My Op-Ed in the Vancouver Sun earlier today…..
By Tzeporah Berman, Special to the Sun May 22, 2009
The provincial election was supposed to be entirely a “recession election” but, to everyone’s great surprise, “carbon” dominated headlines — carbon taxes, low-carbon energy companies and related issues burst to the forefront.
For those who recognize global warming and the looming energy crisis to be the overriding issues of our age, carbon’s prominence was welcome.
For all the focus on hydroelectricity in British Columbia, three-quarters of our total energy still comes from fossil fuels (the diesel, gasoline, natural gas, etc. that fuel our cars and factories.)
All those global warming emissions need to be eliminated. After all, the scientific community has been unequivocal: Either we solve our carbon problem rapidly, or over the coming decades we will sentence millions of people to misery and dislocation, threaten half the world’s species with extinction and leave our children to face rising food costs, shrinking clean water supplies and escalating national security issues.
This dire context explains why many scientists, economists and environmentalists were outspoken in our criticism of the vow to abolish B.C.’s carbon tax. But many people remain confused why a modest (two cents, four cents a litre) tax should provoke such ardent defence. After all, it is hardly commensurate with the scale of the problem.
The “axe-the-gas-tax” campaign was symbolic of a broader campaign to roll back global warming policy; to eliminate energy conservation measures like two-tiered electricity pricing and smart meters; to put a freeze on clean energy companies — all wind farms, biomass and run of river developed by B.C.’s emerging clean energy sector; and to abolish not only the carbon tax but also to weaken other carbon restrictions like the incoming cap-and-trade system negotiated with other provinces and U.S. states.
If we are to have any hope of solving the carbon problem, we need to face difficult choices. It needs to become unacceptable for our leaders to “poison the well” by preying on fears about energy prices and pretending that the old ways can continue.
Populist hot buttons around “keeping energy cheap” will always be tempting for political strategists but they set back public support for all political leaders and entrench us in a suicidal addiction to fossil fuels.
Now the election is over and B.C.’s initial steps to overhaul the energy system remain in place. So, what next?
As in other leading jurisdictions we need all-party agreements to focus on moving forward to address the threat of global warming and creating a race-to-the-top for policies to build a clean economy.
B.C. has been a leader in building a clean energy economy. We have received deserved international praise for our efforts.
But let’s be honest: Our efforts to date are only the beginning of what is needed. We already trail the Europeans and many Asian countries; unless we drive forward aggressively, we will fall behind the Americans and even other provinces.
Just listen to Barack Obama rally his nation: “Our future on this planet depends on our willingness to address the challenge posed by carbon pollution. And our future as a nation depends upon our willingness to embrace this challenge as an opportunity to lead the world in pursuit of new discovery . . . the nation that leads the world in 21st-century clean energy will be the nation that leads in the 21st-century global economy.”
Obama is creating jobs through a new, clean economy based on safe energy supplies that will last forever. British Columbians deserve no less and only aggressive action will keep us in the game.
We need a massive growth in the clean energy sector to replace the three-quarters of B.C.’s energy that is now fossil fuelled. We need it done fast, and we need it done right. The public needs assurance that run-of-river hydro, wind power and other projects will be sited in areas that are already industrialized and designed to ensure that fish and other habitat are protected.
Our existing energy efficiency and carbon restrictions need to be dialled up to what scientists tell us is needed. We need to be thinking at a whole new scale of ambition; homes, buildings, factories, vehicles must be weaned off fossil fuels. Zero carbon buildings are in place in other jurisdictions, let’s retrofit B.C. to that standard.
We need to dramatically scale up public transit. And let’s join leading jurisdictions in eliminating that most insidious technology — the internal combustion engine. B.C. could be running all electric cars powered by a green grid if we put the necessary laws in place.
B.C. has enviable advantages in building a clean energy economy. The twin spectres of global warming and the end of cheap oil may loom as catastrophes, but they are opportunities to build jobs and a new prosperity for those with the vision to seize the moment.
Tzeporah Berman is executive director of PowerUP Canada.
This op-ed must be very irritating to those politically partisan but Tzeporah mis-educating the public is more important.
“global warming and the looming energy crisis to be the overriding issues of our age” = “building a clean energy economy”.
Well yes, but no. There is no time to stay in BAU and transition to this clean energy economy by building IPPs and incrementally being the change in reducing our individual carbon footprints. Like McKibben trying to mobilize an army of activists in support of 350.org these are good but no where near sufficient steps that will be marginalized by continuing fossil fuel use, increasing converts by the Wal-Mart style religion, and consumption activists.
Take replacing fossil fuels with green power. We’re lucky in BC to have huge hydro power but what does “massive growth in the clean energy sector to replace the three-quarters of B.C.’s energy that is now fossil fuelled” mean if we stay in BAU powering up?
Energy dense fossil fuels won’t, can’t be replaced by renewables. Read David McKay http://www.withouthotair.com/ This is a perspective on the needed transition well understood in peak oil lit.
Here is his British example:
“To provide a quarter of our current energy consumption by growing energy crops, for example, would require 75% of Britain to be covered with biomass plantations.
To provide 4% of our current energy consumption from wave power would require 500km of Atlantic coast line to be filled with wave farms. Someone who wants to live on renewable energy, but expects the infrastructure associated with that not to be large or intrusive, is deluding himself.
Second, if economic constraints and public objections are set aside, it would be possible for the average European energy consumption of 125kWh/d per person to be provided from these renewable sources.
The two big contributors would be photo-voltaic panels, which, covering 5% or 10% of the country, would provide 50kWh/d per person; and offshore wind farms, which, filling a sea area twice the size of Wales, would provide another 50kWh/d per person on average.
Such an immense panelling of the countryside and filling of British seas with wind farms (having a capacity five times greater than all the wind turbines in the world today) may be possible according to the laws of physics, but would the public accept and pay for such arrangements? ”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6256687.ece
Now even if we wanted industrialization of our wilderness at this scale the transition would have only been possible decades ago in the era of cheap energy. This key PO learning is that the transition needs energy to build turbines, transmission lines, etc. Not only would it take two or three decades we don’t have to transition to this clean energy economy – climate change is an immediate, emergency, tipping point danger – but we are over the peak and there is going to be high prices and immense conflict in the use of remaining fossil fuels.
Powering up to that clean energy economy is a pollyanna illusion; plus the inertia and drivers of the present system will marginalize this transition like what we saw in needed forestry change in BC. This is a path to even more fossil fuel use – not less.
Carbon pricing is similarily a pollyanna illusion; good idea if this was 80s or early 90s where there was time for the thin edge of the wedge intro, but an effective carbon price needed today isn’t possible and the puny and leaky pricing that is possible is just an illusion wasting precious time.
Being the change is a pollyanna illusion; of course we should have evolved an elegant simplicity, quality lifestyles with small footprints, but hippies, back to the landers, and now being the change today are ineffectual and this woefully inadequate sect isn’t going to convince the Chinese and Indians to not build fossil fuel infrastructure emulating US style development and that’s bottom line needed.
Tzeporah mis-educates about a path to needed transition that she must know is criminally insufficient. We are the problem: our heavy carbon addiction. Her soft, positive green jobs and opportunity path flies well in CanWest land but she must know that there is no solution to “(t)he twin spectres of global warming and the end of cheap oil” staying in BAU. She is helping to keep us from doing what we need to do which is confront the real problems and powerdown in a real organized transition which must happen now. Not leadership Tzeporah, and you should know this – so why are you messaging this way?