Wind Turbines - Green or Greenwashing? What should NDP position be?

Have come to realize the word "green" in and of itself means little, either way.

In fact, we need to move along and change it back to language that actually means something.

Other than that, I think you have some salient points about moving into correct technology that is actually condusive to homeostasis amongst the ALL the species alive on this planet.

 ...compare digging a few holes, and  having a few dead bats, to filling  a whole valley 100's of miles long, with water,  for example, which is better?

 ETA:

In thinking about "what to do, in the face of (fill in the blank) over the years, really what it comes down to is personal responsibility, at a high level. This means halting the belief in every expanding consumption, whatever it may be of....

I used to be excited about these developments.  Now I see them as a force for evil. 

The tactics and actions of these companies in rural areas is truly appalling.  The progressive farm organization the National Farmers Union has recently begin questioning these developments as well, despite being intially supportive.  As democratic socialists why the NDP is supporting these developments is beyond me.  It seems like if you slap the word alternative on it people naively believe it is universally good.  I used to be like that too, but seeing what is happening in my community and in neighbouring areas I am no longer so naive.

These developments are giving alretnative energy a very bad name.  Most of the most vocal critics I know have been long term supporters of alternative energy generation but also get what is happening on the ground in rural Ontario.

Get a grip. Coal kills. And why don't you look behind the anti-wind movement. You might find nuclear. It is also BS that the tar sands industry is behind wind. As corporations invest they may have some investments in wind, but for the most part that is patent nonsense.

Srsly??

You got a link for that???

The arguments I've seen against wind turbines all verge on the nonsenscial.

Actually FM- You might want to educate yourself a little more.  Nuclear is NOT behind the anti-wind movement, at least not the grassroots groups I have had contact with.  And it is very much true that many of the companies now owning industrial wind developments are based in some pretty un-environmental sectors. These developments have a history of flipping many times and becoming owned by larger and larger, often mulit-national corps. One of the developments near me that I know the most has flipped 4 times since coming online.

The simple reality is that the companies involved in these industrial wind developments are giving alternative energy a bad name. I used to take our kids by the first turbines up because I was really enthusiastics about them and wanted them to see the future. I was dismissive, like you, of their concerns until I took the time to find out more. Now I curse them. As a strong and long time supporter of alternative energy I have grave concerns about what these companies are doing and the tactics they use. A number of long time alternative energy activists I know from rural communites- are starting to majorly question what is happening too.

I tried to find the NFU Ontario resolution Life refers too, but can't find it online. I will try to get a copy and post the resolution from these nuclear industry patsies. Basically, going from memory the resolution calls for more local control, a more transparent process and questions who is really benefiting from these developments.

Then you should look at some of the 40 page contracts farmers are being asked to sign and find out about the tactics these companies are using.  In my circle of friends and aquaintances, who I admit might not be representative, there is a lot of support for small scale - dispersed alternative energy projects, but they are becoming deeply disturbed by what is happening on the ground in rural Ontario with these industrial wind developments.

My comment was about wind turbines themselves, not the industry built around them.

If someone could invent the cure cancer and resolve all of our environmental issues in the most environmentally-friendly way possible but, in the process, become a billionaire, then some people would trash the whole effort because someone...(gasp!!)...made a profit.

Samsung is doing quite well thanks to Ontario taxpayers.

It's a neat trick for the province to create a premiumum market for green energy that was supposed to promote a made-in-Ontario industry.... then sign a partnership with a foreign multi-nat and give the company a big chunk of the green grid.

Oh, and don't put the windmills where the energy is needed.  Kinda like Nanticoke...  Seems that if there's enough people concentrated in a certain area, NIMBYism does still work, despite McGuinty's claims to the opposite.

There are a ton of good arguments against the Samsung deal. And farmers and others have every reason to resist the placement of wind turbine farms.

But talking about the profits to be made only states the obvious. If there weren't profits to be made, we wouldn't get them... just like we wouldn't get anything else except a limited number of public services [and re-nationalizing utility companies wouldn't change the market dynamics a bit... they still wouldn't be public services like education and health care in the sense that matters].

The profits to be made and who makes them is important for fairness and economic efficiency and outcomes reasons, but its a red herring for the policy and public planning choices of whether they are "green or greenwashing"?

Wind farms suck in a lot of ways... most of them because they are wedded to the hyper-centralized model of power production and use that we have to break out of.

But if you have ever been part of any kind of exercise to figure out transition away from the power economy that WILL kill us all if we don't start transforming it right now.... there just is no way to do it without some big uses of very evironmentalistally unholisic power production. Even with using those, the scenarios require some gulping about the feasability and just saying "we have to do it." So trying to reach minmal survival oriented goals without very flawed solutions like wind farms, amounts to collective suicide [though inflicted on the persons of our children and grandchildren rather than ourselves].

Yet Ken they are being placed in areas that can resist the least.  In southern Ontario the most logical place to put turbines in terms of efficiency, transmission losses, and environmental reasons is the Lake Ontario shoreline.  But it will NEVER happen.  Yes we need to move towards greater use of alternatives, but how we do it, says a lot about the kind of society we have and the equity and justice within it.  Right now we are failing on that score in Ontario- failing miserably.

Then we have the consumer dilemma....

Wind generation costs about $8 per megawatt to produce. Nuclear is about $2 per MW and oil, gas, coal and hydro-electric less than that. On the flip side photo-voltaic solar runs in about $12 per MW. Are we prepared to pay 4 or 5 times more for our electricity? Our obscessive consuption of power and power-hungry devices will put us on the brink of an economic collapse as the cost of goods and service will fly out of reach of all but the very rich. And as demands lessons, the cost will drive up even higher.

There are currently many side benefits to nuclear that have not been fully explored because there is a limited market. However, the CANDU reactors produce 200°F hot water, and 140°F air that cold be used for something else, both of which are dumped as wastes into the environment to the detriment of the environment.

While nuclear has its problems, it is pretty much the only affordable form of generation right now. The incentives should be given to companies who find ways to use power better, more efficiently or to generate at a lower cost, not to technologies that become increasingly more expensive (and more prone to breakdowns).  I guess my point is that we should not permit govenrment to subsidize new technologies when they have not fully utilized the existing ones.

I understand what you are saying BA. I'm arguing strenuously against the very premise of the opening post, and the title of the thread itself.

Never thought about the comparison with Ontario- but in Nova Scotia we have an easy avoidance of that placement conundrum: hilly landscape with the bulk of that having no farms or houses.

Greenwashing is the application of bad science with a green sheen wedded to public policy.  And that's exactly what the McLibs are doing with the Green Energy Act.  Don't quibble about terminology when the end result is the same ill concieved and poorly applied policy.

Wind turbines should be in the water along Lakeshore Road in Toronto.  The ecologically and environmentally conscious people of the GTA should be pushing for this.  Are they? 

I suspect the next move will be for the Green Belt "protected" areas to become host to solar and wind farms.

Ken I forgot to mention the comments of a friend and prominent Green Party activist at a meeting we were both a panelist at.  He described the situaiton as 'wild west capitalism' and that government has given all the guns to industry.  It was very apt description of what I see around here.

Just got an email back from the NFU.  Here is that resolution Life referenced above. 

  Green Energy Act (GEA) and Rural Communities

Whereas the NFU advocates for the right of farmers and rural communities to have control over and to benefit from food production in their communities and;

Whereas the NFU supports efforts to move toward renewable, clean sources of energy such as wind and solar to help revitalize rural communities and;

Whereas in the past rural municipalities, like Wolfe Island and Melancthon, were able to negotiate amenities agreements with industrial wind developers, which acknowledged the impact on rural communities of industrial wind developments and provided some compensation to the full community and;

Whereas such amenity agreements are no longer possible under the GEA, because the GEA takes away all control over siting, land use planning and zoning related to industrial wind developments from municipalities and gives the control to the province alone and;

Whereas the community and municipal consultation required under the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process for wind developments is intended to 'help build local support' for the project, and virtually eliminates any public or municipal say or input into industrial wind developments in rural communities and;

Whereas this type of pseudo consultation is demeaning and insulting to farmers and rural communities that will be impacted by industrial wind developments in their backyards and;

Whereas industrial wind developments have the potential to take the control and benefit of a rural resource, wind, away from farmers and rural communities;

Therefore be it resolved that

(1)       the NFU strongly voice its concern about the lack of real community consultation under the GEA ;

(2)       advocate for the rights of landowners and rural communities/municipalities to have control over industrial wind developments in their communities by negotiating amenity agreements or putting in place bylaws or permits with regard to siting, size, zoning and so on, which acknowledge the impact of industrial wind developments on the full community;

• (3) (a) connect with other organizations and municipalities with similar concerns about industrial wind developments and

(b) bring forward the shortcomings of the GEA to organizations like the urban-based environmental organizations that are allies of the NFU on other issues and to the government;

• (4) commit NFU research and communication resources to look at who controls and benefits from industrial wind developments - landowners and rural communities or outside, corporate and private interests. CARRIED

Thanks BA.  Sure makes it seem like people in the know are questioning not alternative energy, but how it is evolving in Ontario.  It sure seems to me that the NDP could have a role to play in that.

Diversity is the key to all planetary systems.  When the scale of the technology gets too big it becomes harmful to the environment.  We need a lot of solar panels and small wind turbines and some very aggressive conservation programs.  In Ontario your big problems come in the hot summer when you need air conditioning.  Well duh isn't that when the solar panels would provide the most electricity. Large scale projects appeal to politicians who are in the pockets of big developers.  We need small scale electricity generation at the consumer level.  We can also employ a lot of people if we go to small scale.  People to build the panels and turbines, people to install and maintain them and RR to improve them.  Far better than a model where we build big projects with foreign based companies who get permits to import workers.

Agree with this observation of what needs to  happen kropotkin

We need both the small scale and the different 'unholistic' large scale alternatives like wind farms. Like I said, as it is, even using both we're going to have to push harder to have any chance of bringing down GHGs before its definitely too late [as opposed to maybe already too late].

Whats required is political agitation for the small scale- and especially governments role in that. But dissing large wind farms of any kind is not the path to that.

BA captured my thoughts in post 12. Despite the many negative experiences and concerns raised by my friends and neighbors, we are not against wind power development. We are asking that wind power be developed ethically; in ways that do not harm humans or the environment. We are asking for more research and development to go into wind turbines and until an ethical model is developed we are asking for a moratorium on industrial wind farm development. 

When I asked what the NDP policy should be I did not expect such a black and white discussion to take place. The NDP can support wind power; but as a compromise to those baring the negative consequences of turbines the NDP could instead support small scale, household run wind mills. Small scale wind mills could produce enough energy for a household or farm. Excess energy could get sold back into the grid (putting money in the hands of households and farmers rather than big industry). I'm curious to learn more about productivity comparisons between large scale and small scale wind turbines and will report back when I learn more.

I must comment that I find it really bothersome every time wind power discussions degenerate into it's either wind or coal or problems caused by coal or more than problems caused by wind. Those comments make rural people feel like we're dispensable to our urban neighbors - that somehow our problems can be dismissed because we're a minority. That's not the spirit of the NDP. Be creative rather than defensive and look for a solution that works for everyone.  

Sineed: google dead bats and wind turbines and you'll find loads of articles and news clippings. 

BA, the business your in, agriculture, is dominated by some very evil global corporations with cross ownership and management with big oil and coal and the tar sands. Welcome to capitalism. And you know, I live in and near wind turbines. And, I did a little research on a man who organized an anti-wind workshop in Woodstock. Google being my friend, uncovered a former employee (and likely still a consultant) at Bruce Power. Gadzooks!

Ontarians want all the electricity they can get and they want it cheap and they want the harmful and toxic effects out of sight and out of mind. People dying quiety of heart and lung disease or cancer is perfectly okay. Near abouts where I live, they are opposing, now, solar farms. Solar farms. Silent. Passive. No shadows. No profile. And do you know what they say? They say prime agricultural land ought not to be lost to solar farms. They say that from among the subdivisions popping up like wild mushrooms. They say that as they commute from subdivisions near Simcoe to jobs in Hamilton on roads cutting wide, sterile ribbons across prime farmland.

I believe the Ontario government ought to conform to all environmental reviews, and I think the Ontario government could assist with those people, and I believe there are some. who do suffer negative effects from turbines to relocate and sell their homes.

But demonizing alternative energy is part of an agenda that opposes any migration away from fossil fuel energies, mega-dam projects, and uranium.

If I was dictator of Ontario I would hold current OPG generation static and as a baseline. And I would tell municiplaities that if they want any more power than what the baseline provides, they must provide it themselves and it must be 90% renewable and zero emissions.

A wind spill

Frustrated Mess, I'm not surprised you found a former Bruce Power employee against industrial wind projects. Dozens of wind farms have gone up around Bruce Power and around the small towns located near Bruce Power. Many farmers in this area also work at the plant or have a spouse that does (because you pretty much need a second income to run a farm these days). 

I disagree with your reasoning that raising health and environmental concerns is part of an agenda to maintain fossil fuel energy. Talk with the people whose health is suffering. Many of them eagerly registered to have wind turbines placed on their property because they were convinced it was the green thing to do. Then they started having health problems.  People were forced to move away from their family homes and farms. For others, moving wasn't a financial option and I have had lots of people tell me they have become addicted to sleeping pills. Once people started speaking out they quickly learned that those 40 page contacts stipulate you are legally gaged from speaking about any health issues that may result from having a wind turbine on your property. Yet these same companies claim the turbines are safe. These are not the voices of a fossil fuel agenda: these are the voices of desperate and devastated people.

There is a solution that works for everyone - a compromise.  Rather than large scale wind farms, and large scale solar fields for that matter, the NDP could promote small scale wind and solar. Every Ontario household should be environmentally refitted. 

Ah yes. Each home could have its own hydro dam as well. Small is beautiful.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/wind-power-gets-urban-friendl... And the Germans are light-years ahead of us on all of this, using wind turbine design that avoids bat and bird carnage, and inventing solar panels that are the size of small, letter-size window panes. Where there's a will there's a way. Likewise, where there are objections promoted by the fossil fuel industry, any excuse will do.

Actually Unionist small scale hydropower has been used for hundreds of years without dams to manufacture grain, logs and clothing. You may know them as waterwheels. Today they are known as micro-hydro installations and are considered an excellent complement to small scale solar and wind.

I was thinking an excellent place to install small scale water turbines is in urban sewage systems. Massive and predictable amounts of liquid are pumped through our sewage systems everyday. It wouldn't be hard to install water turbines in our sewage system, which in turn could help power the sewage system itself. 

Mike, I know small scale hydropower has been used for hundreds of years. So has small scale food and clothing and everything production. I don't believe in it. I think history has bypassed it. I don't think big is the source of problems. I think exploitation is. I think big is beautiful, when divorced from exploitation. I am not a frontiersperson. I am not a libertarian. I do not believe in people looking after themselves. I believe in society. Sorry, but that's just me.

Unionist, in actual fact mike from canmore has  very  valid points about  every home being fitted with solar panels and a small efficient wind mills, there is absolutely no reason why it cannot be done, and every reason why it should, on a nation wide scale.

This type of initiative can be likened to Bermuda's white limestone roof  system for water collection [29], on, and in, almost every home.

Sure enough it has much less population than Canada, but it makes no matter, our population is not so large that a public works project could not easily be done.

As I indicated here awhile back, Gordon Planes the Chief of the Sook First Nations installed solar panels on all Reserve houses for their hot water needs.

And it was more than feasible for them and is a  benefit to the community and to the environment. As such, a whole project of this sort could happen across Canada.

Moreover, some BC people actually do have their own mini hydro dams going on, for both water and power systems.

Yes. Obviously we have huge areas of urban space that are not properly utilized in this manner. If Unionists objection is that it should not be the responsibility of the individual to take care of these problems, but instead something that needs to be organized and funded at a society wide level, I am all for that, but there is nothing about small scale power generation that is antithetical to that idea. Small scale power generation can be created on a large scale, as part of the solution.

I am actually quite a fan of wind and solar... but I hate the way the discussion usually gets framed. There is truth to the argument that neither is THE alternative... the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine... and if they play a major role, there will always have to be a "conventional" stand-by generation capacity for when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. What infuriates the hell out of me is when proponents of wind and solar refuse to challenge the presumption that this standby capacity has to be governed by market rules... foremost of which is that any idle capacity is wasted, and standby generation should be engaged at all times and the electricity be available for export.

Conventional standby capacity is a necessary evil and should only be used when the wind/solar fall below demand. The market, apparently, abhors idle capacity, so take the generation of electricity out of the market model entirely. The generation of electricity should be a state monopoly and the real costs of generating electricity (like GHGs and other things that degrade the environment) should be considered as important as the monetary costs involved in generation. Someone should say this up front, the market worshipping private sector should be excluded from any involvement in the industry, and perhaps even from the debate itself.

I will agree that neither wind nor solar are THE solution, I don't think that there is a single solution. Life is complex. Cope. But stop trying to come up with solutions that require appeasing the market.

I agree with the last three posters. I do not agree with any suggestion that individuals should provide for their own power generation. Or health care. Or education. And I am suspicious of any criticism of renewable energy that does not take, as a first principle, that reliance on non-renewable energy must stop immediately.

I am the first to say that as a society we should take care of each other. That means EVERYONE should benefit and NO ONE should suffer. This means that the urban majority has a responsibility not to sacrifice the rural minority so that urbanites can have their power needs met. The urban majority has a responsibility to produce ethical energy and right now that starts with a moratorium on industrial wind turbines until there's been further R&D and development of small scale energy sources instead. 

Nice to see babblers from areas far outside the affected areas telling us how it is.

My Grandparents lived on a farm, etc.

Then we have the consumer dilemma....

Wind generation costs about $8 per megawatt to produce. Nuclear is about $2 per MW and oil, gas, coal and hydro-electric less than that. On the flip side photo-voltaic solar runs in about $12 per MW. Are we prepared to pay 4 or 5 times more for our electricity? Our obscessive consuption of power and power-hungry devices will put us on the brink of an economic collapse as the cost of goods and service will fly out of reach of all but the very rich. And as demands lessons, the cost will drive up even higher.

I can't help but think that such costing might be skewed by selective book keeping: for example, do health care costs associated with coal and oil, and other environmental costs (tack on the unfolding disaster in Louisianna, for starters) figure into that costing?   Does this costing include the new information that solar cells are lasting 30 years, and not the original projection of 20 years?  That changes the amortization on the capitalization of such projects by a whopping 33%.

I will agree that creating new power generation seems like road improvement projects:  widen the roads, create more roads and you create more traffic as driving a car suddenly becomes more attractive to people to whom it wasn't previously.    Create more electric power, and someone seems to suck that extra and then some.   

We'll always be at peak demand.

That is until there is agressive conservation.   And, I'm not talking about changing from incandescent to flourescent bulbs.   There needs to be serious regulation of industry and business.  

And, that's not on any political party's agenda at the moment.

Once again, the health concerns concerning windmills.   I'm not sure what to make of this, other than the people who insist there's nothing wrong with them also insist on the windmills being located hundreds of KM from their abodes.

Take goethermal for instance. Great technology, producing heat from the ground. However, since the demands is still relatively low, the capital cost of the equipment and installation usually has a payback of 30-35 years. The equipment has a lifespan of 20-25 years and so anyone who uses it today is essentially paying for the privilege.

Same goes for small scale wind or PV solar. The capital costs drive it beyond affordability. What we really need are very basic technology that is maximized to efficiency. Sure the PV cells are becoming more efficient, but the cost of manufacture is going up equally. Then of course the "green" movement is a corportist's delight - a new way to squeeze more money out of naive consumers. If they make us think we are doing something good for the environment are we really doing something good for the environment? In most cases the answer is "no" primarily because of all the non-green manufacturing, oil-based products and delivery of goods made in China or Taiwan.........

Low-velocity hydro-electric still shows promise but because they can made in the garage of the average home out parts in boxes and tools owned by the average homeowner, very few companies want that kind of technology. There is too much risk that a back-yard mechanic could steal the design and reproduce it a lot cheaper.

Wind is not great and for the most part is unreliable and prone to mechanical problems. And until we find a way to make it more reliable and produce the equipment for much cheaper it will be out of reach for the average homeowner, who is less concerned with the environement and more concerned about whether or not the mortgage gets paid at the end of the month, and whether there will be enough left over to add some fresh food to the table fare. It isn't a matter of conciousness, but one of necessity and economics.

Well hell then if big business is meant to run everyting than why should anyone try to fight back or change things.  Lord knows no one in agriculture is trying to change that domination. (roll eyes here)

 What a completely defeatist attitude you have.  Because we have let corporations pillage our food economy we should just let them do that to every other sector of the economy?  If that is not what you are saying please enlighten me, because I truly am getting weary of all the hours I have dedicated to fighting the industrial food system, but if the exact same tactics, control and systems are good when it is alternative energy than I might as well spend more time farting around my place instead of fighting Monsanto, Sygenta, Cargill and all the rest.

ETA

You know I just read over this thread again quickly and I don't see a single instance of people demonizing alternative energy generation.  Far from it.  What I see is a growing number of people waking up to the reality of the specific plan being implemented in Ontario and its impact on communities.  It is that specific plan which people are questioning so please stop with the hysteronics.

And you know what Bruce, Grey and Huron Counites are the major target for wind production right now by these companies. So people living here are going to be more aware and more in tune with what is happening.  So just because someone is a former employee means nothing in this area.  On my block alone I can think of six people who are either current or past employees at the Bruce.  All but one are also farmers.  I am pretty sure my block is pretty normal in that regard.  You can hardly have a single person coming from Bruce that doesn't have some connection to the Bruce directly, or through friends and family.  That does not mean they are agents of Bruce Power, or 'consulants'.  If you have a background in construction, engineering, are mechanical, or just wanted  the best paying job in the area the Bruce has been the place through more than a generation now.  Dismissing someone simply because they used to work for Bruce is just plain foolish, particularly if it is the person I think it might be who will without prompting also tell you about the failings of nuclear power and was an early and strong advocate of alternative energy.

At what cost per household?

I'd like to see more folks growing their own veggies and other stuff. I have a small property out here in the boondocks, but I have a veggie garden that gives me more than 75 heads of lettuce, 100 carrots, and God knows how many beets and radishes. And I got flowers growing all over in the summer and fall.

How much time, in an average week, do you spend tending your garden?

@ sven how about a $7 billion dollar budget be created to refit every Ontario household... the same budget that McGuinty awarded Samsung to build wind turbines. 

How come $7 billion for a foreign company to build wind turbines is applauded without question yet people get spooked and ask all kinds of questions about costs when we even mention refitting Ontario households to be more environmentally. 

If your life support system is failing, do you ask how much it costs to avoid that failure?

Do you have a link for what it would cost to retrofit every household in Ontario for solar?  What would $7 billion deliver for each household?  In other words, would $7 billion in solar panels for the 3.9 million households in Ontario provide enough energy to run a household?  Just a water heater?  Or, what?

Not much. An hour a day, most days I could just leave it to itself, but gardening is my hobby, very relaxing. Occasionally I pull weeds out and that takes a while longer, but not something I do regularly. If it's going to be warm and dry, I get the watering hose out early in the mrorning.

You're not arguing that understanding the cost of such a retrofitting is irrelevant, are you?

We could make every car on the road as crash-safe as a NASCAR race car and that would save a lot of lives, too.  But, would people be willing to spend, say, an extra $20,000 or $30,000 for their vehicle to do that (not to mention wearing a helmet while driving a car and sitting in a full-body restraint system)?

Probably not.

Do your own research Sven and while you're at it find out how much energy $7 billion for Samsung wind turbines is going to produce. I can tell ya right now our present Ontario wind farms are barley making a dent in the system. You can check the energy levels of some wind turbine projects on line and last time I checked some where running at 1% capacity. 

If it's going to be warm and dry, I get the watering hose out early in the morning.

So, in your locale, that amounts to what, twice a year?   

So, you put in about one full workday of work on your garden every week.

If a person is doing that as a hobby and for relaxation, it should like a great use of time.

But, for most people that would not be an economical use of their time for the quantity of food they produce.

And, that's probably why most people don't do it.

Well, you are the one who advocated spending $7 billion on retrofitting the 3.9 million households in Ontario with solar.

Based on that, I think it would be fair for a reader to assume that you would have some idea as to what kind of energy production would be gained for that kind of expenditure.

Then most people are idiots.

It's not just growing your own food, it's also relaxing exercise and doing something healthy and constructive with your time instead of being glued to computer or television screens. Plus, gardens are attractive additions to an otherwise drab property.  Folks have to get away from this "economical use of their time" mindset and get back to things that matter.

@ Sven

A lot of things are not economical but we do it anyway. And just because something is economical doesn't mean we should do it. For example, why ship fresh produce hundreds of thousands of miles, all the while burning up oil, harming the environment and exploiting laborers, when we can grow our fruits and vegetables locally and pay our farmers a fair wage? I opt for fair over cheap any day. I opt for supporting my local economy over foreign economies.

I realize that not everyone can afford the price of locally produced goods. That's why our governments should be investing "our" tax dollars in our local communities by supporting locally grown food and environmental refitting. It puts money back into the community, communities become prosperous, and in turn citizen become financially able to pay fair wages. A win-win situation. Trickle-up theory. 

On a purely economic basis, retrofitting for wind and solar (and greywater) on the small scale may seem unprofitable now, but as peak oil heats up in the next few years, I believe those who do will increasingly be sitting pretty with regard to utility bills. 

You got it. Some things are to big to fail.

Look at Obama pulling out all the stops with the oil leak of your coast. Can you put a figure on the cost of failure?

Peak oil is one (important) piece of the puzzle.  But, there's a several-hundred-year supply of coal available to produce electricity (plus natural gas, hydro, and nuclear).  So, I suspect that, even with peak oil, we won't see solar as a cost-effective alternative in our lifetimes.

Of course, just looking at the cost of electricity does not take into account externalities.

But, most people look as the choice between a signiicant spike in their energy bills (to cut GHGs) and compare that to an X degree increase in global temps a hundred years from now (when they'll be long dead and gone) and think, "I'd rather have cheap energy."

What does the "too big to fail" issue have to do with (what I thought) we were discussing?

I think, in certain instances, cost is even relevant in your life support example.  If were a 90-year old man and $250,000 couild be spent to keep me alive for another two months -- after which time nothing could be done to keep me alive, and I would then expire -- would it make any sense to spend that kind of money on me when that $250,000 would be spents on, say, vaccinations for tens of thousands of children?

Sven, I was thinking more in terms of our collective life support system being threatened by run away climate change because of our consumption and fossil fuel habits. In my view the costs of failure to control our input into this rapidly aproaching disaster will far out weigh the preventative costs, as umpossibly big as they might seem now.

Good night.

May first a special day for me.

Sven I am calling for a moratorium on industrial wind projects until a model has been created that does harm humans and the environment.  We know that small scale wind, solar and water projects are not resulting in these concerns. As someone who doesn't just criticize and tries to bring something productive to the conversation, I am calling for the development of small scale energy projects as an alternative to industrial wind projects. If we're willing to splurge $7 billion on Samsung wind turbines then why not splurge $7 billion on small scale projects. They may not be able to power an entire household - industrial wind turbines can't produce enough power to meet all of Ontario's needs either - but such projects will reduce consumption off the main grid and are the ethical alternative to the problems experienced by industrial wind projects.

Although I do not have exact figures (like I said you will have to do your own research), a basic analysis suggests small scale is cheaper than large scale wind projects. Large turbines require higher winds to produce energy. Small turbines can be productive in lighter and heavier winds. Large turbines require a lot more assembly costs per capita than small turbines. Large turbines require dozens of acres of clearance whereas small turbines can be placed on the roof of your house. Large turbines increase delivery charges because you have to build more transmission lines and infrastructure such as roads and adapter stations. Large turbines create added pressures and costs on current power supplies because they cannot turn off their power to the grid easily and get burdened with access energy produced by large turbines. This can end up in energy dumping.   Anyway, I'm sure there's loads more, that's just off the top of my head. Oh there's the unaccounted for costs on our health system. 

I have a 50 ft by 75 ft garden as well and spend about the same amount of time with a little more spent at planting time and at the end of the year clean-up. I put all kinds of vegetables down for the year, that last until the next harvest. I give just as much away and we can pickles, beets, relish, salsa tomatoes etc that also last us the whole year. Except for the rototiller (which I use to dig by hand) everything else is completely organic, using home grown compost tofeed and nourish.

A couple of weeks a year in manual labour is not much time to spend on growin (and knowing) one's food source. As well we purchase eggs, meat and other food stuff within about 7 kms of my house. So I also know where that stuff comes from. We have some fruit trees and bushes that went in over the last couple of years that aren't producing fuly yet so we shop at local orchards for our fruit. We feed a family of 5 adults with many "extras" who come around at supper time.

So IF my labour is worth something then we essentially get food for far less, with a much smaller carbon impact than you can buy at the grocery store. People don't fathom the actual costs of eating fresh fruit and vegetables imported from South America  during the winter. They pay workers less than adequate wages and the costs of carbon producing activies will never be repaid.

Over the winter I have been experimenting with aquaponics, using a small aquarium to try to understand the relationship between the fish, water, nutrients and plants. Come spring I am setting up to move the operation outdoors onto my 1/4 acre pond. If successful, I will be able to eliminate about 1/4 of the carbon I produce in using the rototiller.

The point is, that small scale ingenious wind, water, and manual labour can sustain households easily and inexpensively. The problem is that people are caught up in their corporatist brainwashing that they can earn enough money by working harder to pay for any luxury they want - including the convenience of going to the shopping market and picking up fresh peaches in January. This cannot be sustained when we look at the entire costs of production, delivery and storage,and the costs on the environment. Rather, there are not enough hours in the day to produce what we consume and discard, let alone keep a roof over our heads and send the kids to school.

150 years ago, farmers spent about 150 days out of the year tending to livestock, crops and prepareing for the winter. That gave them about 200 days in the year for leisure activities, hobbies and indoor work that kept them clothed and warm. If we look at manhours, today the average worker spends about 250 days of the year in work and no more than 100 days in leisure (much of it spent in over-indulgent kid-things). No wonder people feel they are out of time. The corporation has them all hooked.

I also give roughly half of what I grow to friends and neighbours. There's no way I could eat 75 heads of lettuce every summer.   But it's fun tending to the garden and watching stuff grow. And overcoming obstacles - there's always a challenge in veggie gardening - for example, the first yuear I tried growing tomatoes, all I was able to grow were tiny tomatoes, rather frustrating for the time and effort I put into it. But last year I had a decent crop and I enjoyed nice salads from veggies I grew myself. I also grew quite a lot of rutabagas, which are like a small turnip, but which goes great with potatoes and stews. Most folks here also grow their own potatoes, never buying them from the store at all, but I don't have the space. I've never had luck with growing pumpkins or watermelon here, but this year I've started growing watermelons inside my house and they're actually starting to grow, but I'll keep them inside probably until mid-June before transplanting outside. I've experimented with different variesties of flowers as well and I have a better idea of what grows well here, and which attracts bees and birds. I'd love to see butterflies here, but despite growing flowers that are supposed to attract butterflies, I've still yet to see any. But last summer I had hummingbirds for the first time! And this is a very cold climate for gardening - overcoming these sorts of challenges makes life just a bit more enjoyable.

After watching the news coverage of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, wind turbine issues seem like pretty small potatoes.  Absolutely, let's do everything we can to minimize the impact of wind power on the environment. However, the only way to neutralize the impact of energy use is to stop using energy. Since that's not going to happen, all we can do is make the best use of a blend of renewable enrgy sources, including wind turbines, in order to reduce as much as possible our use of toxic fossil fuels.

Well said. Here on the Quebec coast all our electricity comes from hydro dams, and more are proposed. I'd love to get off the grid completely but don't see that as a realistic goal. But I'd still love to have a few solar panels and a very small wind turbine just the same.

The reality is people, at least some, and a good many around here even are doing just that, small scale generation, as part of the solution. And indeed it can be done on a large scale.

Are you meaning that small scale hydro production done on a large scale is appeasing the markets, or not? If you mean it isn't, or shouldn't I agree.

Don't think this is quite yet realistic as primary immediancy, but it can happen I believe in a fairly timely fashion. And I agree completely with you that it needs to be done as part of the federal government infrastructure system, and not as a individual house hold project.

Think this is a broader discussion than just Ontariario farmpunk.

Exactly, and once people start to scratch below the surface and into actual costs, in respect to individual wind and solar, it is much much less.

Hopefully that is what is being argued, as it is irrelevant.

In this instance I would also say the reverse is true. The costs to make such a switch could be significant, but just because it is in does not mean it should not happen. Nor even be considered actually.

As the corporatist making profit from sales and human capital, has absolutely NO bearing upon whether this should happen, or not. If mega money can be found to bale out coporations and banks, it sure as hell can be found for this and indeed everything else.

This whole statement in actual fact is not necessarily accurate, in any given positioning.

Use of a combination of wind, solar and as bagkitty said reliance upon the main grid when needed, is sustainable.

Some areas are going to have wind, and solar solar occuring and they will not need to draw from the main grid, while others may be needing to. The incremental amounts add up to huge savings. And indeed so much savings that those who make profit from hydro consumption do not want it happening. They want to keep their coal/oil/natural gas/ and water profits flowing so they will be yelling all day it will cost too much. And sure enough it will, it will cost them their profits.

You are exactly correct, which is why those who profit from energy use exploitation, do not want renewable systems in the hands/lives of the many.

Here are some links to sustainable small production wind mills and other renewable/sustainable items that people should be agitating for on a personal level that which should be funded by our tax dollars. The links will give an idea as to what is happening out there anyway.

http://solarpumpsdirect.com/

http://prairieturbines.com/ [64]

http://mikeswindmillshop.com/ [65]

This one is my favourite and we are looking at getting ourselves one, or rather having one made. A 2 seater of course.

http://www.rhoadescar.com/rcar/index.shtml [66]

Hi Remind

One problem with individualized generation, even where one is selling into the grid, is the high costs for most modest people to install micro-wind, or solar.  This is one place where government could, and I would argue should, step in with low or no interest loans for intial installs that could be paid back through the inverter system.  In Ontario we found $7 billion for one multi-national to create a few jobs.  That kind of money put into smaller scale production would have created far more jobs and also have placed income into the hands of average people instead.

The other missing link on this issue for large scale industrial wind is the very sorry and antiquated nature of our electrical grid in Ontario.  Most of the lines were put in when my father was a young man - this was one of his first jobs by the way.  It used to bother him to no end to see a grid he helped to create in his youth still being used as they were told back then that this was just to get the power out to people and then they would fix it up in time. 

 Small scale, dispersed production would not impose the same burden on our grid that an industrial wind development places.  In Ontario we are currently going to be spending millions of dollars to ship power from rural Ontario to the Lake Ontario shoreline, meanwhile we will lose up to 30% of that power through basic physics.  This is also part of taking industrial jobs out of small towns and cities and centralizing.  It means to keep a manufacturing base you need big development with all the problems it causes.  It makes little sense either from an energy production stand point or use of taxpayer dollars to ship power long distances, but big powerful interests are involved so average people and communities are just shoved aside.

BA, am not much interested in market based fixes, and costs to individual households, discussions. But I agree it makes NO sense to transmitt when local can be achieved for the most part.

To me it is equivaent to road construction and maintenance costs, or indeed the health care system as unionist noted.

As such, we should be agitating for a complete system to be deisigned and implimented where things like the  7 billion to samsung, could have been used to convert 7 million homes to solar and wind micro production.

Getting the infrastructure going, and the whole system launched is not as difficult as some people, and I suspect they are ones with vested interests in keeping status quo, make it out to be.

It would be a infrastructure investment like the transcanada hwy and the rail systems.

Well I am certainly not talking about marketplace solutions.  But I recognize we could have a lot more renewable energy going right now if people can afford to switch, but many modest income people can not come up with the intial outlay.  That is certainly where we are.  So in that situation people are signing onto the Ontario micro-fit program which privatizes our energy situation majorly and takes the profits (investment return) out of the community rather than keeping it local to help pay for energy upgrades, conservation and efficiency programs, let alone paying for roads, health care and other public positives.

Yeah. As a form of protest we should continue to allow ourselves to be ripped off by the corporate power producers. Nothing like masochistic self-denial to really get the point across to the folks who brought us Enron.

The affording to switch should not come into play, it should be funded by the government 100%. It could be a 3 way split as a matter of fact. Municpal provincial and federal could be involved, and actually would have to be.

Focusing on individual  purchase payment, makes it seem impossible to do, but having a nationally driven program created and implimented is what is actually required. The will needs to be there to drive it to fruition.

And the NDP should be developing a plan for it all and then talking to Canadians about it.

Yes it is a mega project, but so what,  just because it has been decades since a nation wide mega project has been entered into does not mean it cannot happen.

I agree 100 per cent.  I guess I am trying to make the point, and obviously very unsuccessfully, is that right now under the current Ontario micro-FIT program the horse is already out of the barn and it is really important for the NDP to get in front of this or the opportunities for a more community oriented approach will be lost, or at least made a lot more expensive to do giving corporate entities even more money.

Then we agree...and it all needs to happen yesterday.

or the day before that even

Really do not want to be trite about this, nor lessen the serious nature of it in anyway, as I believe the dialogue push should be occuring amongst all Canadians.

There is not 1 Canadian, IMV, that is outside of the realm of Kevin O'Leary, who would not want a national program to happen that would lower their energy costs and employ renewable technologies to do it.

It is  not only a worthwhile and necessary endeavour, it is a vote getter and I believe the first political party onto this train, will get  Canadian votes en masse, as far as I am concerned it is a socio-political uniter. If I look across my community, as a micro example of the greater populace, for something that would universally unite us, other than No HST ;) and save our water petitions, this would be it.

Even if people do not believe, per se, in environmental change caused by human endeavours, they do not want large energy bills and would be, actually no I will change that to are looking to minimize them.

As such, personal avarice can meet with eco-humanity in common endeavour and movement.

That is not true. We get our electricity from a grid fed from many different sources. The wind is always blowing somewhere. In fact, there is far more interruption to nuclear power than to wind power. Coal is as reliable as dandelions but it also kills.

Really? From the OP:

I would argue associating alternative energy with the evil bastards who operate the tar sands is an attempt to demonize both the baby and the bathwater.

That is the point of my arguing that electrical generation ought to be local. Let's agree that is the ideal circumstance. The reality is that so long as we live in a society that separates community from economy, profit from responsibility, consumer from neighbour and citizen, and that values cheap and lots of it above all else, the ideal is unattainable which mean we must settle for the best we can get. And when you put all the options on the table--coal, gas, LNG, uranium, and renewables--renewables are the best we can hope for.

You have either a real penchant for misrepresenting an argument (why respond to what I said when you can argue what you prefered I had said?) or you lack comprehension. What I said, translated just for you, is that if we are to decide what is worthwhile and what should be fought tooth-and-nail on the basis--in a capitalist society--of who has invested in any given industrial sector, there would be very, very little worthwhile (maybe some home knitting and baking) and pretty much everything to fight.

Does that make sense to you or would you like to misrepresent that statement as now being pro-capitalistic and tar sands?

Howard Hampton and the ONDP have advocated for a mix of micro-power generation, conservation and efficiency, co-gen, green power etc for a number of years. Micro-gen is the future, but our two old line parties want their big business friends to monopolize it and have us paying bullshit "public benefit" charges in the mean time for what could be owned and operated by the public. Same thing in Liberal B.C. where rich friends of the Liberal Government are on the receiving end of power contracts and "run of river" power gen that could easily be owned and operated at profit by the province. It's all about being well connected to the Liberal governments of Ontario and British Columbia. "Public benefit" charges are a bogus tax to prop-up private enterprise and their future profitability at everyone else's expense.

Actually Fidel that isn't entirely true.  The NDP has most recently been cheering on the Liberal Green Energy Act and dismissing the concerns of those worried about the way the current, specific plan being enacted in Ontario in regards to industrial wind is transpiring.

Sorry Remind, my mistake.  I wasn't trying to be trite.  I was trying to say in a short hand way that this should be a very high priority and that we have delayed much too long already.  But obviously it didn't come off that way.  Again sorry.

Frustrated Mess... you got me, it isn't true that the there are times that the wind doesn't blow... I should have been more precise, there are times where the wind doesn't blow (or doesn't blow sufficiently hard) where the equipment required to generate power from it is situated. Now, if we can return to consequential matters...

Hampton and the ONDP have been the most critical of hare-brained power deregulation and privatization schemes in Ontario. And I can assure you that the NDP does not agree with the Liberals' handling of the "green power" expansion in this province. The Liberals have been saying that demand for electricity has dropped due to their wonderful conservation initiatives. Hampton was quoted as saying, "Bullshit!" Power gen and electricity distribution in Ontario is a total mess since Harris, and opportunistic Liberals aren't much better.

The future is micro-generation and living where nature can support us. Piling people and industries higher and deeper in urban centres like Toronto is ridiculous and runs up against laws of nature eventually. Queen's Park needed cleaning out yesterday.

no, no, I apologize for not wording clearer what  I meant, even though I gave it second thought to do so. I did not want you to think I was being trite about this, not that you were at all. As it was I who stated the done yesterday initially. And could have seen to have been minimalistic about the ability to get it done in a timely fashion.

Having given it much thought, from a fully aware of what would be needed positioning, I was being very  short handish about it.

Exactly, as this whole thing can and should be a unifier for an over-arching cause, and putting forth coherent and substantive positioning on a national retrofit program for solar and wind power at the micro level, actually IMV can be made to happen. At all levels and avenues within Canadian society,. Excluding of course those who are making huge money off of hydro generation/energy consumption and want to continue to do so.

Fidel I think you should do some reading on comments by the ONDP on the GEA and the recent call for a moritorium and before that Bill Murdoch's private members bill.  They read like comments right out of the Liberal handbook.  I am not one to criticize the NDP without cause, but in this case they are very wrong and need to understand what is happening on the ground.  You are of course right about deregulation and privatization, but that is not what the GEA is about.  Although actually, the GEA is opening the door for a massive amount of privitization of our future energy production, which of course is going to be heavily dependent on alternative energy.  But by the time we are done here it will be almost entirely in private hands- that is the course we are charting.

Yes here too BA, in the the BC election threads last year, we had a lengthy discussion about how many IPP licenses were being given out indeed there is a BC map that has all the licenses charted on it, spectrum has the site readily availabe i will keep a watch out for him so you can get a sense of what they are doing in BC, calling local while General Electric buys up rights all over the province.

This activity needs to be stopped and actual community based micro hydro/energy needs are produced and met.

ETA: and they long ago stacked the community/regional/provincial hydro boards in their favour out of the ranks of Rotary and CoC, so the average Joe and Janes of the community are not even aware of what is being done in "their" names.

FM - the opening statement did not demonize alternative energy - it raised valid concerns about industrial wind turbines only. Hence why I went on to suggest small scale wind turbines - they too fall in the alternative energy category.  

remind, go for micro and macro, and I will buy in. Something that I would like to add to my earlier comment (#30) - when I was referring there to a state monopoly, I did not intend to endorse a model of an arm's length Crown corporation that was going to act almost indistinguishably from its private sector corporate peers (specifically not like Hydro One or Hydro-Quebec). I envision bodies that will take policy direction from the legislatures - both generation and distribution should be under control of the population (via their respective legislatures), and their mandates would have to include implementing environmental polices as well as the generation and distribution of electricity. While I completely agree that micro-generation (both residential and industrial) needs to be addressed, so too does macro generation to support the existing grid. I return to the point I made earlier, there is not a single solution - the approach I see having the brightest future is one that combines a real commitment to conservation (actually, to rolling back demand) matched by a pretty clinicial harm reduction evaluation... and if that means maintaining a less-desirable traditional means of generation in order to preserve stand-by capacity (and please, capacity, not utilization) so be it.

There is a related question of course, ensuring access to adequate power for all citizens (and hell, even businesses) - and while this is drifting further and further away from the OP, some sort of fixed rate rationing of the basic service may be called for (i.e., a fixed and potentially subsidized per KwH rate for a specified amount of power per capita that may or not may reflect the real cost of generation, and rapidly escalating costs for usage in excess of this amount...) - but that is really an entirely different topic.

Yes bagkitty, absolutely I can agree with macro national strategies such as strigent conservation efforts, that include daily consumption amounts, beyond what is produced  "in house", which would be alloted on a per person basis, as I see that, and other 'macro' which IMV are really micro, as givens. hence I did not want to come across as minimalistic/trite in my positioning.

Other than that, I believe, in BC at least, that the current infrastructure we have would be, and is already, enough for keeping the west coast grid functioning and that micro production would push us to surplus...

...though of course we have to continually export to the USA, unless NAFTA is chucked.

*putting on my work gloves* - here remind, let me give you a hand chucking that accumulated crap

I am willing to support a macro alternative power plan (along side a micro plan) that is ethical and does not harm people and environment. I believe such a plan starts with recognizing that the present model of industrial wind turbines is harmful and that we need further R&D before we continue to with wind farm development. I was really excited when the first wind turbines were introduced to my area. Their appearance didn't offend me. In fact, I felt a sense of pride because these turbines represented green energy. Since then many people have been forced to move out of their family homes or worse, just endure the suffering. I want to see the NDP champion a wind power strategy that works for the rural minority as well as the urban majority. 

But it is a consequential manner in that a misconception becomes a centre piece argument for opposing renewable energies. I could debate your amended argument, but let's just agree coal is more dependable. But there again, what is the source of the dependency? The source of that dependency is 24/7/365 environmental controls, more and more gadgets which, especially when made semi-permanent, are can be gargantuan power hogs, and, to come, electric cars. All of which is lifestyle.

Now people say or infer, and from what I can garner from discussions on-line and off it is a fairly general sentiment, lifestyle is non-negotiable. So, what we know is this: we need more wind, and more coal. Wind, not only is it plentiful and free, but windfarms can be put up more quickly and more cheaply than coal. Coal can be put up more quickly and cheaply than nuclear. And nuclear is the Jaguar of energy generation: expensive as hell and always on the side of the road.

So, if lifestyle is non-negotiable and energy must remain cheap and plentiful, where does that leave us? With a mix of renewables and coal and the odd gas fired plant. Under the current regime of non-negotiable lifestyle and cheap energy, any debate on whether energy should be mega, regional, or personal is entirely academic because economies of scale demand mega for our lifestyles coupled with the requisite demand for reliable and cheap energy.

And you may think that inconsequential but, really, it is the pudding from which the proof is drawn.

Have you read Howard Hampton's book, Public Power? I have, and nowhere have I observed the ONDP backing anything the phony-majority Liberals have done or plan to do with Ontario's electricity generation and distribution, which is largely in private hands now since Harris and continuing under the McGuinty Liberals.

Ontario was the country's first province to begin dealing with greenhouse gas emissions way back in the first half of the 1990s under Bob Rae's NDP. The ONDPs plan for conservation and efficiency, reducing dependency on dirty coal-fired electrical power,  and maintaining public ownership of Ontario Hydro continued under Hampton's NDP. No, the ONDP is not anything like these Liberals. Not that I can tell. The ONDP has done nothing but lambaste McGuinty's government of pork barreling when it comes to the massive debt rung up by Ontario Hydro under the Conservatives and Liberals, and they've opposed the Liberals "green energy" alternatives and "public benefit" charges on our light bills. Life is becoming increasingly expensive under mismanagement of the province by our two old line party governments. And it doesn't have to be this way. McGuinty's Liberals are only now realizing that Howard Hampton and the ONDP were right all along when they advised them how they would have to break many of their election campaign promises on electrical power generation in Ontario, because the Liberals did not think it through well enough back in 2003. But when old line parties are electioneering, the sky's the limit when it comes to making wild promises they can't keep.

I love how the energy system is being privatized at the same time Samsung is 60% (I think) owned by the South Korean government. 

On the issue of lifestyle and energy, I remember back two summers ago when Ontario hydro wanted us to hook our air conditioners into some system where THEY could turn it down during times of peak demand.

To which-- and I will explain why-- I said "Fuck You."

I have a small, new air conditioner just for the bedroom, for sleeping. In high heat and humidity, I sweat all day (or night, depending on shifts and such) and I get aclimatized, so daytime heat doesn't bother me too much after a while.   But, to sleep right I need some cool. 

And, I'm not going to turn my a/c down even .0000000000000000001 degree just so some add agency can have more power to run electronic billboards along the Gardner, or make the street scape around the Eaton's Mall look like some cheapo imitation of Times Square or downtown Tokyo.  Or so people who don't do manual labour can have A/C while they sit at their desks and shuffle paper, while their administrative assitants have to wear sweaters in the office-- in July.

And that kinda encapsulates where we are on all this.  Windmills are good if they are located in Melancthon township, but somehow no good on the Scarborough Bluffs, and if you draw question to this, you're just being all NIMBY like. And my wants and needs are somehow frivolous, but the wants and needs of those with more political power are essential.

The longer this keeps going on, the less interested I am in playing break man on a runaway handcart to hell.  

If anyone needs me, I'll be in the backyard burning tires.

You see, that is my attitude with gas. It seems, as a culture, we embrace market economies without actually understanding the very basics of market economies, supply and demand, for example. So, why should I conserve gas when the yahoos in the ATVs or the fuckheads in the Hummers will gladly burn it? My conserving gasoline only helps to keep the price from rising as fast as it could for the yahoos and the fuckheads. Which goes to the argument of who supplies energy and how is it regulated? If we leave it to individuals, not only will some be deprived altogether, others, fuckheads, will use Hummers to commute and to visit the beer store.

That is why conservation fails as a voluntary policy. Because those who embarce it will always feels cheated by the fuckheads on whose behalf the world is seemimgly governed and wars are fought.

Let me digress as I ramble on.

On July 4, 1776, representatives from the Thirteen Colonies finished negotiating a Declaration of Independance, one that we are all familiar with, I assume.

Leading up to that day, many wieghty issues were debated, and there was much discord between the colonies. One in particular that was put on hold until four score and seven years later.  But that doesn't mean it wasn't hotly debated. On more than just a philisophical level; that debate took place in one of the hottest summers in Philedelphia.  Not to mention that the signators quite rightly believed that they were putting their lives on the line when they put thier John Hancocks on the bottom of it.

Amazing what can be accomplished without Air Conditioning.

Now, have you ever seen McGinty Sweat?  Mike Harris? Bob Rae?   I bet none of us were alive when the last M.P.P. broke a sweat in the Legislature.

And it's not as if they even debate wieghty issues, or put their lives at stake. 

All done in a building that had to be retrofitted for central air, and would do just nicely with the odd fan and unsealing the old transomes for circulation.  

In a building no one works in during the summer anyway, while steel workers melt steel, manufacturers work it, and construction workers put it together in the heat of the July and august sun, all without air conditioning.

Point being, on the issue of conservation, even amoungst us here we seem to be putting the onus not based on necessity or facts, but on who can fight back the least.

Giving up is so hard to do.......

Then once owned there are those who will believe it's a matter of necessity to have it......

Then once deprived they will claim it is matter of privilege......

Even at the expense of the poor and death of the environment.....

They'll complain that their cappuchinos are cold while sitting in an Frigidaire restaurant......

And they'll speed home in their air-conditioned HumVees to jump in the hot tub to relax......

They will give up others neccessities to take their piece of luxury......

And wear it like a diamond necklace.....

Then drop a can in the food hamper at Christmas....

Pat themselves on the back.....

And boast of their gratitude for they don't lack....

Food or clothing, or the homeless they are loathing.....

Just so they can be cool.....

(I think this has the makings of a song...)

To be certain, I do drive a car fairly light on gas and we have, in our household, just one car. Because, you see, I do conserve. I also hate the fuckers who drive hummers. To me, they are eco-vandals.

As much as I sympathize with you Tommy, I would rather see Bob Rae, et al, sweat than give up on my own conservation. I would dearly love to see climate denialists sweating in a prisoners box, but that's another forum topic ...

I think the Hummers will be discontinued effectively in 2014,  but there's too many of them on the road already. Discontinuation of the brand will make those already in existence 'collector's items' and effectively keep them from being junked. The military Humvee was manufactured by another company entirely, but the US military cancelled that contract in order to start construction on an even bigger piece of equipment.

The Defence Intelligent Carrier System or DICs?

I saw the proposed Humvee replacement in Popular Science magazine a few months ago but could not remember the name, so I did a google - it's called the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. I don't know who comes up with these names - certainly it's not as easy to remember as "Humvee".

As this winds down and awaits the 100 post J'cuse of the moderator,  surely to be followed by another thread on our fascination with windmills, I'll just hammer away a bit more with another example of the wierdness we face.

Toronto, as we know, is passing or will be passing a by law banning smoking in public parks.  And, it engenders little debate, even though the effects of second hand smoke and the litter of butts pales to some of the stuff industry makes us breath, and the litter of Timmy's cups and Evian bottles.

London, like many municipalities has an issue with it's recycling contractors who are fed up with dealing with unrecyclable "clam shell" plastic.    But, hey, what can you do?   Life, as we know it, would come crashing to a halt if food retailers were prohibited from using "clam shell" plastic.   Like, how did we even exist as a species before the advent of clam shell plastic?  Wasn't it mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh?

We've bought into this idea of saving the environment by putting all the onus on individuals.  We think nothing of abrogating the rights or shaming our neighbors into the nit pickyest things, but regulating industry has been expunged from our mental problem solving menus.

So we're going to save the environment on compact flourescent at a time, while the corporations in Sarnia's Chemical Valley get to play interesting games with the gender balance on Walpole Island.

Yeee Haw.

You have got it in a nutshell Tommy, if you define environmental issues solely as an individual, moral concern, something that every good little consumer should feel guilty about, you can blind almost everyone to the need for massive regulatory change. Why go through the arduous political process of regulating bubble packs and styrofoam containers out of existence when you can lay a guilt trip on individuals and have them constantly worrying "Am I doing enough?" Propose an industrial scale solution to an industrial scale problem and every lobbyist in existence crawls out of the woodwork to scream that "It can't be done", "It will cost too much" or (my favourite) "We will lose our competitive edge".

As much as we recycle and compost and reduce and substitute, until we force the big players to change the way they do business, we are bailing out the ship with a thimble. Exercising "consumer pressure" to make corporations change their ways allows some to deal with their feelings of guilt... a thimblefull of guilt.

So we take on one issue enmasse one at a time and put consumer pressure on Big Corp Canada to start paying attention, warning that other Big Name Corps will be next.....

Ah but that is too much work....and we're here to play.....Maybe we'll just leave it for our kids to solve.

Post #100. That's about it.....

It really isn't that simple. Tommy and BG have a point that is supported by one of the most radical eco-writers I have ever read:

Forget Short Showers: Derrick Jensen

I think environmental action is needed at both personal and large scale industrial levels. Part of the reason why so many of us do not see the need to regulate industry to be environmentally friendly is because we are so far removed from how things are made. When things are made locally you see how decisions impact the environment and society. We see problems better when they're close to home, when we are apart of the process, and when they begin to impact our quality of life. Wind turbines are removed from urban centers so they many urban dwellers don't see the problems with them. All the cheap crap at Wal Mart is made in foreign countries so we are not confronted by the poverty and exploitation of communities who make that crap "cheap." Our garbage gets carted away - we are not confronted on a daily basis with our wastefulness and the environmental devastation.  If you want society to start taking responsibility and to start holding corporations to account than you need to restore the relationship between people and the land. 

Society has been brainwashed to believe that global is more important than local or regional. That is just how big corporations like it since their entire objective is to exploit the source and maximize profits.

A simple refusal - with reasons offered to store clerks and managers - to purchase foreign, or corporate exploited products, would beginn to send the message. And if corporate Canada / USA doesn;t get that then at least we are all doing our part.

I know how you feel. That was how I felt about it also, but we have kids around us that learn from their parents and the people around them, I think we as individuals have an obligation to show by them by example that there are alternatives.

What little environmental impact the average citizen has will surely pale in comparsion to massive catastrophes like the Exxon Valdez, Persian Gulf, and now Gulf of Mexico oil spills. I saw on CBC this weekend that the Exxon Valdez disaster is still having an impact - 20 years later. And the impact on the environment from the average citizen also pales compared to the Alberta tar sands. Our focus should really be on the large scale polluters, and getting the toughest regulations possible in place.

Closing for length. Please continue here.