Category Archives: energy

100 Days of Harper ‘Tude

conservative party, democracy and good government, energy, trade

Today marked the Harper government’s 100th day in power. I wanted to put together a tear-jerking slow-motion thanks-for-the-memories-style video montage, but ran out of time. I’ll try and be more organized for day 200.

Instead, it looks like Harper’s team has decided to mark the occasion in their own way. There was no shortage of eye-catching news today, including:

  • Emerson admitted he’s given up on free trade
  • The government flat-out canceled EnerGuide
  • The government censored details regarding Dingwall’s resignation (the same details they’d demanded the Liberals release)

Also, I think you should know that we’re dangerously close to losing the banana. I’m not saying I can pin this one directly on Harper, but I will say this: when we lose bananas, we’re going to get angry (avoiding obvious pun), and we’re going to blame somebody. At least, I know I will. The PM’s PR people should start working on this one now.

Save Your Money

economy, energy

Here’s a funny headline. I mean, not Jay Leno funny, but funny. “Energy-saving programs lose funding.” The irony being that an equally accurate headline could have been “Energy-saving programs save money (and the planet).” At least, that’s what I would have written. But maybe that’s why I still haven’t heard back from any of those headline-writing jobs I applied for.

Remember, this is a simple physics problem (if there is such a thing). Even if we forget how much money can be saved by using less energy and being more efficient (read, competitive), this world still only has one energy input. In other words, we get a finite amount of energy to use each day. And currently, we’re burning (literally) through 10,000 days worth of energy every 24 hours (by using up non-renewable, stored energy from the past).

Look at it this way. Imagine you had a large bank balance (fossil fuels), an income of only $40,000 a year (the sun), and annual expenses of $400,000,000 (cars, food from around the world, over-air-conditioned offices, etc). A friend might worry about you and speak up. “Hey,” they’d say. “Looks like you might be spending beyond your means there buddy. Think maybe you should cut back?”

“No way,” you’d have to reply, “that’s not realistic. I mean, I’d have to change my lifestyle! Don’t be crazy. And shave your sideburns, hippy.”

Or something like that. The point is, at the end of the day, conservation has to be the cornerstone of any responsible energy policy. And yes, that does mean we might have to turn off some lights. Sorry. On the other hand, we get to keep breathing. So, you know, there’s that.

Generating Controversy on the Waterfront

energy

I’ve co-authored “A Realistic Energy Plan for Toronto,” which is a response to the provincial government’s plan to build a gas-fired power plant on the waterfront called the Portlands Energy Centre. It’s also a response to other alternative plans which still propose building a generator on the waterfront, but making it smaller. (Our plan is getting a lot of attention, despite the fact that we can’t attach cash incentives to it.)

This Wednesday, April 12, from 7:30-9:30pm, the St. Lawrence Centre Forum is hosting a discussion about the plant and Toronto’s energy plan in general. Included on the panel will be Greg Allen, another co-author of the plan I worked on. Please attend if you’re able.