IWillTry.org

With the approaching Canadian federal election (May 2) I’ve heard much debate lately about which party is most worthy of the vote of an environmentally concerned individual. But “Which candidate or party will be best for the environment?”, I think, is the wrong question. The right question is “Where will my vote do the most good for the environment?”

Unfortunately Canada’s electoral system is broken. We do not have proportional representation so for most Canadians, voting for who you like in this election is as good as not voting at all. If you want your vote to count, you need to vote strategically. Currently, a very possible outcome of the election is a Conservative majority which would be the absolute worst case for the environment.

If you want to make your vote count for the environment, your best option is to vote AGAINST a Harper majority by voting for whoever has the greatest chance of defeating the conservative candidate in your riding. You can find out who that is at  www.projectdemocracy.ca (you can also consult www.catch22campaign.ca, last time, and www.leadnow.ca.).

Make no mistake. This election is bigger than your local riding. You are either voting for a Harper majority or you are voting against it. Set local issues and candidate preferences aside and think federally when you vote on May 2.

This post, my first in a while, was triggered by an article I just read by Raif Mair:
The Cat is Out of the Bag – BC Private Power Push All About Exports

I’ve known for some time that BC Hydro is a net exporter of power. When we do import power it’s because the US will sell it to us cheaply during their off-peak hours in exchange for being able to buy it back during peak hours. Their coal fired power plants can’t change their output as quickly as the change in daily demand, so they use BC’s hydro power to even out the peaks and valleys.

I am infuriated by the Campbell government’s attempt (apparently successful) to manufacture consent for privatizing power production in BC by convincing BC residents that WE need the extra power for OUR use. WE DON’T!!! End of story.

In his article, Raif points out that even if we did need the extra power, private hydro projects will produce most of their power during spring run off, exactly when we don’t need it. Therefore, the only possible value in private hydro is the export market, especially given Obama’s mandate to find clean energy sources for the US. As Raif put it:

Our rivers, up to about 700 applications now, will be butchered to warm California swimming pools. Moreover, once we embark down this slippery slope we’re in this forever. We will be, like Bre’r Rabbit, stuck to the tar baby.

For an idea of what those 700 applications look like, here’s a map (courtesy of Private Power Watch):

Don’t get me wrong. I think that hydro power IS a clean, renewable resource and it SHOULD be developed further in BC, even for export purposes. Climate change is everyone’s problem and I will concede the possibility that “butchering our rivers” could be the lesser of many evils that could be done to help meet the worlds growing demand for power.

But… and this is a REALLY BIG BUT… why in the world would we not want to retain ownership and control over the resources we’re exporting. How could we be so short-sighted that we’re willing to relinquish ownership of our natural resources premanantly and irrovocably to private corporations. Once these resources are removed from the commons, there’s no going back. We’re giving up control over resources that might come in pretty darn handy as the world runs out of fossil fuels over the next couple centuries. The privatization of BC’s power generation is nothing but a short term cash grab that we will almost certainly regret when we have to compete with the US to purchase the power being generated on our own soil. And hydro power is not the only issue. Wind and other renewable power sources are also at risk.

It’s about situations like this that I often hear people remark “One day our grandchildren are going to look back and wonder what the hell we were thinking”. I WISH that were the case but the sad fact is that our grandchildren likely won’t even know what they’re missing. It is exactly this lack of cross-generational accountability that frees each generation to sacrifice the future of the next.

If you are a BC resident concerned about the privatization of BC’s power, I strongly urge you to write your MLA. For more information and other ways to get involved, check out the Save our Rivers Society and www.hydrofactsbc.ca and Private Power Watch.

This year the BC government will institute a carbon tax of $10/tonne of GHG emissions on the sale of most fossil fuels in BC increasing to $30/tonne by 2012. The tax will be accompanied by a corresponding rebate, such that the program will be revenue neutral for government.

No funds will be allocated toward climate programs, let alone carbon offset strategies, which is a huge oversight. See my post BC’s Carbon Tax – So close yet so far from a few months ago for more details on that. The tax itself is not high enough to significantly reduce people’s consumption of fossil fuels, adding only 6% to the current price over the next 5 years. Seasonal variation and increasing world crude oil prices have resulted in an increase in price of about 16% over the past 3 months alone. That’s almost 3 times the increase that will be imposed by the BC carbon tax over the next 5 years.

I’m happy to see fuel prices rising because that kind of increase IS likely to make people rethink the amount of fossil fuel they consume, and indeed, “alternative” modes of transportation like walking, biking, and public transit are on the rise. I will not be surprised if the government takes credit for this in the following years, even though the trend has been well established before their tax has even taken effect. But the fact remains that the fuel that is consumed will not be any more “climate friendly” or “carbon neutral” once the tax is imposed. That is, unless people choose to make it so by spending their rebate wisely.

This year a $100 Climate Action Dividend cheque will be mailed to every British Columbian. A website called Green Your Campbell Cash has been developed by The Tyee, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change, the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute with the intent of diverting at least some of the $440 odd million dollars of rebates to strategies that will actually have a climate impact. If you’re wondering what to do with you’re $100 rebate, or if you have a climate project and are looking for funding, check out the website.

Originally posted at www.IWillTry.org.

Annie Leonard is a board member of the International Forum on Globalization who recently created a short film, The Story of Stuff.

From its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff in our lives affects communities at home and abroad, yet most of this is hidden from view. The Story of Stuff is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world. It’ll teach you something, it’ll make you laugh, and it just may change the way you look at all the stuff in your life forever.

While 20 minutes is hardly enough time to touch on all the issues, this film does a great job and sends an overall positive message. Click the image below to see the film.

On July 1, 2008 the BC government plans to institute a carbon tax of $10/tonne of GHG emissions on the sale of most fossil fuels in BC. This tax will increase by $5/tonne for each of the next four years until it reaches $30/tonne in 2012. The tax will be accompanied by a corresponding decrease in income taxes, such that the program will be revenue neutral for government.

The intent of the tax is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels by making them more expensive. No funds are actually allocated toward climate programs, let alone carbon offset projects so the fuel that is consumed will not be any more “climate friendly” or “carbon neutral” than before.

So… will people consume less fuel as a result of the carbon tax? Let’s do a quick calculation. It takes about 428 litres of gasoline to produce 1 tonne of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions. Gasoline prices in BC are around $1.17 per litre. So it costs a consumer about $500 to buy enough gasoline to produce 1 tonne of GHG. The BC carbon tax will increase that cost by $10 or 2% in the first year, increasing to $30 or 6% by 2012.

Does the BC government really believe that a 6% increase in fuel costs over 5 years is likely to cause anyone to reduce their fuel consumption?

I think not. One might expect a corresponding 6% decrease in fuel consumption, but more likely there will be no noticeable effect at all. Just look at the past 5 years. According to BCGasPrices.com, since 2003 gasoline prices in BC have increased around 70% (from about $0.70 per litre in 2003). That has had little noticeable effect on people’s fuel consumption, so what effect is an additional 6% increase over the next 5 years likely to have? I think none whatsoever.

Let’s do another calculation. There are carbon offset strategies (most notably methane capture from landfills, animal waste, or decaying plant matter) that offer proven, quantifiable GHG emission reductions for as little as $5/tonne (see www.carbonfund.org). At that rate the BC carbon tax of $30 per tonne would be enough to offset the GHG emissions from fossil fuel consumption 6 times over. According to a 2007 report, fossil fuels account for nearly 80% of BC’s GHG emissions. Therefore, if the carbon tax were put towards effective carbon offset and emissions reduction projects instead of being paid back to us in the form of reduced income tax, it appears that BC would be able to decrease its GHG emissions by almost 500%. In other words, BC could become carbon NEGATIVE, practically overnight if the carbon tax were spent in a useful manner.

How Gordon Campbell could come so close to doing something so good and then miss the mark entirely is beyond my comprehension. What is also beyond my comprehension is the level of praise he’s receiving for it. Hasn’t anybody else run the numbers?

Originally posted at www.IWillTry.org.

Just in case anyone out there is living in a cave and hasn’t heard of “The 100 Mile Diet” yet or “Plenty” as it’s been titled in the US, it is the true story of one couple’s quest to eat only locally produced foods (as defined by a 100 mile radius) for an entire year, from the first day of spring in 2005 to the last day of winter in 2006. To put that challenge in perspective, it’s been said that most ingredients in a typical North American meal travel at least 1,500 miles to reach the table.

I have considered food-miles before from the perspective of reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from food transportation, but after reading the book I was pleasantly surprised to learn of many other benefits experienced by the authors, Alisa Smith and James MacKinnon. I attended a talk on food sustainability at UBC where they were guest speakers and I found it truely inspiring, to the point where I’m not only trying to buying more locally produced foods, but I’m growing some myself.

Some of the things you can look forward to when you eat locally produced foods are:

1. Better tasting food
2. More social interaction
3. Getting in touch with the seasons
4. Discovering new flavours
5. Reducing energy consumption and ghg emissions
6. Supporting small farms
7. Giving back to the local economy
8. Feeling more healthy

For the complete list and other information, visit http://www.100milediet.org.