Parliament Should Go Solar

Following up on my 2010 blog post on solar for the White House, it takes almost 3 years to get solar added to a historic national building.

Ottawa 2011

That’s why we should all get started with pressing Parliament Hill’s renovation to include commercially available PV solar panels to the south facing slopes of Canada’s iconic government building.

Simply put, solar panels mean less carbon pollution, and more jobs for Americans – jobs that can’t be outsourced. They’re good for our energy future, and they’re good for our economy.

Time to follow America, again.

Harper’s “crazy” Comments

Here’s an impressive takedown of the Prime Minister’s “crazy” comments in the House the other day. Since 2006 he’s promised to regulate oil and gas. Now he admits that would be “crazy”. Harper is nuts, and a liar, and he’s our Prime Minister for another year.

Who Needs Water Anyway?

A delusional remark in a CBC article:
“Canada, which has long been criticized for being heavily dependent on shipping natural resources to the rest of the world.”
Our Prime Minister, and Saskatchewan’s Premier spend millions, hundreds of millions actually, to tell Canadians and the world how many resources we should be sending elsewhere.

Estevan

Consider the stat from Gasland II, where about 60% of some wells’ casings are expected to fail within 30 years.
Naturally that stat is going to err on the sensational, but even the more conservative ~10% estimates are extremely worrying.
“Leaky plumbing on energy wells seen as threat to climate, water and resources”
“Serge Fortier has been trying for years to raise awareness about leaking wells along the St. Lawrence River. Nothing has been quite as effective as setting them on fire.

“The reaction came very rapidly,” says Fortier, an environmental activist whose fiery demonstration near Ste-Francoise has prompted the Quebec government to acknowledge it has a problem – one that regulatory officials are often not keen to discuss.” And industry officials play this ad instead of discussing the problem:
(The ad playing on the Gazette report is by TransCanada promoting their disastrous Energy East project. They claim “the more you know, the more the pipeline makes sense”, when they mean, “the more propaganda we produce you see, the more likely you’ll fall in line.”)

Basically our options are constant monitoring of hidden/lost wells that produce no more value, or STOP making new holes. Canada is making tens of thousands of new planned holes. When you’re in a hole the first step is to stop digging.
Severn Suzuki said it well at her UN speech 2 decades ago:

Saskatchewan’s Biggest Net Loss

How did Postmedia manage to let this Hanley column sneak into its pages? Mandryk got his shots in at Cenovus and Wall already too. SaskWind has provided a breath of fresh air to Saskatchewan political analysis also.

I expect Canadians would want to know whether their tax dollars are being used to subsidize the oil industry.

But as SaskPower says, beyond the question of costs, CCS technology provides a major benefit: It allows us to continue to use cheap and plentiful fossil fuels to provide base load power while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon capture
[photo added]

Actually, that’s debatable [link added]. Remember, the net result of the project is increased recovery of oil, which emits greenhouse gases in production and combustion. One analysis, Life Cycle Inventory of CO2 in an Enhance Oil Recovery System published in Environmental Science and Technology, shows that the CCS-EOR cycle remains a substantial source of greenhouse gases.

The IPCC, the UN climate science panel, is quite clear about the need to leave the vast majority of proven fossil fuel reserves in the ground in order to mitigate extreme climate change. So why subsidize the fossil fuel industry?

This is much bigger than the smart meter fiasco.

The public deserves answers.

ADDED (waste):

NOAA Numbers Manipulated

This is a short essay about why our species can’t have nice things.

A PhD Meteorologist in Florida claims that because October 2003 was hottest since October 2014 by only .01 degrees less, there’s no climate change due to humans spewing ridiculous amounts of carbon into our atmosphere. How did he say this in dog whistle language to climate change deniers:

“How much “hotter” was record October 2014 vs. October 2003? According to NOAA 0.01°C.
14.74°C vs. 14.73°C
Public doesn’t know this.”

Well, “the anomalies are provided with respect to the 20th century (1901–2000) average.”

“the 20th century average of 14.1°C

Yet, NOAA gives
2003 0.73°C
2014 0.74°C
Do you see the error in Ryan’s math? He’s missing a .1 degree in each figure. That’s really beside the point though; he’s cherry picked two “hottest” Octobers as if the difference between “hottest” figures is what’s the problem. Of course they are extremely close, just as it’s no surprise that a hottest anomalous and a coldest anomalous year are far apart in degrees Celsius. The important realization is that our climate is warming due to green house gas pollution, despite the appearance of a so-called “pause”. Each warmest year is almost a degree above average, with scientists saying two degrees above average will effectively end civilization and cause mass extinctions.

NOAA explains their anomaly data: “They are most useful for tracking the big-picture evolution of temperatures across larger parts of the planet, up to and including the entire global surface temperature.”
Apparently they are also useful for climate change deniers to intentionally misinterpret the data so as to minimize concern about climate change, and introduce doubt in the general public about its very existence as a problem.

While cherry picking data, why not pick 1913 instead of 2003?
1913 -0.34°C
2014 0.74°C
There’s a 1.08 degree difference over a hundred years, in average global temps, in October, counting the ocean temps, cherry picked. The problem is the not-cherry-picked trend (big picture) though, because the pollution is building up, and we’re putting more into the air than ever before.

RIC bikes

Are Gore, Suzuki, and Neil Young Hypocrites for Using Oil?

No. They are victims of circumstance, and despite their wealth and fame, they alone cannot change ‘the system’.

A voice from the Facebook-sphere intones: “I appreciate your commitment and respect what you are trying to achieve but bashing fossil fuels while you continue to use them adds no value to your cause.”

Not true. As Shane’s made plain, there’s no means for someone to hop off the oil bandwagon, because we’ve built our society around it for generations. It will take generations to leave it behind (completely), but that isn’t an argument to stop trying. Quite the opposite, it’s time to get started in a more serious way than the last generation.

I’m sick to death of the people mindlessly attacking people like Gore, Young, and Suzuki for “using oil” while speaking against it. Obviously they have to use mass transportation and mass communication presently available to reach people. To command that they stop today, or be hypocrites, is a very thinly veiled attempt to outright silence them.

The Blue Dot Tour

There’s a particularly nasty and brainless bunch on Twitter who earlier this year said I should shut up because I owe my life to oil. Bow down, and tremble like them before thy oily god. They owe their lives to a stable climate and clean water, so why then do they work against the availability of those supposed ‘commodities’ while using what’s left of them? These same twerps are the sorts who claim that “CO(2) isn’t a pollutant because plants eat it“, except they’d never agree to be trapped in a contained environment with “too much” of it, or contemplate its greenhouse effect.

Here are solutions to the problems we all face:

#DontLookAtTheSun it’s now #PostModernMedia

Now Sun News is owned by the National Post now [soon].
The National Post, AKA the Financial Post has made it clear they’ll do lewd things in a washroom with Big Oil for money and power. Sun has made it clear they do do lewd things on TV for Big Oil, just because that’s how they roll.

Stop buying newspapers, and start funding independent media competition to them.