My apologies go to Darryl, who received this message separately! I
wanted it to go to the list, but addressed it to him instead, and I'm
feeling a little sheepish right now . . .
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
> I thought the article spoke volumes about the oil sector's sense of
> entitlement. It's deeply ingrained from decades of practice.
I got that, but there is also something else that my American
upbringing has a hard time understanding. Many Canadians view their
government as a partner in dealing with social issues. When a problem
arises, I hear calls for government action. As an American, I have an
inbred distrust of government that is very hard to explain. So when I
read the article its tone sounded very Canadian to me.
>
> In addition to your points, I would also reiterate some others.
>
> 1) This is an industry responsible for despoiling nature and creating
> ecological disasters. In my opinion, on a scale unmatched by any
> other human activity on the planet. They almost never clean up after
> themselves, so others bear the costs while they extract the profits.
And the principle here SHOULD be that extraction is heavily taxed
and never subsidized. The resources are supposed to belong to the
people, not corporations.
>
> 2) The industry is responible for massive political machinations on
> the world scale, including overthrowing governments and sponsoring
> invasions, when they couldn't simply buy out the powers in place.
>
> So much more, but it's not news.
>
> This week, Esso stations here in Ottawa are out of gasoline. I have
> advocated boycotting Esso/Exxon-Mobil in the past (and still do). I
> never expected that the company would implement it from their side.
> So, those of you that have had to find another outlet, perhaps you
> could continue to do so once Esso manages to re-stock. On the other
> hand, apparently large numbers of regular Esso customers were baffled
> by the fact that the pumps were not dispensing fuel when they put the
> nozzles into their filler spouts. After driving past the big price
> sign set to 0.00, and ignoring the signs at the entrance and on the
> pumps saying the outlet was out of fuel.
As much as I don't like Esso for its rape of the planet's resources,
none of the other companies are any better. I have to run Chevron 94
octane premium in my truck, though I'd FAR prefer to burn ethanol,
methanol or wood gas. One day I'm going to build an EV, but it's hard
for a gearhead to let go of combustion!
(Use less energy)
> Absolutely! This is a message I preach regularly. Only after we get
> rational about our energy consumption (on a personal level) should we
> focus on how to produce the remaining energy required from
> sustainable sources. This approach frequently leads to cost savings.
I've been talking about this for better than 30 years. People STILL
shake their heads at me and think I'm crazy . . .
(Windfall profits tax)
> I think this will be counter-productive. If we impose a tax on
> windfall profits, these companies will simply re-arrange the accounts
> so there are no such profits on the books. Instead, let's stop
> providing subsidies and free passes to the industry. I am also in
> favour of a GHG (carbon) tax.
Ok, I hear you. But if we were taxing resource extraction instead
of subsidizing it, that would help!
(Efficiency incentives)
> To date, such programs in Canada have had limited take-up or
> noticeable success. Instead, let's stop subsidizing energy prices
> and let consumers make their own choices. Imbedding a GHG tax into
> the price will also help drive the desired shift.
The problem with this approach has been that the options available
to customers have been rather limited. I wanted to install a wood
gasifying boiler when we built our new house, but the municipality
prohibits the installation of wood burners because of pollution
concerns. What's ridiculous about this is the fact that a gasifier
produces virtually NO smoke, yet the municipality allows people to burn
their "agricultural waste" in HUGE bonfires that fill the entire valley
air shed with eye-stinging smoke. It's that kind of blindness that
irritates me!
There are incentives to upgrade furnaces, but not boilers, and the
incentives are limited to natural gas appliances. Even if I wanted a
heat pump, I'd have to foot the (significant) cost of the installation
myself. And worse, the banks are not interested in financing ANY kind
of renewable energy. Here are two examples from my own experience as a
home builder:
1. I wanted to install a small heliostat for supplemental solar
hot water.
2. I planned a battery bank / inverter system as a grid backup,
and the foundation for renewable energy collection on my property.
When I approached the Credit Union with our building budget, they
deleted these two items from my list of expenditures, saying that there
was "no market" for this kind of technology and that installing these
things would add "no value" to my house. (I could upgrade the tile, the
laminate flooring and put in fancier fixtures, though!) If I wanted to
install these things, I had to pay for them up front. Now, how many of
us have extra money laying around when we're building a house? If I
hadn't needed the financing, I wouldn't have gone to the Credit Union in
the first place! (And trust me, the banks were WORSE! We eventually
removed our money and investments from the Royal Bank because they
treated us so badly.)
There are NO incentives to save water, either. I have a HUGE garden
and very minimal lawn on my property. In the summer I let my grass die
and focus only on watering the garden. Because of this we use
considerably LESS water than our neighbors, but water is so cheap it
makes very little economic sense to install low flush toilets, high
aeration shower heads and tap aerators. Worse, we couldn't get a CSA
approved multrum toilet system past the building inspector. For them,
it's a sewer hook up, or NO BUILDING is allowed. That's just myopic!
So the City of Chilliwack pumps water out of its aquifer and sends
it WAY uphill to where I live, just so I can flush toilets and send the
waste back downhill for primary treatment, then on into the Fraser
River. We use energy to get the water up here, only to pollute it with
our waste (which could be helping with the garden, don't you think?) and
then dump it into an already heavily polluted river. Then BC Hydro
complains that energy use keeps rising, and now they want to build a big
coal fired energy plant in Princeton, a small town an hour and a half
east of here, in order to deal with electricity demand in Vancouver.
This makes NO SENSE to me at all!
>
> I would also support some government funding towards a rational
> education campaign that extols the benefits of efficiency. E.g., I'm
> not just buying a compact fluorescent light that will save me money
> on my electrical bill, I'm helping shut down a coal-fired generating
> station.
People don't care, Darryl. I've mentioned before that someone
around here drives a big truck with a bumper sticker that reads: "Fuel
economy doesn't matter." It's a pervasive attitude!
(Community planning)
> This seems so simple on the surface, yet so hard to get buy-in on the
> ground. For example, the federal government has just stopped funding
> the InfraGuide program (run jointly by the National Research Council
> and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities) which developed best
> practices for municipalities, including how to reduce energy use and
> emissions production. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
> (developer of the R-2000 standard) is currently downsizing the area
> it has which focuses on energy efficient housing. I gather most
> municipalities are slow to embrace LED traffic signals, despite the
> fact that they reduce energy costs and labour associated with
> maintenance. Here in Ottawa, the transit organization has again
> elected to pass on acquiring hybrid buses, as it is more important to
> keep flogging our still-born light-rail system.
Ugh! This is another pet peeve of mine . . . Vancouver is the ONLY
major city in North America that doesn't have a freeway running through
it. That seems great on the surface, but the problem is that Vancouver
doesn't have a decent public transportation system, either. Last
summer, when I was taking a certification class in Kitsilano, I stayed
with my brother-in-law who lives in Cloverdale. (This is nearly an hour
west of where I live.) From his house I took a bus to the Skytrain
station and stood on the train until I reached East Vancouver, then
boarded another bus downtown that took me clear across the city. I
walked to my class from one of the bus stops--a trip that required more
than 90 minutes altogether. On the last day of the class I had to drive
my truck in because after dismissal, I went to Vancouver Island on a
camping trip with my family. The same trip took HALF the time and cost
less in fuel and parking.
So why would I WANT to take public transit, aside from my motivation
to conserve resources?
We have rail lines that extend from Vancouver to within 5 kilometers
of where I live. They are, by and large, unused. Why we don't have
decent public transit in this area simply baffles me!
(Energy use tax)
>
> But do we apply that energy tax to sustainable sources as well as
> non-sustainable sources? I would prefer not. I would also support
> removing sales taxes from items specifically associated with energy
> efficiency (e.g., compact fluorescent lights, T-8 fluorescent
> lighting, efficient appliances), although it may be hard to draw the
> lines cleanly.
Indeed! And, of course, taxing fuel will narrow the profit margins
for truckers, who are largely responsible for moving food and freight
around. I'd like to see LESS food and freight moving by truck, and I'd
also like to see freight moving significantly shorter distances, but
we've talked about this before, haven't we?
(Using carbon as raw material to BUILD THINGS)
>
> Agreed. Apparently there is a world-wide shortage of carbon fibre
> now. Seems a bit surreal when we are apparently looking for ways to
> create carbon sinks. (IMHO, sequestering is not a sink, it is
> temporary storage.)
My eldest son was talking to me about our hybrid Camry the other day
as we were tuning my truck. He said: "Shouldn't you sell this truck and
buy a hybrid truck, too?" This gave me the opportunity to talk to him
about embodied energy. My truck was built in 1993 and has over 200 000
km on its odometer. Every kilometer that it drives down the road
represents more value for the energy that went into its manufacture.
Our Camry is a delightful machine, and it's REALLY spoiled me, but it's
STILL made out of steel. It's as heavy as my truck, too, and while it
goes significantly farther on a liter of fuel than does my Ranger, it
will have to travel a LONG way before that improvement in fuel economy
makes up for the additional energy that went into its manufacture.
I'd like to see cars and bikes built out of carbon fiber, but in
reality, the biggest single contributor to North American energy use
from the consumer's point of view is the automobile. We need to move
away from it, and simply substituting steel for carbon and fossil fuel
for renewable fuel will not effectively address the underlying issues
that have put us into this mess!
(Do something NOW)
> Yes! Which is why I am advocating non-governmental solutions. They
> take too long and usually miss the target anyway. Let government set
> the high-level objective and possibly some penalties and broad
> incentives, but let people figure out how to solve the problems in
> ways that actually work for them.
Especially at the local level.
>
> I'm going to look more into the banning incandescents law announced
> in Oz, and parroted here in Ontario yesterday as being of interest,
> but I already have some reservations. I have not been able to find
> an efficient light which I can install in an oven or a clothes dryer,
> or a CF small enough to fit in my refrigerator. I have been stumped
> trying to find plug-in or screw-in replacements for some unique
> incandescents (piano lights, chandelier bulbs, jewellery display
> cases. Will such an edict also apply to automotive lighting,
> emergency lighting, exit signs, etc.? Personally, I have some older
> flashlights that don't see frequent use that I would prefer not to
> send to landfill simply because their incandescent bulb burns out and
> there is no viable efficient replacement "bulb". I do have some LED
> based flashlights now, which see more use, but the older units have
> ended up in glove compartments and tool boxes, where they have proved
> quite convenient.
The "one size fits all" approach doesn't fit all . . .
(A guest in your country)
> Come, come Robert. Complaining is our national pastime. It's those
> radical things you do (gardening, composting, using efficient
> lighting) that make us uncomfortable.
Sigh . . . I could do a LOT more than I'm doing, Darryl, but I've
already done all of the inexpensive things and a significant shift in my
personal energy use will require more investment than I can afford.
When my sons begin driving, I'd like them to be driving EVs . . . Now
that I've done the computer swap in my truck electronics seem less scary
to me, yet the idea of having ANOTHER car in our driveway seems
fundamentally wrong.
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
"The Long Journey"
New Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca
Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
