Wind Energy Conference Ignored by Mr. Harper

Submitted by a Fundy Royal NDP Volunteer

A news report today on News 88.9 caught my attention as I was driving home. It stated that the World Wind Energy Conference was being held this week in Kingston, Ontario. Private and public sector representatives from all over the world were attending the conference, which was being held in North America for the first time in history.

A quick look at the website at http://wwec2008.com/ shows that the conference is being hosted and heavily sponsored by the Ontario government, and is being attended by government officials from all over the world. Unfortunately, despite numerous invitations, not a single representative from Stephen Harper's Environment office chose to attend the conference, which was called to discuss "the role of community power in building a robust renewable energy industry and strategies [that] strengthen local project control and economic returns within the community."

The World Wind Energy Association is a forward-thinking organization that advocates global co-operation to deal with the challenges of wind power generation. Its mission statement can be found here: http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=29. It is quite upsetting that when such an important and exciting event comes to Canada, our own federal government not only refuses to sponsor and promote the conference, but that it cannot even find the time to send a representative to discuss environmental issues with experts from around the world. This is especially disappointing due to the fact that the conference was called to discuss issues of community wind power generation, something that will make alternative energy more accessible and affordable to ordinary working families across the country.

As concerned Canadians, we must to hold Harper to task on his environmental record (or lack thereof). We cannot afford to have our voices ignored on the world stage in this critically important battle.

Decommissioning fund is no panacea

I sent this to the TJ in early May. So far, no action.

I was intrigued by Professor Lowe’s letter on safe uranium mining (28 April), especially his comments on decommissioning funding for uranium mines.

Quite by coincidence, I have been preparing for a talk on energy alternatives and was reading a paper entitled, “U.S. nuclear plant decommissioning funding adequacy …” This paper was written by D. Williams (an economics researcher in the U.S. Government Accountability Office) and was published in Energy Economics in 2007.

To quote his findings, “the initial decommissioning cost estimates have been cited by many industry observers as being far too low [and] [t]he tax-paying public, future ratepayers, and/or stockholders may be assessed for funding shortfalls.”

Furthermore “a small - but not inconsequential - number of the 222 funds show balances (and/or contributions) that are below, and some far below, their benchmark levels …” and “the risk is not inconsequential that [economic] conditions could be well below average, leading to large numbers of underfunded trust funds.”

The paper uses data up to 2004. We certainly know that economic conditions have been “below average” since then.

Granted, this is U.S. research, and it deals with the reactor, as opposed to the mining end of the nuclear power cycle, but the conclusion is clear that the simple existence of decommissioning funding is insufficient to safeguard the public from ultimately paying for cleanup.

My guess is that the nuclear industry is fairly similar both across nations and within the nuclear power cycle from mining to power generation and ultimately disposal. Until similar thorough research is conducted upon the health and management of decommissioning funding for the Canadian uranium mining industry, then our best bet is to err on the side of caution.

A Recent Letter - Carbon Taxes

This was published in the Telegraph Journal on 22 February and Daily Gleaner on 26 February.

Carbon taxes way to go

I was very excited to learn that British Columbia has followed through and introduced carbon taxes.

As a person who has done research in this area, I was excited to see off-setting tax cuts mentioned. Economists refer to this practice as tax-shifting.

Firms, public relations companies, right-wing think tanks and some governments often focus solely on the increase in costs associated with improved environmental quality. They fail to mention the significant damages caused by loosely regulated emissions: climate change; increased demands on our health-care system adding to wait times; reduced productivity; lower crop yields.

Moreover, by stressing carbon taxes as an additional cost or tax or consumer burden, these groups scare the average hard-working consumer who believes we already pay too much tax.

It is great to see B.C. provide a workable solution. Now, are our Premier Shawn Graham and Environment Minister Roland Hache listening or will they choose to ignore this important opportunity?

Carbon Taxes

Saw the piece in the Telegraph Journal yesterday (Feb 20) highlight the announcement of carbon taxes in BC. This is awesome news, not just because a government in Canada finally took the economist's advice, but because the BC government implemented tax-shifting as part of the program.

First they fought the issue of climate change. Now they fight the cost battle - it would be too much for us to deal with climate change, let your governments deal with the consequences.

I wrote a letter to the Irving papers highlighting the importance of tax-shifting. We'll see if it gets published.

Don't let them tell you it can't be done!

Save Money and the Environment

Whenever I go to Saint John, I have to take the ferry.

People, I know it is cold in the winter and hot in the summer but when waiting in line and while travelling on the ferry please turn off your car. I've heard it said that it is cheaper to turn off your car than to idle for one minute.

If you can't think of the environment, at least think of your wallet (with gas at a $1+ a litre the annual savings are substantial).

Please stop idling at the ferries.

(I hope to have an update on this project in the next little while).

Petitcodiac River Survey

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content


Hi one and all;

Please drop us a note if you have been called by Thinkwell Research for a survey regarding the proposed restoration of the Peticodiac River. We'd like to know what sort of questions they were asking and who hired them for this research.

Ask Questions

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content


The following is an e-mail I recently sent out, asking about the federal government's decision to only do a limited Environmental Assessment of the proposed refinery. Given wind patterns, much of Fundy Royal will be subject to emissions. Even the City of Moncton has come out against this project. Mr. Coulter and Mr. Jeffrey both work in Environment Canada - Atlantic Branch.

Dear Mr. Coulter and Mr. Jeffrey;

Recently Federal Environment Minister, John Baird, decided that only the marine portion of the proposed oil refinery in Saint John, NB (aka "Project Eider Rock") would be subject to a Federal Review.

A number of people have asked for a Full Federal Panel Review of the entire operations of the proposed refinery. A A US House of Representatives Report on oil refineries identifies toxic air emissions of benzene, xylenes, methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, ethylbenzene, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, hexane, cresols, MTBE, napthalene, and phenol, many of which are listed by Environment Canada on PSL1 and on PSL2. Likewise, particulate matter (PM) is emitted from oil refineries and makes PSL2. Of course, there are also VOCs, SOx, NOx, and greenhouse gases all of which are of significant environmental concern because of both ecosystem and human health effects.

I visted the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's website and read through the document "How to Determine if the Act Applies" . Perhaps it is my lack of familiarity with the legislation, but I fail to see how Minister Baird could decide to call for anything less than a Review Panel.

Can either of you explain to me the reasoning that was used, when Minister Baird decided to limit the Federal government's involvement? Has he outlined his case, or is this the sort of decision left to the Minister's discretion?

I thank you in advance for your prompt reply.

Sincerely,
Rob Moir

Dark Day for Canada

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content


I'm finding it hard to find hope these days.

Mr. Harper went to the Commonwealth meetings and yet again ignored the importance of climate change, obviously choosing to remain a relative of the 'Albertosaurus'. His representative in Fundy Royal, MP Rob Moore, seems to be lock-step with his leader as he squirms to find ways to avoid funding the restoration of the Petitcodiac. Likewise, John Baird (Minister of the Environment) has followed Mr. Harper's orders and rejected all calls for a Full Federal Panel Review of the impacts of the first new oil refinery in North America in 25 years ; see the Harvard Medical School's report to find out the full range of cancers caused by oil refineries, and recall that the prevailing winds will bring emissions across Fundy Royal.

The recent IPCC report clearly indicates scientific consensus over climate change and global warming. It's not the environmentalists, nor the NDP, nor the Liberals, nor Mr. Harper that form this reality ... no matter who [de]cries the case publicly.

Mr. Harper's only support in the anti-global warming cause is George W. Bush, now that Australian voters have seen the (compact flourescent) light and elected Labour leader Kevin Rudd as their new Prime Minister .

I'm teaching an Environmental Economics class this term, which I really enjoy. My students and I, however, have become jointly depressed over the possibilities of Canada to find a solution to our pollution woes. In my opinion, we should declare waste (or waste disposal services) to be a tradeable good, as this would require us to acknowledge the leakage of air pollution across provincial and international boundaries as a matter of federal concern and thus federal jurisdiction. At the same time, we HAVE to increase the public demand for a cleaner environment.

Without a change in the political regime, without a change in the fundamental realities underlying economics, I believe our future (not to mention the futures of our children and grandchildren) looks pretty bleak.

Do I think there's time? Yes! There's time to change your vote and there's time to change your footprint.

Please get started now!

Moore Blocks River Restoration

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content

This appeared in the Moncton Times & Transcript (23 November 2007, D10)

I was excited to hear that the province has finally decided to go ahead and start work on restoring the Petitcodiac River to some of its former glory.

Sadly, it is the federal government that seems to want to hold up funding. As a resident in Fundy Royal, I was particularly dismayed to hear on CBC that MP Rob Moore may be part of the problem. Apparently his office is too busy to deal with the issue right now, according to the CBC report.

Mr. Moore was elected to represent all of the riding. The majority of the people in the area have spoken quite clearly on this issue and state that they want a restoration project to begin as soon as possible. The province has backed the issue.

It seems that Rob Moore is the only politician who has not come onside. Then again, Rob Moore is Mr. Harper's representative in Fundy Royal (and I always thought he was Fundy Royal's representative in Ottawa).

I guess that since Mr. Harper fails to find the environment a pressing issue in Canada, it is no surprise that Rob Moore sings the same tune in New Brunswick.

Rob Moir
Clifton Royal

Stephan Dion on CBC's "The Current"

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content

Liberal Leader, Stephan Dion was on the Current on May 10. After hearing him talk for a while, I sent in this comment.

Liberal Leader of the Opposition, Stephan Dion stated that climate change is still a relatively new phenomenon. I think it is important to note that back in 1983, NDP MP Simon de Jong questioned then-Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Hon. Jean Chrétien on green house gas emissions. In my opinion, the Liberals have had a long time to deal with climate change and GHG emissions. Climate change is not a new phenomenon; what's new is the Liberal Party's sudden dedication to the issue.

Cleaning Up

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content

Well, I'm back from Ottawa and ready and raring to go. "Where have you been?" you might ask realizing that the NDP Breakthrough Conference occurred over a week ago. Well, first I had to catch up at work ... with tuition rates so high, I have to give students their money's worth. Then I just had to respond to our Provincial government's misguided attempts at self-sufficiency. See my personal letter at www.gnb.ca/2026 (and the provincial NDP's position). I also coordinated a group response from NB Economists calling for full cost accounting - see 29 march 2007 Telegraph Journal pages A1, A8 and the letter itself on page A4. I was also interviewed on CBC InfoAM- Fredericton.

So let's talk environment as this very well may be the issue that Harper chooses to go to the polls with. First, it is undeniable fact that the first party to bring global warming to national attention in Parliament was the NDP ... in 1983 - 24 years ago! Second, after tabling a woefully inadequate "Clean Air Act" (Google Frank Luntz and the Clear Skies Act proposed by George W. Bush, and realize that Harper contracted Frank Luntz to advise his governmet - again, confirm with Google) Harper and his cronies agreed to an all party committee to re-examine the act. Take a look at the 15 ammendments proposed by NDP-MP Nathan Cullen (http://www.ndp.ca/page/4570) and realize that only the end to Big Oil/Big Gas subsidies was voted down (by the Conservatives, Liberals, and Bloc). Score one for all of us ordinary Canadians.

A February 2007 report authored by Friends of the Earth and Corporate Knights suggested that to even come close to meeting Canada’s Kyoto targets, we would have to spend $100 billion over 4 years. This is in line with the Stern report suggesting that if we started now, it would cost us about 1% of our annual GDP spent between now and 2012 to effect any change.

That's A LOT of money ... too costly you might say.

Don't let them tell you it can't be done!

Who remembers our last “crisis” which some later labelled a “fizzle?” The Y2K bug. In 1997, the Auditor General of Canada suggested that preparing for the millennium disaster would cost the Canadian economy between $30 billion and $50 billion. In 1999, cost overruns led the government to conclude that its own Y2K costs, estimated to be $1 billion in 1997, had multiplied to between $2.2 and $2.5 billion, in part because of inflationary pressures to hire a limited number of legacy programmers. Using these multipliers, we have a crisis cost between $66-$125 billion to be spent over a 2-3 year period. If we allow for a modest average inflation rate of 1.5% over this time, then costs can be estimated to be between $74-$141 billion in 2007 dollars.

Y2K was solved, not because it was a fizzle, but because we took real action with very real costs. These costs are not out-of-line with the $100 billion we need to spend between now and 2012 to do our small part for the environment. What’s the difference then? I think Y2K was easier to solve because the private sector perceived a direct effect to its bottom line and went to work investing the money necessary. Reinvesting in our environment is a public good and with that comes the free-rider problem and the attendant questions: Why should my business be first? Why should Canada be first? When will China do its part? Why do I have to buy a smaller car when my show-off neighbour has an SUV?

OK, so where might we start? There are many small things we can all do, from turning down thermostats, changing lightbulbs, walking/riding bikes, public transit, carpooling, etc.. Here in NB, you can look online to Efficiency New Brunswick (http://www.efficiencynb.ca/about-e.asp). But here's a bigger plan we can also implement while pursing energy conservation. New Brunswick has smart hard-working people, a lot of land, many sunny days, large spaces, fertile land, and the highest tides in the world. Suppose we partner with the federal government and set up a province-wide test for renewable energy production where we compare and contrast the efficiency of solar, biofuel, tidal, wind, and geothermal energy production/storage. Imagine ... New Brunswick as world leaders!

We did it once with our ship-building industry. We can do it again, and it works to benefit us all, not just a few elite. We don't have to buy into George W. Bush's hydrocarbon future (a future that many American's reject and very well may reject when Bush leaves office). We don't have to be the supplier for our neighbour's addiction. We can show real leadership on the environment.

Rob Moir (NDP Candidate)