German town goes off the grid with alternative energy.

[TimG]

There is alot the government can and should do. Signing Kyoto was the no brainer to begin with. Tax incentives for alternative energy is a good one, but the government should also be using renewable energy resources for electricity. That means ditching the coal and gas plants, and using geothermal, wind, and solar.

All Kyoto did was outsource emissions to countries that are not covered by Kyoto. People with a brain understand that Kyoto was wealth transfer scheme that made no difference to the atmosphere.

They have tried massive subsidies for renewables in Germany but they are *increasing* the amount of coal that they burn because renewables cannot deliver the power needed by a modern society.

Edited February 23, 2013 by TimG

[kairos]

That's just rhetoric if the cons wanted something better than Kyoto they could have proposed it, but they simply wanted to get rid of international attempts at dealing with our effects on the environment. Harper let out a big gaff on that one when he said that he doesn't want the environment to hamper economic growth.

Edited February 23, 2013 by kairos

[TimG]

That's just rhetoric if the cons wanted something better than Kyoto they could have proposed it, but they simply wanted to get rid of international attempts at dealing with our effects on the environment. Harper let out a big gaff on that one when he said that he doesn't want the environment to hamper economic growth.

They did propose a new treaty that included binding targets for all major emitters. But I guess you missed that given your Harper hating myopia.

The thing is the big emitters like China does not really want to do anything about the issue. They see a GHG treaty as a way to extort money from developed countries.

Edited February 23, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

The problem with long term storage of nuclear waste.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/22/us/washington-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) -- Six tanks at the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation in southeast Washington state are leaking radioactive waste,
the governor said Friday, calling the news "disturbing" even as he
insisted there are "no immediate health risks."

"News of six leaking
tanks at Hanford raises serious questions about integrity of all single
tanks," Gov. Jay Inslee said Friday afternoon on Twitter.

Inslee said that he got
the latest information about the site during a meeting in Washington
with U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

One week earlier, Chu
called the governor to tell him that a single-shell tank in the same
location was leaking liquids at a rate of 150 to 300 gallons per year.
Believed to be the first to lose liquids since 2005, that tank was built
in the 1940s and can hold roughly 447,000 gallons of sludge, according
to the governor's office.

"(Chu) told me today that
his department did not adequately analyze data it had that would have
shown the other tanks that are leaking," Inslee said.

The sprawling, 586-square
mile Hanford site houses a total of 177 underground tanks full of
radioactive sludge, of which 149 are single-shell tanks.

[TimG]

The problem with long term storage of nuclear waste.

It is a problem created by anti-nuclear nut jobs which make it impossible to develop a long term storage solution and, as a result, turn short term storage facilities into long term storage facilities despite the fact that they were never designed for that purpose.

Edited February 23, 2013 by TimG

[kairos]

They did propose a new treaty that included binding targets for all

major emitters. But I guess you missed that given your Harper

hating myopia.

Want to post a link to it? If Harper really cared about following it, why doesn't Harper abide by his own alleged proposals?

[TimG]

Want to post a link to it? If Harper really cared about following it, why doesn't Harper abide by his own alleged proposals?

There is nothing for Canada to do until all major emitters agree to binding targets.

But we know that is not going to happen because emitters like China have no interest in such a deal.

Mr. Kent, who came to Durban saying Kyoto represents the past, declared Sunday that Canada would not undertake a second Kyoto commitment period.

“Nor will we devote scarce dollars to capitalize the new Green Climate Fund — part of the Durban agreement — until all major emitters accept legally binding reduction targets and transparent accounting of greenhouse gas inventory.”

But he promised to work with Canada's international partners on “fair, effective and comprehensive ways” to address climate change.

Edited February 23, 2013 by TimG

[Guest]

Quick! Build more windmills in fully developed countries!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21549643

Evidence from Siberian caves suggests
that a global temperature rise of 1.5C could see permafrost thaw over a large
area of Siberia.

A study shows that more than a trillion tonnes of the greenhouse gases CO2
and methane could be released into the atmosphere as a result.

[g_bambino]

There is alot the government can and should do. Signing Kyoto was the no brainer to begin with. Tax incentives for alternative energy is a good one, but the government should also be using renewable energy resources for electricity. That means ditching the coal and gas plants, and using geothermal, wind, and solar.

Maybe. But that has barely anything to do with sustainable town planning, which is what the article in the OP is about.

[kairos]

There is nothing for Canada to do until all major emitters agree to binding targets.

But we know that is not going to happen because emitters like China have no interest in such a deal.

That is such copout B.S. as it is Canada is one of the highest per capita emitters of C02.

Ever heard of the expression lead by example? The Con party clearly believes in following the worst example and setting that as a standard.

[TimG]

That is such copout B.S. as it is Canada is one of the highest per capita emitters of C02.

Ever heard of the expression lead by example? The Con party clearly believes in following the worst example and setting that as a standard.

Per capita emissions based on lines on maps are a meaningless measure. Draw a line around a village next to a coal plant and the village per capita emissions are huge. Draw a line around the village but exclude the coal and the per capita emissions drop.

The only measure that means anything are total emissions.

As for 'leading by example' - you are moving the goal posts. You said Harper should have proposed a better deal than Kyoto. I showed you he did.

[kairos]

You didn't even post a link to anything you said.

Obviously you have to do something about the environment instead of just exploiting it as much as possible to at least even pretend the Cons are good on the environment, which everyone knows is a joke given how Harper himself has said that Canada can't let the environment interfere with economic growth.

[GostHacked]

It is a problem created by anti-nuclear nut jobs which make it impossible to develop a long term storage solution and, as a result, turn short term storage facilities into long term storage facilities despite the fact that they were never designed for that purpose.

This facility is 70 years old. It's not so much the facility but the containers that the waste is in. The tanks are leaking.

[eyeball]

It is a problem created by anti-nuclear nut jobs which make it impossible to develop a long term storage solution and, as a result, turn short term storage facilities into long term storage facilities despite the fact that they were never designed for that purpose.

The resistance to a nuclear industry stems almost entirely from it's history of shoddy regulatory oversight - nobody, aside from the usual suspects, trusts the government or anything it claims or says.

[TimG]

The resistance to a nuclear industry stems almost entirely from it's history of shoddy regulatory oversight - nobody, aside from the usual suspects, trusts the government or anything it claims or says.

Nonsense. The resistance stems from ignorance and a fear of the unknown and sensationalism which brings gobs a cash into the pockets of environmental NGOs. Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG

[eyeball]

Yes, people are afraid because they don't know if what they're being told is truthful. Ignorance is not the fault of the ignorant in this case.

Sensationalism is easy to sell when such a state of affairs exists.

[TimG]

Yes, people are afraid because they don't know if what they're being told is truthful. Ignorance is not the fault of the ignorant in this case.

When it comes to nuclear power the biggest liars are the environmental NGOs that grossly exaggerate the risks. When government and industry try to explain the science these same NGOs claim the government is lying. You are a product of this environmental NGOs misinformation campaign. Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

When it comes to nuclear power the biggest liars are the environmental NGOs that grossly exaggerate the risks. When government and industry try to explain the science these same NGOs claim the government is lying. You are a product of this environmental NGOs misinformation campaign.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20072884.html

These risks are not exaggerated. Only a complete fool would think that.

BRACEVILLE, Ill. - Radioactive tritium has leaked from three-quarters

of U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater from

corroded, buried piping, an Associated Press investigation shows.

The

number and severity of the leaks has been escalating, even as federal

regulators extend the licenses of more and more reactors across the

nation.

Tritium, which is a radioactive form of hydrogen,

has leaked from at least 48 of 65 sites, according to U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission records reviewed as part of the AP's yearlong

examination of safety issues at aging nuclear power plants. Leaks from

at least 37 of those facilities contained concentrations exceeding the

federal drinking water standard -- sometimes at hundreds of times the

limit.

While most leaks have been found within plant

boundaries, some have migrated offsite. But none is known to have

reached public water supplies.

[bush_cheney2004]

The resistance to a nuclear industry stems almost entirely from it's history of shoddy regulatory oversight - nobody, aside from the usual suspects, trusts the government or anything it claims or says.

More people have died from commercial fishing than from nuclear power. So I don't believe anything they say and refuse to eat contaminated fish.

[TimG]

These risks are not exaggerated. Only a complete fool would think that.

Only a complete fool would make assertions without understanding the science. Your understanding of nuclear science is basically 'if the word radiation is involved then it must be dangerous'. IOW - the understanding of a reactionary with no interest in the facts.

[waldo]

Let's recap: you threw down an article link from a most biased source and expected/claimed to differentiate the article "content" from the author... and yet, your so-called content that you presume to so differentiate over, the "9.2 million oil industry jobs", comes directly (unsourced and unsubstantiated) from your article's author. Not only is the number unsourced/unsubstantiated, there 's also no date attachment to ascertain how it lines up against the Brookings study. But some how this number that you're placing your whole emphasis on, somehow, that number isn't "article content" to you! Wow! You do take liberties, don't you?

The 9.2 million comes from the Pricewaterhouse Coopers study via the API.

.

.

Apples to Apples Waldo.

via the API? Oh... you mean the American Petroleum Institute... no need for you to be shy in actually identifying the industry source, hey? Yes, that study is well worn by industry types (like your original linked article's author)... like you... taking extreme liberties with the 9.2 million figure. Perhaps you should actually read your referenced study... perhaps pay particular attention to your referenced study's Table 4. You know, the table from your referenced study that states PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that the number of jobs directly involved in the fossil fuel industry was 2.1 million (inclusive of all the Apu/Kwik-E-Marters!)... 2.1... not the 9.2 million number you're trying to flog! Look at your own study, hey!

why... even my referenced Brookings Study is offering up a 2.4 million number for ya - 300,000 more than your own referenced study!

for some strange reason you went a bit over the deep-end with my offering up a comparison to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labour Statistics estimate of the 3.1 million, 'Green Goods and Services' jobs. It was nothing more than a curt throw-away for you to digest... if you didn't care for the Brookings study. You're too easy!

.

.

of course, classification is key... I look forward to you providing your own classification and supporting makeup numbers in line with the '9 million' number you so favour! You take the most self-serving liberty while presuming to denigrate the types of jobs being associated with the 'clean/green economy'. I look forward to your breakout numbers, particularly the ones that really like to leverage convenience store workers from convenience retail outlets that sell gas/diesel... you know, like the Simpson's Apu/Kwik-E-Mart!

However, this same study states there are 2.4 Million jobs DIRECTLY related to Oil and Gas. This number so conveniently misses out on fuel dealers, petroleum wholesalers OR as you like to put it the millions of people like Apu at the Kwik E Mart. They chose NOT to classify something that SHOULD be.

you continue to fail when referencing studies, both your own as well as my referenced study. No - of that 2.4 million estimate, 1.1 million of it's jobs are associated with, "wholesale and retail distributors and transporters... which includes the Apu/Kwik-E-Marters! You say a lot but little of it is accurate - here, digest the related quote, hey?

For example, just 1 percent of jobs (1.3 million) directly support the production of fossil fuel-based energy, derivative manufactured products, and machinery; that number rises to 1.8 percent (2.4 million) if all wholesale and retail distributors and transporters are included such as gas station employees.

now... if you care to reply again, step it up a bit - accuracy counts, ya know! Also see if you can keep the insults down, ya think?

[bush_cheney2004]

The Americans will do their utmost to keep accurate industry/sector employment records....who knew they were so important to Canadian arguments on web forums.

[Newfoundlander]

Too bad our country is run by dinosaurs in the pockets of big oil trying to get every last drop out to see to China while trashing the planet. Other countries are moving into the 21st century.

http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/town-goes-grid-achieves-energy-independence.html

Harper provided a loan guarantee for the Muskrat Falls project, which will mean that 98% of Newfoundland and Labrador will be powered by renewable energy and Nova Scotia will be able to close coal plants.

[Accountability Now]

Perhaps you should actually read your referenced study... perhaps pay particular attention to your referenced study's Table 4.

You didn't finish reading the article did you? Table 4 illustrates the direct impact jobs which is 2.2M however table 6 shows the diirect and indirect jobs which is the 9.2M. Tsk tsk Waldo....I'm starting to think that you know you have lost this arguement.

Do you know the difference between DIRECT AND INDIRECT? According to the Brookings Study Table 1, the number of DIRECT jobs from green ENERGY are 138,364. Compare that to DIRECT jobs from oil/gas ENERGY....2.2M in API and 2.4M in Brookings. Hmmmmmmm....is that a 16X difference???? I don't want you to hurt your brain....the answer is yes.

Now....we can't even compare the indirect impacts because Brookings doesn't show that for either. For the green ECONOMY...they add 2.5M jobs from other industries that have NOTHING to do with green ENERGY. Lets see...there is 314,983 for Conservation, 350,547 for Public Mass Transit, 386,116 for Waste Management and Treatment. ALL of these sectors have existed, would exist and will exist with or without green ENERGY. Ironically, any one of those categories alone provides more than double the jobs in green energy. Talk about ridiing coat taiis!

Feel like making an assumption? The direct jobs in oil/gas are 2.2M and the indirect are 9.2 which is about 4X. Lets assume the same ratio would apply to green energy (even though it wouldn't). With 138,364 direct jobs that would mean there would be 578,613 indirect jobs. Hmmmm....even the indirect number for green energy doesn't come close to the direct number for oil/gas.

It appears accuracy does count. Direct green energy jobs....138,364. Direct oil/gas....2.2M. As you so elegently put it...chew on that.

[GostHacked]

Only a complete fool would make assertions without understanding the science. Your understanding of nuclear science is basically 'if the word radiation is involved then it must be dangerous'. IOW - the understanding of a reactionary with no interest in the facts.

Alright, you have one about the radiation, however I would still question why there are leaks at 75% of the nuclear sites. Nah, I guess that's not much of a concern either. Is maintenance done on these nuclear reactor sites?