The Little Things Count

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are coming to the auto-mobile market later this year, with more in development and concept stages set to enter the market before 2020. PHEVs combine the technology of plug-in electric vehicles, hybrid technology and gasoline engines to provide the best combination of all automotive technology and engineering to give consumers a car that is cheap to run, has very low emissions, and very efficient. There are two different types, series and parallel PHEVs, series PHEVs are more fuel efficient (in gasoline terms) as the electric motors drive the wheels, and the gasoline engine is used only to charge the battery, thus, for short trips series PHEVs may not use any gasoline. Parallel PHEVs are similar to the conventional plug-in hybrid, where the electric motor only drives the wheels at low speeds, with the gasoline engine taking over a higher speeds, or but both work together under most driving conditions.

 Mitsubishi will be the first company to put this technology into an SUV, with the North American Outlander model set to roll onto forecourts in early 2014 if all goes well. The Chevrolet Volt was the first PHEV to enter the North American market in 2010, followed by the Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid in 2012. Worldwide the Prius version has achieved 50% of the total sales of the Volt in just one year, likely because of brand loyalty and the strong reputation of previous Prius models. In North American markets the Chevrolet Volt has outsold the Prius. Interestingly, the Volt provides greater consumer savings than the Prius because of its series set up and the greater battery storage. Two ford models (C-max Energi and Fusion Energi) are currently available on the US market as well as the Toyota and Chevrolet options, Fisker also provide a fast and sporty PHEV for a cool US$102,500.

Many other manufacturers are bringing PHEVs to the market soon, these include the Volvo V60 (the first diesel PHEV), Honda Accord Plug-In Hybrid, and Mitsubishi Outlander P-HEV. Planned for introduction to the market in the next few years are many other models from different manufacturers, the following are coming to the market this year: BMW i3 (European introduction) and i8, Porsche 918 Spyder (limited production), Cadillac ELR, Volkswagen XL1 (limited production), and Fisker Atlantic.
Models planned for later production include a Ford Escape model, Volvo V70, Suzuki Swift, Audi A1 e-tron and A3 e-tron, Dodge Ram 1500 (the first PHEV pickup truck), Volkswagen Golf variant twinDRIVE, Chrysler Town and Country PHEV.
If all of these PHEV concepts make it to the market we will start to see a revolution in the automotive industry, a move away from gasoline engines which will increase in pace if consumers respond and start buying these vehicles. But why buy one? Won't the maintenance be expensive with all of that fancy technology? Not necessarily, in fact, the maintenance costs may well be less. As the US Department of energy puts it:

"All-electric vehicles typically require less maintenance than conventional vehicles because:

• The battery, motor, and associated electronics require little to no regular maintenance

• There are fewer fluids to change

• Brake wear is significantly reduced, due to regenerative braking

• There are far fewer moving parts, relative to a conventional gasoline engine." Source

Here's another cost-saving to consider, the miles per gallon (imp.) equivalent (mpg-e) for PHEVs for those tested so far is over 100 mpg-e. Furthermore, the annual costs of driving PHEVs is less than $1,200*, which translates into over $1,000/year in fuel savings depending on how far one drives. Whilst these vehicles are more expensive to buy than other conventional vehicles, some US states offer tax credits for the purchase of PHEVs. Interestingly, in 2009 Barack Obama announced billions of dollars in federal funding for the hybrid and plug in vehicles, which likely played a role in the advancement of PHEVs and other alternative vehicles by North American manufacturers and the introduction of vehicles by Asian manufacturers whose hybrid technologies are further into research and development than their North American counterparts.

Personally I look forward to the proliferation of PHEVs and hybrid vehicles in general, there are enough outdoor plug ins within Canadian parking lots that charging one's car when not at home would be feasible. Although in some parts of Canada the energy used from the power grid may be from coal which is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. However, in some provinces which have 50% hydro and a significant amount of Nuclear power the greenhouse gas emissions, and thus the ecological foorprint, from PHEV charging and use. If an individual was very committed to reducing their emissions, switching to 100% renewable energy (guaranteed by some suppliers - e.g. Bullfrog Power) would remedy the greenhouse gas emissions from charging.



*Based on 45% highway and 55% city driving. Electricity cost of US$0.12/kw-hr, premium gasoline price of US$3.81 per gallon (used by the Volt and Karma), and regular gasoline price of US$3.49 per
gallon (as of November 30, 2012). Conversion 1 gallon of gasoline=33.7 kW-hr.

The Arctic is a hot topic this year with record ice melt in Greenland, Arctic Sea Ice set to melt to a record low in the coming weeks, the Canadian government approving a $142m research facility in the high Arctic and undertaking military exercises, a search being launched for ancient Arctic exploration vessels,and on Friday 24th August Greenpeace activists stormed a Russian oil rig!

Why all the fuss? Is Arctic Sovereignty a political issue that could lead to war? Is there really an Arctic gold rush, black gold that is, or are we years away from Arctic drilling? What are the consequences of Earth's air conditioner hiccuping? How may the world change if this continues? Let me provide a little insight into these questions.

In recent years the Arctic has been of great interest to governments and energy and mineral exploration, particularly as the Northwest Passage was sailed through in the summer in 2008, and record sea ice melt in 2007 was followed by near record melt in 2008, only to be surpassed as early as next week given current trends. China successfully sent it's first ship across the Arctic Ocean, an icebreaker named Xuelong, in August 2012. Experts claim there are masses of oil and gas beneath the Arctic ocean where the continental shelf extends for hundreds of miles north from Russia and Canada. There is a rush to find where the resources are and stake claim to it before fleets of icebreakers, tankers, tugs and supply ships are built to aid in the construction of massive oil platforms that can withstand huge swells, high winds, and standing up to the constantly shifting sea ice, and of course massive icebergs carved from northern glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet.
As for Arctic Sovereignty, most of the oil and gas resources are located within the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone that extends seaward from every country as prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

 The only disputes are related firstly to where the east/west boundaries should be, should they follow the country boundary north and then change direction following the edge of the continental shelf? Or should they follow a direct line of longitude north towards the North Pole? Secondly, who gets the North Pole? Canada, Denmark, Norway and Russia are in dispute for this, with a Russian politician organizing the placing of a Russian flag on the sea floor directly below the North Pole in August 2007. Should the North Pole remain in international waters? These questions will be answered within the coming decades as the Arctic continues to change. All out war is highly unlikely given the difficulty of travelling through the Arctic and cost, as well as the fact that Russia can induce deadlock when threatening use of force due it's large armoury of nuclear weapons, so it's very unlikely there will be armed conflict; political tensions are much more likely and of course tensions between large corporations and environmental groups.
Who is right or wrong will not matter, sustainable and environmentally responsible development of the Arctic's natural resources is possible but it will require strong political will and the involvement of scientists to study the current conditions and impacts before the 'Arctic rush' begins. Northern communities are enthralled by the prospect of large companies bringing money and jobs to their areas, but before the riches arrive agreements will need to be reached regarding royalties, profit sharing and land leases. Hopefully some money will be transferred to the Inuit communities surrounding the Arctic and not head directly south.

In reality, the likelihood that Arctic oil will make a large contribution to oil supplies is many years away. In Russia massive platforms are being constructed, one gas platform will be 400ft across and weigh 100,000 tonnes (500,000 tonnes once filled with ballast) and will sit in the Shtokman field. As a side note, the platform Greenpeace stormed is an oil platform to be positioned in a region farther east, the Prirazlomnoye field. Russia are full steam ahead in construction of platforms and pipelines for their Arctic ambitions, whilst Norway and Alaska are well behind, with Canada and Denmark lagging even further behind in terms of exploration and development.

Earth's Great Air Conditioner

Closing thoughts

A historic agreement was reached on Tuesday 22nd May 2010 in Canada.

"TORONTO — Canada's major pulp and paper companies said Tuesday they will restrict logging in environmentally sensitive areas of the country's northern boreal forest as part of a groundbreaking deal with environmental groups.
The Forest Products Association of Canada, whose members include forestry giants such as AbitibiBowater Inc. and Weyerhaeuser Co. Ltd., said the industry has agreed to immediately suspend logging for three years on 75 million acres of boreal forest — roughly the size of Montana — where wildlife and habitat is endangered.
Canada's boreal forest stretches like a giant green belt southeast from the Yukon to Newfoundland and represents about 75 percent the country's woodlands. The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement covers 170 million acres of the region — an area nearly twice the size of Germany — and includes forests in seven of the country's 10 provinces." Source: Associated Press.

Logging is being suspended for 3 years on around 72-75 million hectares of forest in order to develop a plan to protect 36,000 Caribou that live in the region under "The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement". The compromise "environmental organizations have pledged to suspend international "Do Not Buy" anti-logging campaigns against Canadian lumber", so in order to protect a huge area of forest an help preserve a species environmental organisations have, potentially, provided Canada with an easier road prosperity in the logging industry. Canadian politics is all about economic growth - earlier this week Stephen Harper rejected UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's call for climate change to be on the G20 agenda at the G20 summit later this summer, stating, it's the economy that counts, the rest is just noise.

How economically prosperous is the logging industry?
Well, revenue from the forest sector is $54.2 billion annually (all currency in Canadian Dollars) and exports bring in $23.6 billion annually, mostly from paper ($10.9bil). The trade surplus is $14.4 bil annually, which is only second to the oil and gas industry. One can safely assume that the logging industry is one of the main cylinders firing Canada's economy, and for an entire sector to come up with an agreement like this is extremely rare. I'm sure those reading this have seen how sutbborn energy and oil companies can be when it comes to emissions agreements! Keeping this profitability intact whilst protecting swathes of forest will be sure to keep Ottawa happy - with the economic recovery in the US exports will grow, increasing the profitability of the industry. Although, that is one downside, 72 million hectares are protected and 28 million acres will not be cut for three years, but there is hundreds of millions of hectares of unprotected forest that is still available for logging.


This is fantastic news for the biodiversity of the region, and quite a step forward in the International Year of Biodiversity three days before the International Day of Biodiversity on May 22nd.  The size of the area to be protected is a little over the size of Italy (including Sardinia and Sicily) - by 841 square miles. There's another map here:



Canada's boreal forest, otherwise known as the Taiga is part of a biome that covers a large part Northern America and Eurasia. Largely coniferous forest the Taiga is the world's largest of the 15 terrestrial biomes and is considered a 'carbon sink', within the biome masses of carbon is stored as the forest releases less carbon than is absorbed, thus storing the carbon. Much of the carbon dioxide produced elsewhere on the Earth ends up in the world's forests and oceans.


Where is the Carbon?

• Mostly (80% in Canada's Taiga) in the dead organic matter found in the soil beneath the forests.

What is the largest carbon sink on Earth?

• The oceans are by far the largest, with the carbon stored in deposits beneath the ocean and in acids in the sea.

Forestry Companies Participating in the Agreement:
AbitibiBowater Inc., Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc., AV Group, Canfor Corporation, Canfor Pulp Limited Partnership, Cariboo Pulp & Paper Company, Cascades inc., Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd., F.F. Soucy Inc., Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Limited Partnership, Kruger Inc., Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd., Mercer International, Mill & Timber Products Ltd., NewPage Corporation, Papier Masson Ltée, SFK Pâte, Tembec, Tolko Industries Ltd., West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd., and Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, all represented by the Forest Products Association of Canada.










Environmental Organizations Participating in the Agreement:
Canadian Boreal Initiative, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Canopy(formerly Markets Initiative), David Suzuki Foundation, ForestEthics, Greenpeace, Ivey Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, and Pew Environment Group’s International Boreal Conservation Campaign.

Mose of these environmental organizations can be followed on Facebook and Twitter, please show your support!

• Biodiversity - 1) The number and variety of organisms found within a specified geographic region. 2) The variability among living organisms on the earth, including the variability within and between species and within and between ecosystems.

• Biome - a complex biotic community characterized by distinctive plant and animal species and maintained under the climatic conditions of the region, esp. such a community that has developed to climax.

• Taiga - the coniferous evergreen forests of subarctic lands, covering vast areas of northern North America and Eurasia.

• Carbon Sink - a natural environment that absorbs and stores more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it releases, which offsets greenhouse gas emissions.

Source

Think of it this way, the world's lungs will be breathing easier after an area close to the size of Italy was protected by the 'medication' of suspended logging.

Three hundred and fifty, what does it mean to you?
Unless you follow a few campaigns or are well-informed when it comes to carbon dioxide levels, it's unlikely you know what I'm referring to. Prepare to be enlightened!

Three hundred and fifty is a measurement, a measurement in parts-per-million (ppm). 350 of what? Carbon dioxide concentration in parts-per-million.

What is Parts-Per-Million?

•  Parts-per notation measures concentration  and means 'out of a million', usually used for measuring the volume of a gas, weight of a liquid or solid, or by parts of air or liquid.

Why is the concentration of CO2 so important? Why not Methane?

• Carbon dioxide is the one gas we produce, anthropogenically (unnaturally). This is due to the fact that carbon is abundant in our fossil fuel sources, and is one of the most abundant elements in our galaxy (estimated spectroscopically) with only Hydrogen, Helium and Oxygen being more abundant. Humans are 18% carbon by mass, thus, when we and many other plants and animals decompose, carbon is returned to the Earth and it's why when raw fuels, wood, etc, is burned CO2 is released.

• Remember that plants also absorb CO2 during photosynthesis, massive amounts of it, 20% of our total annual emissions are absorbed by tropical forests alone - not including pine forests. That's the equivalent of 4.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions, each year. Source Thus, if we remove forests, not only do we release CO2 during the deforestation, but on average 1,000 kg of CO2 is not absorbded by each tree once it's cut down - removing 1,000 trees will mean 1 million kg of CO2 will not be absorbed each year.

What is the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, in parts per million?

• Measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, at current concentration of CO2 is 391.06 ppm, as of March 2010.  That is, in Earth's entire atmsophere for every million parts, 391 are CO2 (presumable molecules). That doesn't sound like much, right? Read on.

Why is 350 ppm so important?

•  350 parts per million is the level of Carbon Dioxide, which most scientists and climate experts agree, is the highest sustainable level at which we can live with the Earth's climate remaining stable - i.e. global warming remains in it's natural state, thus, any climate change will be natural.

When did the concentration rise above 350ppm?

•  1987.

What was the concentration pre-industrialisation?

• 275ppm of CO2, as it was for all of human history

If 391ppm is the current concentration, how much is 391ppm?

• The atmosphere has a mass of about five quintillion (5x1018) kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface.
• CO2 at 387ppm (mid 2008 concentration) makes up 3.02188 x 10^12 kg, or 3.02188 trillion kg. This is an increase from 2.996 trillion kg, which is 2.588 billion kg more atmospheric CO2 in 2008, than in 2006.

How do we know what the concentration was thousands of years ago?

•  Trapped in the deepest ice of the Antarctic, specifically the Eastern Antarctic Ice Shelf, the thickest ice on the planet, are air bubbles from thousands of years ago. By analysing the air bubbles in the deepest ice scientists can determine the concentration of gases in the atmosphere at the time when that very thin layer of ice was exposed at the surface. This is the most accurate way of measuring ancient atmopsheric compositions.

What if the CO2 concentrations keep increasing?

•  The more CO2 there is the atmosphere, the more molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere, resulting in  more UV radiation from the sun  being absorbed and re-radiated back to the surface of the Earth instead of escaping into space, thus, trapping more of the sun's UV radiation inside the Earth's atmosphere and warming the planet - global warming. This global warming will cause changes in weather patterns which, if sustained over more than 30 years, is considered to be climate change.

If you are interested in learning more, or supporting the campaign called "350", visit the 350.org website, and connect on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, and/or YouTube.


What do you think? How important is the number 350 in this context?


Thank you for reading!

As you may have heard there's a rather large meeting in Copenhagen between world leaders and delegates from almost every country on the planet.

What's it about?
Climate talks will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark between all members of the United Nations - which is 192 out of 195 countries.
The number of leaders planning to come to the December 7-18 talks has risen to 98 (possibly more by now) out of the 192 members of the United Nations. Most world leaders will attend on last two days of the talks, Obama recently changing his mind about when he would attend.


Why is it a big deal?

Many scientists believe this is the last chance we (as humans) have to do something about climate change, and it needs to big.


Islands are already disappearing and some of these nations, such as the Maldives are now carbon neutral as a result. These island nations will need to evacuated before 2050 if the IPCC's predictions prove true. Although, Dr. James Lovelock's predictions are much worse, which is discomforting considering he's a climate maverick, inventor, and the most important scientific thinker alive (he's done for Climate Science what Einstein and Newton did for Physics).
These predictions, of a 6c rise by 2100 are why there is a need for action. There are two choices we currently have:

1. Do nothing.
2. Do all we can, now.


What are the consequences of these two choices?

Say we do nothing, and the worst predictions are true, we will be unprepared and social and economic collapse would occur in a heartbeat. It will become the survival of the fittest and there will likely be climate wars.
We do nothing, it doesn't happen - HAPPY DAYS!
We do all we can and it IS true, we are as prepared as possible and strong enough to tackle whatever nature throws at us - we can survive, even though socially and economically strained beyond comprehension.
We do all we can and....! Nothing. Ooops! Massive cost, for what? Nothing, although we are being very nice to the planet.


Which is more of a risk to you?

THIS is why it's a big deal: what happens at the coming climate talks has the potential to change the course of the human race 50 years down the line. Also, we cannot be certain of anything! Gamble with the future of a race? Hmm, would you take that risk?



What are they aiming for?

They are aiming to do as much as possible, but as often is with politics, some countries will refuse to climb aboard until another country does first. The current argument between industrializing nations such as China and India, is that the developed countries who went through the same process had no restrictions and it's their fault emissions have risen so much and they aren't doing enough themselves to be 'cleaner'.
Developed countries counter with "we need everyone on board for this to make a difference" and the US & Canada often refuse to agree upon a deal until India and China do, these are the largest polluters in the world, following one another and getting nowhere. This is what worries many, as if that happens in Copenhagen, a lot will have been lost.

Climate scientists are convinced the world must stop the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and start making them fall very soon. To have a chance of keeping warming under the dangerous 2C mark, cuts of 25%-40% relative to 1990 levels are needed, rising to 80%-95% by 2050. So far, the offers on the table are way below these targets.

As for the stolen e-mails? 1,700 UK Scientists have signed a statement saying climate change IS due to human activities.
Climate skeptics misrepresented both the content and the significance of the stolen e-mails, quotes were also cherry-picked from the sources.

The Met. Office has released temperature records to debunk these claims. Which is a considerable amount of evidence, if one reads the article here.


The best way to get world leaders to come up with a climate deal that is fair, ambitious, and binding is to:

1. Sign the TckTckTck petition.
2. Raise your voice at Hopenhagen.org.
3. Educate yourself about basic climate science.
4. Educate others.
5. Write to your local government, environment minister or national leader.
   

It's everywhere, talk of going green, "global warming" and this thing it causes, "climate change", but how much do you really know about it?
Let's start with Gaia, the theory that is now widely accepted and is described as the earth as: "The Gaia Theory posits that the organic and inorganic components of Planet Earth have evolved together as a single living, self-regulating system. It suggests that this living system has automatically controlled global temperature, atmospheric content, ocean salinity, and other factors, that maintains its own habitability." [Source]

With strong evidence of past hot and cold periods during Earth's lifetime, a natural cycle has been deducted. After collision with an asteroid that is believed to have wiped out the then dominant species, dinosaurs, the Earth was still in a hot state, hence, an ice age followed, on a geological timeline, fairly soon afterward. This was Gaia re-adjusting, so much that glaciation extended further south than Canada's modern border and into northern Europe. As diversity increased in the cool period almost to the point of destabilization - likely through population - Gaia readjusted again to bring about the diversity of the experienced until at least the 1800's.
Since the industrialization of the current M.E.D.C's (more economically developed countries) and the invention of the combustion engine and 'discovery' of electricity we have been consuming fossil fuels at a near exponential rate as our technology has become more sophisticated.
This is a problem for Gaia as she was already trying to balance the warm period, but with the release of greenhouse gases, so called because they trap and re-radiate heat, the natural balance has been upset. Of course, as the majority of greenhouse gases now come from unnatural sources.
Considering the amount of geological time it takes Gaia to adjust, and the fact that the average global temperature has increased by 1F in the last one hundred years, and by 4F in some regions, the vast majority of scientists now accept that climate change, as a result of global warming, is mainly caused by humans.

Global warming causes climate change purely due the sensitivity of the world's climate to changes in temperature, and not only climate, but ocean current's too. Ocean currents determine how warm or cool parts of the world are, for example, if the Gulf Stream were to change course and move south toward Spain, the UK, along with north-western Europe would become as cold as parts Greenland for a considerable amount of the year.
North Eastern Europe would experience winters similar to those in Siberia currently, if it were to move further north, the opposite would happen and British tourists would be less likely to holiday in southern Spain!
Ocean currents can affect weather patterns to an extent too, but not as much as the inland temperatures. Weather patterns will change independently, as they constantly too, but the frequency of extreme weather would increase. A warmer summer in the Caribbean would likely result in a more severe hurricane season, which has been seen recently, we all know where.
When the atmospheric composition changes, there will likely be effects. Carbon dioxide is now at levels of 390 parts per million, when in 1970 the levels were close to 330 parts per million, and in 1880 levels were around 290 ppm. Oh, and, in the last 800,000 years, the CO2 concentration has never gone above 310 parts per million (see below)

Hardly a natural increase?

Such a big change in a very short of amount of geological time is likely to have many consequences.

These continually accelerating changes are why our world leaders need to leave Copenhagen having signed an ambitious, fair and binding climate agreement, with all countries involved, especially the U.S., China and Canada. For too long we have sat back and denied, debated and been sheepish when it comes to policy. This December could be the last chance our world leaders have to collectively combat climate change. If you want to let them know you want the same, I suggest you explore the TckTckTck campaign, and sign your name along with 1.93 million other citizens worldwide who have done so already. Together we can make a lot of noise.

Thank you for reading!



This has been my contribution to Blog Action Day along with some of my own photographs, located here.

In the first half of 2009 the UN launched a new climate campaign, TckTckTck, since then 1.37 million citizens from around the world have signed their name to the list of people calling for a climate deal that is viable, realistic and that will prevent climate change instead of preserving our economies and wrapping them in cotton wool. Since it's launch other events and partner campaigns have joined TckTckTck.

Avaaz had 3.5 million members in every country of the world, with a mission of: "Avaaz.org is a new global web movement with a simple democratic mission: to close the gap between the world we have, and the world most people everywhere want." Over 13.5 million actions have been taken since January 2007 and they continue to support the TckTckTck campaign.

350 is another supporter and partner of the TckTckTck campaign, launched in 2007 with a campaign called "Step It Up". Currently an International Day of Climate Action on October 24 is planned with over 1700 events worldwide, from Parades to Festivals. 350 has a mission is to: "...inspire the world to rise to the challenge of the climate crisis—to create a new sense of urgency and of possibility for our planet." Why the number 350? This is the amount of CO2, in parts per million, that scientists accept as the safe limit for humanity, currently we are at 385 parts per million.

A new climate film that includes the UN's award winning IPCC's worst climate predictions has also sent shockwaves through its audiences, it's called The Age Of Stupid and stars Pete Postlethwaite, the film is also supported by another campaign, Not Stupid, where the public can take action and send "Stupid" or "Not Stupid" to politicians of their own country. There is also a pledge anyone can sign to say what they will do if the UK government builds a new coal power plant, Pete will give back his OBE in protest. The film is available on DVD and was premiered around the world on September 21.
From October 5th anyone, anywhere will be able to buy a license to screen the film at their church/pub/school/business. The cost to market, make and distribute the film has come from public donations and anyone being able to buy shares in The Age Of Stupid. Many are still unaware of the film.

Each of the these campaign websites have interesting facts on Climate Change and the road to Copenhagen where world leaders will sign a new climate deal, to replace to Kyoto protocol that ends in 2012. They are worth exploring to educate oneself and see what all of the fuss is about! TckTckTck is one of the most successful climate campaigns to date, recently, 60 artists and celebrities took part in the recording of a re-mix of the hit "Beds Are Burning".





What can you do?










Share it, dig it, stumble it, post it, tweet it, anything you can to raise awareness and add to the already loud voices of 1.37 million others around the world who are calling for climate action. You can read the evidence and the facts within this blog and via campaign websites, see for yourself and ask yourself if YOU are ready for climate justice. Share and ask your family, friends and colleagues, Are You Ready?



Thank you for reading.

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!

Canada has a in place a comprehensive ecoAction plan which has been in full swing since 2000. Among the many targets is a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, although whether that is 20% below 1990 levels (as common with the targets of other countries and the Kyoto Protocol) remains unclear. Another target is that 90% of Canada's electricity needs be generated by clean energy, such as hydro, nuclear, or wind power by 2020. "Clean coal" is also included, which is coal chemically washed to remove minerals and impurities, as well as clean coal technologies to reduce the environmental impact of coal energy generation.
Regulations are being developed that will require a 5% average renewable fuel content in Canadian gasoline, i.e. ethanol, by 2010. With similar regulation intended for diesel fuel and heating oil to contain a 2% average renewable content by 2012.
Investments to implement a performance-based, efficient regulatory regime nationally include:

• ecoENERGY iniatives targeting more than $2 billion in renewable energy, energy science and technology, and energy efficiency.
• ecoTRANSPORT initiatives investing more than $4 billion in renewable fuels and a cleaner, more efficient, transportation system.
• ecoAGRICULTURE initiatives investing almost $500 million to assist farmers and rural communities in taking advantages of new opportunities in the agriculture bio-products sector.

Budget 2007 provided a $1.5 billion trust fund to help the provinces and territories invest in major projects that clean air.

Budget 2008 included measures to strengthen and ensure effective implementation of Canada's ecoAction plan, including:

• $500 million for investments to improve public transit that will contribute to cleaner air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• A $250 million investment in carbon capture and storage initiatives, including $240 million in trust (separate) for Saskatchewan to be matched by the province and industry for a full-scale commercial demonstration of carbon capture and storage in the coal-fired electricity sector.
• Increases in various capital cost allowances (for: carbon dioxide pipelines, clean-energy generation equipment).
• Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax relief to land leased to situate wind or solar power equipment for the production of electricity.

Budget 2009 is providing over $2 billion in incremental funding to support a cleaner and more sustainable environment. This budget provides:

• $1 billion over five years for a new Green Infrastructure Fund to support green infrastructure projects, including the generation of sustainable energy.
• Another $1 billion over 5 years for clean energy research and demonstration projects, including carbon capture and storage. This is expected to generate a total investment in clean technologies of (at least) $2.5 billion.
• $300 million over two years to the ecoEnergy Home Retrofit program, supporting an estimated 200,000 retrofits across Canada.
• $80.5 million over two years for the management and assessment of federal contaminated sites, which will facilitate remediation work totalling an estimated $165 million over two years.
• $10 million in 2009/10 to support annual Government reports on clean air, water and greenhouse gas emissions.
• A one-time federal investment of $1.3 billion over two years to support renovations and retrofits of social housing, a cost shared 50:50 with provinces.