Federal environment program

[geoffrey]

Catch 22. We need them mostly to build homes.

The government has to make the commitment for apartments rather than huge sub-divisions which take more time to build.

I agree with you 100%. Isn't that more of a municiple zoning issues though?

Calgary isn't exactly known for it's municiple brilliance. If I ever wasted my time running for office within the next 10 years, it'd be for a spot on city council, Calgary is the worst managed city that I've ever taken a in depth look at. Mexico City might be the only one to compete for Urban Sprawl.

[scribblet]

This private member's bill has a good chance of passing. If it does we are in trouble, BTW billions has allready been lost in the Kyoto carbon trade loophole which sees most of the carbon credits going to China, the worst polluter on the planet bar none .... but guess what, these tax dollars likely helped the Chinese build more coal fired plants adding to CO2 output . Are we prepared to radically change our lifestyles?

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...e8-7206dc8af570

Working Canadians and taxpayers had better hope Mr. Rodriguez's legislation fails, because there are only two ways to achieve his goal by 2012, both unpalatable. Either the federal government could force a radical change in Canadians' lifestyles -- restricting automobile use, limiting electrical consumption and shutting down industries employing hundreds of thousands of workers, thereby sending our economy into a tailspin -- or it could send tens of billions of tax dollars abroad to buy "carbon credits" from developing and underdeveloped nations.

[geoffrey]

If that bill passes, it may mean the CPC is in trouble next election. But after the 40th parliament, I'm sure the CPC would be back with a majority when our unemployment rate creeps towards 25% and poverty becomes a commonplace concept in Canada.

Skyrocketing deficits, whatever you wish.

All the cost of trying to meet Kyoto.

There are much cooler, fun ways of making us a 3rd world country. I prefer total chaos and anarchy for a few months, but hey if you like Kyoto, we can do that too.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Look people, we signed off on Kyoto a long time ago. It was and is an international agreement, and we have an obligation to live up to our agreement with the proposal.

Cleaning up the environment is rather key to our continued survival. We simply need clean air and water and require land to grow food free of pollutants. So lets get of the dime and figure out how to clean up the place without going broke doing it.

Forget the international agreements and the attending political storms that are inevitable. We need to focus on the problem at hand. Our energy production methods are harmful to the environment. Our food production methods are harmful to the environment. Our industrial capacity is built upon a system that is harmful to the environment. These are the true problems we face, our means of sustaining ourselves is detrimental to the environment and the accumulated affects of human efforts to do so are becoming counterproductive. The equation that we need to solve is one in which we can modify the variables to reflect a positive solution.

[geoffrey]

Look people, we signed off on Kyoto a long time ago. It was and is an international agreement, and we have an obligation to live up to our agreement with the proposal.

There is no real obligation. Kyoto was designed to transfer wealth from Canada, to the 3rd world, nothing else. Kyoto can be met with overall emissions climbing, what sort of ridiculous waste of our time is that????

What of the lefties that no longer support our NATO obligations? Are they as guilty?

Cleaning up the environment is rather key to our continued survival. We simply need clean air and water and require land to grow food free of pollutants. So lets get of the dime and figure out how to clean up the place without going broke doing it.

Kyoto has nothing to do with clean air, clean water or removing pollutants. It has everything to do with shutting down the oil sands and transfering what little money we have left to Africa, Asia and parts of Europe.

Forget the international agreements and the attending political storms that are inevitable. We need to focus on the problem at hand. Our energy production methods are harmful to the environment. Our food production methods are harmful to the environment. Our industrial capacity is built upon a system that is harmful to the environment. These are the true problems we face, our means of sustaining ourselves is detrimental to the environment and the accumulated affects of human efforts to do so are becoming counterproductive. The equation that we need to solve is one in which we can modify the variables to reflect a positive solution.

Not in 4 years, and not by sending money that could help, to China and Russia so they can build dirty coal plants and develop their oil industries.

Kyoto supporters have it ALL wrong. They just don't get the bigger picture.

[Wilber]

More nukes to double our generating capacity so that we can then all convert to electric heat and drive electric cars using electricity generated without using fossil fuels. Use reactors instead of natural gas to heat the water needed to extract the oil from the tar sands which we can then sell to countries like China and India who don't have commitments to reduce CO2. Buy uranium stocks. We'll all get rich and reduce our CO2 emissions at the same time.

For all those who still haven't got it, I will echo what so many have said. The Kyoto agreement has nothing to do with pollution, it has to do with reducing CO2 emissions, the natural byproduct of breathing among other things.

[Saturn]

You think that 4.3% is bad for a shortage, Calgary hit 2.3% in Jan.

And our participation rate is a bazillion times higher than anywhere else in Canada, we've got no more workers, we are maxed out. Send us more Newfies!

If you had any room for them, more would come. Instead of frantically digging out the oil, put a bit of effort to fix your infrastructure. The oil isn't going anywhere.

[geoffrey]

If you had any room for them, more would come. Instead of frantically digging out the oil, put a bit of effort to fix your infrastructure. The oil isn't going anywhere.

Agreed. It goes beyond that though. We're not in trouble because we aren't building infrastructure... we're in trouble because we aren't building the right infrastruture.

Many don't realise, but Calgary is more than 7 times the size of Metro Toronto (not the GTA, just Toronto), and holds half the people. Calgary is 20% larger than Montreal proper (not the Greater Montreal Area) and holds an roughly equal amount of people.

Calgary is an absolutely terrible example of land use policy. We have more urban sprawl (without any transportation) than anywhere but Mexico City IMO.

We've had a history of failed city politicans IMO, and Calgarians no longer hold them to a high standard, approval ratings for Bronco (a Liberal by the way) are very high, despite our city being in the dump in every regard.

Around where I live, there are plans to build houses for 150,000 in population....... single family dwellings over 40km from the downtown core.

What the hell are they doing??? We need to start building up, not out, if we want to be a sustainable city. We can't afford the transportation issues either, of expanding out. Our highway system is terrible (only 3 roads link South of Fish Creek Park to North of it... a population area of 220,000 people).

To get to the University during rush hour periods, it's actually faster for me to drive out to highway 22 (Bragg Creek to Cochrane) and come in on the TransCanada.

Calgary is a disaster. And we don't have room for that very reason, the city refuses to limit land use and force people to build up. It's alot cheaper and less labour intensive to build an apartment or condo complex for 100 families than 100 single family homes.

[Saturn]

Kyoto has nothing to do with clean air, clean water or removing pollutants. It has everything to do with shutting down the oil sands and transfering what little money we have left to Africa, Asia and parts of Europe.

If you think that any measures to improve air quality will not reduce GHGs, then you are a loony. If you think that we have to shut down the oil sands to reduce GHGs, then you are twice as loony. All scary scenarios put forth by right-wingers that if we waste less energy, we'll end up poor and unemployed is complete pile of bullshit. Cutting the energy waste may have a negative impact on energy producers (if they are stupid enough to not go into other types of energy production) but everyone else will gain considerably. Now cut the crap and the fearmongerring because we're tired of it.

[geoffrey]

If you think that any measures to improve air quality will not reduce GHGs, then you are a loony. If you think that we have to shut down the oil sands to reduce GHGs, then you are twice as loony. All scary scenarios put forth by right-wingers that if we waste less energy, we'll end up poor and unemployed is complete pile of bullshit. Cutting the energy waste may have a negative impact on energy producers (if they are stupid enough to not go into other types of energy production) but everyone else will gain considerably. Now cut the crap and the fearmongerring because we're tired of it.

Oh my Saturn. We don't have to close the oil sands, I agree. But if we want to cut GHG emissions by some 30% in 4 years, alot of jobs and production are going to have to be torched. A reasonable timeframe sure. If the Liberals started 13 years ago when they had the chance, we'd be there. Starting the last year before handing over government doesn't really give us much time.

30% reduction in GHG over 4 years is impossible without destroying our economy, that's my assertion and I really don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that. Technology can't be developed and implemented in 4 years. So we've got to cut 30% of the GHG producing activity. So whether that is limiting your car use, rolling blackouts all year, closing factories or scaling back the oil sands, you take your pick. It's not going to be pretty if it's tried, and it will come at a massive cost.

[Saturn]

If you had any room for them, more would come. Instead of frantically digging out the oil, put a bit of effort to fix your infrastructure. The oil isn't going anywhere.

Agreed. It goes beyond that though. We're not in trouble because we aren't building infrastructure... we're in trouble because we aren't building the right infrastruture.

Hehe, now you are talking like an evil socialist Do you expect any sort of sustainable development in a city where everyone is so brainwashed against sustainability? Really, who benefits from putting all office buildings downtown and all workers 50 km out in the suburbs and from perpetual traffic congestion? Is it beneficial for the economy when a million hours a day are spend by Torontonians stuck in traffic? No. Are the resulting commuter frustration and pollution beneficial for Torontonians? No. But it's beneficial for carmakers and oil companies. In Calgary if anyone tries to make better use of land and to reduce the number of hours spend in cars, he will immediately be painted as an evil communist whose only purpose is to destroy the oil industry and your way of life.

[Canuck E Stan]

Kyoto has nothing to do with clean air, clean water or removing pollutants. It has everything to do with shutting down the oil sands and transfering what little money we have left to Africa, Asia and parts of Europe.

If you think that any measures to improve air quality will not reduce GHGs, then you are a loony. If you think that we have to shut down the oil sands to reduce GHGs, then you are twice as loony. All scary scenarios put forth by right-wingers that if we waste less energy, we'll end up poor and unemployed is complete pile of bullshit. Cutting the energy waste may have a negative impact on energy producers (if they are stupid enough to not go into other types of energy production) but everyone else will gain considerably. Now cut the crap and the fearmongerring because we're tired of it.

Those that imply that an urgency to reduce GHGs in Canada is going to do something extraordinary to solve the global problem of GHGs is stupid thinking. Our solution is less than 2% of the problem.

There is no reason to get stupid with our time frame and then expect to sit back and think the problem will disappear from our borders.

It is the other 98% where the urgency should be applied. How long will it take for the rest of the world to solve their portion of the 98% GHGs problem?

It won't be in your life time, or your grand-children's.

Let's take one step at a time, starting with the opposition getting the Clean Air Bill moving in the House.

[geoffrey]

In Calgary if anyone tries to make better use of land and to reduce the number of hours spend in cars, he will immediately be painted as an evil communist whose only purpose is to destroy the oil industry and your way of life.

Lots of people have suggested that, without being labelled a communist. Lougheed is one example.

Your view of Westerners and in particular Calgarians, is wrong.

[Saturn]

Oh my Saturn. We don't have to close the oil sands, I agree. But if we want to cut GHG emissions by some 30% in 4 years, alot of jobs and production are going to have to be torched. A reasonable timeframe sure. If the Liberals started 13 years ago when they had the chance, we'd be there. Starting the last year before handing over government doesn't really give us much time.

30% reduction in GHG over 4 years is impossible without destroying our economy, that's my assertion and I really don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that. Technology can't be developed and implemented in 4 years. So we've got to cut 30% of the GHG producing activity. So whether that is limiting your car use, rolling blackouts all year, closing factories or scaling back the oil sands, you take your pick. It's not going to be pretty if it's tried, and it will come at a massive cost.

I disagree. There is so much energy waste in Canada that it can be cut at minimal cost in a very short period of time. 30% reduction can be achieved in 5-6 years time (not by 2012) if someone will just start working on it but the politicians are more interested in pointing fingers at each other and doing nothing. Let me give you a few examples. Ontario Hydro has started installing "smart meters" (a great invention that has been used Europe for 50 years) that will allow them to charge different rates for day, day peak, and night electricity use. The point is that if they can shift more energy use to the low use periods (night), they can take the biggest polluter in Ontario off line (of course the prov gov't had an agreement with the feds to have the darned thing off line by 2012 but Harper canceled it so it may still be dumping millions of tones of pollutants in 2012). These "smart meters" cost about $200 to install and it will save the consumer far more if the consumer is wise to take advantage of them. Installing them in rental buildings will mean that renters will not leave their windows open and their a/c on when they are away because the landlord pays for electricity.

Next, turning off the lights in offices and stores at night can cut energy use for lighting by as much as 30% but many just don't bother to (as if there is some huge advantage to have the lights on at night). Buying a front load washer instead of top load washer results in 30% energy savings (front load washers do a much better job anyway). Unplugging appliances that are not in use can cut energy use by another 30% (most appliances keep drawing electricity when turned off). Another great invention that others have been using for ages is water heaters with on/off buttons or timers. Turning the thing on at night and off during the day or when you are away lets you save a bundle in cheaper night energy and 30% cut in overall energy use. Buying a smaller car can also save you a bundle in energy costs (face it most people don't need a huge SUV to drive to work).

Anywhere you look, there is tonnes of energy waste that can be cut at little or no cost. How much does it cost to tell appliance manufacturers to make appliances that don't draw electricity when turned off? They make them for other markets, so why not for Canada? Installing "smart meters" will more than pay for itself (all meters in Ontario will be changed by 2010). The reality is that everything at home and at work in North America is geared toward energy waste. Energy and its cost were never an issue, so there was no point in designing equipment, housing, and appliances with energy savings in mind. The cost of energy was always an issue in Europe, which is why everything there is designed with energy savings in mind. That's why the Europeans use less than half as much energy as we do. We are not trying to get to their level of energy efficiency, we just need a 30% reduction. And it can be done, painlessly. But noone wants to move a finger. Screaming and fearmongering is apparently easier.

[Saturn]

Those that imply that an urgency to reduce GHGs in Canada is going to do something extraordinary to solve the global problem of GHGs is stupid thinking. Our solution is less than 2% of the problem.

There is no reason to get stupid with our time frame and then expect to sit back and think the problem will disappear from our borders.

It is the other 98% where the urgency should be applied. How long will it take for the rest of the world to solve their portion of the 98% GHGs problem?

Typical free-rider thinking. I don't need to do it, let someone else do it. Free-riding doesn't lead anywhere.

[Saturn]

In Calgary if anyone tries to make better use of land and to reduce the number of hours spend in cars, he will immediately be painted as an evil communist whose only purpose is to destroy the oil industry and your way of life.

Lots of people have suggested that, without being labelled a communist. Lougheed is one example.

Your view of Westerners and in particular Calgarians, is wrong.

It's not wrong. You just described what the situation is. Lots of people may have suggested sustainable development is better, but there are obviously too few of them to make a difference.

[jdobbin]

I agree with you 100%. Isn't that more of a municiple zoning issues though?

Calgary isn't exactly known for it's municiple brilliance. If I ever wasted my time running for office within the next 10 years, it'd be for a spot on city council, Calgary is the worst managed city that I've ever taken a in depth look at. Mexico City might be the only one to compete for Urban Sprawl.

Municipal sprawl is a provincial issue. Municipalities have no constitutional authority at all. The provinces can set up whatever system for their local regions. All problems for cities ultimately rest with the provincial governments.

The sprawl you see in Calgary is entirely the province's fault.

[myata]

It is the other 98% where the urgency should be applied. How long will it take for the rest of the world to solve their portion of the 98% GHGs problem?

Now, that's a smart and innovative solution to the problem. Really, why don't we just ask everubody else to cut their emissions, while we're busy developing our newly found rich? Might even work! Surely, nobody thought about that before?

I think the only chance to achieve real progress now comes down to provinces. Those interested in making real reductions could come together and set up a synchronized system of caps and credits. Those in denial can lag behind. If it turns out that they'll need to massively upgrade their oil based economies, they can always buy technology for the riches saved from the boom (hope they won't evaporate in a real estate market crush when the bonanza's over).

And sure, they could join any time having paid over-emissions (calculated on per-capita basis) for the years they were out.

[Argus]

I disagree. There is so much energy waste in Canada that it can be cut at minimal cost in a very short period of time. 30% reduction can be achieved in 5-6 years time (not by 2012)

Do tell. Tell us how. Everything you've written below is on saving energy. But that doesn't mean it would help us meet our Kyoto targets. The majority of our emissions come from sources other than power generation.

Ontario Hydro has started installing "smart meters" (a great invention that has been used Europe for 50 years) that will allow them to charge different rates for day, day peak, and night electricity use.

Gah. How can you make inane statements like this? Ontario Hydro has been charging different rates based on the time of day for a long time. That is not the purpose of the so-called "smart" meters. They are designed to tell homeowners how much energy they are using, and in theory help them to cut back on their energy use and to switch their energy use to off peak times.

During the trial runs, homeowners were, with enormous effort and inconvenience, able to save a few cents on their bill.

The actual purpose of the meters, I'm guessing, is to make a lot of money for the company which manufactures them. I'm guessing it will emerge said company donates a lot of money to the Ontario Liberals.

The point is that if they can shift more energy use to the low use periods (night), they can take the biggest polluter in Ontario off line

Bullshit. Ontario can't afford to take a plant off-line. It needs more plants.

(of course the prov gov't had an agreement with the feds to have the darned thing off line by 2012 but Harper canceled it

Do tell? Let's see this plan. McGuinty's actual promise was to close all coal fired generating plants by this year. Where does 2012 come into it? Was this one of those last ditch "please vote for me" hail mary promises the federal Liberals through out at the last minute?

These "smart meters" cost about $200 to install and it will save the consumer far more if the consumer is wise to take advantage of them.

Right. Eat your dinner at midnight. Wash your clothes at three in the morning. Why would that be a problem?

Installing them in rental buildings will mean that renters will not leave their windows open and their a/c on when they are away because the landlord pays for electricity.

Why? If the landlord pays for electricity what difference do you think smart meters are going to make?

Next, turning off the lights in offices and stores at night can cut energy use for lighting by as much as 30%

Wow. You can do arithmetic. But few buildings and stores keep the lights on all night, mostly stores worried about break-ins, and even then at least half the lights are off, usually two thirds.

Buying a front load washer instead of top load washer results in 30% energy savings (front load washers do a much better job anyway). Unplugging appliances that are not in use can cut energy use by another 30% (most appliances keep drawing electricity when turned off)

Oh please. Get real. I know that's hard for you lefties, but do try. No one is going to unplug all their appliances. In fact, the whole reason why they use a little electricity even when turned off is because people want to be able to turn on the tv, radio, washer, or whatever, and have it work immediately. They don't want to wait for them to 'warm up".

Installing "smart meters" will more than pay for itself (all meters in Ontario will be changed by 2010).

Most unlikely. In fact, I'm betting they're a huge, colossall failure. The energy savings will take so long to of any value that by the time you've saved as much money as the smart meters cost you'll have to buy another smart meter because they'll be worn out.

Screaming and fearmongering is apparently easier.

That's pretty much what we hear from the left on global warming.

[Saturn]

Ontario Hydro has started installing "smart meters" (a great invention that has been used Europe for 50 years) that will allow them to charge different rates for day, day peak, and night electricity use.

Gah. How can you make inane statements like this? Ontario Hydro has been charging different rates based on the time of day for a long time. That is not the purpose of the so-called "smart" meters. They are designed to tell homeowners how much energy they are using, and in theory help them to cut back on their energy use and to switch their energy use to off peak times.

Obviously you don't pay hydro in Ontario. We need Kyoto just for pollution buffs like you. If common sense doesn't cause lazy ass to do anything to reduce the pollution you create, then higher energy prices might.

[geoffrey]

Municipal sprawl is a provincial issue. Municipalities have no constitutional authority at all. The provinces can set up whatever system for their local regions. All problems for cities ultimately rest with the provincial governments.

The sprawl you see in Calgary is entirely the province's fault.

I think it's the fault of the council that was delegated that power by the province. The province doesn't have the time or energy to worry about the day to day activities of each city and town.

[jdobbin]

I think it's the fault of the council that was delegated that power by the province. The province doesn't have the time or energy to worry about the day to day activities of each city and town.

If they are expropriating land outside their limits to expand the city, it is the province's responsibility. It is also an environmental problem with a provincial responsibility.

[geoffrey]

If they are expropriating land outside their limits to expand the city, it is the province's responsibility. It is also an environmental problem with a provincial responsibility.

Agreed and agreed.

They aren't expropriating land, not recently. Calgary's southwest corner has a massive amount of undeveloped land within limits... about 500sq.kms.

The environmental issue, perhaps, but if the province has given the city the power to divy up the land they currently own, then really, it's out of their hands IMO.