Category Archives: energy

Lick Global Warming vs. Cow Farts

air, climate crisis, energy, food

Around noon today I sauntered over to the TD Centre courtyard in downtown Toronto to witness the launch of the Lick Global Warming campaign, a partnership of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. The event featured people in cow costumes carrying picket signs, and (even more strangely) a 20-minute line full of Bay Street workers waiting for a free small scoop of ice cream in a cup.

I had a fun time trying to imagine what the Ben & Jerry’s boardroom brainstorm would have sounded like.

Ben: Ok, we need to do some sort of good-will PR thing.
Jerry: Let’s see…ice cream….
Ben: …cools you down…
Jerry: …when it’s hot…
Ben: Global Warming!
Jerry: That’s it! That’s so hot!
Ben: You mean cool.
Jerry: Is that what the kids are saying these days?

Or maybe Jerry really cares. The point isn’t to pick on my friends at the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, nor do I want to criticize anyone who makes delicious ice cream, but there’s one thing I find particularly bizarre about this campaign.

Can you spot it? No, it’s not the illustration of Earth in an ice cream cone (though I’m not quite sure what that’s about). And no, it’s not the fact that on the Ben & Jerry’s homepage there’s a flash animation (if you wait a few seconds) of a cow licking an ice cream cone (weird).

What really doesn’t make sense to me — and what I can’t believe wasn’t spotted or addressed by anyone at either organization — is the use of cows as an anti-global warming mascot. Why? Because cow farts cause global warming.

There. I said it.

Cows, though their farts and otherwise, produce large amounts of methane gas, which is the second greatest contributor to global warming after CO2. Some studies have even suggested that in some regions cows contribute more to global warming than cars, while others have concluded that eating meat is just as bad for the climate as driving an SUV.

According to this blog’s first-ever anonymous source, the OCAA has already received several complaints about their partnership with B&J, including the observation that B&J’s products aren’t locally produced, meaning the involvement of long refrigerated-truck trips.

I’m glad to see the climate crisis getting people’s attention, I do think global warming campaigns can and should be fun, and I know I shouldn’t really be criticizing any company that wants to do their part. At the same time, global warming is a complex issue that cannot be easily solved. I don’t think we do ourselves any favours by reducing the whole issue to one paragraph, and then pretending to solve it with one sentence.

People are smarter than that, and deserve to be given more credit.

Ok, I’m done my party-pooping for the day. (And yes, after watching the protesting cows I did grab a delicious ice cream cone. It cheered me up a bit.)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Warm Out Today. Warm Out Yesterday. Gonna Be Warm Out Tomorrow.

air, climate crisis, cycling, energy

I’ve been experimenting with different ways of getting to work. I’ve tried driving (took me 35 minutes), walking (30 minutes), taking the subway (20 minutes) and biking (15 minutes).

This morning I wanted to try something new, so I swam to work. You know, through this soup we Torontonians sometimes refer to as “air.”

Southwestern Ontario is seeing some of its highest temperatures ever recorded today, and last night was Toronto’s warmest evening on record. Add to that the deadly pollutants that make up smog, and we’ve got one thick, sticky, stinky situation on our hands. (Stephen Colbert has started referring to environmentalists as “airhuggers.” As in, crazy hippies who are so out of touch with reality that they think breathing air is important.)

Unfortunately, all this heat doesn’t appear to be a coincidence. The Earth is warmer than it’s been in 400 years or longer, and the science suggests that human activity is the cause.

One of the best ways we know of to heat this planet up as fast as possible is by using lots of energy on things like air conditioners. So, when it got hot today, of course the natural thing to do was crank the AC. People in my office building have been shivering all day, and during one meeting I noticed pronounced goose bumps on my arms — it’s genuinely cold. (That might have something to do with what the people who make the decisions are wearing.)

The result is, we’ve burned too much fuel, which is making it too hot in here, so we’re going to turn up our air conditioners, which necessitates burning even more fuel, which in turn will make it even hotter. And the circle of life goes on. (Never mind that a recent 40-year study showed air pollution deaths in Toronto outnumber deaths caused by extreme heat 8 to 1.)

Heat was the number one story on the radio this morning, with the IESO predicting we’d break another energy consumption record by 5pm today.

They were wrong — it only took us until noon. Ontario’s demand for power reached 26,331 megawatts, topping last July’s record 26,161 megawatts. Power consumption has continued to break records every hour since. The IESO is now predicting that we’ll hit 27,225 megawatts any minute now. Brownouts and blackouts are a serious possibility, though not as serious as the increased numbers of people who will show up at emergency rooms and/or die prematurely today because of smog-related respiratory problems.

What should the government do? For one, make energy prices reflect their real cost. The fact that my office is still too cold for comfort, even in the face of all this, is a pretty good indicator that energy prices are too low.

What can you do (besides turn stuff off)? I recommend making use of this handy vacation planning calendar.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to go change into my swimsuit for the long swim home.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

No Water For Oil!

climate crisis, energy, water

Ok, so it doesn’t have quite the same ring to it as “no blood for oil,” but it’s becoming the rallying cry for a cause that’s very serious and very close to home.

If you’ve got Insider Edition access to theglobeandmail.com, or if you can get your hands on a hard copy, read Jeffrey Simpson today. In a column titled Alberta’s tar sands are soaking up too much water, he outlines concerns that the Green Party and others have been raising for some time.

In summary, it takes anywhere from 2 to 4.5 barrels of water to extract and refine one barrel of oil from the Alberta tar sands. That province, which is already one of most dry provinces in Canada, is using more than 7% of their water on the oil and gas industry. (Oh, and funny story, that’s made worse by the fact that they’re also losing glaciers and snow packs faster than I lose elections. How’s that for ironic?)

So that’s a problem. To say nothing of the acids (yes McBain, real acid), mercury, and other toxins that are left over after the oil is separated from the bitumen, sand, and other residue. Not to mention all the other reasons that continuing to increase oil extraction and consumption is a bad idea, including Peak Oil (we’re gonna run out of the stuff…) and the Climate Crisis (…unless we wipe ourselves out first).

And it’s not just airhuggers who are worried. The Pembina Institute released a 154 page study a few months ago reaching the same conclusions, and even the Canada West Foundation thinks it’s maybe not such a good idea for the government of Alberta to be practically giving this water away for free.

In the mean time, I’m open to other clever slogan ideas. So far I’ve got “make love, not pools of toxic sludge,” and “all we are saying is give renewables a chance.” They could use some work.

Energy = Massive Crisis2

energy

Nothing hurts quite like being called a “bad blogger” by a friend. (Actually, now that I say that, I’m reminded of a number of things suggested by childhood games of “would you rather…” that would hurt more, but they’re not worth listing now.) The point is, it’s enough to jolt you back into typing action.

I could list all the reasons why I’ve been too busy to blog, but I’ll spare you. After all, we’re all too busy these days, aren’t we? I don’t want to start a you-know-whating contest.

What I do want to do is comment on Ontario’s ever degenerating (some pun intended) energy policy (or lack thereof). The “four sisters” of the Lakeview coal generating plant were brought down by a controlled implosion this past Monday, and yesterday the Ontario government announced that they’ll be turning to nuclear for the majority of our energy needs (as well as our energy wants).

Let me say that when I first joined the Green Party I wanted to give nuclear a chance. I thought that not supporting nuclear meant being unrealistic.

Now that I’ve seen the (compact, florescent) light, it’s actually hard to know where to begin dismantling the well-founded well-funded nuclear myth. There’s already been a lot of talk of the dangers of nuclear waste, and of the plants themselves, so let’s focus on some things that you may not know, and that demonstrate why nuclear is actually an exceptionally unrealistic choice.

First, according to National Geographic Magazine, with current technology there’s only 50 years of nuclear fuel left. Now, chances aren’t bad that technology will improve and that we’ll find some more fuel, so 50 years will likely become 100, or maybe more. However, I still think we should be aware of the fact that nuclear is in no way renewable or long-term before we put too much time and money into it.

Speaking of money, it’s even more important to recognize that nuclear power isn’t economically responsible. Nuclear is extremely expensive to build, maintain, and insure. The last nuclear power plant built in Ontario went 300% over budget. If consumers were asked to pay the real cost of nuclear power in their electricity bill (instead of through their taxes) they’d refuse, and the market would favour renewable sources over night (in tandem with efficiency and conservation), because in reality they’re less expensive.

Finally, even if you still thought nuclear was a good idea, you’d have to admit that energy policy is extremely important and deserves to be debated publicly. In fact, a year ago even energy minister Dwight Duncan promised “an open and public debate” before his government would decide to go nuclear. I guess he’s changed his mind. As Murry Campbell points out in today’s Globe and Mail, this isn’t just bad energy policy, it’s bad democracy.

The energy policy decisions we have to make are complex and critical. What we need is a mix of conservation, efficiency, renewables, and demand shifting. What we absolutely can’t do is just build a large, new, centralized generator every few years in perpetuity. The longer we take to realize that, the greater the crisis becomes.