» 2007 » March

We’ve eaten, developed and drilled to near oblivion, says the environmental writer. It’s time to realize that having more stuff is not the road to paradise. Oh, really?

Bill McKibben has been writing about global warming and the recklessness of oil-addicted economies since George W. Bush was a part owner of the Texas Rangers, Al Gore was the junior senator from Tennessee, and informed adults could still speak of climate change as hypothetical. If the stretch of history that has followed seems all too familiar, so will many of the players in McKibben’s new book, “Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future.” You’ll recognize the ticking time bombs (climate change and peak oil), the villainous corporations (Wal-Mart and ConAgra), the do-nothing politicians (pretty much all of them), the consumerist and apathetic citizenry (pretty much all of us), the cadre of witch doctors with their trickle-down pablum (the Federal Reserve and the World Trade Organization), and of course the plucky heroes (small farmers and grass-roots activists). But with “Deep Economy,” McKibben does more than just stage another culture-war drama. He offers both a compelling account of what brought us to this perilous moment in history and a credible vision of a more promising future.

Source: www.salon.com/…

LS »» More of us need to think like this dude. He is not only able to eloquently elucidate are current environmental and social problems, but he is also able to provide realistic solutions. This quote is encouraging:

“But there have been changes in the last couple of years that have made me hopeful. We’re figuring out that the endless increase in our consumption, which drives global warming more than anything else, actually isn’t making us very happy. That seems to me a very powerful idea.”

This tax break was introduced by the Liberal government in the 1990’s when oil sands development was a high risk, low return venture, to create an incentive to invest in new oil sands projects. The measure basically allows oil companies to write off the cost of their capital investments in these projects immediately, rather than gradually as is the case for all other industries. However, since the tax break was introduced the price of oil has increased several hundred percent, and Suncor, our biggest oil sands producer, makes annual profits of 3 billion dollars. Suncor’s oil sands facility also happens to be Canada’s single largest industrial point source emitter of greenhouse gases, and the oil sands as a whole are expected to account for half of all future increases in greenhouse gas emissions in the country.

LS »» The VTACC has drafted this sample email for you to send to some of our politicians if you are interested in cutting and pasting it into your email client and sending off to Ottawa.

The Honourable James M. Flaherty, Minister of Finance
Fax: (613) 992-8320
jflaherty@fin.gc.ca

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Fax: (613) 941-6900
Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

Sample E-mail

To the Honourable James M. Flaherty

Your government has recently gone to some length to reassure Canadians that it takes the threat of climate change seriously and will act accordingly. I look forward to seeing your commitment to action reflected in next week’s budget. In particular, I urge you to scrap the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands projects. Clearly, this corporate tax break is completely unnecessary in this time of high oil prices. What’s much more important, this subsidy provides an incentive to increase greenhouse gas emissions at the precise time when you should be using your fiscal powers to reduce those emissions. Please show some leadership on this issue, Mr Flaherty, by taking this first small step in the fight against climate change.

I also want you to know that I am fully in support of a federal tax on carbon emissions. Your government has been quick to denounce this measure as a “tax on families,” but that is short-sighted electioneering. I am sure you are aware that there have been many carefully thought out proposals showing how carbon taxes could be implemented to be revenue neutral, by simultaneously reducing income taxes, or by using the revenue to provide subsidies in support of energy efficiency. Even Canada’s big banks now support a carbon tax. I want to assure you that my family, and many others I know, would be strongly supportive of a government which demonstrated innovative leadership in this area, even if it cost us a bit more each year in taxes.

Sincerely,
me

It seems like a no-brainer: People concerned with saving the environment should save those places with (a) the most species and (b) that are under the biggest threats.

But in an age of nearly unprecedented species loss, could there be a more effective approach to conservation? Some scientists are now saying yes:

• They argue that this “biodiversity hotspot” approach — which has been the dominant conservation paradigm for over two decades — actually misses more species and important ecological services than it protects.
• And some even say that saving hotspots (which include tropical forests, oceanic islands and Mediterranean-type ecosystems) might actually be changing the course of evolution…for the worse.

Source: www.nature.org/…

LS »» As the author of this article asks, is it better to save 500 beetle species or wolves? The wolf of course, except what if one of those beetle species carries the cure to some disease that we don’t yet know about. The point is to conserve as many varieties of ecosystems as possible in all the areas that people live and not just the tropical hotspots. The job just got bigger, in case you didn’t already realize it.

Imagine if Nascar used only environmentally sustainable energies such as biofuels or electricity?

LS »» The other evening I had a thought that it would be very cool if all racing organizations such as Nascar, Formula 1 and the Dakar Rally, etc. mandated that all competitors use environmentally sustainable energy sources to fuel their vehicles. Relatively speaking they may not be huge polluters but they could play a huge roll in promoting alternative energy sources and decreasing the zeal for combustion engines. And considering the cost of a high end race car it’s not like they can’t afford to spend a little extra for an alternative energy engine, especially considering the speeds attainable by electric cars.

Then I came across this article about the new Spyder Roadster tricycle or whatever they call it. With a wicked concept vehicle like this why didn’t they take it that extra step further and give it an engine that uses a non-combustion engine? Then it would be so much cooler.

However, what is conceivable is that the governments of Canada, the US, etc. legislate that within a few years all new recreational vehicles such as motorcycles, snow mobiles jet skis, etc. have engines that use environmentally sustainable technology. That would be cool!