Growing the Green Economy
Already I see the blog comments on the Globe and Mail site resulting from Elizabeth's excellent article today: "Kyoto will kill the Canadian Economy"! We as a party need to address this lie front and centre as part of our election platform.
Business Week had a story earlier this month called "Grab the Green Brass Ring", where it encouraged the U.S. to cut carbon emissions--or get left behind by Europe. Europe is actually cutting emissions faster and more cheaply than predicted. And they are both a) saving money in energy costs, and b) making money by exporting their green technolgies they have nurtured, such as wind technology from Denmark and Germany.
There are more than one way to create Green collar jobs. Certainly incentives are one way. The Liberals tried incentives, then the Conservatives cut them, then they re-jigged it a bit and announced new incentives. True, $1.5B over 4 years (10 years for production of 4000MW,) does sound like a big investment, until you realize it puts Canada on par with Brazil for renewable energy investment. Whoop-de-doo. We're dead last out of G8 countries in terms of wind power targets. And don't get me started on biofuels!
In the meantime, one company, British Petroleum, is investing $8B over the next 10 years into low-carbon technology. Out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they can see where their profits will come from in the future.
We need to convince Canadians that we can actually grow the Green economy with emissions caps. It happened with acid rain (ask Elizabeth, she was there and can tell you all about it!) It took years, but Brian Mulroney’s government eventually acted and set emissions caps on industry, and pressured the U.S. to sign a treaty, all of which succeeded in reducing acid rain levels by 40%. Industry discovered that doing the environmentally responsible thing saved money AND increased profits (they sold gypsum out of their scrubbers).
When push comes to shove, people tend to vote with at least one hand on their wallet. We need to convince them in the clearest possible way that their wallets will not be any thinner with Kyoto. Quite the reverse. /Lori
- Lori Gadzala's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Elizabeth ahead of the game!
Gareth Davies
Nanaimo-Alberni EDA
Parksville, BC
Lori, are you referring to Elizabeth's article that appeared in today's Globe and Mail entitled: Are Canada's Kyoto targets reachable? That's not the point?
I read the article and quite enjoyed it. Thought it made a lot of sense. I then read all 147 Comments and was astonished at the degree of hatred and ridicule exhibited by some 80 of the commentators. That's 54.4% to be precise.
However, many of the Comments were repeats, i.e. the same commentator made more than one Comment. So, taking that into account, I would say that the negative Comments amounted to about 40, out of 107, therefore. I saw none of the positive Comments repeat (I might be wrong, but if I am it will only be one or two I missed). So, that makes the figure 37.4%. This is rough science (math) you realize, but it is good enough for our purpose.
Elizabeth came out ahead of the game, but all indications are that she and the other Green candidates can expect a rough ride through the hustings.
The one consolation I derived from the depressing act of reading all those negative Comments is that many of them based their contra opinions on pure fiction. These are people who, I fear, will not listen as their minds are long since made up. No good trying to "reach" those people.
As you say, Lori, "When push comes to shove, people tend to vote with at least one hand on their wallet. We need to convince them in the clearest possible way that their wallets will not be any thinner with Kyoto. Quite the reverse."
It is true, we all have to look out for our own come election time. It has ever been thus. That's not a bad thing. We need to instill confidence in the voters that we won't screw things up financially for them.
Cheers, Gareth
: )
My 2 cents worth on Elizabeths article and Kyoto.
Elizabeth is right Lori and Gareth.
Nice work on the breakdown of support Gareth.
I do not think there is anything that can be done to sway that element of opinion from the people who read The National.
And in my view Elizabeth did well considering that paper is right leaning.
The numbers could have been worse, so in essence she had almost half the people on board.
We can learn from Stephan Harper, that repetition works.
If we can as a party keep hammering that message home we can sway voters too.
Many voters are waiting for some good news for a change and possibly even some real change and not change to an American system like Harper thinks.
As far as making the Kyoto cost effective, health care alone is a huge beneficiary of cleaner air.
Toronto with a population of 9 million, almost a third of Canadas population, breathes in a constant yellow smog especially through the warmer months.
The main problems are respiratory problems that cost us all money as we all commit funds through the federal transfer of health care tax dollars.
If we are able to lessen and stop that yellow smog in Toronto and other major centres across Canada the health care system would realize a reduction in spending in that area. It may be a small amount at first but it would be millions and maybe even billions of dollars in savings later on.
That is savings #1.
Having lived in and left that province we have seen an immediate improvement in our families general health including no longer requiring "puffers" for our lungs, almost a 95% stoppage in perscriptions and the end to nosebleeds.
This is a direct benefit of the clean air we get on Van Isle compared to what we had back there.
NEW point:
The worst thing is the oil industry in particular can do something if it wanted but it will take the chance that we will pay not them.
Exxon (only one company) who cleared almost 40 billion last year could do the right thing here.
The fact is they have profited for the past 100 years while poluting our planet.
If a global legal action such as what was brought against the tobacco industries was leveled against them they would gladly clean up, you would see an fast tracked clean up.
And the industry on the whole is asking for a cash handout to cleanup.
Virtually all industry is in the same boat, they knew with no doubt the emissions they emit and polution they dump into rivers etc is poisonous and is hurting the environment.
They have made a profit while doing this.
Not one us here on this blog would get away with this.
We are commited to Kyoto and it is embarrassing to me for the Liberals and especially the conservatives to behave this way.
It is one thing to be one of the founders of the Kyoto accord but to walk away when we should be acting is repulsive.
I like that Elizabeth is now coming out swinging against both the Liberals and the conservatives. They are embroiled in a battle that I think the public would ignor if they had a better option.
She will have to be the dragon slayer to get the public to take notice.
I wrote to Elizabeth last week and we discussed some tips to get the WHOLE party message out more often so the public can start to identify with her.
Basically the jist of it was to get more of the platform out there so we could be viewed as something more then an environmental group seeking office.
This is something both of you above touched on.
If the public feels more secure about our platforms they too could embrace us.
But it is true people me included vote with our wallets.
I see the conservatives heading us towards debt in the immediate future and environental kaos in the distant future.
The fact that no party enjoys strong support shows me that Canadians are not impressed.
There is one other factor that I will leave as a parting comment.
The Americans have been involved in Canadian politics more then ever in the past decade, they were a big sponser of the alliance, and even took some PUBLISIZED political shots at Kline when he ran last time.
Their favourite policy /strategy is divide and concur.
So far it is working, we are fighting about the stupidist things such as same sex marriage, this topic really only concerns gays...it has no bearing on any non-gays lives.
As Canadians we cannot allow ourselves to be divided at this time in our countries history.
We have everything they want, oil, water, huge amounts of other natural resourses and to pick it up from a ruptured disfunctioning country is the cheapest way, with no enviromental costs.
Last maybe, but never least!
Gareth Davies
Nanaimo-Alberni EDA
Parksville, BC
The targets provided by the Kyoto Protocol were "best guesses" set by the State Parties who signed on. Whether we actually meet those targets is besides the point, as Elizabeth says. It is a "target", which is something we aim for and keep aiming for.
Way back in the early sixties, my brother-in-law and I went to the Welsh Games at Maindy Stadium in Cardiff. In the long distance event, the six-mile track race I believe, there was a lone Canadian entered. He wore a white singlet with a large red Maple Leaf on the chest. How could I ever forget. This was the year before I came to Canada.
He was lapped by all of the other athletes, but he never gave up and long after the others had finished he came in on his last lap. Everyone stood and clapped and cheered him all the way around and he sprinted for the post at the end.
That dogged determination to finish what he had started has stayed with me all these years and I often wonder what became of him.
Anyway, let the spirit he exhibited that day live on in all of us, and especially in our bid to complete the Kyoto race, if you know what I mean.
Lame theory will not be enough to convince.
Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
We can pretend to believe that the disruptions we will introduce in the fossil fuel business and other businesses that depend on it will be quickly offset by the Green economy.
As long as we have no hope in hell of becoming a government we can get away with that and retain supporters. When we have a chance of winning, we had better have some well though out legislative proposals that we can put in place at the same time, from day one of our carbon tax implementation.
The generalized theory alone will not sell, nor will a laundry list of things we might think of doing.
For example, if we might think of setting about installing a wind farm on every willing farm in the country and all over the Canadian Shield, and building them from scratch right here in Canada, we are going to run short of manpower skilled in the trades we will need, so we would have to ramp up our trades training in those skills, like fast.
The scale of such an undertaking boggles the mind. it would be comparable in terms of manpower and budget to having 10 seaway projects going at once if we hoped to make an impact on preventiong the earth going into the self-fueling-furnace stage of global warming.
Far from killing the economy this multi-mega-project would strain the economy to the breaking point. Someone would have thought in advance about the scale of all requirements and put together a plan that we could actually do, not just a thumbnail sketch of an idea that might be considered.
Incidentally the big project above is appropriately a provincial Green project if any provincial Greens want it, and the carbon tax should go to the provinces setting out to do it. That will likely be true of most other Green economy plans.
Allow me to point out where we violently agree :)
1) Kevin, nice point on the health benefits of cleaner air (leading to less of a healthcare drain on the economy).
2) I liked Elizabeth's Globe article too. And the fact that she had so many comments means she has struck a chord.
3) I also think she is completely right to attack the Liberals and Conservatives.
I meant my post to point out that the next step should be to defend against the predictable stance that Kyoto (or if you like, meaningful climate change action from both a federal perspective) will kill the economy. Because that's what they will attack us with.
(But won't it be lovely to be attacked instead of ignored for a change?)
Donald, I know it will take more than a blog post to convince you. And so it will be with 10M voters. So I guess we better get busy! /Lori
Lori Gadzala
Don't convince, Come up with more definitive plans
Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
I am not that hard to convince, I am motivated to agree.
If Greens are business friendly enough to commit to putting most of a carbon tax into assisting business to transition to the Green economy, I think we would have business people everywhere clamouring Go Green and most of the employees would be behind it. If we are offering Farm cooperatives guaranteed financing to get into the energy generation business, we may have a sale there.
I can toss off hundreds of schemes we COULD discuss, many of them inane, but we have to get on with it, mostly in our provincial parties rather than federally.
Some new insight to this topic.
Firstly, Donald does have a legitimate point here of what are we going to do.
Lori thanks and yes I think I would rather be the catalist then the procrastinator.
Gareth sums it up well, we do need to be preoactive and not let the thought of failure be the deterent to starting.
The fact the Conservatives have earmarked 1.5 billion/10 years is a sad and futile step that they feel is substantual.
When broken down the amounts barely covers any costs at all.
If we were to alot a much larger sum of funds such as 1.5 billion per year then we would be actually be doing something.
The industry itself can and should be encouraged or even forced to comply with reductions.
Everyone cries oh it will hurt the economy.
Small businesses are the ones who actually carry the economy, we have no protection from any laws being levied against us as we have no voice or financial power.
I am a small business person and have been for 19 years. If and when laws change I have to adapt pure and simple and so does every other small business out there. Even if it is financially a burden to us.
To imply an industry such as the oil industry (exxon with 40billion profit in 2006)cannot afford to earmark 25% of its PROFIT to stem emmisions is pure BS. Its a one time cost, not a re-ocurring cost.
They can then if they are smart write this off as promotion, as they can use this as a promotional tool to gain public support and increase business.
There are many ways to skin this cat and the army of accountants that are employed by these companies could do a much better job then I to make this cost effective.
Again as I mentioned above they have made a profit on the backs of the environment for 100 years and are actually legally obligated to be responsible. So being proactive is a much better publicity ploy then fighting and lying.
In regards to other industries some are shakey and cannot afford the clean-up and we must then assess is the damage they cause worth the employment they offer? What about the employees?
The influx of funds by the government if it were 1.5 billion a year even if divided equally to all provinces would be 150 million/year and that would start new jobs. The private sector is now waiting for any leadership to get going on this.
I know of a guy close to me who builds electric cars but he is basically sidelined with no/low interest from our government to say lets do this people and no examples of it being done.
FACT: Germany was in very bad financial shape 6 years ago now they enjoy a much better financial picture, they are ruled by the greens and the whole country is in innovation mode, with many people getting involved in everything from retrofitting new technology to making new products, or offering new services.
The new green economy is privately driven not corporate driven but the government has to jump start this initiative. They actually have to lead the country not be forced by the country like we have here.
The constant negative message that you will fail and it is not cost effective is a lie and it stops people from starting.
We converted our whole home already, it is also south facing, I never have to use an air conditioner in summer, our untilities when needed are almost nothing, we use low concumption appliances, we have an LCD TV which is big screen, but low consumption.
Harper has stopped the energuide program this is the tool used to assess the consumption of new appliances by consumers. We don't have to make everyone throw out their appliances but all new purchases could be efficient, but not now with no NEW information available to the consumer....
This 1.5 billion could be drawn from non-essentuals such as war, reduced aid spending etc etc for a short period until we get the ball rolling, again the cost is not ongoing forever the main cost is in retrofitting and start-up.
so while we do the right thing I think we could get away with some reduced spending in these areas to compensate for the enviroment spending now.
All new building construction should be facing new critera. such as homes facing south etc this is the most economical way to build in regards to heating and cooling. Again reductions can be made in carbon emmisions just in energy savings in heating and cooling.
Before anyone installs solar or wind or anything like that the first thing that is done is reduce your energy waste so you do not overspend to install alternate systems.
Many who start this soon find it to be fun and also a better investment then RRSP's which loose value at any given time. getting to the point of having no payments for energy is something we can take to the bank when we are retired.
Many seniors are at the mercy of the insurance companies and oil companies who are gouging the economy.
FACT since 911 we have had runaway insurance costs and runaway oil costs.
The fact is when I do business internationally, I speak with my customers about non-business issues from time to time. The whole planet had rising insurance costs that were the same proportion as ours.
So taking the world population into account and yes this includes China and India folks! they too pay insurance.
the cost to fund the replacement of the twin towers and the compensation to its families was covered in the first 2 years, so why are still paying the steep levies?
Oil as we know really isn't in short supply now they adjust the production monthly based on our consumption and what price the market can bear.
So as a citizen we all have basically had our disposable incomes taken away from us since 911. The market in Canada shows this ask any store owner, before 911 they were able to spend money installing new decks on their house purchase a new car, go golfing, give money to the family to spend at the mall, and the money then recirculated as the same shops who received it spend their profit locally too, again to be reintroduced back into local economies.
The Federal and provincial governments also enjoyed the steady influx of new sales taxes as the dollar changed hands from person to person all day.
With the funds being sucked out of our economies by insurance and oil this recirculation has stopped.
The governments and the local business operators feel the loss.
All profits now leave, they are not re-invested into anything tangable.
Oh yea the oil sands. this does nothing for the people who pay everyday and the funds leave their districts never to return.
The same group who take our disposable income and put in into the oil sands then ask us for a handout to cleanup the mess they make.
So along that lines of thought it is now proven in Germany that a local based economy be it a cottage industry of green re-circlulates the funds into the community. AND the German economy has rebounded as a result.
The oil industry is dead. All the building of infrastructure such as making gas stations etc, and all other factors is over. That economy is finished.
By keeping the oil industry alive and in a cleaned up state, AND introducing a new industry, the growth in the economy and new jobs that result of establishing a new infrastructure is revilatizing to the economy not the opposite; because now people can offer new services and products and have a chance to get into the game. get part of the same money that actually leaves their community everyday.
There is no chance to enter the oil industry game for loacl businesses now so the notion that starting a new game to run parallel to oil that kills the economy is BS.
Also its time they had some competition, everyone knows the telephone companies used to be non-competitive. they had a monopoly it is gone and its high tme the oil monopoly is gone too.
This is why Harper defends the oil interests to help save their monopoly.
In regards to installing windmills everywhere it is a good technology but it is best to be installed at the right places.
Donald you are right it takes up to a year to receive one windmill of that size.
but wind is only one option and getting many little projects going and the reduction started will snowball effect other things.
Many companies want government to say we will purchase your energy, this is a mjor roadblock for private enterprise.
The banks and property assessors DO NOT factor in green energy value yet I have been fighting to have my system added to the value of my home. No interest from anyone on this subject.
so if the banks are not interested and the assessors do not include this then again there is no incentive for private people to invest in their onw homes with green energy supliments.
You would be surprised what technology is available now but is surpressed in the name of oil.
The guy in Ottawa who makes ethanol from straw but our government is dragging their feet on that too, this is a win win for us and the farmers of Canada who now plow it under or burn it..... wouldn't want oil to get mad would we?
I could go on for hours and get more points in as I am in the alternate energy business, and it is very frustrating for all who know different what a bunch of crap we are being fed here.
your right.
Yes Donald you are right again, but I view the Federal government as the "Mom or Dad" of Canada.
They have the last word on many issues and usually have power over the provinces ... not always but usually.
They are the common thread that ties us all together.
If the Feds lead and lead agressively then everyone else will follow.
The country has to be shown the feds are serious. AND stop the negative spin.
I think if we were able to get numbers to support some of the arguments above it may be feasible to actually show monetary gain or least no loss in this regard.
further to your answer Donald
I like your farm incentive idea.
Have you pitched that to anyone in this party yet?
Is there a place to pitch and think-tank these ideas?
Re-frame the "cost" of Kyoto
The pundits seem to obsess over the 'cost' of meeting our Kyoto commitments, how it will be too 'expensive'.
There are two ways of reducing our emissions.
One is just doing less of everything. Effective, but not too sexy. For some this is the path, but many aren't ready for that path yet.
Luckily there is another option, which works almost as well - do what we do, but with much less waste. That means having what we have but using less energy, less materials, less resources to make it. It's very possible - we could reduce our use of energy & materials by a factor of 4 or even 10 without reducing our visible standard of living, using today's technology with good design. (Read "Natural Capitalism" for proof).
Once you have it in your head that reducing emissions (meeting Kyoto) is a matter of improving efficiency and reducing waste, you are ready to take on the "What will it cost? (Too much)" rhetoric.
Here it goes:
Meeting Kyoto is all about reducing waste and inefficiency.
When a politician says he will reduce waste in government, do we ask him "but how much will that cost?" Of course not - we say "how soon can you start?"
When a new CEO says she'll turn the company around by increasing efficiency and reducing costs, do the shareholders opine that it would be too expensive? Of course not. When she says she will make the company more lean and competitive, they stand and applaud!
When your investment advisor tells you to buy an RRSP, do you refuse because it takes money? Of course not, because it is an investment, not a cost!
Pollution is wasted money. Inefficiency is wasted money. Reducing them means saving money - which means increased competitiveness, productivity, and profitablitity. Kyoto means investing in our economy - in the best parts of it, in fact: innovation and labour.
Our investments in Kyoto will improve our economy. It's as simple as that. What are we waiting for?
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Nice points
Erich - nice persepective.
You are right, on many fronts.
"Pollution is wasted money. Inefficiency is wasted money. Reducing them means saving money - which means increased competitiveness, productivity, and profitablitity".
This is a perfect sentence that sums up this situation.
For the true believers it will work.
Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
What the rhetoric about efficiency leavea unsaid is will we actually get the efficiency improvements needed to make this a viable proposition?
That is the question that company stockholders have to wrestle with too. Do we have enough convidence in the CEO or top management to comitt to a course of action fraught with a risk that the company will lose market share, possibly lose its best employees, and still make more profit?
The Ceo who says she will turn the company around with improved efficiency has to have in hand a serious plan, agreed to by a long list of people in the company and outside of it that look promising, not just a vague idea that there have to be some efficiencies we could find if we really look for them.
We have been burned in the past by parties telling us they will pay for everything with reduced waste. But this time we are talking about a party telling us that we will make the improvements in things not under government control more than in things under governmeent control. How we bring this about is by making it very costly to be inefficient. That sounds like business unfriendly policy, forcing business to make efficiency improvements they have thus far found no way to make.
We agree that they have been able to get along without making those improvements so they had no urgent reason to make them, that they have been making decisions on partial cost scenarios. We will come along with tax increases that will not provide any new ability to become more efficient, only an urgent need to do so.
The hell of this is that we will not have time to wait in getting the brakes on, to cut fuel consumption, extraction, export, and emissions. We do not have the luxury of putting those things off to a second mandate. We as a aociety really have to make those efficiency improvements, but fast.
We probably do not have enough people, equipment, energy available to get it done fast enough and continue to produce the flood of consumer trash we are now producing as well as convert to a Green economy as fast as we need to. That means we have to cut down on producing our mountain of consumer trash. We will have to sacrifice production of low priority stuff even if it is exports that are bringing in money.
Oh MY GOD! NOT THAT !!
Were we for instance to direct ALL of our efforts to converting our electrical supply to wind power over a period of 5 years, we would have to evaluate where we would install haow many towers and with what powers, what grid connections would be needed, how we would manufacture the components build the structures, finance the build, train operators and maintence people,... just a few hundred major roles to be stiched down. It would take a decade to get it all done before the first tower starts kicking out power, (a decade within our first and only 4 year term) unless we realize up front the magnitude of the task and get the task subdivided appropriately right away.
We have to understand that while we do have a civil service, our civil service has no major expertise in this area. We will have to have planned on a team ready to go, a team of technical and economic and business leaders who would make it start to happen in the first 4 months. By the time we have revenue coming from carbon tax, we need to have a flow of money going to that main project and many others to mop up any manpower available... we will need one awfully large manpower pool to get the projects done, but people need to have that money flowing back to them too.
We can not accomplish much in terms of getting early efficiency by merely returning the money to the taxpayers as reduction in payroll taxes, though that would allow people to go on buying the mountains of consumer junk they are accustomed to buying.
Just think how an extra $3000 in cost of house heating and a $3000 reduction in your payroll tax will change your life.
Now if you are the person with median payroll tax and median heating cost we expect this will have little effect on you.
If you are a low income person so that while increasing your house cost by 3000 is offset by only a 1000 reduction in payroll tax, and you do not have a lot of savings to upgrade your home to offset your increased heating cost, you will just have to turn the thermostat down and turn off and drain the water system, wear extra clothing.
Being a good Green person of course you are already operating with your thermostat down to 12C, as mine is. So we will barely notice the change in heating cost, and our reduced payroll tax will be very welcome.
What cost will Kyoto compliance mean?
Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
Part of the difficulty in answering the above question comes from the flexibility we have.
If Canadian business opts to buy foreign generated carbon credits rather than reduce emmissions directly, we would immediately see a major drain on revenues that go off to other countries. If our businesses do a rapid conversion to green energym so that we are able to sell carbon credits instead of buying them, Kyoto might even make us money in those parts of the economy not dedicated to extraction and processing of our fossil fuels. But so very much of our GDP is from selling our fossil fuels at fire-sale prices.
If we chose to extract Canadian fossil fuels only when oil is above $70 per barrel, we would hope to make more on the trickle we sell than we make now on the same volume, but we would sell a lot less. We reduce the emissions the extraction and processing cause, so we do not need to buy credits for that. What makes this idea threatening is the way it absolutely commits our economy to get along with a lot less fossil fuels rather than pay for carbon credits. That is fair game if we demonstrate that we can actually do this
To demonstrate that we can actually shift off fossil fuels in a major way, we can embark on a progressive reduction in fossil fuel extractionm say 1% reduction per month, and announce the intention to continue until we have reduced our extraction by 70%, with the proviso that we will pause this planned reduction if necessary. The threat of impending shortfall of supply is the urgent prod to get along with the better way. The assurance that we will monitor the situation and not let the economy go off the track too far allows us to go ahead withiut fear of destroying the economy.
But there is a subtle difference in the intent of the word economy. Greens do not see tons of consumer garbage as a mark of economy, but of waste. Waste and economy are antonyms. We do forsee a significant reduction in consumer garbage production in case anyone depends on that.
So we do expect a lot of economic adjustment to take place. We will have a lot of economic adjustment to deal with climate change too, and that whether or not we green our economy.
Redirect subsidies and taxes
The federal government gives $1.4B annually to the oil and gas industries. Provincial governments also donate: just this year the BC government, right after a throne speech promising great greenness, announced a budget containing $263M for oil and gas exploration. $263M would buy a lot of geothermal, wind, tidal - or even conservation.
That $1.4B subsidy would buy approximately two semiconductor fabs of the type required to build solar photovoltaic cells. The federal government could redirect the oil and gas subsidy into building two of these plants per year; the only cost would be a small increase in the price of gas and oil, which is inevitable anyway. Oil company stock values would decrease, but that is inevitable, too, and I have a hard time feeling sorry for people who invest in something that is destroying my children's future.
If the federal government then sold these plants to the employees, we would recoup the subsidy and make employee owners. The recouped money could be invested in guaranteeing the purchase of a certain amount of production, which will be needed to power the high-speed electric trains we'll be building to replace domestic air travel and parcel freight, and the upgrades to our regular trains to carry the heavy stuff. As the trains are more efficient, the cost of transporting within Canada will decrease, favouring local production....
My point is that there is rather a lot of money currently wasted in subsidies and inefficient ways of doing things. All of the above is without yet doing a revenue-neutral tax shift from income to pollution and waste. Big Oil and our government are talking seriously about nuclear plants to fuel the tar sands - a fantastically inefficient way to get energy. That should tell us that the economy could do better without oil if we do things intelligently.
Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada
Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth
People - Planet - Prosperity
Let's not propose that photovoltaic plant plan yet.
Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
We would assume that having a lot more solar electric panels would be just peachy... but right now we are short on silicon supply, and will remain so well into 2008.
If there is a need in this segment it is a major producer of silicon, or other materials from which these panels will be constructed.
Adding extra fabrication facilities without supplies of component materials may make us look foolish.