Charging $10K for exclusive access to premiers violates Canada’s conflict of interest laws, says group
Questions have been raised about the propriety of B.C. Liberal Party fundraisers, which provide donors with exclusive access to B.C. Premier Christy Clark for a $10,000 donation. (Rafferty Baker/CBC)
By Mike Laanela,reposted from CBCNews, Apr 1, 2016
Provincial ethics commissioners need to clamp down on political fundraising events that give wealthy donors exclusive access to premiers and cabinet ministers, according to a democracy watchdog.
Earlier this week, the Globe and Mail revealed that 10 people paid $10,000 each to attend a dinner with B.C. Premier Christy Clark at a recent B.C. Liberal fundraiser at the home of Simon Fraser University chancellor Anne Giardini.
The Toronto Star also revealed that Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne was charging up donors up to $18,000 to attend a private cocktail reception.
That’s raised concerns with Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher, who says the practice is not allowed under existing conflict-of-interest rules.
“Big donations made at private fundraising events where the politician is essentially selling access to themselves are a clear violation of conflict-of-interest laws that prohibit politicians across Canada from accepting gifts connected with their positions,”said Conacher.
“The federal, provincial and territorial conflict-of-interest laws all have the same provision that says politicians cannot accept any gift or benefit ‘directly or indirectly’ connected to their position or ‘that might reasonably be seen to be given to influence’ them,” said Conacher.
That’s why he is calling on provincial ethics commissioners across Canada to ban the practice.
Only Quebec has effectively stopped these events with its ban on corporate and union donations and its $100 annual individual donation limit, according to the group.
“At the federal level, and in every province and territories, politicians, the lack of donation limits or high limits allows politicians to sell access to themselves at exclusive events,” said Conacher.
“If ethics commissioners across Canada don’t issue rulings that these unethical fundraising events are illegal, they will not only be negligently ignoring the law, they will also be approving corrupting relationships between donors and politicians.”
Some changes proposed in B.C.
In response to the concerns, Premier Clark says she is going to ask the chief electoral officer to allow for real-time updates on who is donating to political parties, rather than annual updates.
“That is something we have never done before in B.C. It would help make the process more transparent and I think it would do a lot to add to the sense of confidence political parties are doing enough,” Clark said in Williams Lake on Thursday.
When asked for further comment, the B.C. Liberal Party issued a short statement saying “B.C. has clear rules around political donations, and we follow them — disclosing all contributions to Elections BC for the public to see.”
“With respect to the Premier Christy Clark’s announcement yesterday, we support the premier’s call to move to real-time disclosure,” said the statement from Jillian Stead.
But the B.C. NDP says that doesn’t go far enough, in part because the party says it won’t stop the wealthy from getting special access to the premier.
Instead, NDP Leader John Horgan is proposing his own changes that would limit union and corporate donations.
“I’m going to the Legislature next week to table a piece of legislation that would make her request irrelevant. If she was genuine, she could support our bill,” Horgan said Thursday.
But signatory to last year’s provocative Leap Manifesto is excited to see NDP will debate it next week
Avi Lewis touts Leap Manifesto as key to NDP’s future 2:05
By Catherine Cullen, reposted from CBCNews, Apr 1, 2016
Avi Lewis has something he’s eager to get off his chest.
He says he was never out to get NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.
“I certainly think journalists would like to stir up that narrative, but I don’t know what to offer you because it’s just not true.”
Mid-September, with the election campaign swing in full swing, Lewis, along with his wife, author Naomi Klein, and labour and environmental groups, activists and artists signed their names to a document they called the Leap Manifesto: A Call for a Canada Based on Caring for the Earth and One Another.
It calls Canada’s record on climate change a “crime against humanity’s future.” It argues Canada could rely entirely on renewable energy in two decades. The signatories want an end to new projects like pipelines that could interfere with that goal. They want to stop “austerity” policies, make cuts to the military and establish a universal basic annual income.
Lewis, a documentary filmmaker, former CBC host and the son of former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis, said the document is supposed to be non-partisan and that the group launched it during the election campaign because it figured Canadians were thinking about public policy at the time.
But that’s not how it was reported, he said.
“[The mainstream media covered it] like this was the real agenda of the NDP. This was the left of the NDP stabbing Mulcair in the back.”
He forcefully rejects that assessment.
“It was completely spurious. It was wrong. It wasn’t true, but in an election campaign people want to stir up sensational stories about the political narrative.”
Is the NDP looking leftward?
The NDP was in the throes of its own dramatic political narrative at the time. During the 78-day campaign slog, the party and its leader would see their popularity rise as the preferred alternative to Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. For a while, “Prime Minister Tom Mulcair” seemed to be a distinct possibility. But as the campaign came to a close, the Liberals surged forward and the NDP dropped to third place.
The NDP working group that sifted through the subsequent disappointment said Thursday that party members blamed, among other factors, the party’s campaign message of “cautious change” — and particularly the pledge to balance the budget in all four years of an NDP mandate.
Now, as the party is set to meet in Edmonton April 8-10, more than a dozen riding associations have told the party they want to talk about the Leap Manifesto, putting forward a range of resolutions for the party to consider.
Avi Lewis and his wife, author Naomi Klein, were two of the driving forces behind the Leap Manifesto, a document laying out a broad prescription for change in Canada. Lewis says the ‘non-partisan’ document was misrepresented by some as a challenge to the NDP’s election platform. (Aaron Vincent Elkaim/Canadian Press)
Lewis will be at that convention to talk about the manifesto. He said he doesn’t expect the party to wholeheartedly adopt the document, but he’s excited they’ll be talking about it.
But the meeting is being held in Alberta, where Rachel Notley’s provincial NDP scored a massive victory in the spring of 2015, overturning more than four decades of Conservative rule and winning a majority government.
“You have a very important, historic NDP government in a province where being against pipelines is not a political option,” said Lewis. “So there are real tensions there that need to be discussed and debated and resolved.
“And I think the fact it’s in Edmonton makes it more awkward, but also brings real dilemmas to the fore.”
Not looking to be leader
At the convention, the party will also vote on whether to hold a leadership election. Outgoing party president Rebecca Blaikie has suggested Mulcair needs 70 per cent support at the vote to remain on as leader. Mulcair himself has refused to commit to a number.
It’s unclear precisely how much support Mulcair has, but Lewis said he’s not gunning to be his successor.
“Leadership is the furthest thing from my mind at this point.”
Lewis said he’s been fielding questions about whether he’d like to lead the party since he was eight years old and campaigning with his father.
Right now he’s completely preoccupied by his work on the manifesto, he added.
The Liberal defence of the $15-billion contract with Saudi Arabia is even being attacked by party stalwarts.
Theo Moudakis’s editorial cartoon from Feb. 25, 2016. THEO MOUDAKIS / TORONTO STAR
By Tony Burman, reposted from TheStar, Apr 2, 2016
So “Canada is back,” is it? Who says so? And who is advising this new Trudeau government on foreign policy? Then again, isn’t that Stephen Harper I see slipping furtively in through Parliament’s side door?
In spite of increasing criticism both at home and abroad, Canada seems determined to go ahead with the largest arms export contract in the country’s history, to Saudi Arabia, one of the worst human rights violators in the world.
Once again, we see the triumph of profit over human rights, and pragmatism over principle. I thought those days were over. Didn’t Canadians vote last October to get rid of Harper in an effort to open a new chapter for Canada’s role in the world?
At issue is a controversial 14-year, $15-billion arms contract with Saudi Arabia, a deal brokered by the former Conservative government and supported by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion says it is in the country’s interests to go ahead with the deal.
Here are five reasons why Dion and Trudeau are wrong:
1. Canadians oppose it
The view of Canadians on this issue is rarely mentioned but it should be. In a poll taken in February by the Angus Reid Institute, 48 per cent of Canadians said the government’s determination to go ahead with the deal was a “bad decision.” Fewer than one-in-five (19 per cent) supported it. The view extended across party lines. Even among those who voted for Conservatives in the 2015 election, the majority opposed the deal. Also striking in the poll was the hostility among Canadians toward Saudi Arabia. More than half of Canadians say that the Saudi government should be condemned rather than respected.
2. Canada is being bought off
Perhaps the sharpest criticism of the deal has come from a man who now works in Dion’s office. Jocelyn Coulon wrote a column for Montreal’s La Presse newspaper a few weeks before joining Dion’s staff. He wrote that Western countries stifled their criticism of Saudi Arabia because of money: “For a long time now, Saudi Arabia has bought the silence of Westerners with its juicy civilian and military contracts.” He wrote that the Saudis purchase billions of dollars of “unnecessary armaments” from Western manufacturers, but “its armies barely know how to use them.”
3. Saudi Arabia is an awful regime
The Washington-based Freedom House ranks Saudi Arabia as among the “worst of the worst” human rights violators in the world. The Saudi regime receives similar condemnations from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Freedom of speech, freedom of association and academic freedom are restricted. And its treatment of women is regarded as the worst in the world.
4. Canadian arms are undoubtedly killing innocent people
Canada claims not to know whether any of the armoured vehicles already sent to Saudi Arabia have been used against civilians. There is also no indication that Canada has made much effort to find out. In 2011, Saudi troops — with armoured vehicles — were sent to neighbouring Bahrain to crush the popular protests. More recently, Saudi Arabia’s violent efforts in the war in Yemen have been devastating, with more than 6,000 people already dead. Reports from the war suggest that Canadian-made vehicles are being used by the Saudi army.
5. Canada’s arguments have no moral core
Dion said in a speech this week that cancelling the Saudi deal would have no effect on human rights. The Saudis would simply go elsewhere for their arms. Louise Arbour, former UN high commissioner for human rights, was in the audience for the speech. She correctly told reporters that Dion’s point was “the weakest argument” he could make: “It is not infused with moral, ethical values.”
Another influential critic is former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler. An acclaimed law professor and human rights lawyer, Cotler has stated that Canada should not sell arms to a country with such a pattern of human rights violations.
In the face of all this criticism, how can long the Liberals cling to their position?
The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations filed an appeal of the main water licences for the Site C Project with the Environmental Appeal Board. (HO- Peace Valley Environment Association/THE CANADIAN PRESS)
PRESS RELEASE: FORT ST. JOHN, BRITISH COLUMBIA-(Marketwired- March 31, 2016) -
The West Moberly First Nations and Prophet River First Nation have filed an appeal of the main water licences for the Site C Project with the Environmental Appeal Board.
The water licences authorize the diversion and storage of water behind the proposed Site C dam, including the creation of an 83 km-long reservoir. The water licences were issued on February 26, 2016, following a written hearing process conducted by the Deputy Comptroller of Water Rights.
“Site C is an infringement of our Treaty. We have serious concerns about the effects of the flooding on groundwater, erosion, the impacts on Treaty rights, fish and wildlife habitat and safety,” said West Moberly Chief Roland Willson. “All of our concerns were dismissed or diminished. There was there no urgency to issue these approvals, given that none of the power from Site C is needed at all.”
The First Nations also requested that they be involved in ongoing management and mitigation of the impacts of Site C through a direct decision-making role in BC Hydro’s Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program or a similar program. The Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program is responsible for carrying out research and supporting recovery efforts to deal with the severe environmental effects of BC’s hydroelectric dams. It is run by BC Hydro, with limited input from First Nations.
“The Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program doesn’t reflect the needs and interests of the First Nations people who are most affected by hydroelectric development,” said Prophet River Chief Lynette Tsakoza. “We asked to be more directly involved in the program for Site C, but that request was ignored.”
The Environmental Appeal Board is an independent tribunal that hears appeals on decisions under various environmental legislation in British Columbia. A hearing date has not yet been set.
As a young boy working at the family greenhouse business in Coquitlam, British Columbia, Jerry Kroll could hear the roar and snarl of the sports cars from the nearby Westwood Race Track.
His father would take him to see the races at the course that the renowned Formula 1 driver Stirling Moss designed, and it was there Kroll first fell in love with cars.
For Kroll, it’s an affair that continues unabated today - but with a difference: these days the love of his life is electric.
As CEO of the Vancouver-based, electric vehicle start-up, Electra Meccanica, Kroll is leading the launch this June of a one-person, three-wheeled electric commuter vehicle called the Solo.
With a light-weight, all-composite chassis, the electric Solo will hit a top speed of 120 kilometres an hour and be able to travel 160 kilometres at a time. The price tag for a Solo will ring in at $19,888, less any clean vehicle rebate in a consumer’s province.
Kroll calls it the solution to the 83 per cent of commuters who travel by themselves.
And electric vehicles just might go a long way to solving Canada’s problem with global greenhouse gas emissions. But is the technology ready for prime time?
“If we can put a million a year of these small electric vehicles with zero emissions on the road, we are actually now starting to move the needle of global climate destruction caused by fossil fuel vehicles.” Kroll told National Observer.
A million sounds wildly ambitious, but that’s Kroll’s stated goal.
In late March Kroll had just returned from China, where he says he signed a memorandum of agreement with a large manufacturer to produce upwards of a million Solos annually for the Chinese market and beyond.
James Kroll. Photo from James Kroll
So how does a guy who loved internal combustion engine cars - Kroll is an accomplished race car driver himself with a U.S. state championship to his name - come by his interest in electric vehicles? Honestly, as it turns out.
A serial entrepreneur, Kroll was former CEO of Crailar Technologies, a firm conducting research and development into clothing manufactured from hemp and flax.
At Crailar, Kroll stumbled onto the concept of sustainability, “providing products that aren’t necessarily the least expensive, but are produced in an honest fashion.”
The more he thought about it, the more Kroll realized it was good for people to use such products. Kroll decided to turn his attention to making a cleaner car.
“It’s one of those things where if you think about the idea of companies producing millions of fossil fuel-burning vehicles just because they need the money, it really is sounding criminal,” Kroll said.
“Everybody knows it’s bad. One hundred per cent of the people who use gasoline know that it’s bad. Yet they continue to do it and companies continue to manufacture these vehicles. What the hell is wrong with people?”
Indeed, what the hell is wrong with people?
Just as electric vehicle technology appears to be accelerating and becoming more affordable - in late March Tesla announced a US$35,000 model - the tar sands-owning, billionaire Koch brothers are reportedly funding a group to lobby against government subsidies for electric vehicles.
According to an unsourced article in late February, the Kochs are planning to spend $10-million annually extolling the benefits of petroleum-based transportation fuels while attacking incentives for electric vehicles.
The reason? “In 20 years, electric vehicles could have a substantial foothold in the U.S. market.”
Koch brothers. Illustration from DonkeyHotey. https://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/
When told about the Kochs’ potential plan, Kroll just scoffed.
“I find it implausible that any person can push back the tide of the ocean - even if they’re the Koch brothers,” Kroll said.
In fact, the very idea sends Kroll into a rant.
“If somebody who owns two million acres of the tar sands is pushing back against electric vehicles and you ask a room of a thousand people if that was a good idea, if anybody put up their hands, they’d probably be booed, right? So why are we even discussing it?
“What a couple of idiots. Like seriously, there’s a particularly warm place in hell for people like that. If in fact that’s what they’re doing.”
Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla, agrees. When news of the Koch’s plans broke, Musk tweeted out, “Worth noting that all gasoline cars are heavily subsidized via oil company tax credits & unpaid public health costs.”
In reality, Kroll, and other electric vehicle makers, have more pressing concerns on their minds.
The market for electric vehicles is currently microscopic, with electric vehicles forming less than one per cent of new vehicle sales in Canada.
Affordability and availability are issues, as is the driving range of the vehicles; the industry needs better government policies to help it grow; and even consumer awareness is a problem.
When it comes to electric vehicles, surveys show consumers are confused, according to Jonn Axsen, who is a director of the Sustainable Transportation Action Research Team at Vancouver’s Simon Fraser University.
Consumers are aware of the term “electric vehicle,” but they can’t tell a Nissan Leaf and a Chevy Volt apart. “And that’s a very big difference because I’m explaining a plug-in hybrid versus a regular electric vehicle,” Axsen noted.
But Axsen’s research shows that once consumers are made aware of the technology, they’re quite interested in purchasing an electric vehicle - that’s if they can get their hands on one.
Jonn Axsen. Photo from Jonn Axsen
Another problem is availability, according Axsen, with only about a dozen different electric models to be found in Canada.
“Even among those, many of them are not carried in a given dealership, or the dealership is not really aware of it, doesn’t know how to talk about it. We found a lot of barriers that way.
“Moving forward, we think there’s a lot of potential. The technology is getting better. The consumer potential is there, but the transition to electric mobility will not happen by itself.”
Axsen cites government policy as a strong driver and points to California in particular. In 1990, the state introduced a zero emission vehicle standard that requires car companies to sell a certain percentage of clean energy cars.
Currently, about 14 per cent of sales in California must consist of zero emission vehicles by 2025.
“It puts the onus onto the auto companies to innovate, to channel their research and development, to channel their marketing toward those zero emission vehicles, to make them available in dealerships,” Axsen said,
In the absence of any meaningful government policy, Axsen anticipates the transition from fossil fuels to electric will take several decades. The lack of a zero emissions policy or a “super-strong” carbon tax means electric will continue along as one or two per cent of consumers’ purchases.
“I would say that there’s not any real concerns for oil and gas to suddenly go out of business. Without any real government policy, there’s no threat at all,” Axsen said.
Axsen’s Sustainable Transportation Action Research Team has carried out modeling simulations examining the introduction of a zero emissions policy in Canada at the federal level. He contends such a policy would send a clear signal to industry and consumers that the government was serious about reducing vehicle emissions.
Currently in Canada, provincial governments have stepped up with incentives of varying levels. In B.C., for instance, the government brought out a $5,000 incentive toward the purchase or lease of a new battery electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle in 2015.
Ontario announced aggressive new incentives of up to $14,000 in early February.
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne called the incentives an important step in fighting climate change while supporting the province’s economic growth.
Transportation accounts for nearly a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, with fossil fuels still powering 95 per cent of Canadian transport.
Over at Clean Energy Canada, policy director Dan Woynillowicz proposes that electric vehicles would offer a significant breakthrough in combating climate change.
“A shift to electric vehicles powered by zero carbon electricity is going to make a really significant difference in transportation-related emissions,” Woynillowicz said.
“I think it could be one of the more significant things that could happen in the course of the next decade or so.”
That said, electric vehicle purchases lack behind other countries because of limited federal support, Woynillowicz maintains. Like Axsen, he points to federal and state incentives south of the border that has helped lower the cost of the vehicles, combined with support for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Where incentives are offered in provinces such as B.C., electric vehicle purchases are stronger than in provinces without - such as Alberta - Woynillowicz pointed out.
“There’s definitely some catch-up that we need to play in Canada to help spur electric vehicles on, particularly on the charging infrastructure.”
One person who is bullish on electric vehicles is Dave Paterson, the vice-president of corporate and environmental affairs for General Motors Canada in Oshawa, Ontario.
“I think the future is electric,” he declared.
However, the emphasis is still on the word “future.”
Tesla’s much-vaunted Gigafactory, which broke ground in 2014, aims to manufacture enough lithium ion batteries to meet its target goal of 500,000 vehicles annually, but that won’t be until 2020.
Nor is Tesla alone. Outside of GM’s headquarters in Warren, Michigan, the auto manufacturer has a battery lab that is several football fields in size. The investment in the lab is over $1-billion. The company works with lithium ion batteries primarily sourced from LG in Korea.
Inside General Motors’ battery lab. Photo from General Motors
The challenge is to lower the price of the battery technology while simultaneously increasing longevity and performance. Paterson estimates that could take another decade. He said people mistakenly assert that volume will bring down the cost, but according to him that’s not the case.
To date, battery improvements have occurred roughly every five years and Paterson believes it will take two more cycles to reach the point where electric vehicle batteries can efficiently compete with internal combustion engines.
Right now, customers can walk into a Chevy showroom and buy a gasoline-powered Spark for under $10,000. The retail price before incentives of the electric Spark model is $32,000.
“Now tell me, which would you buy?” Paterson asked. “You can buy three of the gasoline, or you can have this one,” he said, referring to the electric vehicle.
He agrees that government incentives are important and says Ontario’s up-to-$14,000 incentive “blows away any other state in the U.S. or province in Canada.”
But from Paterson’s perspective a couple of other things are still needed to spur growth in the electric vehicle industry. A significant increase in the cost of gas through a carbon tax or some other form of tax would potentially steer people toward electric vehicles.
While a small segment of the population buy because they want to change the world and make the best environmental choice, Paterson said, “Predominantly, the reality of the marketplace, despite all policy, is that people will buy with their pocketbook.”
A savings in gas costs over the life of a vehicle might influence consumers to purchase electric vehicles. “Pay-back time is probably the most important factor in terms of having people make more purchases,” Paterson said.
The second problem is the lack of infrastructure for recharging the vehicles’ batteries. GM’s research indicates “range anxiety” is a big barrier to the purchase of electric vehicles.
Again, Ontario leads the country in its move to invest $20-million into public recharging stations.
Coupled with that is an improvement in battery technology. The new Chevy Volt, for example, has a fast charging system that will retain a 50 per cent charge in less than 30 minutes.
“It’s not like the two minutes that it takes you at the gas pump,” Paterson acknowledged, “But we need to make sure people can recharge quicker. If there’s no recharging station, that’s a problem.”
A change to building codes could enable recharging stations in parking spaces in new condominiums, while a home incentive could allow people to retrofit their garages with chargers. Paterson would also like to see incentives to businesses allowing them to install recharging stations for employees.
“I would love to see consumers adopt electric vehicles faster and we’re betting that that’s the future.”
Back in Vancouver, Kroll is preparing to take Electra Mechanic public on the Toronto Stock Exchange in September. He and 50 other people “as passionate about turning around automobile-caused climate change” have invested in the company already.
Kroll said people want to invest, “not because they think it’s going to make tons of money like Tesla has, but because it’s the right thing to do.”
Photo of Geothermal borehole house in Iceland by Lydur Skulason via Flickr
By David Suzuki, reposted from Rabble.ca, Mar 30, 2016
In the midst of controversy over B.C.’s Peace River Site C dam project, the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association released a study showing the province could get the same amount of energy more affordably from geothermal sources for about half the construction costs. Unlike Site C, geothermal wouldn’t require massive transmission upgrades, would be less environmentally disruptive and would create more jobs throughout the province rather than just in one area.
Despite the many benefits of geothermal, Canada is the only Pacific “Ring of Fire” country that doesn’t use it for commercial-scale energy. According to Desmog Blog, “New Zealand, Indonesia, the Philippines, the United States and Mexico all have commercial geothermal plants.” Iceland heats up to 90 per cent of its homes, and supplies 25 per cent of its electricity, with geothermal.
Geothermal energy is generated by heat from Earth’s rocks, liquids and steam. It can come from shallow ground, where the temperature is a steady 10 to 16 C, hot water and rocks deeper in the ground, or possibly very hot molten rock (magma) deep below Earth’s surface. As with clean-energy sources like solar, geothermal energy systems vary, from those that use hot water from the ground directly to heat buildings, greenhouses and water, to those that pump underground hot water or steam to drive turbines. The David Suzuki Foundation’s Vancouver and Montreal offices use geothermal.
According to National Geographic, geothermal power plants use three methods to produce electricity: dry steam, flash steam and binary cycle. Dry steam uses steam from fractures in the ground. “Flash plants pull deep, high-pressure hot water into cooler, low-pressure water,” which creates steam. In binary plants, which produce no greenhouse gas emissions and will likely become dominant, “hot water is passed by a secondary fluid with a much lower boiling point,” which turns the secondary fluid into vapour.
Unlike wind and solar, geothermal provides steady energy and can serve as a more cost-effective and less environmentally damaging form of baseload power than fossil fuels or nuclear. It’s not entirely without environmental impacts, but most are minor and can be overcome with good planning and siting. Geothermal fluids can contain gases and heavy metals, but most new systems recycle them back into the ground. Operations should also be located to avoid mixing geothermal liquids with groundwater and to eliminate impacts on nearby natural features like hot springs. Some geothermal plants can produce small amounts of CO2, but binary systems are emissions-free. In some cases, resources that provide heat can become depleted over time.
Although geothermal potential has been constrained by the need to locate operations in areas with high volcanic activity, geysers or hot springs, new developments are making it more widely viable. One controversial method being tested is similar to “fracking” for oil and gas. Water is injected into a well with enough pressure to break rock and release heat to produce hot water and steam to generate power through a turbine or binary system.
Researchers have also been studying urban “heat islands” as sources of geothermal energy. Urban areas are warmer than their rural surroundings, both above and below ground, because of the effects of buildings, basements and sewage and water systems. Geothermal pumps could make the underground energy available to heat buildings in winter and cool them in summer.
New methods of getting energy from the ground could also give geothermal a boost. Entrepreneur Manoj Bhargava is working with researchers to bring heat to the surface using graphene cords rather than steam or hot water. Graphene is stronger than steel and conducts heat well. Bhargava says the technology would be simple to develop and could be integrated with existing power grids.
Unfortunately, geothermal hasn’t received the same level of government support as other sources of energy, including fossil fuels and nuclear. That’s partly because upfront costs are high and, as with oil and gas exploration, geothermal sources aren’t always located where developers hope they’ll be. As Desmog notes, resources are often found in areas that already have access to inexpensive hydro power.
Rapid advancements in renewable-energy and power-grid technologies could put the world on track to a mix of clean sources fairly quickly — which is absolutely necessary to curtail global warming. Geothermal energy should be part of that mix.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.
By Rolly Montpellier, reposted from BoomerWarrior, Mar 29, 2016
I have published at least two other articles regarding the climate doublespeak coming from the Trudeau government. The first post alleged that Canada has Two Climate Faces. There’s the re-born climate leader Paris face — Canada’s dramatic climate turn-around in Paris — and there’s the domestic face where climate action is more symbolic than real.
The second post referred to the climate disconnects evident in government announcements and media releases. One only has to read between the lines to find an undeniable undercurrent of support for the fossil-fuel industry. Following the recent First Ministers Meeting ending with the Vancouver Declaration, the Prime Minister said that “we must also continue to generate wealth from our abundant natural resources to fund this transition to a low-carbon economy.” This prompted the National Observer to report:
Steadfast in his commitment to getting Canadian oil to market, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said putting pipelines in the ground will help pay for the country’s transition to a greener future.
So let’s use “dirty money” to pay for a “clean future”. It’s like a cartel using illegal drug money to build a hospital. That kind of non-sensical thinking defies logic. It’s an insult to Canadians who want a clean environment for their children and grandchildren.
Climate DoubleSpeak in Budget 2016
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau, (Canadian Press photo)
Although there is significant progress on climate action in the Liberals’ first budget, there remains some glaring omissions that are difficult to fathom.
Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies: Trudeau government takes a pass
The Council of Canadians, alongside many voices, has been calling for an elimination of subsidies to the fossil fuel sector for years. Canada publicly promised to phase out these subsidies along with other G20 nations in 2009.
In its 2015 report, Oil Change International and Overseas Development Institute found Canada provides $1.8 billion CAD in federal subsidies yearly to fossil fuel producers. Further, Export Development Canada, owned by our government, provides as much as $6 billion yearly to energy producers.
Budget 2016 was a lost opportunity to redirect funds from climate change causing industries to climate solutions. There was nothing in the budget cutting back these significant subsidies.
In fact, it [the budget] allocates $50 million over two years to Natural Resources Canada to “invest in technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector [p.154 Budget 2016]” In other words, taxpayer money is going towards a new subsidy helping oil and gas producers reduce their climate impacts. The budget also did not remove a capital cost allowance for controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects that have the potential to balloon BC’s climate pollution, along with raising other serious environmental and social concerns [p. 221 Budget 2016].
Fairly evaluating pipeline projects: It’s a start, but devil is in the details
On the campaign trail, Trudeau famously said, while governments grant permits, communities grant permission, in addressing controversial pipeline projects. Promises were made to revamp the broken federal review process for pipelines under the National Energy Board (NEB) and reinvigorate the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and our environmental laws.
Minister Carr and McKenna recently announced plans to overhaul the NEB and CEAA but put existing projects like the Kinder Morgan, Line 3 and Energy East pipelines under an interim review process. For our take on these interim measures, including why we think Energy East should fall under the new rules, see this blog.
Budget 2016 provides $16.5 million over three years (starting 2016-2017) to the NEB, Natural Resources Canada and Transport Canada towards implementing the interim approach. It specifies, “This funding will support public and Indigenous participation in enhanced consultations in projects undergoing reviews by the National Energy Board and to support Crown consultations with Indigenous people [p. 165 Budget 2016].”
Budget 2016 also includes $14.2 million over four years (starting in 2016-17) to the CEAA, towards “activities, such as increasing Agency capacity to undertake consultations with the public and Indigenous groups, and will support compliance and enforcement.”
Green infrastructure investments: Spending up, but not enough
There indeed are important steps forward here, but it is not enough. Here are some highlights on green infrastructure investments in Budget 2016:
$11.9 billion over five yearstowards social Infrastructure including affordable housing, as well as public transit. It includes $5 billion towards green infrastructure including climate change mitigation and adaptation projects, municipal capacity building, clean water and waste water fund and water, wastewater and waste management for First Nations communities. [p.90 Budget 2016].
$3.4 billion over three years to upgrade and improve public transit systems across Canada [p.88 Budget 2016]. For a breakdown on provincial allocation and reference to certain projects, see p. 91 of Budget 2016.
In addition to this spending, under Chapter 4, the government is allocating $3.4 billion over 5 yearsstarting in 2016 to address climate change and air pollution, protect ecologically sensitive areas and restore public trust in the environmental assessment processes. [p. 155 Budget 2016].
Important questions remain about these investments. There are few concrete details such as how many solar panels we can expect to see on buildings or the number of home that will be retrofit. Renewable energy spending doesn’t specify whether it will be directed towards public and community ownership models which have a number of advantages (for more on this).
The $1 billion over 4 years (starting 2017-2018) to support “clean technology including in the forestry, fisheries, mining, energy and agricultural sectors, [p.150 Budget 2016]” also raises some questions around corporate responsibility versus government responsibility in reducing climate pollution impacts, and definitely raises green washing potential.
It is also important to distinguish funding committed during the federal government’s current term, versus what is promised beyond the next federal election, putting some of these funds into question. [End of excerpts].
My Observations:
The 2016 budget is thick in climate doublespeak and green propaganda. “Climate change” appears 43 times in the document, “greenhouse gases”, 17 times, “clean energy”, 10 times and “green” appears repeatedly – green jobs, green infrastructure, green investments, green bonds. “Carbon” is also used a lot — carbon footprint, carbon emissions, carbon pricing, low-carbon economy.
The budget document has been brilliantly crafted to garner support for the government’s climate action platform much of which remains to be defined with concrete actions and specifics.
There are two glaring omissions. Oil subsidies will continue and there is no reference to a national carbon tax.
How the Trudeau government can continue to speak of “clean energy” on the one hand and maintain its obvious support of the fossil fuel industry on the other, is beyond comprehension. It’s at best misleading and at worse immoral and deceitful. It’s oxymoronic. The persistent climate doublespeak casts serious doubt on the climate credibility of the Liberal government.
Rolly Montpellier is the Founder and Managing Editor of BoomerWarrior.Org. He’s a Climate Reality leader, a Blogger and a Climate Activist. He’s a member of Climate Reality Canada, Citizens’ Climate Lobby (Ottawa) and 350.Org (Ottawa), the Ethical Team (as an influencer) and Global Population Speakout.
Rolly has been published widely in both print and online publications. You can follow him on Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin and Pinterest.
Rolly Montpellier is the Founder and Managing Editor of