Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

Four Short Posts in One

May 16th, 2007

– There’s a new “Canadian Military Personnel” website that pays tribute to those “who gave their lives serving Canada,” called Fallen Canadians.

– A great article here by David Warren on the just how out of touch those who buy into global warming are. Meanwhile, Greenpeace builds an ark. (h/t Joanne)

This line, about Canada’s aboriginals, caught my eye:

Canada’s native Indians are so angry about the government’s failure to improve their often-impoverished living conditions…

Governments fail to improve people living conditions, it’s a little admitted, always reliable, fact. If you want your life improved, it requires doing it yourself.

– Now this is funny, thanks to Road Hammer for finding it.

Economic Fundamentalism, freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy, Global Warming, Going... Going... Gone Nuts For The Environment, Paris, Remembrance, Vets

Recycling Compact Fluorescent Bulbs – Part II

May 5th, 2007
Comments Off on Recycling Compact Fluorescent Bulbs – Part II

Last week I reported that “I emailed the environment department in my region (Waterloo) last week, but they haven’t got back to me.” Nice representation, I concluded.

That was Monday, on Thursday I received a reply. First, here’s the original e-mail:

I am wondering, now that both provincial and federal governments are
legislating compact fluorescent bulbs, if the region of Waterloo recycles
them? If so, how does one go about doing so? If not, are there plans to do
so, and who will pick up the cost (as this is a downloaded service)?

Thank you very much

Brian Gardiner

This apparantly got passed on within the department, “As per our conversation this morning, please find the e-mail below.” I then received the following reply:

Hello Mr. Gardiner:

At this time, you are able to recycle your compact fluorescent bulbs at the
Waterloo landfill site, Monday to Saturday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
The Cambridge landfill accepts them on certain Household Hazardous Waste
days, and you can find all the information in the front green section of
your telephone book.

When the full transition takes place, there may be some changes as to where
residents drop off the bulbs (at particular retail outlets, perhaps) but
this has not been established as yet.

First off, thanks to Sue the Manager Waste Collection & Diversion for the Region of Waterloo, who replied. Also thanks to Pamela, Council/Committee Support Specialist, Council and Administrative Services who passed this message along to Sue.

Now about the reply. As I suspected, the Region will recycle your compact fluorescent bulbs (CFBs), at a cost of 30c a piece: what will that cost when everybody is using exclusively CFBs in their homes and businesses? I conservatively estimate $150,000/year here in Waterloo Region. But note also, you now have to drive your light bulb to the landfill every time it burns out. How is that environmentally friendly? The other option, of course, is to throw it in the garbage, but that’s a lot of mercury in the landfills. Sooner or later the regions will a) ban throwing them out and b) have to find a better way of disposing of them. But again, at what cost? Can our already crying poor municipalities really handle the extra expense?

The mandatory conversion to CFBs is going to be a travesty, and in ten years we will be calling them an environmental menace, just as once environmentally friendly plastic grocery bags are now seen as a menace.

Global Warming, Going... Going... Gone Nuts For The Environment, pimply minions of bureaucracy

Nazi’s for Nature

May 1st, 2007

Who said the following?

“[It is] useful to know the laws of nature – for that enables us to obey them. To act otherwise would be to rise in revolt against heaven.”

Give you a hint: It is related to this:

“We have a moral obligation to our Lord and Father to ensure we don’t destroy the creation that was given to us.”

The second of course is Elizabeth May, but the first? They seem a lot alike, certainly both could come from the same speech. But they don’t. Here’s another hint: The next quote is what relates the two:

Stephen Harper’s stance on climate change is “a grievance worse than Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of the Nazis.”

Again, Elizabeth May. And the first, if you haven’t guessed is Adolph Hitler. A few other quotes from real Nazis:

“At the end of the last century the progress of science and technique led liberalism astray into proclaiming man’s mastery of nature, and announcing he would soon have dominion over space … In any case, we shall learn to become familiar with the laws by which life is governed, and acquaintance with the laws of nature will guide us on the path of progress.” — Adolf Hitler, 11 July 1941.

Laws of nature will guide us on the path of progress? In a test, I would have said Stephan Dion.

“From now on, one may consider that there is no gap between the organic and inorganic worlds.” — Adolf Hitler, 24 October 1941.

“Man is not above nature, but in nature.” — Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology.

“Man must not fall into the error of thinking that he was ever meant to become lord and master of Nature.” Hitler again.

We National Socialists demand of ourselves that we live as naturally as possible, that is to say in accord with the laws of life. The more precisely we understand and observe the laws of nature and of life and the more we keep to them, the more we correspond to the will of this omnipotent force.” — Martin Bormann, NSDAP Party Secretary.

I by no means wish to call Elizabeth May or Stephan Dion a Nazi. Merely to point out that Elizabeth May should be very careful who she calls what. Quick comparisons with Neville Chamberlain are easy, but cheap. Worse comparisons come easy as well, and there are worse things to be than a Nazi appeaser.

All National Socialist quotes from NAZI GERMANY AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

Elizabeth May, Global Warming, Who You Calling a Nazi?

Recycling Compact Fluorescent Bulbs – Who Pays?

April 30th, 2007
Comments Off on Recycling Compact Fluorescent Bulbs – Who Pays?

Does your municipality recycle compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFB’s)? I emailed the environment department in my region (Waterloo) last week, but they haven’t got back to me: Nice representation. However, I haven’t heard of them recycling CFB’s, although it’s possible the local hazardous waste depot takes them.

CFB’s cost 30c/bulb to recycle according to Dan Power of FLR. My house has about 24 bulbs in it. If each bulb lasts five years (a very optimistic assumption), that’s 5 bulbs/year out of my house. That’s $1.50 per year for one household.

Now Waterloo region has over 400,000 people. Lets assume 100,000 households in the region. If we further assume my house is average i.e. four people, 24 light bulbs, that’s a cost of $150,000 per year just to recycle light bulbs once every household has no choice but to use compact fluorescents.

That’s $150,000 a year over and above present expenses. Who’s paying for that? Both my province and country have banned incandescent bulbs, which one of those jurisdictions is going to pick up the extra expense to every municipality of recycling CFB’s? Or do they expect that we should just throw them out, and let all that mercury lie around the landfill?

And is it really smart to make virtually mandatory something that you need to take to the hazardous waste depot to get rid of?

Dalton, Global Warming, John Baird, pimply minions of bureaucracy

The Cost of Bill C-288: Report

April 25th, 2007
Comments Off on The Cost of Bill C-288: Report

The Environment Ministry last week produced a report, The Cost of Bill C-288 to Canadian Families and Business, suggesting that the cost to Canada of Bill C-288 would be a 6.5% GDP decline (the largest post WWII recession), a doubling of Natural Gas prices, $1.60 litre gasoline, pestilence and locusts – lots of locusts. While the last two may not be in the report, both opposition leaders, Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May, have insinuated as much about the report.

The criticisms are based on the figure of a $195/tonne carbon tax the report says is required. Elizabeth May suggests that realistic figures are more like $30 – $50 tonne. I can only guess she is confusing a carbon tax with carbon credits, which most experts agree need to be in the $40-$50 range. If she thinks $50 would do it, consider that it would increase gas at the pump by 12c litre (not including increase in refinery costs). That’s a long weekend jack-up, not a fix to reduce carbon by 33% (even more laughable is Dion’s $20-per-tonne ‘deposit’ for companies – a 5c litre increase. I get that now between going to and leaving work).

In order to test Dion and May’s theory, I put the numbers to a quick test: $195 tonne gives an at the pumps increase of .47c (1 litre of gasoline produces 2.4 KG of CO2. 1KG – .001 tonne. $195x .001 = .195. 195 x 2.4 = $0.468/litre of gasoline increase.), before refining costs. Considering the carbon tax will be on both sides of the equation, pump and refinery, it is not unreasonable to assume a 60c increase in gas. If the gas numbers are accurate, then I can accept the others without evidence to the contrary.

But is that too much, can we make Kyoto reductions next year with a 12c litre increase. The report says we need to make a 33% total reduction in GHGs. It estimates that 25% of those credits can be bought on international markets, leaving every person and industry to make a 25% cut in their emissions. How much would gas have to increase to make you reduce consumtion by 25%? Twelve cents? Four? Or John Bairds Sixty Cents a litre? (In fairness, Elizabeth Mays number should be closer to 20c.) Same rule for home heating. To cut your Natural Gas use 25%, what does the price have to be?

I have analyzed various reports in the past few months, and 60c a litre on gasoline is the number I expect to see from any serious report. Frankly, I think it’s low – I expect a doubling of gas prices from current prices are required. Sixty cents a litre is the low end of the scale. So I have no trouble accepting the environment ministry’s report.

There are however, various problems that crop up with the report, and Kyoto, when you read this. A carbon tax is expected to produce a significant decline in energy exports, as tar sands production loses some of it’s cost advantage. This energy production has to be made up somewhere, so while Canada is suffering a Kyoto induced recession, someone else is producing the carbon we refused to.

Then there is electricity. Coal will be hit more than Natural Gas, which will be more expensive than hydro. However, Alberta and Ontario are more reliant on coal. While long term “… planned new hydro-electric generation capacity in northern Quebec, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador that together with development of an east-west electricity grid, could dramatically reduce the dependence of Canadian industry and consumers on high GHG-emitting energy sources…” sounds good, how does Ontario and Alberta becoming dependant on Quebec and Newfoundland for hydro affect provincial politics. Does Ontario really want to be beholden to confederations blackmailers? (I know Alberta doesn’t.)

Meanwhile, doubling Natural Gas prices implies much more for dirty electricity generation. A person wonders how high prices would have to go to make new nuclear generation a worthwhile investment? Sooner or later an Ontario Premier will have to consider it.

Further economic activity that can be anticipated, according to the study, is a weakening of the dollar and “effects on monetary policy.” I presume that to mean stimulative effects, i.e. lowering of the interest rate, but as a lower dollar and increased carbon prices are not inflationary, I can’t rule out higher interest rates.

And in the end, how effective would all this be? Consider this statement:

Revenue received from a broad carbon tax could be recycled back through the economy through changes in other tax rates, although at the same time it would be essential to ensure that the government’s overall fiscal situation be kept whole in order to avoid returning to deficit.

Translation: they will give some of the extra tax money back through other tax relief (although not all), however expect tax increases as you decrease usage. You benefit what from cramming yourself into a tiny car, and wearing sweaters to bed in February? Nothing, because that savings will be taxed back to protect government revenues. Now isn’t it funny how Stephan Dion and Elizabeth May never got upset about that bit of sophistry?

And who said that would happen? And what was that quote again? Something about farthings and “pimply minions of bureaucracy?”

Carbon Tax, Global Warming, Kyoto, pimply minions of bureaucracy