An Open Letter to Joe Oliver

Its in times like these when we must ask ourselves if we truly want more or less.

The facts on the consequences of more oil and less pristine wilderness inhabited and governed by First Nations while a continent sits thirsty for fossil fuel consumption to live as we westerners have lived for a century without knowing the consequences of burning a limited resource that is changing climate and the planet we evolved and coexisted on. Now we know better — or taking the irresponsible route of denial.

This is the global reality. Everything else is a sideshow.

The leadership in this country has proven to be a global advocate for MORE and a laggard for protecting what the next generations will have less and less of — a truly radical position.

There is a beacon of pragmatic sense that is underwhelmed by all the PR spinning of message entaglement of the public debate between conventional right and left ideological camps creating enemies of the state of people that are simply connecting the dots of the larger issues at stake.

I think Ms Elizabeth May deserves credit for being more than a symbolic representative for what is right and true in times like these — or as Joe Oliver or Stephen Harper would call it, “RADICAL”.

“Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade. Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth.

“No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.

“These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest.”

- From your open letter of today’s date, January 9, 2012.

Dear Joe,

Your letter caught my attention.  I respect you and like you a lot as a colleague in the House.  Unfortunately, I think your role as Minister of Natural Resources has been hijacked by the PMO spin machine.  The PMO is, in turn, hijacked by the foreign oil lobby. You are, as Minister of Natural Resources, in a decision-making, judge-like role.  You should not have signed such a hyperbolic rant.

I have reproduced a short section of your letter. The idea that First Nations, conservation groups, and individuals opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline are opposed to all forestry, mining, hydro-electric and gas is not supported by the facts.  I am one of those opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline.  I do not oppose all development; neither does the Green Party; neither do environmental NGOS; neither do First Nations.

I oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline for a number of reasons, beginning with the fact that the project requires over-turning the current moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the British Columbia coastline. The federal-provincial oil tanker moratorium has been in place for decades.  As former Industry Canada deputy minister Harry Swain pointed out in today’s Globe and Mail, moving oil tankers through 300 km of perilous navigation in highly energetic tidal conditions is a bad choice. In December 2010, the government’s own Commissioner for the Environment, within the Office of the Auditor General, reported that Canada lacked the tools to respond to an oil spill.  These are legitimate concerns.

Furthermore, running a pipeline through British Columbia’s northern wilderness, particularly globally significant areas such as the Great Bear Rainforest, is a bad idea.  Nearly 1,200 kilometers of pipeline through wilderness and First Nations territory is not something that can be fast-tracked.

Most fundamentally, shipping unprocessed bitumen crude out of Canada has been attacked by the biggest of Canada’s energy labour unions, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, as a bad idea. The CEP estimates it means exporting 40,000 jobs out of Canada (figure based on jobs lost through the Keystone Pipeline). They prefer refining the crude here in Canada.  (The CEP is also not a group to which your allegation that opponents of Gateway also oppose all forestry, mining, oil, gas, etc is anything but absurd.)

The repeated attacks on environmental review by your government merit mention.  The federal law for environmental review was first introduced under the Mulroney government.  Your government has dealt repeated blows to the process, both through legislative changes, shoved through in the 2010 omnibus budget bill, and through budget cuts.  In today’s letter, you essentially ridicule the process through a misleading example.  Your citation of “a temporary ice arena on a frozen pond in Banff” requiring federal review was clearly intended to create the impression that the scope of federal review had reached absurd levels.  You neglected to mention that the arena was within the National Park. That is the only reason the federal government was involved.  It was required by the National Parks Act. The fact that the arena approval took only two months shows the system works quite well.

Perhaps most disturbing in the letter is the description of opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline as coming from “environmental and other radical groups.”  Nowhere in your letter do you mention First Nations.  (I notice you mention “Aboriginal communities,” but First Nations require the appropriate respect that they represent a level of government, not merely individuals within communities.)

The federal government has a constitutional responsibility to respect First Nations sovereignty and protect their interests.  It is a nation to nation relationship.  To denigrate their opposition to the project by lumping it in with what you describe (twice) as “radical” groups is as unhelpful to those relationships as it is inaccurate.

“Radical” is defined as “relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.”  (Merriam Webster).

By that definition, it is not First Nations, conservation groups or individual opponents that are radical.  They seek to protect the fundamental nature of the wilderness of northern British Columbia, the ecological health of British Columbia coastal eco-systems, and the integrity of impartial environmental review.  It is your government that is radical by proposing quite radical alteration of those values.

Your government has failed to present an energy strategy to Canada.  We have no energy policy.  We are still importing more than half of the oil we use.  Further, we have no plan to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, even as we sign on to global statements about the need to keep greenhouse gases from rising above 450 ppm in the atmosphere to keep global average temperatures from exceeding a growth of 2 degrees C.  The climate crisis imperils our future – including our economic future – in fundamental ways which your government ignores.

By characterizing this issue as environmental radicals versus Canada’s future prosperity you have done a grave disservice to the development of sensible public policy.  There are other ways to diversify Canada’s energy markets.  There are other routes, other projects, and most fundamentally other forms of energy.

I urge you to protect your good name and refuse to sign such unworthy and inaccurate missives in the future.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth May, O.C.
Member of Parliament
Saanich-Gulf Islands

Leader
Green Party of Canada

Here are some ways I see British Columbians positioned well to take positive climate action:

Our leaders are too busy clearing debtloads obtained in an era of growth and focussed on massively subsidized exploitation of resources in fossil fuel-based industries (like the tarsands) to realize and acknowledge the additional expense inaction on climate legislation will have in the future. The lack of leadership is most discouraging and irresponsible… especially given the scientific clarity on the issue.

Realizing that there are no single silver bullets out there, and the apparant inability to rely on robust international binding treaties from UN COP 17 Conference talks in Durban this week, we can only be empowered by the limited responsible options we have available to us at the local level. A realistic assumption is that the vast majority of individuals thriving/surviving under the status quo will not make any major lifestyle changes without lifting barriers and providing incentives. However, we should not overlook some very critical factors that put BC in a favourable position to become a global leader in reducing global GHG emissions:

- BC has a relatively moderate, temperate climate whose population lives predominantly in low, coastal areas which will be significantly impacted by rising sea levels and increased storm activity. High tides and storms already threaten communities near dykes in Delta (See case study). the interior is already increasingly affected by forest fires and beetle kill), so there is further motivation to do something about what will impact ourselves and the following generations.

- As nearly 85% of BC’s population is urban, and approximately 93% of our energy is sourced from renewable sources with a mandate to be carbon neutral by 2016, we must focus on reducing the sector that makes up the largest segment of our emissions: transportation (36% of all GHG emissions in BC using LiveSmart BC data from 2008). So, household, municipal and regional actions can produce real reductions in GHG emissions — a luxury many other jurisdictions cannot provide with an over-reliance to coal generation and less densely populated areas.

- At the per hosehold level, cars & trucks also make up the largest portion of GHG emissions at over 45%. A family that walks, bikes or carpools more often, takes public tansit and/or uses a vehicle that does not rely heavily on burning fossil fuels (gas, diesel or even natural gas) will have the most impact in reducing GHG emissions. Despite living in a car-dominated culture, there has been a marginal increase in use of cleaner modes of transportation, but not enough to deflect the rising emissions in the production of oil in the tarsands and natural gas in notheastern BC. This makes taking advantage of newly announced provincial incentives (available Dec 1) for scrapping older vehicles and purchasing battery electric vehicles (EVs without tailpipes or plug-in hybrids) even more attractive. Given an anticipated 20,000 plug-in electric vehicles to be on the road by 2020 in Metro Vancouver, or approx. 1% of registered vehicles,

- We have the ability to prevent the expansion of tar sands extraction in neighbouring Alberta by preventing the building of new pipelines (Enbridge Gateway) and increased use of existing pipelines (Kinder Morgan) which have higher risks to negative outcomes that will affect BCers outside of the realm of climate change.

Should society decide to address the issue of global warming, then instead of fixating on how the actions of others affect us as individuals, we will be compelled to focus on how our actions as individuals affect others. This will require us to move away from a culture of fear and denial to one of excitement and empowerment.

Andrew Weaver - Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of Victoria and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

By Emily Elias, October 19, 2011

Don Chandler made the switch to an electric vehicle nearly three years ago and hasn’t looked back.

“I know when I drive my electric vehicle I am not contributing to climate change,” Chandler told the Georgia Straight over the phone. “I am not producing any emissions. So, the impact is, for every vehicle you convert, you are reducing your carbon footprint by about four tonnes a year.”

What began as a hobby for Chandler has become a passion for electric vehicles that has taken over his retirement. Chandler admitted he spends many hours working with the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association, researching the latest developments in electric transportation.

“I’ve talked to thousands of people about electric cars, and now it’s viewed as a real positive thing,” Chandler said. “People don’t criticize you, they don’t complain, they don’t say you are a weirdo. They say, ‘This is the way it is and my next car will be electric.’ ”

Chandler noted he’s seen a surge of electric vehicles on Vancouver streets. But he said the city and province need to step up and make sure there is enough infrastructure, such as charging stations, in place to continue the trend.

“Without places to charge your electric car, you can’t drive an electric car. It’s essential,” Chandler said. “We invested in gas stations years ago and now we need to invest in electrical charge locations.”

Electric vehicles are a key element of the City of Vancouver’s goal of making this the greenest city in the world by 2020. A report by the city about its strategy projects the addition of electric vehicles to Vancouver’s roadways would result in an eight-percent reduction in greenhouse gasses.

“Generally, electric vehicles haven’t been made available to the public yet. What we are looking at is making sure the city has the infrastructure in place for when they do come into broad use,” Peter Judd, the city’s general manager of engineering services, told the Straightby phone.

The City of Vancouver has installed eight charging stations and created a bylaw requiring all newly built single-family homes and apartment buildings to have dedicated electric-vehicle plug-in outlets.

According to Judd, the city does not track how many people use the charging stations. “We have had to put in chargers for our own electric vehicles,” Judd said. “Right now it’s not about them being well used; it’s about providing an alternative, because it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation.”

Judd pointed out that municipal investments in charging stations can only go so far toward changing the driving habits of Vancouverites. While the city has committed to encouraging 15 percent of all new-vehicle purchases to be electric, the province must also offer incentives, he said.

In the 2011 B.C. throne speech, there was no mention of electric vehicles. Meanwhile, the province of Quebec has devised a rebate program to give buyers an $8,000 refundable tax credit for the purchase of an electric vehicle, and Ontario offers rebates worth between $5,000 and $8,500.

Researcher Jonathan Ford coauthored a study looking at the future of the electric vehicle. He says it’s very difficult to predict how many people will make the switch from gasoline-powered to electric vehicles.

“As far as market penetration, looking at the year 2050, we had anywhere from zero to 90 percent of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles in the market, so it’s quite a broad range,” Ford told the Straight by phone from Knoxville, Tennessee.

Ford’s consulting company, Sentech, carried out the study for the U.S. Department of Energy, trying to determine how electric vehicles will impact oil consumption, greenhouse-gas emissions, and the traditional auto market. Starting in July 2010, Ford and his team compared 31 existing studies to try to find similarities in the data.

“We thought we were going to have an easy time to make an apples-to-apples comparison of all these reports,” Ford explained. “But once we got into it, we found that there is a vast difference in all of the assumptions used by each group to get to their results. We found a few trends but overall a very broad range of what people predict will happen overall in the near future and the long term.”

He said cities, such as Vancouver, that are adopting fleets of electric vehicles and adding electric charging stations will reduce their oil consumption and emissions; however, it’s impossible to determine by how much.

“Are they going to have an impact? Yes. How big or how little remains to be seen,” Ford said. “As time goes on and a lot of this future data becomes apparent to scientists and the groups…I believe that broad range is going to narrow and point to a very distinct future. But we are only going to find that out in time.”

Chandler applauds the City of Vancouver’s moves, but knows it will take a while before electric vehicles appear in every garage.

“It’s kind of like the era of computers and cellphones. When you introduce the new technology, it will cost a little bit more initially in its infancy,” Chandler said. “I would like to see no combustion engines on the road, but that will take time. We have got to build all the cars, make them available, get people educated, and build the infrastructure—like wiring into the garage to provide a plug that is adequate for charging.”

The impression that the installations are “being rammed down our throats” (much like the HST was) is what has created the pushback — not the fact that it is a better technology that will allow residential and commercial power consumers to better monitor their consumption and/or apply it to power generating mechanisms, like PV solar, small wind turbines down the road.

Perhaps most promising is the application of plug-in vehicles (battery electric vehicles or BEV and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or PHEVs) with smart meters and a smart grid.

There is much talk about the impacts smart meters will have on us and how the roll-out has been conducted. Fair enough, but I ask you to consider the emissions side of the equation for 1 moment. Given the BC government is legislated to reduce its overall emissions by 33% below 2007 levels by 2020 (and most municipalities in BC have signed onto this or more far-reaching targets), much has to be done to achieve significant reductions. While our grid is predominantly “clean” by national and international standards (>90% renewable sources most of which is hydro), it restricts the mechanisms to achieving this wothout looking at the breakdown of emissions by sectors — the largest contributor being TRANSPORTATION (37%).

How does this link to smart meters?… Well, much research is being done on what is called Vehicle to Grid or V2G technologies that would allow utilities, like BC Hydro, to access stored power during peak periods. Essentially, it would allow consumers to sell power back to the grid because smart meters are functionally bi-directional.

Now, say you have a plug-in electric vehicle (EV) that is fully charged in your garage and you have installed PV solar panels on your roof and it is a peak period for power. You would, in principle, be able to sell your stored power (that is currently not in use) back to the grid that would, in turn, go towards reducing your electricity bill. Keep in mind that 80% of EV/PHEV charging will be at night during off-peak and so capacity will not be greatly affected. In fact, some have argued that it encourages renewable forms of energy, like wind, that are more conducive to windier periods that occur at night — a particularly important factor for less densely inhabited and isolated communities like Haida Gwaii that often rely on dirty (and expensive) diesel generators for power.

Now, imagine a large commercial delivery fleet as a business that is looking to reduce costs, be taxed less (think no carbon tax!) and further reduce emissions or a municipal fleet striving to reach emissions targets and save from not having to pay so much in offsets…. Electrification is that much more attractive and measurable thanks to the smart meters. It also provides businesses and consumers alike to have a viable alternative to the climate altering, market unstable, international security destablizing, dirty, and unhealthy reliance to fossil fuels for energy use in electricity and transportation.

The opportunities really open up when you look at the full picture. We can have our cake and eat it too.

So, while the means to bring new policies forward has been less desireable and the perceived negative impacts to civil liberties and wireless interference effects on our health should not be overlooked (however unproven as the case may be), the rational merits (generally neglected by the conflict-oriented mainstream media and outspoken nay-sayers) are perhaps the most significant to the actual “sustainable” energy of our province.

Bring in the smart meters, keep the carbon tax, bring in incentives to electric vehicles and charging equipment (as Ontario and Quebec have done) and the lower the costs to the consumer — emissions will follow.

Ms. May, help this House.
The sandbox just got a whole new slew of loud toddlers — all wearing orange and they are piling up their sand to throw to the bully kids dressed in blue. Head gangsta Harper cannot follow the rules and kicks all the kids out when it doesn’t go his way — he has the bulldozer that his Daddy (who works for some BIG OIL company in Alberta) bought him.
He’s one spoiled bully, think most of the parents, but over a third of the parents insist he stays in despite getting caught with rubbing sand in kids faces.
The older kids wearing red are regrouping in the corner of the sandbox. The kids that normally are around to play street hockey from down the Bloc have largely gone home after a crushing game by the younger Orange team injured almost all the players on their team.
May is the wiser, older sister who wears green. The kids fathers insisted she could not play in the sandbox, but she felt they truly needed some supervision. She is also trying to convince the parents in the whole school district that the way to determine who gets to play in the sandbox is largely unfair and does not represent the values instilled by the parents.
With 307 kids in the sandbox, I hope she can prevent the sand throwing and the problem child, Harper, that has gotten well out of control… as has the bullying.

The moderates panicked. The youth vote didn’t show up as expected — avoiding fear-driven, negative politics (especially demoralized young Libs dealing with attacks from all sides). Moderate Quebecers tired of sovereignty issue, but disliking Harper and Libs, fled to new social dem federalist party with a leader they liked and a party they were willing to try out for a change at the helm in Ottawa. Moderate centre Libs fearing an NDP minority lead, pre-election, fled to Harper and Tories. Soft Greens wanting Harper out more than voting on principle also voted NDP or stayed home (except in SGI where strategic voting and local momentum actually benefitted to make historic victory for Elizabeth May and the Greens). NDP strengthened to surge and split to new record heights. Harper wins bigger with fear (and countless attack ads and blame tactics for 7 yrs) to drive additional 5% needed for 40% “majority”. Harper wins, Canada loses:

Harper minority stone-wall (2 prorogues) and bully (first govt held in contempt ever) to further divide progressive left and centre and demonize any collaboration or coalition. CHECK

Harper majority House. CHECK

Harper appointed majority Senate. CHECK

Harper appointed Supreme Court in next 2 yrs. CHECK

Reluctance to advance climate/green energy/transportation, corporate tax cuts, education, aboriginal rights, social justice policy or come to compromise on any significant issue outside of crime and punishment. GUARANTEE

Cutting back of every public institution in Canada. GUARANTEE

Largest debt and deficit in Canadian history. CHECK and GUARANTEE

No consensus in Parliament and most divisive ideological spectrum in Canadian history for 4 long years.GUARANTEE

Greater totalitarian top-down leadership from PMO. GUARANTEE

Thanks Jack… but, in fairness, you shouldn’t get the bulk of the blame.

The First Past the Post electoral system is largely to blame. Here is what the electoral seat count looks like now and what it would look like with proportional representation:

FPP        PR

167 CPC 122

102 NDP 94

34   LPC  58

4   BQ  18

1 GPC  16

308 total

Oh Canada!…

30 days to go and the same status quo rhetoric seems to prevail amongst the “major parties”… Coalition united the right, but coalition seizes power on the left. The Tories are focused on decreasing corporate taxes, building more prisons, spending $30 billion+ on F35s and raising deficits are necessary to balancing the budget in the future on the right, while NDP are attacking BIG Banks and proposing to eradicate the Senate that they can only dream of getting appointed to instead of a more measured non-populist-heavy-union-backed approach. Regional parties, like the Bloc, take advantage of our failed system by promising to fight for the best interests of the region — which is attractive to those living there, wanting more representation in Parliament — even though the mantra of party mandate is to sever the country!

I’ve had enough with bankrupt ideologies and polling strategy assessments to determine the fate of our country. There is no valid reason that a clear voice of reason should be excluded from the debate — quite literally.

Left-right politics only raises the bar on unscrupulous narratives about what few volatile seats (50 out of 308) may switch to form a similar dysfunctional minority that are churning the same old political ideas and economic ideologies that got us where we are today. The dialogue and national debates will lack the fresh scope that is so badly needed in these times of turbulence.

Our system is broke and it needs fixing. Partisan messaging on short-term seat shuffling will only provide more of the same, but there’s one riding, Saanich-Gulf Islands, that gives me hope that we may (pardon the pun) have a more civil political future.

Wouldn’t it be great to freshen things up a bit with a woman leader that raises issues like a long-term national energy plans and transportation policies that do not rely on the capital and carbon intensive extraction of tarsands to send down a pipeline to somewhere else? Or reassessing our use of nuclear energy and uranium, coal, and asbestos mining (again, almost completely for export)?

Or how about the very principles of our democratic system and how it is failing us? Lessons in the last UK and Australian elections with “hung” Parliamentary results (no clear winner determined until coalitions formed among 3rd parties and or independents) highlight the need to bring in more representational electoral systems and do away with the archaic Westminster system that has shown a rise in power with the PMO and a dwindling of engaged, non-combative style politics.

We need to move forward with focus blinders that do not continuously swing ideologically to the left or right. We need an economy that does not completely rely on resource-based extraction — often owned and run by foreign mega-corporations that have no sensibilities passed the bottom-line. As a relatively small economy and population, we are more susceptible to global hickups and killing innovation in manufacturing and tech sectors. When commodities like oil and gold soar (as they are now) in an unstable global economic world,  with a troubled, powerful neighbour, our dollar rising past parity is no coincidence and not good for our export markets.

Another important recognition by May and the Greens is the admission that our current economic measures, like the GDP (as a reminder: Investments+Consumption+Gov’t Expenditures[exports-imports]), is a big part of the problem. Let’s look at the tragic earthquake in Japan for example.

Economists said GDP in the first and second quarters of calendar 2011 will be pushed down by a fall in industrial production because factories in northern Japan were damaged and distribution networks have been disrupted.

But they expect GDP to rebound from the July-September quarter onward as the positive effect of public reconstruction spending supports private consumption and business investment.

It’s subtle, but essentially this is saying that because of rebuilding costs, rescue/emergency and insurance spending along costs associated with what has been rebuilt after being destroyed as opposed to , GDP growth will rise like the radiation levels. Similarly, wars have the same devastating consequences to this irrational measure that only adds up the economic factors involved. The solution is to implement a Canadian Index of Wellbeing that does not account for the negative growth attributes that are obviously not beneficial to the nation’s social and environmental attributes as a whole.

In recognition that most of the developed countries realize that we need high-quality labour-intensive green businesses and jobs to thrive in a more local and “green” economy, we also need something else to help make that happen. A more democratic and responsible representation would make Canada more resilient to the global problems the status quo continue to ignore or mismanage.

‘Nough said, Go May GO!

 

2011 is already shaping up to be a pivotal year, the rEVolution is here. The annual North American Auto Show has opened its doors today to a new reality. EVs are here to stay and the days of fantasy EV prototypes, thankfully, are over. The world’s first mass produced EVs are making their way to the North American market with the rollout of the largest car manufacturers including: Tesla S, Nissan LEAF, Chevy Volt, Ford Focus EV, Mitsubishi i-MiEV, BYD e6, Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG E-Cell and plug-in hybrids with the new Toyota Prius v, Chevy Volt MPV5 and the Ford C-Max.

An exciting announcement kicked off the show: the Chevrolet Volt was proclaimed North American Car of the Year. This is a huge leap in innovation and is a strong indicator of the acceptance of EV technology both in the auto industry as a whole and among the public at large. The Nissan LEAF was also amongst the finalists.

In Canada, the predominant issue is still “range anxiety” and lack of infrastructure, but many jurisdictions are encouraging growth south of the border with federal incentives to create a competitive market opportunities and the green transportation race is on.

EV charging is in early deployment in the US with public charging stations being installed thanks to a public-private partnerships in installations in 7 jurisdictions (Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Tennessee, Texas and Washington DC) with smaller scale efforts being deployed in SF Bay Area, Michigan, and South Carolina with federal, state and local financial support. The City of Vancouver has made adoption of EVs easier by requiring 20% parking stalls to have charging infrastructure in all new condos, all new single family homes and off-street bike storage.

The equipment is market-ready to install and utilities, like BC Hydro, in conjunction with the Province of B.C., and NRCAN (National Resources Canada) and the City of Vancouver have completed the new Canadian guidelines for installing EV charging infrastructure. We are presumably ready to become the “Greenest City”, if it were not for the fact that high-speed charging and centrally located stations with a bike share initiative are off the map for the time being and other jurisdictions are surpassing us around the globe.

This is where BIG Green Island Transportation comes in.

We are ready to take EV infrastructure to the next level by providing consulting and installation expertise to municipalities, institutions, businesses and residences. We are in the process of proposing a green transportation station that would accommodate the new wave of on-road BEVs/PHEVs that will require more centralized infrastructure to encourage adoption. Coordination is needed and we can help. Along with accessibility, affordability, reliability, low maintenance and speedis what the consumer wants and we can provide it with your participation.

Let’s make this the year where we can honestly say that we are ready to become the Greenest city in transportation.