Manifesto backed by prominent NDPers calls for overhaul of economy

[bush_cheney2004]

Then it's a really bad idea to be growing nuclear energy in the middle of an unstable world. Take the subsidies away from nuclear energy and invest it in research for better battery technology and/or other grid storage. Electric cars and renewable energy are the way to go for the short to medium term.

Yep....it's already happening in a nation without the NDP or their manifesto. Same place that produced Klein's green energy plan for the "globe".

Electric cars...check

Battery research....check

Smart grid research...check

Solar thermal plant research...check

Example: Ivanpah Solar Thermal Plant (but requires fossil fuel to start)...in California

[69cat]

I appreciate what you say Reefer, your points are valid but dont you think it is wrong to pick worst case scenarios on everything?

I personally plan to put up 10 to 15 kw of solar next year or year after and have dismissed wind for the time being in my own plans. So i am not here simply to attack every idea, but i have rational as it applies to my personal life.

Wind turbines are far from failure proof and still arent really viable, have done a small bit of service work related to wind farms so get some of that feedback from guys that work all the time there. There is a lot if resources going into a mill, tons of steel, steel mills (massive polluters correct?), open pit mines to get the iron ore (bad for environment), and so on. Solar is less concern but lots of plastic so lots of oil, and oil is bad. Batteries, yes i want them to succeed on that front to compliment my solar plans but you have limited specialty metals available sourced from small Asian countries that requires mining/exploitation of a countries resources, dominance by a large multinational in pursuit of that resource.

You see where i am going here? As a layman and without looking at massive studies i am simply speculating that the bulk if the concerns people rsise now based on our present energy model will simply become the same issues in the green movement. I say ignore any kind of manifesto and simply let things evolve, i beleive people are smart and i cant argue people who think everyone in a position of power is corrupt or big companies only have themselves in mind. Ive worked for Siemens and Westinghouse and to say they are less likely to protect the environment is false. Off track here.

Regarding nuclear, we are told the end is nigh so how can nuclear waste be worse than nothing at all. Its like having your purse in your car that is on fire but saying you wont smash the window. Well is the car on fire or not? I know my decision. But being an alarmist on everything does not help because not a single thing in this world will get done. People are evil, corporations are evil.

Yes nuclear plants are complex but we are building the largest potash mine in the world in a place in part of the world no one heard of. We have a carbon capture facility that is being considered a world model by some. You can take the position that a mine costs a lot, is complex and takes 6 years from start to finish so dont do it (as Suzuki aluded to re nuclear in video) or you can do it. And there us lots of nuclear operating now so your doomsday concerns are moot, if you have enough waste to destroy the world 3 times over does it matter if you can do it 6x.

I do beleive in a lot of things, i simply say there us a different way to look at things. And that doing something different does not necessarily elimate all concerns from the initial method and may even raise concerns never thought of. Like in a 100% resource development free economy how is wealth generated to pay for the energy you create.

[Evening Star]

Mulcair is no Layton in the same way Layton was no Broadbent (I know there were people in the middle but I don't recall). The shift has been going on for a long time. But the difference to me is that Layton still occupied territory on the left end of the spectrum. Mulcair has moved them so far that I see them as being right of the Liberals on most things.

On what issues do you see a left/right difference between Layton and Mulcair? The main differences I see are: a lower emphasis on green politics with a greater emphasis on economic issues now and a more definite pro-Israel stance.

The Liberals have been doing this trick in election campaigns for a while where they basically campaign on a version of the NDP platform, even though they never really advocated for those causes in the House during the previous session. Happened in 2011 too. I have a hard time trusting them. They basically did this in 1993 and then governed on a version of the Reform platform. Trying to out-NDP the NDP is a new slant on it, I'll give you; their usual MO is to moderate the NDP platform but the NDP have been doing that on their own.

[TimG]

Example: Ivanpah Solar Thermal Plant (but requires fossil fuel to start)...in California

http://www.desertsun.com/story/tech/science/greenenergy/2015/04/23/ivanpah-solar-plant-bird-deaths/26273353/

More than 3,500 birds died during the 377-megawatt Ivanpah solar project’s first year of operation, a new report estimates.

Yet no charges were laid against the solar farm operator.

Meanwhile if you are pumping oil:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/oil-sands-death-of-hundreds-of-ducks-in-2010-blamed-on-weather-no-charges-laid

The bird deaths came just days after Syncrude agreed to pay $3-million in penalties after 1,600 ducks died on one of its tailings ponds during a storm two years earlier. Pictures of dead and dying birds flashed around the world and Syncrude was cast by its critics as an environmental pariah.

Got to love the double standards.

[ReeferMadness]

On what issues do you see a left/right difference between Layton and Mulcair? The main differences I see are: a lower emphasis on green politics with a greater emphasis on economic issues now and a more definite pro-Israel stance.

The Liberals have been doing this trick in election campaigns for a while where they basically campaign on a version of the NDP platform, even though they never really advocated for those causes in the House during the previous session. Happened in 2011 too. I have a hard time trusting them. They basically did this in 1993 and then governed on a version of the Reform platform. Trying to out-NDP the NDP is a new slant on it, I'll give you; their usual MO is to moderate the NDP platform but the NDP have been doing that on their own.

Maybe you're right. I've never followed the party that closely and am going mostly by gut feel. I always had the sense that Layton belonged in the centre of the NDP but Mulcair is much more to the centre. Mulcair gave a glowing tribute to Thatcher and free markets, which I can't see Layton doing.

I think that Trudeau is more left than most of his party.

And Harper is definitely to the far right.

[WIP]

Wip...

Go back to page 5 of this topic, and watch the video interview with Freeman Dyson. His scientific credentials are impeccable, and clearly he has no ideological axes to grind. The pre-amble in the vid will tell you everything you need to know about him.

I'm listening to it now, as I didn't have time for this earlier. As a general rule, arguments from authority don't win me over. Whether or not Freeman Dyson considers climate modelling valid or not is moot, since the greater understanding today of the paleo record (especially about Abrupt Climate Change), and present day evidence of increasing species extinctions, makes any denial or diversionary tactics (like this) not worth any serious consideration. Dyson doesn't understand how complex climate systems are when he makes idiotic claims that higher CO2 levels make life flourish! The geologic record shows the exact opposite...with the ice ages being the times when large mammals diversify and flourish, and seas are teeming with life. A recent study commented on in Livescience connects rising temperatures with extinctions of megafauna...not disease and not early human hunters with spears killing them off:

Mighty Mammoths Fell Prey to Rapidly Warming Earth

The mighty megafauna of the last ice age, including the wooly mammoths, short-faced bears and cave lions, largely went extinct because of rapid climate-warming events, a new study finds.

During the unstable climate of the Late Pleistocene, about 60,000 to 12,000 years ago, abrupt climate spikes, called interstadials, increased temperatures between 7 and 29 degrees Fahrenheit (4 and 16 degrees Celsius) in a matter of decades. Large animals likely found it difficult to survive in these hot conditions, possibly because of the effects it had on their habitats and prey, the researchers said.................................

Temperature drops during the Late Pleistocene showed no association with animal extinctions, Cooper said. Instead, only the hot interstadial periods were associated with the large die-offs that hit populations (local events) and entire species of animals (global events), he said.

Ancient humans also played a role in the megafaunal extinction, albeit a smaller one, he said. By disrupting the animals' environments, human societies and hunting parties likely made it harder for megafauna to migrate to new areas and to refill areas once populated by animals that had gone extinct, he said.

Extinction analysis

The study is the latest in a long string of research examining what caused megafauna, or animals weighing more than 99 pounds (45 kilograms), to die off during the Late Pleistocene.

George Cuvier, the French paleontologist who first recognized the mammoth and the giant ground sloth, started the speculation in 1796 when he suggested that giant biblical floods were to blame for the animals' demise. The extinctions also baffled Charles Darwin after he encountered megafaunal remains in South America.

Since then, various studies have placed the bulk of responsibility on ice age humans, temperature swings and a perfect storm of events.

However, advances in examining ancient DNA and ancient climate allowed Cooper and his colleagues to get to the bottom of the issue.

They examined DNA from dozens of megafaunal species that lived during the Late Pleistocene, combing through more than 50,000 years of DNA records for extinction events. The ancient DNA not only told them about global extinction events, but also local population turnovers, which occur when a group of animals dies and another population of animals moves in to replace them. [Wipe Out: History's Most Mysterious Extinctions]

They then compared the data on megafauna extinction with detailed records of severe climate events, which they gathered from Greenland ice cores and the sedimentary record of the Cariaco Basin off Venezuela.

"By combining these two records, we can place the climate and radiocarbon dating data on the same timescale, thereby allowing us to precisely align the dated fossils against climate," Cooper said. "The high-resolution view we gained through this approach clearly showed a strong relationship between warming events and megafaunal extinctions."...................................

Modern connections

Earth's climate is much more stable today than it was during the Late Pleistocene, making the world's current warming trends a "major concern," the researchers said.

In many ways, the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and resulting warming effects are expected to have a similar rate of change to the onset of past interstadials, heralding another major phase of large mammal extinctions," Cooper said.

In addition, humans have disrupted the habitats and surrounding areas of many wild animals, making it challenging for species to migrate or shift ranges to places where they would be better adapted to deal with climate change, he said.....................................

"This study is a bit of a wake-up call," Lorenzen said. "Here we have empirical evidence — based on data from a lot of species — that rapid climate warming has profoundly impacted megafauna communities, negatively, during the past 50,000 years.

"It doesn't bode well for the future survival of the world's megafauna populations," she said.

Only thing I would add to that piece is that we better include the human species along with other present day megafauna that will be at risk of extinction during a similar rapid warming event in the near future. Too many writers act like we're somehow outside the system, and unaffected by changes in planetary boundaries...but, when we see millions of people migrating en masse, and increasing food prices that are only going to be higher next year, there will either be a dramatic decline in human population this century....or there will be nobody left by the end of the century! There are too many bad trends - including climate change, that demonstrate how the apex species get wiped out in major extinction events. Maybe the trilobites thought they were going to continue on forever also!

Fascinating thing has been happening over the last several decades, established by satellite imagery: Global flora, and the bio-mass thereof, has increased an estimated 15%. The reason? CO2 levels.

Even if their satellite imagery are giving an accurate assessment of land-based biomass (this would not include sea life where plankton levels have declined more than 40% since 1950's because of higher temps and acidification) they may want to check their satellite pictures again this year, as the past few years are showing an increasing number and intensifying level of forest fires on every continent...which are another unexpected feature of rising temps and GHG levels in the atmosphere.

Fact is, at 150 ppm, plant life ceases to exist. At 250 ppm, it's borderline starvation for plants. The levels of the last century, if not millennia, are among the lowest of the last several hundred million years, over same that time of which CO2 levels have been at orders of magnitude higher than today. Indeed, during times when the largest creatures ever to inhabit the planet thrived. It takes a lot of vegetation to feed 30 tons of dinosaur every day, eh?

This is another example of how petroleum-funded BS tells half truths and less than half truths about climate! According to the 800,000 year analysis of Antarctic ice cores, atmospheric CO2 has cycled from 180 to 300 ppm, and only exceeded 300 during the just prior to the start of the 20th century. I personally believe the Gaia Hypothesis/Theory provides the best explanatory model for how and why our planetary biosphere has managed to keep CO2 levels within this range. It doesn't matter whether you accept it or not, simple fact is that all of the plants in the world are not going to push CO2 levels below 150 and kill off life on Earth, because photosynthesis becomes too difficult for plants when there is less than 180 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. And the claim that 250 is borderline starvation for plants is complete bullshit, as can be demonstrated by looking at that ice core record under the "800,000" tab. A quick look shows that CO2 levels have been below 250 for most of the past 800,000 years....that wouldn't happen if it was a "starvation" level!

And when we go to the deep past, that is where oil lobby bullshit most misrepresents the paleo-record, because the long trend that can be roughly assess through chemical rock analysis, shows that over the course of Earth's history GHG levels in the atmosphere were much, much higher at the beginning than they are today, and there was a very good reason why the biosphere of Earth would try to keep greenhouse gas levels high: the Sun was much dimmer and giving off less energy two, three or four billion years ago...whenever life on Earth began, and has been gradually growing stronger over the milennia. So, the strategy of the collective of living biota on Earth has been to keep sequestering more and more carbon out of the atmosphere to keep temperatures at an optimal range for most life. So, the first thing that happened when it started getting too hot was begin photosynthesizing plants and pumping oxygen into the atmosphere and removing the methane that used to be part of the early atmosphere when anaerobic bacteria were the main life forms of Earth. And the fact that Gaia has tried to keep CO2 levels below 300 for at least the past million years, is as good an indication as any that we have set Earth on course for a wild ride with odds against our long term survival!

I watched an interview a while back with the head of the EU's committee on climate change. She said that they plan to spend $7,000,000,000,000 - that's trillions - on climate change by the year 2100. Someone then put it to her that it had been concluded that such an expenditure would result in lowering global temperatures by one tenth of one percent. She replied that, yes, she was aware of this...but it is still the right thing to do. Frankly, you can't even make up unowhat like this.

And this is what it all boils down to: climate change denial is the refuge for those who discover that their ways of living and doing business are incompatible with any effective strategy to stop global warming!

Carbon credits, created out of thin air by people in far away places, traded by people in far away towers, tracked on computers nobody will ever see, and accounted for by people (UN?) accountable to nobody. You want to talk about a capitalist broker's wet dream come true, or what? 3% in and 3% out, talk about a license to print money! The first attempt at this in Europe several years ago saw $5 billion out of a total of $7 billion worth of activity disappear forever into the hands of organized crime.

Pointless objection, since carbon credit market schemes were concocted as a capitalist method of reducing carbon outputs. It's not a strategy that anyone serious about the issue ever considered. But, it was tossed up by guess who....Stephen Harper as the Conservatives answer to Stephan Dion's plan to introduce a national carbon tax! So, are you going to reconsider carbon credits?

And to what end? The school boards here in BC a couple years ago were forced by the BC government to take money out of their budgets to buy carbon offset credits...millions of dollars worth from already cash strapped schools. So much for hiring teachers for our children, right? Done so that the government could claim that it had reduced BC's CO2 output levels. We've had a carbon tax on fuels here for most of a decade now...and you know what? The climate around here hasn't changed one millionth of an iota, and of course it never will. But, as the above video puts it so acutely: Think of the moral superiority liberals bought for themselves. As always, with taxpayers' hard earned coin.

I loathe, passionately, any ideology that props up, if not mandates, utter and morally bereft crap like this.

I chose my signature line: "Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist" for a reason. I don't believe that any brand of capitalism, whether it's liberal or conservative, can deal with these kinds of problems, because all of our mainstream economics are based on an assumption that growth can continue on exponentially forever. Since we live in a finite world, this should be an obvious absurdity. But, arguing that the human population has to live within the LIMITS to growth that our planet can provide sustainably, leads too many people to start thinking short term....very short term, that they are going to miss out on acquiring things that are high on their wish list. So, in the final analysis, it's not a comfortable message, and likely not even a hopeful message, but people should be told the truth instead of a load of hopeful rubbish created to get them to budge in the right direction on environment issues.

Edited September 19, 2015 by WIP

[kimmy]

Lets say a group of Christian evangelicals published their 'vision' for transforming society to conform with their religious preferences (i.e. do exactly what Klein and her ilk have just did - the only difference is the details of the religion). Does anyone believe for a second that NDP supporters would not be howling about how it represents a Conservative 'hidden agenda'? NDP supporter can whine as much as they like about people saying the manifesto represents the NDP 'hidden agenda' but they are simply getting a taste of their own medicine.

Well, as we all know, that's exactly what happened every time some regressive wingnut with ties to the Reform party spoke up. "See? See? These people are still part of the Conservative base! Harper won't be able to ignore them if he gets elected!"

Which makes it quite funny that the people who griped loudest about "the hidden agenda" attacks on the Conservatives... people like Ezra Levant and his buddies at Rebel Media, as well as Conservative supporters like Shady and others here at the forum, are the ones trying to put "the Leap Manifesto" on Tom Mulcair. "The Tommunist Manifesto!"

-k

[eyeball]

Lets say a group of Christian evangelicals published their 'vision' for transforming society to conform with their religious preferences (i.e. do exactly what Klein and her ilk have just did - the only difference is the details of the religion)..

The difference is that it's utterly ridiculous to equate concern for the human economy's impact on our planet's environment to a belief in a supernatural god. One is real and the other is not.

[Argus]

And Harper is definitely to the far right.

Harper is certainly far right of you. But then, you're looking at him from the far left.

Harper has governed from the centre.

[Evening Star]

Maybe you're right. I've never followed the party that closely and am going mostly by gut feel. I always had the sense that Layton belonged in the centre of the NDP but Mulcair is much more to the centre. Mulcair gave a glowing tribute to Thatcher and free markets, which I can't see Layton doing.

He did this for 30s in 2001, yes. I agree that the two men's backgrounds are different this way, with Mulcair coming from a more ideologically mixed place, so I'm not sure how this will impact his governing style. He seems a little more controlling than Layton but I never really thought Layton gave that much free rein to his caucus either. In terms of state policy, though, the NDP seems relatively consistent. In 10/11, I mused on here that they may have well been to the right of the PET-era Liberals on some core economic issues.

[TimG]

The difference is that it's utterly ridiculous to equate concern for the human economy's impact on our planet's environment to a belief in a supernatural god. One is real and the other is not.

Actually, the religion is not in the belief that the environment in is a concern. The religion is the belief that the suggested "solutions" represent a remotely plausible course of action. The manifesto is filled with myths and complete ignorance of how the economy works. My favorite is the laughable notion that 'teaching' and 'childcare' represent jobs of the future when these kinds of jobs cannot exist unless someone else is doing something that generates enough wealth to pay for those jobs. How is that going to happen when the jobs that actually generate the wealth the economy needs to run are outlawed? Edited September 19, 2015 by TimG

[Evening Star]

The manifesto is pretty hokey but I'm pretty sure people were teaching and looking after children before they had figured out how to drill for oil.

[TimG]

The manifesto is pretty hokey but I'm pretty sure people were teaching and looking after children before they had figured out how to drill for oil.

Prior to the industrial revolution 90% of the people worked on farms because that was the only way to produce enough food to feed everyone. At that time there was not enough excess wealth to sustain 'childcare' as separate paid job category. However, fossil fuels and technology reduced the number of people required to produce food which freed up labour for other pursuits such as jobs in factories or providing services like 'childcare'. If one deliberately makes the production of food and other goods less efficient by blocking access to modern tools like fossil fuels then the excess wealth needed to pay for services like 'childcare' drops.

If someone cares about a 'sustainable' future without a drop in standard of living then it must come from technologies that increase the efficiency of primary production while reducing the unwanted side effects. Currently available renewables cannot do this. Maybe they will in the future but until that technology appears we need to accept the fact that using fossil fuels is essential to out society and that will likely not change for a long time.

Edited September 19, 2015 by TimG

[Evening Star]

If someone cares about a 'sustainable' future without a drop in standard of living then it must come from technologies that increase the efficiency of primary production while reducing the unwanted side effects. Currently available renewables cannot do this. Maybe they will in the future but until that technology appears we need to accept the fact that using fossil fuels is essential to out society and that will likely not change for a long time.

I'm OK with making gradual process, and perhaps with using more nuclear power for some time (as ON already does), but it may well be the case that we will have to see a modest reduction in our standard of living for some time - greater egalitarianism would make this less painful for more people. When people (usually conservatives) argue that we need to choose between the environment and wealth/the economy, I don't see why the conclusion always seems to be that wealth has to come first.

[Michael Hardner]

If someone cares about a 'sustainable' future without a drop in standard of living then it must come from technologies that increase the efficiency of primary production while reducing the unwanted side effects. Currently available renewables cannot do this. Maybe they will in the future but until that technology appears we need to accept the fact that using fossil fuels is essential to out society and that will likely not change for a long time.

I really appreciate the pragmatism you bring to these discussions. I have to ask, though, whether 'cannot do this' is actually an absolute truth. I just got back from an extended vacation in the western states and there seems to be increasing use of solar panels, wind and so on. Do you assert that these things are boondoggles ? - because they do seem to be useful for certain applications, just based on the use.

[bush_cheney2004]

I really appreciate the pragmatism you bring to these discussions. I have to ask, though, whether 'cannot do this' is actually an absolute truth. I just got back from an extended vacation in the western states and there seems to be increasing use of solar panels, wind and so on. Do you assert that these things are boondoggles ? - because they do seem to be useful for certain applications, just based on the use.

And they have been for a very long time. Very popular in the "energy crisis" 1970's too. What is old becomes new again !

[TimG]

I just got back from an extended vacation in the western states and there seems to be increasing use of solar panels, wind and so on. Do you assert that these things are boondoggles?

In this context I was talking about the 100% renewable fantasy. If you want to talk about supplementing baseload power with 10-15% variable renewables then that is do able but that does not eliminate the need for expanding coal, gas or nuclear baseload to meet future demand. Edited September 19, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

it may well be the case that we will have to see a modest reduction in our standard of living for some time - greater egalitarianism would make this less painful for more people.

I find it interesting that you use the word "modest" because you are implying that a large reduction in standard of living would not be acceptable even if it is "sustainable". For me this is the key. I do not believe that a "modest" reduction is likely outcome of the policies outlined in the 'manifesto' - I think a standard of living meltdown comparable to Greece or Venezuela is more plausible. And even if I can't be sure that will be outcome I cannot justify the risk because the damage would be very hard to fix once it is done.

we need to choose between the environment and wealth/the economy, I don't see why the conclusion always seems to be that wealth has to come first.

I am not asking people to choose. I am pointing out that you cannot have a clean environment without wealth because wealth gives people enough comfort to sustain environmentally friendly choices. If standard of living drops the first thing that will disappear is any concern for the environment. That is why any policy has to be based in an understanding of how the economy works and cannot be based on wishful thinking. Edited September 19, 2015 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

I really appreciate the pragmatism you bring to these discussions.

I assume by pragmatism, you mean unsubstantiated, alarmist opinion.

I have to ask, though, whether 'cannot do this' is actually an absolute truth. I just got back from an extended vacation in the western states and there seems to be increasing use of solar panels, wind and so on. Do you assert that these things are boondoggles ? - because they do seem to be useful for certain applications, just based on the use.

They're not a boondoggle.

The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar power plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas.

I look at this forum and see people trading unresearched opinions on technical subjects and I have to wonder. Does anyone read anymore?

[TimG]

I look at this forum and see people trading unresearched opinions on technical subjects and I have to wonder. Does anyone read anymore?

I am pretty sure that I have a more technically informed opinion about the economics of electricity generation than you ever will. The fallacy in the stats you quote is they assume that 1W of wind is equal to 1W of gas or coal. It is not because gas or coal can be used whenever the power is needed. Wind only generates power when the wind blows. This variability means that wind imposes costs on the grid operators that are not included in the capital costs of the generators themselves. It also means that any wind power installation needs 100% backup from conventional power sources because people don't want the power to go out if there are 2 or 3 days a year when wind does not blow. The cost of this backup power is minimal when wind capacity is smaller the existing redundancy in the grid but when the percentage of wind gets large the full cost of the additional backup capacity must be counted as a cost for wind which ensures that wind will always be more expensive than running backup by itself once you move beyond 10-15% of grid capacity.

In short: if wind was really cost competitive there would be no need for mandates or subsidies because it would make too much sense to use. Without mandates and subsidies no one would touch wind or solar no matter now cheap the panels and turbines get because of the hidden costs I mentioned above.

Edited September 19, 2015 by TimG

[69cat]

WIP, can you say why the ice core record goes back only 800,000 years? Just curious as i have seen this before but never had a chance to ask anyone. You made a good post that i need to read again but wondering if you know the answer.

[ReeferMadness]

I'm OK with making gradual process, and perhaps with using more nuclear power for some time (as ON already does), but it may well be the case that we will have to see a modest reduction in our standard of living for some time - greater egalitarianism would make this less painful for more people. When people (usually conservatives) argue that we need to choose between the environment and wealth/the economy, I don't see why the conclusion always seems to be that wealth has to come first.

It has to be a gradual process - and that's the point. We need some leadership on this front and you can't simply make policy decisions simply based on what is cheapest today. Solar has a marginal electricity cost of 0. How do you beat that?

As for the the choice between wealth and the environment, I'm not sure that there really needs to be a choice. In Australia, solar and battery storage are already cheaper than grid energy. That's right - the only big disadvantage to solar (intermittent power) has been addressed.

Granted that Australia has a combination of ample solar power and high grid prices but this is new technology. Prices will tumble.

If we project into the future and look at the optimal energy sources short - mid term, we should be investing heavily in battery technology. We need them for grid backup and for electric vehicles. Now that wind and solar are as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels, its only power storage that is preventing us from planning a major shift. Governments and universities should be getting in front of this to fund the research.

[Smallc]

You're opposed to the 1 thing that will work sustainably here and solve all of the problems related to GHGs. That says you're not really interested in a solution. We should be building a nuclear grid with some hydro power where it makes sense (Manitoba, BC, Quebec - where we already have it). We shouldn't be chasing pie in the sky solutions when we have 1 right in front of us.

[TimG]

Solar has a marginal electricity cost of 0. How do you beat that?

You beat it with a source of electricity that can provide power when you need it.

That's right - the only big disadvantage to solar (intermittent power) has been addressed.

The link does not explain how the numbers were calculated so I can't determine if they are BS or not. But assuming the numbers are not fiction then great! - if you own a detached home in Australia. But the math is not going work out so well for cloudier and northern climes like Canada. Nor does it help the growing number of people living in high density housing. For these people and any industrial users you will still need grid power and that requires sources capable of providing baseload. Edited September 19, 2015 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

....Governments and universities should be getting in front of this to fund the research.

Many governments and universities have been doing this for decades...no NDP or Leap Manifesto required.