be paid using federal gas tax revenues.

Covanta has guaranteed that the facility will be able to produce 767 kilowatt-hours of electricity for every tonne of waste processed, the equivalent of how much a small household uses every month. At full operation, that's enough to power nearly 12,000 households for a year. Or 34,000 homes if its expanded to 400,000-tonnes-per-year.

In December 2008, Ontario's Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman directed the Ontario Power Authority to purchase electricity from Durham-York's proposed incinerator for 8 cents per kilowatt-hour. Sounds silly? The OPA is selling that electricity for less than 6.5 cents/kWh and taking a loss.

In other words the OPA will spend $8.59 million a year... but they will save more than $15 million a year in landfill fees and the millions in transporting residual waste to a landfill.

A future source of revenue could also come from capturing heat from the facility and selling it to surrounding businesses, industry and households as part of a district heating system.

Critics warn the excessive emissions will cause environmental damage and the likelihood it will stifle expansion of recycling programs.

Last year, Pennsylvania's environmental protection department fined Covanta in October for exceeding emission limits, while Michigan residents are pushing for the closing of a controversial Covanta plant in Detroit.

Covanta says plant emissions will be well below provincial standards and the electricity it produces will offset coal-burning generation in Ontario.

So... burning garbage is better than burning coal. So they say. That doesn't make it better overall however. What we really need is better recycling facilities that can recycle EVERYTHING.

And as for offsetting coal-burners... whats the point of all those windmills and solar farms we're building right now unless its to eliminate the use of coal?

White House calls for polar protection

The Obama administration today called for enhanced protection of the Earth's polar regions, proposing mandatory limits on Antarctic tourism and urging increased environmental research there and in the Canadian Arctic.

Opening a two-week conference of parties to the 50-year-old Antarctic Treaty, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the recent collapse of an Antarctic ice bridge was a stark reminder that the poles are gravely threatened by climate change and human activity.

"With the collapse of an ice bridge that holds in place the Wilkins Ice Shelf, we are reminded that global warming has already had enormous effects on our planet, and we have no time to lose in tackling this crisis," she told the first-ever joint meeting of Antarctic Treaty parties and the Arctic Council at the State Department.

The bridge linking the Wilkins shelf to Antarctica's Charcot and Latady Islands shattered over the weekend after two large chunks of it fell away last year. The shelf, formed by thousands of years of accumulated and compacted snow, had been stable for most of the last century before it began retreating in the 1990s.

Originally the size of Jamaica, the shelf on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula lost 14% of its mass last year alone, according to scientists who are looking at whether global warming is the cause of its breakup.

Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Farenheit over the past half century, the statement said – higher than the average global rise.

Clinton said the Antarctic Treaty – which also bars military use of the continent – could be a model for improved cooperation and coordination in the Arctic, which is not governed by a similar pact.

"The treaty is a blueprint for the kind of international cooperation that will be needed more and more to address the challenges of the 21st century," she said.

Clinton also formally announced that the United States would be proposing mandatory limits on the size of Antarctic cruise ships and the number of passengers they bring ashore at the treaty conference, which begins later Monday in Baltimore and runs through April 17.

If the Arctic and Antarctic melts its predicted the world's sea level would rise 21+ meters and would flood many major cities.

The Antarctic has 4 remaining ice shelfs. As they disappear mainland ice glaciers will slide into the ocean faster and will speed up rising sea levels.

See Also:
Arctic Ice to vanish by 2013
Flooded Cities by 2013?
Greenland ice melting faster than expected
Ancient Ice Shelf snaps free in Canada

37% of Droughts caused by Global Warming

Global warming is more than a third to blame for a major drop in rainfall that includes a decade-long drought in Australia and a lengthy dry spell in the United States, a scientist said Wednesday.

Peter Baines of Melbourne University in Australia analyzed global rainfall observations, sea surface temperature data as well as a reconstruction of how the atmosphere has behaved over the past 50 years to reveal rainfall winners and losers.

What he found was an underlying trend where rainfall over the past 15 years or so has been steadily decreasing, with global warming 37% responsible for the drop.

"The 37 per cent is probably going to increase if global warming continues," Baines said as he presented his findings at a major climate change conference in Perth Australia.

Four major regions has seen a large decline in rainfall. The affected areas are the continental United States, southeastern Australia, a large region of equatorial Africa and the Altiplano in South America.

At the same time there is two areas in the tropics where rainfall has been increasing – northwestern Australia and the Amazon Basin.

"This is all part of a global pattern where the rainfall is generally increasing in the equatorial tropics and decreasing in the sub-tropics in mid-latitudes," Baines said.

"This is a little bit like the pattern that the (computer) models predict for global warming but this is coming out of the rainfall observations of the past 30 years," added Baines.

The rainfall trend was also accompanied by a trend in global sea surface temperatures (SST), he said, adding he used temperature data going back to 1910.

Sea surface temperatures have also been rising as the atmosphere warms.

"If you take the SST data and analyse that over a long period you can break that up into a variety of components, such a global warming component," he said.

He also looked at the influence on rainfall of major ocean circulation patterns that have a major impact on the world's weather such as the Atlantic conveyor belt that brings warm temperatures to northern Europe.

Two Pacific circulation patterns, including the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, were also studied for their influence on rainfall.

The key in the analysis was to strip out the influence of the El Niño ocean-climate pattern which routinely causes drought in Southeast Asia and Australia and floods in Chile and Peru.

Baines says the Atlantic conveyor belt was 27% to blame for the decreased rainfall, while the two Pacific ocean circulation patterns were 30% responsible.

See Also:
Global Warming in Russia & the North Atlantic
Global Warming: Hurricanes in Europe?
Australian Drought

A New Era of Solar Energy in Ontario

A new green-energy law is coming to Ontario, combined with long-term incentives for solar energy producers.

The new law (the Green Energy Act) + incentives has solar corporations clambering over each other. Tempe, Arizona-based First Solar Inc., one of the world's leading suppliers of next-generation solar modules, and solar power supplier Recurrent Energy Inc. of San Francisco are both planning to develop multi-megawatt solar projects in Ontario.

California-based Nanosolar Inc. says it is seriously considering Ontario as the location of a regional assembly plant for its thin-film solar modules. Nanosolar is also working with French energy giant EDF Energies Nouvelles to map out future solar projects in Ontario.

Why? The new laws + new prices the province is willing to pay for solar power will tip the balance in favour of investment in Ontario.

Two other firms are also planning to build solar-cell manufacturing operations in Ontario.

The recent Green Energy Act and a new renewable-power purchase program that offers a generous premium for green power is just a start. The Ontario Power Authority has proposed an European-style "feed-in tariffs" that would see it pay, as part of a 20-year contract, 80.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of power that comes from a residential rooftop solar photovoltaic system.

(NOTE: Critics will point out that people in Ontario currently pay approx. 7 cents per kWh, so this seems like a ploy by the Ontario Power Authority to jack up electricity prices.)

Long-term contracts under a feed-in tariff model is superior to approaches in the United States that tend to be based on upfront tax incentives that create short-term sales spurts.

In theory as systems grow larger the feed-in tariff would decline. The power authority would pay 71.3 cents for rooftop systems up to 100 kilowatts, dropping to 63.5 cents for systems up to 500 kilowatts and 53.9 cents for anything above that. The largest systems would likely be found on the rooftops of schools, commercial buildings and big-box stores.

The lowest tariff, 44.3 cents, applies to "ground mount" systems that don't exceed 10 megawatts. This would apply to the massive solar farms that sprawl across acres of empty fields.

All prices replace a fixed 42-cent tariff that applied to all system categories that existed under a previous program, which itself was a continental first when introduced two years ago.

So already Ontario is paying extra for green energy, and some customers are willing to pay more for green electricity... but are they willing to pay even more?

These new prices are great news for people wanting to produce electricity in their backyard, and maybe even good for people willing to pay the extra for green energy, but what about regular electricity consumers? They care more about price than whether it is green or not.

Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy, said the new tariffs makes Ontario an attractive market for his company, which yesterday purchased a project pipeline totalling 350 megawatts from Chicago-based UPC Solar.

Harris said Recurrent and other large developers are taking advantage of the economic downtown to consolidate the market. The "vast majority" of projects acquired from UPC, he says, are based in Ontario.

"Our goal is to develop over 100 megawatts and get it into commercial operation by 2012," says Harris, explaining that economies of scale allow the company to lower costs by placing bulk orders for solar modules.

In early March, First Solar purchased a pipeline of more than 2,000 megawatts of solar projects from Hayward, Calif.-based OptiSolar Inc. in a stock deal valued at $400 million (U.S.). About 10% of those projects are based in Ontario.

Solar developers are pushing for 50 cent tariffs for large land-based solar fields in an effort to lure investment and green-collar jobs. They claim the current prices don't make it profitable enough to get investments to build.

The power authority says the tariffs have only been proposed and could change after eight weeks of consultation with industry players. "Anyone having concerns with the proposed pricing should provide their feedback to the agency," said energy ministry spokeswoman Amy Tang.

But who's going to pay for higher prices? Consumers?

Right now the cheapest alternative isn't to buy green electricity, its to buy your own solar/wind power and make it yourself.

Solar module prices are expected to fall dramatically this year and 2010 as new cheaper/more efficient solar panels come into the market.

Ozone tied to respiratory death rate

Residents of big cities face greater threat to breathing hazards and death due to pollution, a new study finds.

According to the study long-term exposure to ozone in Toronto may be responsible for approx. 20% of all lung-related deaths in the city. The massive new American study on health risks of the common air pollutant compares smog levels in major North American cities and deaths caused by smog.

People who live in cities with smoggy ozone pollution are 25% to 30% more likely to die from lung disease than those living in areas with the cleanest air, researchers reported.

The study, which looked at data tracking 450,000 people over 18 years, suggests the current emphasis on peak ozone days (also known as smog days) as the smog component's major health danger ignores the serious, cumulative perils that breathing it over a lifetime impose.

"It's not just the peaks you should worry about, it's the cumulative, entire ozone season that's important, too," says George Thurston, a professor of environmental medicine at New York University.

"So we can't just sort of hide in our homes on the peak days and avoid the adverse effects of ozone," says Thurston, who directed the air pollution portion of the study.

The report, released today in the New England Journal of Medicine, does not look at Canadian cities, but York University air pollution expert Geoff Harris says Toronto's ozone levels are almost identical with those found in many large cities in the northeast United States.

About 20% of respiratory deaths in these cities can be directly attributable to long-term exposure to the pollutant. Ozone and fine airborne particles are two of the major components of smog. In New York and Washington ozone smog increased the risk of dying of any respiratory ailment, from cancers to a severe asthma attack, by approx. 25%.

In very smoggy Los Angeles ozone increased the risk of dying of any respiratory ailment by about 50%.

Ozone in the upper reaches of the atmosphere helps protect the Earth from the sun's punishing ultraviolet rays. But at ground level, ozone is corrosive is a key player in respiratory fatalities.

Ground level ozone is created by sunlight reacting with nitrogen dioxide and fine particle pollutants emitted by cars, factories and coal-fired generating plants. The resulting triple oxygen molecule (O3) is volatile, and can react with the vulnerable surface of the lung, breaking down the tissue and causing a host of pulmonary conditions.

Doctors have long known that ozone is hazardous. Short-term exposure aggravates asthma symptoms and causes breathing problems. It is especially dangerous for those people who suffer from pre-existing pulmonary conditions such as emphysema.

The study is the first to tease out the relative percentage that ozone exposure contributes to deaths due to smog. The study will give more ammunition to groups like his to argue for tougher pollution standards.

Toronto Public Health says air pollution in general accounts for about 1,700 premature deaths in the GTA and 6,000 hospital admissions each year.

See Also: Pollution in Canada getting worse, statistics show

Ground temperatures rising in Canada

According to a new Canadian study, global warming has caused ground temperatures across the country to rise over the past few decades, in some cases by as much as a few degrees. The study is the first comprehensive assessment of Canada's shallow geothermal resources.

The study shows that thermal energy can be harvested with geo-exchange technologies and used for heating homes and buildings during the winter. This is good news for homeowners using Geothermal Heating Systems.

"There was this realization that we had a heat pulse going into the ground and it was a function of climate warming. It's really one of the best records of climate warming there is in Canada," said study co-author Stephen Grasby, a research scientist at the Geological Survey of Canada. "Depending on where you are ground temperature has increased by a few degrees."

"We actually have this opportunity to retrieve that heat energy trapped by global warming, to use that heat that's gone into the ground to offset future use of non-renewable energy sources," says Grasby.

The study, published in the journal Natural Resource Research, assessed ground temperatures across Canada down to 250 meters to get a sense of the potential resource. The researchers found that the heat energy in the first 50 meters alone was roughly equivalent to the commercially recoverable energy in the oil sands. Thats a lot actually, suggesting that if Canadians wanted to invest in Geothermal technology it would be more profitable than the Alberta Oil Sands.

Low-temperature geothermal technologies, often called geo-exchange systems, are capable of efficiently extracting warmth from the ground at shallow depths to heat homes and building. High-temperature geothermal systems tap heat kilometers below the Earth's surface to produce steam that is used to turn turbines and generate electricity.

"It equates to more than 190 million barrels of oil equivalent," said Grasby. He emphasized that the resource is spread out across the entire country, making it impractical to harvest more than a fraction of the total energy potential.

"But even if a small percentage of it is recoverable it's still going to potentially make a marked impact on renewable-energy supply," said Grasby. "Even if you end up with one or two per cent of it, you've still got one or two million barrels equivalent (of oil). It's a big number."

Temperatures typically increase at lower depth, but the researchers found that the temperature differences at 50 meters, 100 meters and 200 meters are getting smaller because shallower depths are heating up.

"The shallow rock mass of Canada has been shown to store a large component of heat due to recent climatic warming," according to the study.

"This suggests that we may have similar heat energy from the upper 50 meters compared to deeper levels depending on the location and relevant recent history (of) surface temperature changes."

The geological survey is working on another study that will attempt to estimate the portion of shallow geothermal resource that's easily recoverable, such as with heat-pump systems. Another study to be published later this year that will estimate the country's potential for generating electricity from geothermal resources at a temperature of 150 degree Celsius and higher.

Alison Thompson, executive director of the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association, said the geological survey studies are welcome and long overdue, but the analysis is based on ground temperature data collected prior to 1985, which is when funding for the federal geothermal energy program was pulled.

Thompson said new data must be collected to get an accurate estimate and to raise the profile of geothermal energy, which despite its massive potential is largely overlooked in Canada as a renewable source of electricity generation.

The geothermal association, which has set the goal of developing 5,000 megawatts of geothermal power projects in Canada by 2015, has identified 33 areas that need to be studied but has found it challenging to raise the required funding to carry out such studies.

"We feel the rest of the country doesn't understand how big this resource is," said Thompson. "For $1 million we could be off and running and really answer all the questions that politicians have. This would be a game-changer for the industry."

Grasby said interest in the area is growing, particularly in Alberta, where the oil and gas industry's drilling and ground-fracturing expertise can be easily applied to geothermal projects. "You just need a regulatory framework to support it," he says.

Canada is the only country located on the Pacific "Ring of Fire" that has NOT developed its high-temperature geothermal resources on a commercial scale. The United States, Japan, China, Russia all have developed their geothermal resources. Many industry experts argue that geothermal could play an important role in reducing natural gas consumption in the oil sands, making it cheaper to get oil out of the tar sands.

The Pembina Institute, a Calgary think tank, released a report in January that estimated there were 21 billion gigawatt-hours of energy released every year below the surface of Alberta at depths of less than 5 kilometres.

"Even with the conservative assumption that only 0.5 per cent of this potential is recoverable, it represents the equivalent of roughly 14 million megawatts of generating capacity," or 1,100 times the current generating capacity of all existing power plants in Alberta, according to the report.

The report cited lack of public awareness as the key barrier to developing the resource.

The geothermal association hopes to raise that awareness level on April 22nd in Vancouver, where it will hold the industry's first major geothermal energy conference in decades. More than 250 people are expected to attend the event, which is timed to coincide with Earth Day.

Green Energy Act in Ontario

A coalition of environmental, farming, community and native groups are urging the Ontario government to create a green energy act for the province.

Such legislation is urgently needed, they argue, if Ontario has any hope of stimulating the economy, tackling climate change, shutting down its coal plants and staying competitive with its neighbours in the United States under a decidedly pro-green Obama-led administration.

The coalition envisions legislation that would make renewable energy and conservation a priority in electricity-system planning, streamline regulation and the way power is purchased, push enabling "smart-grid" technologies, establish low-cost project financing and protect low-income consumers.

All of this would be with an eye to growing a green economy in Ontario that supports local jobs and technologies.

Indeed, officials are working on some kind of green energy act in the background and there's high-level interest in making it happen within the next few months. A free showing last Tuesday of David Suzuki's, The Suzuki Diaries, was used to promote the idea of a green energy act and several people of influence were there including Ontario Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman, Environment Minister John Gerretsen, and Colin Andersen the chief executive of the Ontario Power Authority.

"Ontario stands at a critical point now and we have to take advantage of the opportunity," said David Suzuki during the event.

However the transmission system, as it is, can't support a rapid transition to so many sources of energy. Nuclear power employs thousands of people in the province and is the economic engine for several communities, so it will be decades before those jobs are phased out.

The nuclear issue is a particular hot button for Suzuki, who as we know from his popular PowerWise TV commercials is a huge proponent of energy conservation. Suzuki, angered by Smitherman's seemingly unwavering commitment to build new nuclear plants in Ontario, recently quit the PowerWise campaign in protest.

Despite his frustration, Suzuki did recognize the government for its commitment to phasing out coal and being more progressive than other jurisdictions on the green-energy file.

Ontario gets about 20% of its electricity from hydroelectric generation alone, thanks to our great grandparents who had the foresight to invest in power dams, and the target is to reach about 45% by 2025 through the addition of wind turbine farms, solar parks, biogas generation from farms/landfills and new hydropower.

Germany may be an economic powerhouse when it comes to renewable energy and a poster child of the industry, but it only gets 15 per cent of its electricity from renewables – most of it added in the past two decades. Germany currently produces enough clean energy to run one third of Canada.

"It makes no sense to set renewable energy standards and then import all the equipment from overseas," said Andy King of the United Steelworkers Union, which has 80,000 members who are being hit hard by the American recession. The union sees a new era of manufacturing that supports development of green infrastructure and, ideally, a healthy export market.

It will cost money to get there, but it will cost us even more if we delay. Besides, all governments have embraced the need for economic stimulus. The trick now is to target the right areas.

Even the wind industry realizes putting green power on the grid isn't enough on its own. "In the long-term, continued political support of the wind industry will hinge on the ability to create jobs," said Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association. There are approx. 8,000 components that go into a wind turbine and they should be built here in Canada, he says.

Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World

ENVIRONMENTAL - The U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC) has published its new report "Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World." The report predicts a gloomy future for the United States.

The NIC comes up with these reports every four years. This report is the fourth since 1997, and the most dismal, at least for the United States.

According to the report, by 2025 the European Union will not be able to diversify its energy imports and will still depend on Russian energy sources. By 2025, Europe's energy consumption will go up by 60%, and 57% of all gas reserves will be amassed in Russia, Iraq, and Qatar. Many of the current oil producers will lose their positions, and almost 40% of the world's oil will come from six countries: Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Iraq. For aggregate oil and gas reserves, there will be two great energy powers, Russia and Iran.

Global warming will bring trouble, like floods and draughts, to some countries.

The report predicts that the United States will continue losing its influence. It will remain a powerful state in 2025, but will be less dominant. The same fate will befall the weak US dollar. The void left from America's decline will be filled by Brazil, India, China, and the Korean Peninsular (the report optimistically predicts by that time the two Koreas will merge). The latter three are likely to form a free trade association.

The world will become multipolar, and Western models of economic liberalism and democracy will lose their appeal (which is already happening). The EU will lose its influence and become a "hobbled giant." Wars may break out because of limited resources such as food, freshwater, oil and gas... This sounds horrible.

It would sound even worse if these reports were flawless. In the previous reports for 2010, 2015, and 2020, intelligence analysts made forecasts which contradict what they are writing now. They predicted the growth of the EU's role and influence, and the steady advance of Western economies by about 2% a year through 2010.

These reports are not accurate forecasts but rather a reminder for U.S. leaders what will happen if they do not pursue this or that policy. They offer food for thought and encourage certain ideas. They're not considered accurate.

To see whether the NIC is objective in its reports, we should recall what it is. This is the number one think tank headed by the director of the U.S. National Intelligence Council, Michael McConnell, and conducts medium- and long-term strategic analysis. Its current chairman Thomas Fingar is his direct subordinate. The NIC was set up in 1979.

The NIC submits its reports to all U.S. leaders. National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) is its main commodity. Most of them are classified, but there are always inspired leaks to the press. The council makes what it calls over-the-horizon analysis. Sometimes, it goes far beyond that for political reasons. The NIC, as is often the case with intelligence organizations set up for administrations, always deviates moderately from the party line. With time it dawns on them that they are expected to say what is required of them rather than make predictions.

This makes the NIC's role is supposed to coordinate the analytical reports of all U.S. intelligence centers - the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the political intelligence of the Department of State, intelligence services of the army, air force, and navy, as well as of the border patrol, the departments of the Treasury and Energy, and finally the FBI counterintelligence.

But here is the problem. All these services and departments are trying to take advantage of the NIC, trying to push presidents, departments, or Congress to make the "right" decisions. The NIE and analysis of intelligence information always lead to heated debates for this reason.

So what this tells you is that the different security departments are suddenly worried about global warming, food and water supplies and of course the scarcity of oil. The dire gloom and doom report isn't accurate, but it shows the different US departments are becoming increasingly concerned about these issues.

Making a Greener Christmas

Dreaming of a green Christmas?

ENVIRONMENTAL - Then why not go for the recyclable real tree this holiday season instead of the faux Tannenbaum, made of metal and PVC derivatives, that eats up boatloads of oil on its way from China to your living room?

Better yet, what about a small potted version that grows – not just glows – as you cart it in from the garden each year? Maybe even a bonsai Christmas tree?

How about sending e-cards or email updates to friends and family, instead of the tree-felling greeting-card kind that only just get tossed with the non-biodegradable tinsel, anyway?

It may seem like too much work to be eco-responsible when your to-do list is already as long as Santa's. But you could aim for "the 20 per-cent rule" – a reasonable cut in conspicuous consumption – and stuff a few stockings with a pocket-sized book that spells out pretty clearly why The Most Wonderful Time of the Year isn't all that wonderful for the environment.

There's all this extra stuff – the packing that comes in the boxes, the wrapping paper, the ribbon, not to mention the toys and everything that comes with them. Any parent knows all the garbage you have to move out of your living room on Christmas Day. Do we really need all this packaging?

Household waste increases 25 per cent at Christmastime, and since the Twelve Days of Christmas stretch into a month in the U.S.A. – where Thanksgiving signals the official start of a month of eating, drinking and splurging – that piles up into 2 billion pounds of garbage per week.

Enough holiday cards are sold in the U.S. to fill a 10-storey football stadium and kill 300,000 trees. That's on top of all those glossy catalogues that consume 8 million trees a year and produce a truly global footprint as many are delivered around the world.

Creating a Christmas to remember can translate into a lot we'd sooner forget, such as the brutal drain on electricity and even risks to your health, including the petroleum-based paraffin candles that may set the mood, but can also emit toxic chemicals from toluene to benzene and formaldehyde.

Then there are all those toys from China.

Even if they aren't tainted with lead, they are made of plastic that tends to break – often Christmas Day – but never biodegrade. Not to mention the less-than-good cheer they spread on their oil-guzzling journey from Beijing to North America.

In the midst of this recession some consumers are opting to buy less, but spend more, for locally made toys or handicrafts. Or they're clicking on websites such as buycanadianfirst.ca which has a selection of products made in Canada.

You can start out with something as simple as buying a real tree. In most cases they are locally grown, rather than crafted by distant conglomerates, and more than 90 per cent are collected curbside and turned into garden mulch by Springtime.

Instead of fake garland and mistletoe, buy the real stuff, which looks and smells authentic and can also be converted to garden cover.

But don't shut down completely. Everybody still needs a holiday.

More greenhouses turn to coal for heat

ENVIRONMENT/CANADA - It will be a difficult winter for greenhouses. Growing vegetables in a glasshouse is much more expensive when the outdoor temperature slides below zero. Tomatoes, peppers and eggplants need heat to thrive, and the cost of supplying that energy will impose a heavy toll this winter on Ontario's world-class greenhouse sector.

"Our fuel is up probably 40 per cent versus last year," says Rob Mastronardi, who for four years has operated Cedar Beach Acres in Kingsville, Ont. For him, growing greenhouse vegetables goes back four generations. It's in his blood.

But the high cost of fuel, combined with the impact a volatile Canadian dollar is having on exports, has his blood boiling. "It's just a hellish economy out there right now. We're suffering just like the auto sector is suffering, but we're not getting any attention at all," he says.

Not that it's a lightweight sector. The province's greenhouse industry is the largest in North America for vegetable production.

Including floriculture, it employs 17,300 full- and part-time workers across 1,200 operations. Sales in 2007 reached about $1.25 billion, with a 40-60 split between vegetables and flowers respectively, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

"The Ontario greenhouse sector is a major contributor to the provincial economy and is worthy of support and promotion," according to a 2006 economic impact study commissioned by the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance.

But that support is lacking, says Mastronardi, who is glum about his industry's prospects. "In these market conditions, our days are definitely numbered."

Left to their own devices, he says, many operators are being forced into survival mode. For some, that means burning the cheapest and dirtiest fuel available: Coal.

Mastronardi says his greenhouse uses about 110,000 gigajoules of heat energy a year. Based on mid-summer fuel prices, he figures he would save between $500,000 to $700,000 annually in energy costs by switching from natural gas to coal. He began burning coal earlier this year but has so far resisted making it his primary fuel.

No. 6 "Bunker C" oil, a heavier fuel oil that's often used instead of natural gas, is also falling out of favour. The price of crude oil has been highly volatile and, though it has fallen over the past four months, is still well above its 10-year average. The International Energy Agency predicted last week that oil prices will average more than hundred dollars/barrel between now and 2015.

"It's just outrageously priced," Mastronardi says. "I probably won't burn Bunker C at all this winter."

Again, that leaves coal.

Dozens of other greenhouse operators in Ontario – clustered around the flower-dominant Niagara region and vegetable-dominant Essex County – have switched or are considering a transition to coal as a way to save on fuel costs.

The impact so far appears small, but the trend is gaining momentum. As it does, it could undermine the environmental benefits of an Ontario government plan to wean the province off coal-fired power generation by 2014.

"Coal is expanding in the province, despite a policy to phase out coal," says Roger Samson, executive director of REAP-Canada, an independent group that encourages sustainable farming practices. "The Ontario government has no plan on how to mitigate this."

How much coal, potentially, are we talking about? The energy demands of a typical greenhouse are enormous. Shalin Khosla, a greenhouse specialist with the agriculture ministry, says anywhere between 35 per cent to 50 per cent of the costs of operating a modern vegetable greenhouse goes toward energy consumption. The figure is closer to 20 per cent for flower growers.

It's estimated that greenhouses in Ontario cover 2,823 acres, and that the average greenhouse requires 9,500 gigajoules of energy per acre every year. This works out to 26.8 million gigajoules annually.

Convert that energy into electricity potential and it works out to 7.44 terawatt-hours a year – more than three times the 2004 electricity output of the Lakeview coal-fired generating station in Mississauga (which has since been closed down and demolished).

That's equivalent to more than one million tonnes of coal being burned annually.

It's a mathematical exercise that raises a serious public policy question: What's preventing the entire greenhouse industry from moving to coal, and in doing so, undermining the spirit of the McGuinty government's coal phase-out strategy?

Not much, it appears. Unlike power plants and other major industrial facilities, greenhouses can burn whatever fuel they want without much scrutiny.

Cement plants and fossil-fuel power stations require a certificate of approval from the environment ministry to burn coal.

But that's not so for greenhouses.

"Greenhouses are exempt because they're considered to be agricultural operations," says John Steele, a spokesman for Ontario's Ministry of the Environment. "Under the EPA (Environmental Protection Act), those operations are exempt from the certificate of approval process."

And because they have an exemption, he adds, "we don't know what they're doing."

Keith Stewart, an energy expert with WWF-Canada and author of a book on Ontario's electricity system, calls the situation "perverse" and a reflection of inconsistent government policy.

"Outdated energy policy is giving us coal-fired tomatoes," he says.

The issue has also caused concern in British Columbia's Fraser Valley Regional District, which has a greenhouse industry ranked second in Canada behind Ontario.

Barry Penner, B.C.'s environment minister, acknowledged the problem in a March 27 letter to district chair Clint Hames. But Penner said a new carbon tax in the 2008 B.C. budget "will send a signal that less greenhouse-gas-intense fuels should be considered."

No such tax exists or has been proposed in Ontario. If it did exist, it might help Don Nott, a switchgrass grower in Clinton, about 100 kilometres west of Kitchener.

Nott decided a few years ago to start growing fast-growing switchgrass on 300 acres of land. He figured he could make a better business out of harvesting the grasses, grinding them up, and packing them into carbon-neutral "biopellets" – a renewable fuel. Burning such pellets for fuel wouldn't be penalized by a carbon tax.

Back in 2006 about 14,000 tonnes of the pellets were burned for fuel, much of it in greenhouses that were experimenting with alternatives. "We had 30 different individuals burning our product at one time, of various sizes from small up to 30 acres," says Nott.

But when oil and natural gas prices began to rise, the greenhouses couldn't afford to experiment any longer. "It's gone down to nothing. There's just one guy left who's willing to burn it. Most of those guys have switched over to burning coal."

With 400 tonnes of switchgrass sitting in storage waiting for a market, Nott has pretty much folded the business.

"When they said they were going to burn coal, I said I'm out."

Most greenhouse operators that have turned to or are considering burning more coal aren't proud of it. They know it pollutes more, but escalating costs have left those in the industry with few choices.

"In my eyes the government is moving at an absolute snail's pace regarding this energy crisis in our industry," Mastronardi says.

"If they want us to survive, we're going to need help."

Congratulations President Obama

Congratulations Barack Obama! You have won an important battle for democracy, for the environment, for America, for Canada and for the world!

Vancouver and Montreal could become flooded

CANADA - If Greenland's ice sheet melts (which a group of UK scientists predict will happen by 2014) the rising sea levels would flood Canadian coastal cities Vancouver and Montreal.

The data is relatively simple. If the Greenland ice sheet melts it will raise sea levels by 7 meters (23 feet). Melting ice in the antarctic could raise sea levels even more or faster. Due to the low proximity of much of Vancouver and Montreal they would experience excessive flooding. Approx 70% if Vancouver would be under water and approx. half of Montreal would be flooded too.

Canadian province Prince Edward Island would also be hard hit, with 30% of the island being lost to the sea and erosion (indeed the island would become two islands).

The United States would also be hard hit, with New Orleans, all of southern Louisiana and a large chunk of Florida would all be underwater.

Sarah Palin hates Polar Bears?

Palin fought safeguards for polar bears with studies by climate change skeptics

United States - The Republican Sarah Palin and her officials in the Alaskan state government drew on the work of at least six scientists known to be skeptical about the dangers and causes of global warming, to back efforts to stop polar bears being protected as an endangered species, the Guardian can disclose. Some of the scientists were funded by the oil industry.

In official submissions to the US government's consultation on the status of the polar bear, Palin and her team referred to at least six scientists who have questioned either the existence of warming as a largely man-made phenomenon or its severity. One paper was partly funded by the US oil company ExxonMobil.

The status of the polar bear has become a battleground in the debate on global warming. In May the US department of the interior rejected Palin's objections and listed the bear as a threatened species, saying that two-thirds of the world's polar bears were likely to be extinct by 2050 due to the rapid melting of the sea ice. Palin, governor of Alaska and the Republican nominee for US vice-president, responded last month by suing the federal government, to try to overturn the ruling. The case will be heard in January.

Though the state of Alaska has no polar bear specialists on its staff, the governor's stance has pitted it against the combined scientific fire-power of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey, and world experts on the mammal.

In its lawsuit, Alaska said it opposed the endangered label partly because the listing would "deter activities such as … oil and gas exploration and development". Oil companies recently bid $2.7bn (£1.5bn) for rights to explore the Chuckchi sea, an established polar bear habitat.

The threatened species status might also impede the building of an Alaskan natural gas pipeline, which Palin has called the "will of God". In a letter last year to the US interior secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, she said she believed the polar bear population was "abundant, stable and unthreatened by direct human activity". She opposed the call for the listing because it "did not use the best available scientific and commercial information".

Her own Alaskan review of the science drew on a joint paper by seven authors, four of whom were well-known climate-change deniers. Her paper argued that it was "certainly premature, if not impossible" to link temperature rise in Alaska with human CO2 emissions.

The paper, entitled Polar Bears of Western Hudson Bay and Climate Change, has been criticized for relying on old research and ignoring evidence that Arctic sea-ice is melting at a quickening pace. Walt Meier, a world authority on sea ice, based at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, said: "The paper doesn't measure up scientifically."

One co-author of the paper, Willie Soon, completed the study with funding from ExxonMobil — which has oil operations in Alaska's North Slope — as well as from the American Petroleum Institute. Soon was a former senior scientist with the George C Marshall Institute, which acts as an incubator for climate-change scepticism. The institute has received $715,000 in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998.

In May, ExxonMobil announced that it was no longer funding Marshall and other groups linked with climate-change denier views. It said this was to avoid "distraction from the need to provide energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions" and stressed that the company did not "control the research itself".

Another co-author of the document was Sallie Baliunas. In 2003 she and Soon were criticized when it was revealed that a joint paper had been partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Thirteen scientists whom they cited issued a rebuttal and several editors of the journal Climate Research resigned because of the "flawed peer review". A third co-author of the polar bear study, David Legates, a professor at Delaware University, is also associated with the Marshall Institute.

The citation by Palin and her officials prompted complaints from Congress. One member, Brad Miller, dubbed the polar bear study phony science.
Palin told Miller: "Attempts to discredit scientists...simply because their analyses do not agree with your views, would be a disservice to this country." Miller now says that Palin's use of the paper shows she differs greatly from John McCain, the Republican presidential contender, who has pressed for scientific integrity. "Turning to the cottage industry of scientists who are funded because they spread doubt about global warming is not integrity," Miller said.

Palin's submission consulted J Scott Armstrong, a specialist in forecasting, who regards the global warming issue as "public hysteria".

Two other climate change deniers were cited. One was Syun-Ichi Akasofu, formerly director of the International Arctic Research Centre, in Alaska, who argues that climate change could be a hangover from the "little ice age". He is a founding director of the Heartland Institute, a thinktank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Timothy Ball, a retired professor from Winnipeg, is cited for his climate and polar bear research. He has called human-made global warming "the greatest deception in the history of science". He has worked with both Friends of Science, and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which each had funding from energy firms.

Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace US, said the state of Alaska under Palin's leadership had relied on scholars who argue the opposite view to that of the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. "It shows that she is completely out of touch with the urgency of the climate crisis."

Last month Palin agreed that the Alaskan climate was changing but added: "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." She later tried to retract the statement.

McCain ignores environment and climate change

In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention Thursday night, presidential candidate John McCain mentioned climate change and global warming exactly zero times. He never even uttered the "E" word (environment).

It used to be that McCain's bipartisan work combating global warming was a point of pride for the GOP senator. That was before he selected VP candidate Sarah Palin, who is a global warming denier and is passionate about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The closest McCain got to the climate was in talking about energy:

We'll produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells off-shore, and we'll drill them now. We'll drill them now.

We'll -- we'll -- my friends, we'll build more nuclear power plants. We'll develop clean-coal technology. We'll increase the use of wind, tide, solar, and natural gas. We'll encourage the development and use of flex-fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.

Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that.

We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and restore the health of our planet.

Asian pollution may cause American climate shift

WASHINGTON - Pollution from Asian coal power plants could create summer hot spots in the central United States and southern Europe by mid-century, US climate scientists reported on Thursday. The full report is available online at www.climatescience.gov and was released by the US Climate Change Science Program.

Unlike the long-lived greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, the particle and gas pollution cited in this report only stays in the air for a few days or weeks but its warming effect stays over the long term.

"We found that these short-lived pollutants have a greater influence on the Earth's climate throughout the 21st century than previously thought," said Hiram Levy of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"By 2050, two of the three climate models we use found that changes in short-lived pollutants will contribute 20 percent of the predicted global warming. By 2100, that figure goes up to 25 percent."

The short-lived pollution that can cause long-term warming comes from soot, also known as the black carbon particles that result from fires, and sulfate particles, which are emitted by power plants. Soot particles are dark and absorb heat; sulfates are light and reflect heat, actually cooling things down.

Asian soot and sulfate pollution is likely to make for hotter, drier summers in the American Midwest and the Mediterranean region of southern Europe, Levy said, adding that heating and drying effects are not expected to hit Asia.

The reason for the expected pollution-related warming trend is that sulfate pollution, which has been linked to respiratory problems, is expected to decrease dramatically while soot pollution is forecast to continue increasing in Asia.

Ground-level ozone emitted by US transport vehicles is also a factor, the scientists said.

These pollutants have usually been dealt with as threats to air quality, but should also be considered for their impact on climate change, said Drew Shindell, a climate expert at NASA.

Carbon dioxide, which spurs global warming and is emitted from natural and human-made sources, still is going to dominate the climate change picture in the coming century, but because modern societies are built to emit lots of this substance, change is likely to be slow, Shindell said.

Targeting these air pollutants now makes sense, because of their role in the quality of the air people breathe as well as their impact on global warming, he said.

"It's no substitute for targeting CO2 (carbon dioxide), which in the long run is the main contributor to global warming and has to be tackled, but ... the shorter-term pollutants can have a very large impact," Shindell said.

Climate change could dramatically hurt the US economy.

Bill C-61 blocking green initiatives

As our environmental policies move beyond establishing emissions standards or cleanup requirements, law and regulation is increasingly focused on creating incentives for business to reduce polluting activities and for consumers to adopt environmentally-friendly habits. Given the desire to reorient long-standing practices, laws not traditionally considered part of the environmental file should also be examined to determine whether they are consistent with promoting "greener" behaviour.

The notion of "green copyright" sounds odd, yet the policy choices found in Bill C-61, Industry Minister Jim Prentice's controversial copyright bill, disappointingly run directly counter to the current emphasis on the environment.

For example, Canadians trash an estimated 184,000 tonnes of old computers, cellphones, and printer cartridges each year, with many of containing potentially hazardous materials such as mercury and lead. In response, the Ontario government recently proposed a new electronic waste fee to encourage recycling of older devices.

Despite attempts to reduce e-waste, Bill C-61 establishes new barriers to the reuse of electronics. If enacted into law, it would prohibit the unlocking of cellphones, forcing many consumers to junk their phones when they switch carriers (there are an estimated 500 million unused cellphones in the United States alone).

Similarly, the U.S. version of Bill C-61 has resulted in lawsuits over the legality of companies that offer to recycle printer ink cartridges. In one lawsuit, Lexmark sued a company that offered recycled cartridge and though it ultimately lost the case, the lawsuit created a strong chill for companies set to enter that marketplace.

Bill C-61 also creates new barriers in the race toward network-based computing, which forms part of the ICT industry's response to the fact that it accounts for more carbon emissions than the airline industry.

Network-based computing – often referred to as "cloud computing" – benefits from the efficiencies provided by large computer server farms that are often situated in proximity to clean energy sources. Network experts argue that Canada could parlay its high-speed optical networks and environmental advantages in the north to become a global cloud computing leader with zero carbon emissions, yet the new copyright bill now stands in the way.

The bill prohibits companies from taking advantage of cloud computing to offer network-based video recording services (as are offered by some U.S. based providers). It also stops consumers from shifting their music, videos, and other content to network-based computers, limiting these new rights to devices physically owned by the consumer. In fact, the bill even blocks consumers from using network-based computer backup since multiple copies of purchased songs or videos is forbidden.

Canadian politicians entered the summer recess expecting to get an earful about the environment from their constituents. To the surprise of many, the digital environment has joined the physical environment as one of the hot-button issues of the summer.

Sources indicate Prentice received more than 20,000 letters criticizing Bill C-61 within weeks of its introduction. Local members of Parliament such as Conservative Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North) and Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal (Newton-North Delta) have scheduled town hall meetings on copyright in response to constituent concerns, while author and broadcaster Tom King, an NDP candidate in the forthcoming Guelph by-election, has emphasized copyright as a key campaign issue.

As Canadians express concern over both their physical and digital environments, many may begin to link the issues by advocating for a greener copyright bill.

Offshore Wind Power in Ontario?

KINGSTON – The sun was shining, the wind was gentle, and the water calm as a boatload of visitors to Kingston, guests of budding offshore wind developer Trillium Power, embarked last week on a three-hour tour of Lake Ontario.

The cruise was timed to coincide with a global wind power conference at St. Lawrence College.

Trillium's goal was simple: Show people, rather than just tell, how much stronger and consistent the wind is when venturing offshore.

About 30 minutes into the ride the mission was accomplished. What was a relatively smooth cruise became a stomach-churning experience as the wind-battered Catamaran, big enough to hold 180 people, began shifting back and forth in the water. Staff ran to keep bottles of wine from smashing on to the floor, while guests were urged to stay seated.

"The wind here is three times more powerful," said John Kourtoff, chief executive of Trillium, as he compared the potential wind energy from his project to existing onshore wind farms scattered around southern Ontario.

Kourtoff wants to build a 750-megawatt offshore wind farm in these waters, about 15 kilometres off the shore of Prince Edward County. That works out to about 150 wind turbines, seen as specks from the shoreline. And there's potential to double that.

Earlier this month, he announced the creation of Tai Wind, a consortium of North American offshore wind developers who hope, by combining their collective needs, to attract a turbine manufacturer to Ontario.

Already, Germany's Multibrid is seriously considering the invitation and, sources say, has begun high-level discussions between its executives and Ontario government officials.

Multibrid's interest is understandable. A recent report from energy consultancy Helimax concluded there were 64 sites on the Ontario side of the Great Lakes representing up to 34,500 megawatts of offshore wind capacity. This means the Trillium project is just scratching the surface.

Last week, for example, Toronto Hydro said it was renewing its efforts to establish an 80-turbine offshore wind farm near the Scarborough Bluffs.

"Offshore wind will be a driver of growth for the wind industry in the years to come," concluded investment firm Kyoto Planet Asset Management in a research report issued last week.

Also understandable is the government's interest. Embracing offshore wind is more than just adding more renewable energy to the grid, it could form the basis of a new "green" industrial strategy aimed at creating green-collar jobs. Multibrid is potentially the seed for that strategy, as it would need to develop a supply chain to support its Ontario growth plan. More than that, it sees Ontario as a manufacturing hub as it seeks to expand sales across North America and beyond.

It's welcome news at a time when production lines and plants are being shut down at Ontario automotive manufacturers. The idea makes so much sense that some unlikely alliances are being formed. When Trillium announced the Tai Wind consortium earlier this month, representatives from environmental groups WWF Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation shared the stage with the Canadian Auto Workers union, which fully backs the consortium's goals.

Natural Resources Minister Donna Cansfield said that Ontario is "open for business" when it comes to offshore wind. George Smitherman, now minister of energy and infrastructure, wanted so much to express his support for wind-industry growth in Ontario that just days after his appointment he made an unscheduled speech at the Kingston wind conference.

There's a sense of urgency, and a recognition that if Ontario doesn't act on the opportunity, other jurisdictions will.

But a big question remains: How much does offshore wind cost?

The Ontario Power Authority, the government agency that effectively determines which large power projects live or die, says offshore wind costs too much to be considered in its 20-year power system plan. It acknowledges that the technology provides more power than onshore projects, but not enough to justify the higher cost of building offshore wind farms.

"It should be borne in mind that there is currently no experience in Ontario with offshore wind resources, and it may be that additional information may become available over time that would justify further review of this issue," the power authority concluded in a recent amendment to its 20-year plan.

Herein lies a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma. How can the province get a true sense of development costs without forging ahead on at least one project?

We can point to ocean-based offshore projects in Europe and make comparisons, but there are major differences to consider that may work in Ontario's favour. For one, planting a big wind turbine in relatively shallow and calm lake waters would seem to be an advantage in terms of costs. And since we're talking fresh water, there's no risk of salt degrading the mechanical performance of turbines. Also important to consider is the degree to which local manufacturing could reduce turbine and component costs.

It's unclear whether the power authority has taken this into account. Nor has the agency considered larger economic considerations, such as job creation. Technically, it doesn't have that mandate. It exists to get what it perceives to be the cheapest, most reliable power it can for consumers and industry. Power authority executives, mostly former Ontario Hydro engineers who are smart and well intentioned, aren't naturally inclined to include wind, solar and other intermittent sources of renewable energy in their big-picture plans. They reluctantly do so under direction from the government.

The power authority, said one cruise guest, "has its hands full with nuclear".

Clearly, the government has some strategic decisions to make. Sooner, it would appear, than later.

Coal power provides 35% of Ontario's energy needs but produces approx. 30% of Canada's greenhouse gases.

Building a wind turbine factory in Ontario

First North American Wind Turbine Factory

A German maker of offshore wind turbines is targeting southern Ontario as the location for its first North American manufacturing plant, a venture that would create thousands of local jobs and inject hundreds of millions of dollars into the province's struggling economy.


Read More...