The Little Things Count

In my previous entry there were figures for Budget 2009, combining their annual averages (assuming roughly the same is spent each year) the Canadian government directly making changes worth CDN$1,195,250,000 per year, which is the same as US$1,082,022,822. Yet a $40-billion stimulus package over two years may be constructed when a country’s economy is in recession, or in comparison to the worst hit countries, a large hiccup in the economic cycle. This is pretty poor considering the estimated cost, but the money has to come from somewhere. One would ask why governments let GM big-shots give themselves millions in bonuses from the money released to them by the US government, and somewhat by the Canadian government, to aid in their recovery after a dramatic decline in sales.

 The situation reminds me of a quote by Kurt Vonnegut Jr: “We could have saved the Earth but we were too damned cheap.” 

Within the letter I received from the Environment Minister of Canada, the term “clean coal” is used. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but is not coal rich in hydrocarbons and contains heavy metals, uranium, and thorium as waste products, and the burning of coal alone is the largest anthropogenic contribution to greenhouse gas emissions? “"Clean coal" is coal chemically washed to remove minerals and impurities”, to remove mainly sulphur before combustion. Technologies are used to remove pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides during combustion, such as, Fluidized-bed combustion. The flue gas desulfurization or scrubbing as a post-combustion technology has been used for decades, but produces slurry, as would the cleaning of the coal, so it seems the pollution from the coal is prevented from entering the atmosphere, but instead kept in suspension in bodies of water such as tailing ponds. Acid rain is thus prevented, but pollution of groundwater increased? 
Coal, in my opinion can never be clean due to its chemical composition, yes it may be manipulated to be ‘cleaner’ but it is not that simple. Five percent renewable fuel content in gasoline and two percent in diesel for Canada. This is a great idea but the numbers seem to be too low. So the diesel would be considered a B2 biodiesel, but B20 can be used in unmodified engines, which is a standard biodiesel mix in Australia already. Biodiesel (B100) reduces net CO2 emissions by 78% vs. Petroleum diesel, a considerable decrease in emissions, so, B20 would be a smaller decrease, but still significant enough to help countries reach Kyoto and UN targets. B2 is a marginal decrease, probably similar to the decrease seen with a hybrid engine. Thankfully though some companies already have 10% ethanol in the gasoline they sell i.e. Husky.

 If the public put more pressure on the government to pass tougher legislation when it comes to renewable fuel content, one may see more large energy companies such as Husky Energy increasing their fuel mixes. Or, a more direct way is to buy from only those companies that have larger amounts of renewable fuel content in their fuel. Why would this work? Purely because consumers control who has market share, and if other companies see Husky gaining market share other businesses may begin to question why consumers choose Husky over themselves and start to compare their fuels. The only thing that will bring up a red flag is the fuel mix, as the fuels are similar, just as a cup of water in Nova Scotia is very similar to a cup of water in British Columbia. Prices are the same with the exception of local variations due to the amount of competition, so, it may be wishful thinking, but companies may notice the fuel oil mix and try to match it, bringing about a possible competition between them so they can maintain their market share. Consumers have more power than they realise, with any business, we have that freedom of choice when purchasing. Also, as Canada has a relatively small population not as many people have to take part to make differences so spread the word and let’s get started!