Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[agentaqua]

http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/ar...e=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=socialmedia

Greenland’s Gone Dim

The icy island is becoming less reflective thanks to climate change.

BY Susan Cosier | @SusanCosier | 1 week ago

Photo: NOAA

Greenland is becoming duller. The place is still exciting (perhaps, too exciting...); its icy landscape is just not as reflective as it used to be. Since August 2000, the island’s reflectivity has decreased nearly 6 percent, according to NOAA’s newly released Arctic Report Card 2014. Warmer air temperatures cause snow and ice crystals to lump together, forming smoother edges that don’t bounce back as much sunlight into the atmosphere. In other words, slush isn't so shiny.

The loss of reflectivity causes a feedback loop as more of the sun's energy reaches the earth and raises temperatures, which, in turn, make sparkling ice lose its shimmer—or worse, expose dark spots of ocean and land that absorb even more heat. All in all, the report found that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Too exciting, indeed.

 

[triplenickel]

I am taking steps to get off fossil fuels. Currently it's very hard to do so. I tried to buy an all electric car but the dealer here would not support me and the infrastructure is not setup. If I lived in Vancouver this would have been easy. I did the next best thing and bought a hybrid for the wife. So went from 13 L/km to 4 L/km so that's a step in the right direction. Her old vehicle was on it's last legs and it needed to be replace. Too many break downs and you can't have the wife stranded on the side of the road. Now for solar panels.... I'm currently looking / planning to set some up. Not sure if I will put them on my house or put them in an array with others here in the valley. The cost have come down so much that pay back is now less then 7 years. That's an all in price and I'm sure with my own labour I can drive that price down more. I'm also looking at a project in Ontario and through crowd source funding may kick some in there too. Alberta looks like it may start moving in this direction also and through friends may kick some money there too. The change in government leadership there looks promising. The whole point is we need to start thinking of going down these roads and not just the "same old same old", clearly that's not working and change is needed. So where do you get your best bang for your buck is top of mind. With that said something that I did years ago was to divest all my investments out of O&G and put them into funds that either were "green" investments or investments in local infrastructure municipal bonds to help communities upgrade and prepare for the future. So you see there are ways to do things and you just don't have to keep going down the same old road.

You've said all this before, but the reality remains you could do it tomorrow but would rather have a boat. Not knowing the value of your boat only that it's an 05 I'll wager you could flog your boat, go solar, zip to the states and scoop up a sweet deal on a $10k unit and do it all without affecting the quality of your recreational experience! Even as a passionate person you have priorities other than full green lifestyle, think about the bulk of society that isn't anywhere near as passionate and you'll see why NG is a great bridge fuel. Not an attack just using you as an example, now multiply your situation x 7 billion and see why natural gas makes so much sense on a global scale it's a perfect solution given all the current factors. You could have a propane kicker tomorrow! Is there really no charging stations in the CV, and is the range on them so low that it wouldn't be an effective urban commuter for Mrs. GLG in the CV? Even in old blue collar CR we have a bunch of em and with my understanding of ranges they'd be good for several days of use on a charge for most peeps that never/rarely leave town. Are you sure it wasn't a price point issue that drove you to a hybrid? Dealer support is a necessity though I reckon.

I'm gonna go solar in the next few years primarily out of spite and dislike for BC Hydro's tactics with their monopoly and it's just another investment to put money in my pocket in a short term.

Yes there are major road block and I don't have an answer except pointing out that a price on CO2 is how I see Canada going forward. The social issues of increasing the cost can be offset by making that price revenue neutral. Exactly how we are doing it here in BC with fuel. Not sure if this answers your question and if not feel free to ask again.

I don't know what you mean by revenue neutral, does that mean there's a way to do it without taking money out of the end users pocket? If so how will that curb consumption? The way I've seen gas prices as an end user as long as I've been buying it it's been anything but neutral!

No worries on the NG front I gave that up 10 years ago.

Totally 100% incorrect unless you're only speaking of it coming directly into your house. It affects almost every aspect of life, even your hydro. As established before you're on the same grid as the people getting power from coal and nukes so living in a province that's a net exporter every drop you use on this end is made up from another source on the other. That means like the emissions in China, the spill from Mt. Polley, and emissions from the Oil Sands we all own a piece of it. There's all the goods you consume and the gas that goes into their construction and transportation. It takes no effort to think of a hundred places it's needed everyday, I don't wanna pay any more for produce in the off season because there isn't cheap abundant fuel to heat greenhouses. Think big and it's a hugely complex issue hence the perceived lack of progress you see in global advancement, the suggestions in this thread are great ideals but nowhere near reality.

It's the LNG part I don't think is a smart move that our current leadership is in love with at the moment.

Are you advocating for Asia to not fill it's growing energy needs (much of it to feed our consumption, the rest for a growing population just like ours) or for it to be filled via coal (which we've established has higher life cycle emissions), or an alternative source that doesn't compete on an economic basis or holding them to a different standard than you just said was acceptable in North America.

We still need NG here in Canada and the US

If the alternatives are competitive, where are they for the general public on a significant scale? There's enough billionaire green ideal philanthropist types that could get it off the ground if it would/could make a buck.

NG on the domestic market and LNG globally are great realistic solutions especially if you consider all the parts of the gigantic convoluted confusing issue, especially human nature and reluctance to change. It's got the most chance of social acceptance (heck even you just gave a teeny tiny bit) and ability to make a real difference in the short term.

So much so she is willing to forgo taxes and royalties to get her dream off the ground.

A portion of them as an investment to get it off the ground you mean. I still don't believe some of the numbers I've read here. I haven't researched them enough myself but saying royalties are the only economic upside to the industry is like saying stumpage is the only revenue from forestry. I also don't believe the 10,000 jobs in BC currently bit either. I have nothing but my opinion and observations to back it up though. I suspect its some biased accounting method, just consider the communities of Ft. Nelson, Ft. St. John, and Dawson (approx. 35,000 between the three) I bet directly and indirectly there's at least 60% of them involved not to mention the thousands of camp workers these same communities complain about having in place of permanent residents moving in. I work for a tiny player, directly and indirectly there's an easy 1000 jobs. Sadly there's absolutely no such thing as an unbiased opinion in any of this, from either side even the climate change proponents have a vested financial interest.

Think of this governments plan as an investment in the reduction of emissions on a global scale. If they don't get the gas, they'll make it up with coal. Just that easy, they're not stopping any sooner than we're gonna sell our boats or toys to fast track our solar panels.

Edits for terrible grammar and to note I'd seen that website after seeing it on the news. Interesting for sure.

 

[GLG]

You've said all this before, but the reality remains you could do it tomorrow but would rather have a boat. Not knowing the value of your boat only that it's an 05 I'll wager you could flog your boat, go solar, zip to the states and scoop up a sweet deal on a $10k unit and do it all without affecting the quality of your recreational experience! Even as a passionate person you have priorities other than full green lifestyle, think about the bulk of society that isn't anywhere near as passionate and you'll see why NG is a great bridge fuel. Not an attack just using you as an example, now multiply your situation x 7 billion and see why natural gas makes so much sense on a global scale it's a perfect solution given all the current factors. You could have a propane kicker tomorrow! Is there really no charging stations in the CV, and is the range on them so low that it wouldn't be an effective urban commuter for Mrs. GLG in the CV? Even in old blue collar CR we have a bunch of em and with my understanding of ranges they'd be good for several days of use on a charge for most peeps that never/rarely leave town. Are you sure it wasn't a price point issue that drove you to a hybrid? Dealer support is a necessity though I reckon.

Nissan was the one I wanted to get and the dealer would / could not get me one. I tried but they told me next year. Could not wait so Toyota was next best thing. Heard they may have them now but will wait another year or two and trade up when the time is right. I would put solar on tomorrow but the kid goes to uvic next year, or year after, and our plan is to sell and down size. That would be a good time to renovate the new (to me) place and re-roof with solar. We will see as it maybe a selling feature on this one. ... propane kicker is not in the cards if you have had a close look at them besides they don't use much fuel and it would be better to tackle the larger fuel use items first. I can also do my part by just using 20% less fuel then I did in 2005 by driving or fishing less until I can be more efficient. That's the agreement we have with the world currently. This may change with what happens in Paris next year when a new agreement come out.

I'm gonna go solar in the next few years primarily out of spite and dislike for BC Hydro's tactics with their monopoly and it's just another investment to put money in my pocket in a short term.

I hear you there....

I don't know what you mean by revenue neutral, does that mean there's a way to do it without taking money out of the end users pocket? If so how will that curb consumption? The way I've seen gas prices as an end user as long as I've been buying it it's been anything but neutral!

Currently we have a revenue neutral carbon tax here in BC. I think it's at 30 bucks a ton of CO2. It was suppose to go to 40 but our dim light in Vic froze it at 30. The bottom line is pay at the pump and get it all back at tax time. It works and it is enough to change peoples habits and choices when it comes to fossil fuels.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-columbias-carbon-tax

Totally 100% incorrect unless you're only speaking of it coming directly into your house. It affects almost every aspect of life, even your hydro. As established before you're on the same grid as the people getting power from coal and nukes so living in a province that's a net exporter every drop you use on this end is made up from another source on the other. That means like the emissions in China, the spill from Mt. Polley, and emissions from the Oil Sands we all own a piece of it. There's all the goods you consume and the gas that goes into their construction and transportation. It takes no effort to think of a hundred places it's needed everyday, I don't wanna pay any more for produce in the off season because there isn't cheap abundant fuel to heat greenhouses. Think big and it's a hugely complex issue hence the perceived lack of progress you see in global advancement, the suggestions in this thread are great ideals but nowhere near reality.

Thanks for pointing that out and all the more reason to not exempt anyone from the tax. Alberta has one also but it is totally inefficient and to think Harper now thinks it's good. It has done nothing to curb the CO2 in that province. After all that's the whole point of it. It's not helpful to talk about carbon intensity if at the end of the day you are putting out more and more every year.

As you pointed out BC is a net exporter of electricity but the gov claims that we still get 5% of our electricity from fossil fuels. I suspect that comes when we trade with our partners when our need are not meet by our output. Perhaps if we had 5% more solar, wind or geothermal we could do something about that.

Yup you are right industry out side of BC does not pay a carbon tax and therefore the products that come here do not have that carbon tax built in. Neither is there a carbon tax on greenhouses here in BC. That's not helpful but the rest of BC industry does pay the tax. China has just introduced Cap & Trade so we will see if that works to curd their CO2 and what effect we have on prices we pay for products we import. Last month BC, Ontario, Quebec, Washington, Oregon and California all signed an agreement to enter a Cap & Trade, we will see how that plays out. So we may have our corner of the world going in the right direction.

Are you advocating for Asia to not fill it's growing energy needs (much of it to feed our consumption, the rest for a growing population just like ours) or for it to be filled via coal (which we've established has higher life cycle emissions), or an alternative source that doesn't compete on an economic basis or holding them to a different standard than you just said was acceptable in North America. If the alternatives are competitive, where are they for the general public on a significant scale? There's enough billionaire green ideal philanthropist types that could get it off the ground if it would/could make a buck.

They need to work out their problems with some of there own solutions. It's not our job to blow off our CO2 reduction commitments to "help them" Call it tough love.

NG on the domestic market and LNG globally are great realistic solutions especially if you consider all the parts of the gigantic convoluted confusing issue, especially human nature and reluctance to change. It's got the most chance of social acceptance (heck even you just gave a teeny tiny bit) and ability to make a real difference in the short term.

NG on the local level is a solution as long as it not a replacement. It must be a bridge to something better. LNG if you can do it without subsides and a CO2 increase will be fine. The problem is that's not the plan. The plan is a cut to their fair share of taxes and a cut to their fair share of royalties. Worst is they would like to burn NG to make the L part of LNG. Not acceptable. The other option I heard was for us to build Site C and then sell the electricity at below cost so the could L the NG... That would mean you and I are paying for them to make a profit. Money from you and me on our Hydro bills to add their shareholder value. Nice...

A portion of them as an investment to get it off the ground you mean. I still don't believe some of the numbers I've read here. I haven't researched them enough myself but saying royalties are the only economic upside to the industry is like saying stumpage is the only revenue from forestry. I also don't believe the 10,000 jobs in BC currently bit either. I have nothing but my opinion and observations to back it up though. I suspect its some biased accounting method, just consider the communities of Ft. Nelson, Ft. St. John, and Dawson (approx. 35,000 between the three) I bet directly and indirectly there's at least 60% of them involved not to mention the thousands of camp workers these same communities complain about having in place of permanent residents moving in. I work for a tiny player, directly and indirectly there's an easy 1000 jobs. Sadly there's absolutely no such thing as an unbiased opinion in any of this, from either side even the climate change proponents have a vested financial interest.

Think of this governments plan as an investment in the reduction of emissions on a global scale. If they don't get the gas, they'll make it up with coal. Just that easy, they're not stopping any sooner than we're gonna sell our boats or toys to fast track our solar panels.

Edits for terrible grammar and to note I'd seen that website after seeing it on the news. Interesting for sure.

No I can't give a thumbs up to any increase in CO2. If they, Asia, want's our product then they need to pay for it and it must be done in a way that is carbon neutral. If our industry pay's it's fair share and gets in with a Cap & Trade deal we will see what the details are. Till then I see no plans that are worth risking our future on. Call me stubborn but that's how I feel. Cut the CO2 not increase it... we don't have a choice.

 

[triplenickel]

I would put solar on tomorrow but the kid goes to uvic next year, or year after, and our plan is to sell and down size.

That's fine I get it, we're going in circles again last time it was appliances. You're missing or avoiding the point I was trying to make using you as an example not being critical, lemme try to make it clear. Boat, boat, boat, boat instead of soalr and the rest of the world has their own little thing too. All the plans sound great on paper but none address the real issue which is human nature as you're demonstrating quite consistently it will also never have a partisan solution. Gwynne Dyer did a good job showing the problem with the current plans and likelihood of their implementation and success in a recent column, hence why I think we need a different solution which LNG is part of;

http://bangordailynews.com/2014/12/15/opinion/contributors/climate-change-the-impossible-deal/

Currently we have a revenue neutral carbon tax here in BC. I think it's at 30 bucks a ton of CO2. It was suppose to go to 40 but our dim light in Vic froze it at 30. The bottom line is pay at the pump and get it all back at tax time. It works and it is enough to change peoples habits and choices when it comes to fossil fuels.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/ameri...ias-carbon-tax

I read the article but am unable to draw a solid conclusion from it. Fuel use may well have gone down I have nothing to confirm nor dispute that, no reason to believe the claim is false but have to question whether we can attribute it to a carbon tax or not. Note the date of 2008 in your link, seems to me there was another small global financial even that year I'll wager a paycheck it's more due to overall oil costs than carbon tax.

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

If you don't like this source google "gas prices since 2008" they all show the same thing. Maybe we can revisit this in 5 years I'll wager another significant sum that consumption will have jumped after the prices dropped, will that be attributed to the carbon tax as well? There's gonna be more RV's on the road this summer, more big rigs heading from the lower 48 to Alaska and more fishing days for our local neighbours, I don't think that is disputable.

They need to work out their problems with some of there own solutions. It's not our job to blow off our CO2 reduction commitments to "help them" Call it tough love.

That's a terrible answer, are you really OK with that? Knowing that they aren't going to stop burning coal without an alternative, knowing where they stand on the global emissions scale and knowing it's a global problem? Would it be safe to say you're OK with them continuing to burn coal or do you think there's a more likely solution from them? Consider even of we make more c02 in BC with the LNG therefor getting rid of some coal it's a net loss on the global scale. That's the main point I'm getting at. So you're saying it's ok for us to consume NG here, but they can't and should instead burn coal or do you think they'll build windmills? Burning natural gas instead of coal is one of their solutions.

The agreement they signed recently with the US is borderline meaningless, peak by 2030, Where do you think they'll push to in the interim and maintain afterwards? Or do we take it in good faith and assume that they'll continue their increases at the current rate until then and be part of getting them off the upwards curve? We can be part of making sure that peak is lower.

It's not helpful to talk about carbon intensity if at the end of the day you are putting out more and more every year.

Global population, not NG caused.

The other option I heard was for us to build Site C and then sell the electricity at below cost so the could L the NG... That would mean you and I are paying for them to make a profit. Money from you and me on our Hydro bills to add their shareholder value. Nice...

Hadn't heard the below cost bit before but maybe offset that with the revenue generated from the carbon tax so we don't get our pockets picked further and get Asia off the coal and we'd still have a global decrease. Also more for export which will offset fossil fuel generated power on the other end of the grid.

Asia, want's our product then they need to pay for it and it must be done in a way that is carbon neutral.

Call me stubborn but that's how I feel. Cut the CO2 not increase it... we don't have a choice.

You're treating it as 2 different things as if it was 2 different planets, emissions may go up here, but overall down globally. It won't be neutral locally, but it will be down globally. And once we hit 2030 if China abides by it's deal we could have a lucrative future supplying them and the rest of Asia with a cleaner alternative to coal.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/mi...e=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=socialmedia

Missed Connections

Climate change could affect the way all kinds of creatures interact with each other.

BY Jason Bittel | @BittelMeThis | 1 day ago

Photo: Tarnya Hall

In nature, timing is everything.

From the mass migration of monarch butterflies to the simultaneous seminal release of corals to the collective deaths of salmon and cicadas, many species stick to schedules so strict, their habits could be used to mark the seasons.

Unfortunately, more and more evidence suggests that climate change has already begun to cuss up these timetables.

Some flowers, for example, seem to be adapting more quickly to global warming than the wild bumblebees they rely on for reproduction. The flowers bloom earlier, often before the bees have emerged to transport pollen between them. As a result, the plants produce fewer seeds. If the two can’t sync up, the lockstep dance of pollination that has developed over millennia may unravel over the relatively short course of centuries—or even decades.

Scientists call this occurrence a “phenological mismatch,” but you could simply think of it as bad timing.

“One thing that happens [with global warming] is that partnerships between all kinds of organisms break down because one partner changes more than another,” says Emily Meineke, a North Carolina State University graduate student and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency STAR fellow. Meineke is currently researching whether one of these mismatches is happening between scale insects and their arch nemeses, parasitic wasps, thanks to urban warming in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Scale insects are small, mostly stationary bugs that suck the life out of trees. But these parasites have parasites of their own. Several species of wasp prey upon scales by drilling into their shells and depositing tiny monster eggs. Once the larva hatches, it lives inside the body of the scale insect, sucking its blood like Voldemort noshing on a unicorn.



Photo: gailhampshire

The relationship between this tiny parasitic wasp and its scale insect host could change because of global warming.

But here’s the thing: Scale insects seem to thrive under slightly warmer conditions, while wasps fare no better or worse. Using a thermal map obtained from a Landsat satellite, Meineke collected wasp-infected scale insects from “hot” and “cold” areas across Raleigh. The difference in average temperatures at the sites varied by just a half-degree Celsius, but it’s a case of a little warmth going a long way. In the “hot” areas, scale insects were able to produce twice as many eggs as their counterparts in the “cold” areas.

To be clear, the wasps were still infecting the scales at both places. In the cooler sites, the parasites’ eggs affected the scales’ ability to produce its own eggs. Call it nature’s way of keeping scale insects from taking over the world. But Meineke’s evidence suggests that higher temps allow scale insects to somehow overcome the wasp’s influence.

This may be due to the fact that the scales hatch earlier in warm conditions. And when that occurs, their other life events move up on the calendar, too: earlier molting, breeding, egg-laying.

As for the wasps, their life cycle appears to remain the same in the heat. They still drill into scale insects (which are now a few days or weeks older than normal), lay their eggs, and leave their young to leech off their host. Everything is as it was before, except for the fact that the wasp larvae no longer seem to compromise the egg production of their hosts.

Meineke says this could mean the whole dynamic of their relationship has changed from parasitism (where one species succeeds at a detriment to the other) to something more akin to commensalism (where one species benefits at no cost to the other).

Biologist and study coauthor Rob Dunn admits that such a small shift in the relationship of two tiny insects may seem insignificant, but the findings could be part of a much bigger pattern.

“Increasingly, the warming that is happening in cities seems to be offering us a lens through which we can understand the effects of future global warming,” he says. “And the future is often dependent on complex interactions among species we know little about.”

Not to mention, the trees might give a damn (if they could). A difference of just half- degree Celsius was enough to tip the balance in favor of the scales. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects temperatures to increase four times as much over the next century. That kind of heat could potentially hatch a whole lot more tree-sucking bugs.

And what else it might have in store—for the birds, the bees, the salmon, and the cicadas—we just don’t know yet. We’d be wise to start filling out those calendars in pencil.

 

[triplenickel]

http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/mi...e=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=socialmedia

Missed Connections

Climate change could affect the way all kinds of creatures interact with each other.

BY Jason Bittel | @BittelMeThis | 1 day ago

Photo: Tarnya Hall

In nature, timing is everything.

From the mass migration of monarch butterflies to the simultaneous seminal release of corals to the collective deaths of salmon and cicadas, many species stick to schedules so strict, their habits could be used to mark the seasons.

Unfortunately, more and more evidence suggests that climate change has already begun to cuss up these timetables.

Some flowers, for example, seem to be adapting more quickly to global warming than the wild bumblebees they rely on for reproduction. The flowers bloom earlier, often before the bees have emerged to transport pollen between them. As a result, the plants produce fewer seeds. If the two can’t sync up, the lockstep dance of pollination that has developed over millennia may unravel over the relatively short course of centuries—or even decades.

Scientists call this occurrence a “phenological mismatch,” but you could simply think of it as bad timing.

“One thing that happens [with global warming] is that partnerships between all kinds of organisms break down because one partner changes more than another,” says Emily Meineke, a North Carolina State University graduate student and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency STAR fellow. Meineke is currently researching whether one of these mismatches is happening between scale insects and their arch nemeses, parasitic wasps, thanks to urban warming in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Scale insects are small, mostly stationary bugs that suck the life out of trees. But these parasites have parasites of their own. Several species of wasp prey upon scales by drilling into their shells and depositing tiny monster eggs. Once the larva hatches, it lives inside the body of the scale insect, sucking its blood like Voldemort noshing on a unicorn.



Photo: gailhampshire

The relationship between this tiny parasitic wasp and its scale insect host could change because of global warming.

But here’s the thing: Scale insects seem to thrive under slightly warmer conditions, while wasps fare no better or worse. Using a thermal map obtained from a Landsat satellite, Meineke collected wasp-infected scale insects from “hot” and “cold” areas across Raleigh. The difference in average temperatures at the sites varied by just a half-degree Celsius, but it’s a case of a little warmth going a long way. In the “hot” areas, scale insects were able to produce twice as many eggs as their counterparts in the “cold” areas.

To be clear, the wasps were still infecting the scales at both places. In the cooler sites, the parasites’ eggs affected the scales’ ability to produce its own eggs. Call it nature’s way of keeping scale insects from taking over the world. But Meineke’s evidence suggests that higher temps allow scale insects to somehow overcome the wasp’s influence.

This may be due to the fact that the scales hatch earlier in warm conditions. And when that occurs, their other life events move up on the calendar, too: earlier molting, breeding, egg-laying.

As for the wasps, their life cycle appears to remain the same in the heat. They still drill into scale insects (which are now a few days or weeks older than normal), lay their eggs, and leave their young to leech off their host. Everything is as it was before, except for the fact that the wasp larvae no longer seem to compromise the egg production of their hosts.

Meineke says this could mean the whole dynamic of their relationship has changed from parasitism (where one species succeeds at a detriment to the other) to something more akin to commensalism (where one species benefits at no cost to the other).

Biologist and study coauthor Rob Dunn admits that such a small shift in the relationship of two tiny insects may seem insignificant, but the findings could be part of a much bigger pattern.

“Increasingly, the warming that is happening in cities seems to be offering us a lens through which we can understand the effects of future global warming,” he says. “And the future is often dependent on complex interactions among species we know little about.”

Not to mention, the trees might give a damn (if they could). A difference of just half- degree Celsius was enough to tip the balance in favor of the scales. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects temperatures to increase four times as much over the next century. That kind of heat could potentially hatch a whole lot more tree-sucking bugs.

And what else it might have in store—for the birds, the bees, the salmon, and the cicadas—we just don’t know yet. We’d be wise to start filling out those calendars in pencil.

More doom and gloom, sigh. In the interest of fairness where's the balance in the article speaking of species that could flourish? Not gonna happen, won't sell papers it's just another example of the bias and manipulation so rampant on both sides. Too bad 98% of people can't/won't ask the simple questions when they read these articles.

 

[triplenickel]

Fugitive emissions? Yup. Still exponentially better? Yup. According to GLG though it's only suitable for North America, Asia fix your own problems. Lol sorry bud, couldn't resist.

Too bad there's no economic benefits though. Not like the 18 proposed LNG projects are 10, 20, and 30 billion dollar projects. Nothing to see here folks move along there will be no economic benefits to the province. Just like stumpage is all we get from the forest industry. No way will there be thousands of spin off jobs, no way will unrelated entities like tourism operators see any uptick as more and more people make good wages so they can afford ferries or $1000+ dollar days on a charter off Tofino.

http://www.ngsa.org/download/issues/TheStuffOfEverydayLife.pdf

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oil_gas_poster.pdf

Pay particular attention to the products made from natural gas and consider where most of those that we all buy are made. Who's ready to give em up? Who's ready for them to be more expensive without a cheap abundant supply to keep the manufacturers going? Pssst, there's even some fishing stuff on there.

The decision isn't like flipping a coin with a yes on one side and a no on the other it's like one of those 20 sided dice the geeks use in Dungeons and Dragons. It's not simply policy makers trying to bolster their portfolios at the expense of what has social license and will ensure no chance at subsequent terms in office. If that was the case they'd manipulate policies and their portfolios to suit public sentiment and run wild for multiple terms. It's more like they have all the info, see the whole picture, and accept the trade offs for what is the best over all. It's also why despite campaign promises when a party changes, gets into office and starts to see everything the status quo is generally maintained. Don't confuse this with me saying they're saints or do no wrong.

 

[GLG]

That's fine I get it, we're going in circles again last time it was appliances. You're missing or avoiding the point I was trying to make using you as an example not being critical, lemme try to make it clear. Boat, boat, boat, boat instead of soalr and the rest of the world has their own little thing too. All the plans sound great on paper but none address the real issue which is human nature as you're demonstrating quite consistently it will also never have a partisan solution. Gwynne Dyer did a good job showing the problem with the current plans and likelihood of their implementation and success in a recent column, hence why I think we need a different solution which LNG is part of;

And there it is as always LNG.... It matters not what I do or don't do it's always your solution is to dig up and dump more CO2 into the air.
Me get a fuel efficient car... you, not good enough you need LNG.
Me fish less.... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me plant trees..... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me eat less meat..... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me plant kelp..... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me river restoration... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me try to go solar panel .... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me Energy star appliances.... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me pointing out Carbon Tax works... you, just can't admit the fact and you need LNG.
Me pointing out your industry CO2 increase ... you, we need it for the good of the world and that's LNG
Me pointing of the subsidies of you industry..... you, claim that it's needed to help the world's CO2 problem with LNG
FYI last year your industry paid 169 million in royalties and the government spent 369 million on Natural Gas Development
http://bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2014/bfp/2014_budget_and_fiscal_plan.pdf#page=74
I could go on and on but you get the point....
Getting a little tired of your arguments when the solution is always the same .... LNG
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

http://bangordailynews.com/2014/12/15/opinion/contributors/climate-change-the-impossible-deal/



I read the article but am unable to draw a solid conclusion from it. Fuel use may well have gone down I have nothing to confirm nor dispute that, no reason to believe the claim is false but have to question whether we can attribute it to a carbon tax or not. Note the date of 2008 in your link, seems to me there was another small global financial even that year I'll wager a paycheck it's more due to overall oil costs than carbon tax.

I'm not a gambler so I'm not willing to take your money.
You could search the BC website and come up with a ton of links but here is just one. http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2014/03/bc-joined-by-mexico-and-france-in-pricing-carbon.html
There is a whole website on this but perhaps you already know that.
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

If you don't like this source google "gas prices since 2008" they all show the same thing. Maybe we can revisit this in 5 years I'll wager another significant sum that consumption will have jumped after the prices dropped, will that be attributed to the carbon tax as well? There's gonna be more RV's on the road this summer, more big rigs heading from the lower 48 to Alaska and more fishing days for our local neighbours, I don't think that is disputable.

You may be right that more fuel is consumed but will gas prices stay the same and what effect will more fuel efficient cars have on the total consumed? All the more reason to put a carbon tax on it.

That's a terrible answer, are you really OK with that? Knowing that they aren't going to stop burning coal without an alternative, knowing where they stand on the global emissions scale and knowing it's a global problem? Would it be safe to say you're OK with them continuing to burn coal or do you think there's a more likely solution from them? Consider even of we make more c02 in BC with the LNG therefor getting rid of some coal it's a net loss on the global scale. That's the main point I'm getting at. So you're saying it's ok for us to consume NG here, but they can't and should instead burn coal or do you think they'll build windmills? Burning natural gas instead of coal is one of their solutions.

There is no evidence that LNG will replace coal. It will only add to the current energy consumption. Now if China had a plan to convert coal fired plants to LNG then you might have a case but I have never seen one. Adding to their problems or delaying the solution to their problems is not the answer. If you think it is please find some credible report that shows us how that can work.
I'm OK with converting current coal plants to NG so we don't lose the investment and they can cut CO2. Not happening in Canada as we have an no one leading us. It will help or friends down south. But make no mistake... LNG is not NG. We have the infrastructure in place for NG. Replacing coal is a short term solution as a transition to clean energy. It's seem that many want that to become the end solution and that's not helpful.

The agreement they signed recently with the US is borderline meaningless, peak by 2030, Where do you think they'll push to in the interim and maintain afterwards? Or do we take it in good faith and assume that they'll continue their increases at the current rate until then and be part of getting them off the upwards curve? We can be part of making sure that peak is lower.

Were they, China, the cause of our CO2 problem? Will their population let them continue to make the air they breath toxic? Do you think they will just switch off all coal plants on Jan 1, 2030? They need to transition to clean energy. In fact they are accelerating their rate to clean energy. Why in the world should we delay this progress by feeding them LNG?

Global population, not NG caused.




Hadn't heard the below cost bit before but maybe offset that with the revenue generated from the carbon tax so we don't get our pockets picked further and get Asia off the coal and we'd still have a global decrease. Also more for export which will offset fossil fuel generated power on the other end of the grid.

So your argument is for Canada to subsidize China so we can do them (and you) a favor? Pay for it with the current BC carbon tax? You really lost it on that one.

You're treating it as 2 different things as if it was 2 different planets, emissions may go up here, but overall down globally. It won't be neutral locally, but it will be down globally. And once we hit 2030 if China abides by it's deal we could have a lucrative future supplying them and the rest of Asia with a cleaner alternative to coal.

That's not part of the world deal on CO2, you may wish for that but it's not so. We all have a carbon budget that we must get to. How we do that is up for debate. Make no mistake that if your industry want's to increase it's CO2 then someone will have to decease their CO2 on top of the amounts they already need to decrease. So far a Cap & Trade (with our partners) is your industries only chance. Just don't expect everyone in BC to somehow go to Carbon neutral just so that your industry can increase it's CO2 output.

Remember, every person, town, province, and country has to reduce their CO2.... no freeloaders. Some will be faster then others but we all need to be going in the same direction. Your industry whether you like it or not needs to get with the program. Too much is a stake for us to grant you a free pass.

 

[triplenickel]

And there it is as always LNG.... It matters not what I do or don't do it's always your solution is to dig up and dump more CO2 into the air.
Me get a fuel efficient car... you, not good enough you need LNG.
Me fish less.... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me plant trees..... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me eat less meat..... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me plant kelp..... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me river restoration... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me try to go solar panel .... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me Energy star appliances.... you, not good enough you need LNG
Me pointing out Carbon Tax works... you, just can't admit the fact and you need LNG.
Me pointing out your industry CO2 increase ... you, we need it for the good of the world and that's LNG
Me pointing of the subsidies of you industry..... you, claim that it's needed to help the world's CO2 problem with LNG
FYI last year your industry paid 169 million in royalties and the government spent 369 million on Natural Gas Development
http://bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2014/bfp/2014_budget_and_fiscal_plan.pdf#page=74
I could go on and on but you get the point....
Getting a little tired of your arguments when the solution is always the same .... LNG
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."



I'm not a gambler so I'm not willing to take your money.
You could search the BC website and come up with a ton of links but here is just one. http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2014/03/bc-joined-by-mexico-and-france-in-pricing-carbon.html
There is a whole website on this but perhaps you already know that.
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm


You may be right that more fuel is consumed but will gas prices stay the same and what effect will more fuel efficient cars have on the total consumed? All the more reason to put a carbon tax on it.



There is no evidence that LNG will replace coal. It will only add to the current energy consumption. Now if China had a plan to convert coal fired plants to LNG then you might have a case but I have never seen one. Adding to their problems or delaying the solution to their problems is not the answer. If you think it is please find some credible report that shows us how that can work.
I'm OK with converting current coal plants to NG so we don't lose the investment and they can cut CO2. Not happening in Canada as we have an no one leading us. It will help or friends down south. But make no mistake... LNG is not NG. We have the infrastructure in place for NG. Replacing coal is a short term solution as a transition to clean energy. It's seem that many want that to become the end solution and that's not helpful.



Were they, China, the cause of our CO2 problem? Will their population let them continue to make the air they breath toxic? Do you think they will just switch off all coal plants on Jan 1, 2030? They need to transition to clean energy. In fact they are accelerating their rate to clean energy. Why in the world should we delay this progress by feeding them LNG?



So your argument is for Canada to subsidize China so we can do them (and you) a favor? Pay for it with the current BC carbon tax? You really lost it on that one.





That's not part of the world deal on CO2, you may wish for that but it's not so. We all have a carbon budget that we must get to. How we do that is up for debate. Make no mistake that if your industry want's to increase it's CO2 then someone will have to decease their CO2 on top of the amounts they already need to decrease. So far a Cap & Trade (with our partners) is your industries only chance. Just don't expect everyone in BC to somehow go to Carbon neutral just so that your industry can increase it's CO2 output.

Remember, every person, town, province, and country has to reduce their CO2.... no freeloaders. Some will be faster then others but we all need to be going in the same direction. Your industry whether you like it or not needs to get with the program. Too much is a stake for us to grant you a free pass.

You've totally missed the point on so many levels, I don't know how to articulate it any other way. I've said half a dozen times I'm not attacking you just using you as an example so don't get so defensive. you won't even acknowledge you could have solar tomorrow IF YOU WANTED TO, appliances, kelp and all. That doesn't take away from anything else you've done. I never said what you did wasn't good enough, I've even given you kudos you are either making things up or totally missing the point. Do you think what you've done is good enough to have a significant impact globally? LNG is another step on the global scale what you've done is great but we need more unless you think the things you pointed out while patting yourself on the back will solve the problem globally. You can get tired of debating LNG and it having supporters but just so you know that's what this thread is about. lol I'm getting tired of you dodging direct questions.

LNG has no bearing on my salary, I will have a great career supplying the domestic market just like I have for the last decade. Remember some of your old links showing the spike in wells drilled around 2006? That was way pre-LNG/pre shale revolution when gas was $12 that's what I look after. It's not my industry alone, as a consumer it's as much yours at least acknowledge the reality not what you wish it would be. This industry is very much with the program, we're the best in the world. We're the most highly regulated industry on the planet.

Of course it will replace coal for the growing population on a go forward basis, it's cheaper and cleaner, what do you think they'll go with? Your argument is only valid if you assume they're not going to build any new plants. Here's another direct question for you to avoid; As they build the new plants what would you like them to be fueled by? I'm not claiming retrofits but looking forward for the growing population where would you like the 2030 peak to be? All coal as they build more daily because they don't have a sufficient LNG supply? I predict as with every other post you will avoid the direct question with a deflection.

You haven't proved a carbon tax works to reduce fuel consumption, you can't/won't even acknowledge that the other major factor (price increase, remember carbon tax is neutral) I pointed out is the more likely cause, it was just convenient timing. The link you posted still doesn't backup your claim that carbon tax is responsible. If it's revenue neutral and it all comes back at the end of the year how does that curb consumption? That's twice now I've asked, I know I won't get an answer just a feel good rant about how the energy sector is bad and we have to do more. Ideals vs reality again. Government adds tax to producer, producer adds tax to cost, consumer picks up the cost, government gives it back. Is that how it works? Of course more will be consumed, Prices are down, the population is growing and there's like 13 million new cars sold every year, you are hilarious!

I never said subsidize China, you put words in my mouth and for that to happen you're assuming the price gap between cost and selling of the hydro would have to outweigh the total income from the LNG industry. Very unlikely when you consider we're talking billions of dollars in construction alone. People are up in arms about everything, no coal, no nukes, no gas, no wind farms near urban areas, no hydro, no stopping consumption. Does this sound familiar, does it seem realistic?

369 million for the potential billions in investment sounds like a bad deal to you? 169 million in revenues, cool, how much in land sales, income tax from direct and spin off jobs, are royalties the only money that flows to the government from the industry? Do you really think the powers that be are spending blindly with no current or future returns? Hint refer to previous stumpage examples. Dodge those question too please. Just for once look past the end of your nose, it's the same short sightedness that keeps you from seeing we're on the same planet when you say Asia can find their own solutions. Yup we all have targets to get to, except the biggest emitter they can go wild for the next 15 years. Full on no accountability, more coal is what your stance is forcing on them. Don't address this point please, actually you already have you don't care what they do, they can find their own solutions you already fish less.

Clean energy is awesome but it can't do it on it's own, it cannot break the cycle. It can't build enough solar panels and windmills on it's own to get to where it can supply it's own needs for manufacturing and to supply the rest of the market, the dirty dirty is still a necessity. How dirty do you want it? Please don't answer that. I wonder where Gabenergy gets it's panels and wires and steel and plastic etc.............Probably built in china powered by coal if they're anywhere near price competitive but as long as they don't point it out most will never ask. Have fun.

 

[triplenickel]

Your plan is good, probably best for the environment but what it isn't is realistic or ready to be adopted by society. People don't want that reality. Just like smokers don't wanna quit until they have cancer, people don't cut salt until they have a jammer etc..... So with that solution so far from reality we'll be stuck arguing instead of going forward.

 

[triplenickel]

I guess if we don't sell it to them there's always Russia.

 

[GLG]

You've totally missed the point on so many levels, I don't know how to articulate it any other way. I've said half a dozen times I'm not attacking you just using you as an example so don't get so defensive. you won't even acknowledge you could have solar tomorrow IF YOU WANTED TO, appliances, kelp and all.

No I can't have solar tomorrow but I will have solar soon. Could be spring or it could be in 2 years. Till then I will continue investing in green tech and reducing my CO2. I'll look for more projects and decide on them for best bang for my buck.

That doesn't take away from anything else you've done. I never said what you did wasn't good enough, I've even given you kudos you are either making things up or totally missing the point. Do you think what you've done is good enough to have a significant impact globally?

I don't have to have a global impact.... I have to have a personal impact. Others need to have a personal impact and if everyone did the same it would be a global impact. Someone has to go first but waiting for everyone else to go first is not helpful.

Yea I'm frustrated... sorry for taking out on you..

LNG is another step on the global scale what you've done is great but we need more unless you think the things you pointed out while patting yourself on the back will solve the problem globally. You can get tired of debating LNG and it having supporters but just so you know that's what this thread is about. lol I'm getting tired of you dodging direct questions.

I'm not trying to dodge any question and if you have one I missed post it separately and I'll respond. It's getting difficult to edit and keep track.

LNG has no bearing on my salary, I will have a great career supplying the domestic market just like I have for the last decade. Remember some of your old links showing the spike in wells drilled around 2006? That was way pre-LNG/pre shale revolution when gas was $12 that's what I look after. It's not my industry alone, as a consumer it's as much yours at least acknowledge the reality not what you wish it would be. This industry is very much with the program, we're the best in the world. We're the most highly regulated industry on the planet.

It's still the fossil fuel industry.... it still has a huge carbon footprint. It's still expanding. It still wants to expand to feed the LNG industry. You still flair gas. Your maintenance and assorted processes still release methane and CO2. You may be the best in the world but it's still where the problems are.

Of course it will replace coal for the growing population on a go forward basis, it's cheaper and cleaner, what do you think they'll go with? Your argument is only valid if you assume they're not going to build any new plants. Here's another direct question for you to avoid; As they build the new plants what would you like them to be fueled by? I'm not claiming retrofits but looking forward for the growing population where would you like the 2030 peak to be? All coal as they build more daily because they don't have a sufficient LNG supply? I predict as with every other post you will avoid the direct question with a deflection.

Let them figure it out. If Russia want's to fuel them with NG so be it. I'm not going to police the world but I will have a say in my province. Like I said before if LNG needs to come from here then we need to figure out how to supply them without exceeding our CO2 commitments. Cap & Trade or LNG finding their own clean energy for compression. If you think that I would agree to blowing off our commitments, that's not going to happen.

Cont...

 

[GLG]

You haven't proved a carbon tax works to reduce fuel consumption, you can't/won't even acknowledge that the other major factor (price increase, remember carbon tax is neutral) I pointed out is the more likely cause, it was just convenient timing. The link you posted still doesn't backup your claim that carbon tax is responsible. If it's revenue neutral and it all comes back at the end of the year how does that curb consumption? That's twice now I've asked, I know I won't get an answer just a feel good rant about how the energy sector is bad and we have to do more. Ideals vs reality again. Government adds tax to producer, producer adds tax to cost, consumer picks up the cost, government gives it back. Is that how it works? Of course more will be consumed, Prices are down, the population is growing and there's like 13 million new cars sold every year, you are hilarious!

So I have to prove that it works even though that's what the links show.... Ok I'll post some of the stuff in those links. It's then up to you to prove them wrong. You may have a theory but with out backup they are just your own ideas.
What is a Carbon Tax?

A carbon tax is usually defined as a tax based on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) generated from burning fuels. It puts a price on each tonne of GHG emitted, sending a price signal that will, over time, elicit a powerful market response across the entire economy, resulting in reduced emissions. It has the advantage of providing an incentive without favouring any one way of reducing emissions over another. By reducing fuel consumption, increasing fuel efficiency, using cleaner fuels and adopting new technology, businesses and individuals can reduce the amount they pay in carbon tax, or even offset it altogether.
The British Columbia revenue-neutral carbon tax is based on the following principles:

• All carbon tax revenue is recycled through tax reductions – The government has a legal requirement to present an annual plan to the legislature demonstrating how all of the carbon tax revenue will be returned to taxpayers through tax reductions. The money will not be used to fund government programs.
• The tax rate started low and increases gradually – Starting at a low rate gave individuals and businesses time to make adjustments and respects decisions made prior to the announcement of the tax.
• Low-income individuals and families are protected – A refundable Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit is designed to help offset the carbon tax paid by low-income individuals and families.
• The tax has the broadest possible base – Virtually all emissions from fuel combustion in B.C. captured in Environment Canada’s National Inventory Report are taxed, with no exemptions except those required for integration with other climate action policies in the future and for efficient administration.
• The tax will be integrated with other measures – The carbon tax will not, on its own, meet B.C.’s emission-reduction targets, but it is a key element in the strategy. The carbon tax and complementary measures such as a “cap and trade” system will be integrated as these other measures are designed and implemented.

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/A1.htm

cont

 

[GLG]

Myths and Facts About the Carbon Tax

Myth: The carbon tax is just a tax grab.
Fact: Every dollar raised by the carbon tax is returned to individuals and businesses through tax reductions. None of the carbon tax revenue is used to fund government spending.
Since it was first introduced in 2008, the carbon tax has returned $500 million more to taxpayers in tax reductions than it has raised in revenue.

Myth: Industry/business are exempt from the carbon tax.
Fact: Industry is not exempt from the carbon tax. Industry is required to pay the carbon tax on the purchase and use of fuels the same as everyone else and they also pay tax at the same rate. For example, the oil and gas industry will pay the carbon tax on all combustion of fuels, estimated at 85 per cent of their total emissions, including flaring, and the cement industry will pay the tax based on the coal and tires they burn in the production of cement.

Myth: Many emissions are not taxed.
Fact: The carbon tax has the broadest base possible given current technological, measurement and data limitations and applies to virtually all emissions from fossil fuel combustion in British Columbia captured in Environment Canada’s National Inventory Report.
The carbon tax applies to virually all emissions from burning fuels, which accounts for an estimated 70 per cent of total emissions in British Columbia.
Of the approximately 30 per cent of emissions that are not from fuels:

• 10 per cent are from non-energy agricultural uses (e.g. emissions from enteric fermentation, manure management, and agricultural soils) and waste (landfills);
• 10 per cent are from fugitive emissions which cannot currently be accurately measured;
• 6 per cent are non-combustion industrial process emissions; and
• 5 per cent are from net deforestation.

The Province will look at options to extend the carbon tax to emissions beyond those generated by the purchase and use of fuels, and integrate the carbon tax with other climate action initiates such as cap-and-trade.

Myth: The carbon tax unfairly impacts low-income British Columbians.
Fact: A major component of the personal and business income tax cuts provided as part of the revenue neutral carbon tax is the ongoing low income climate action tax credit designed to help offset the carbon tax paid by low-income individuals and families. The credit is paid quarterly along with the federal GST credit and BC HST Credit.
The credit provides an annual maximum of $115.50 for each adult and $34.50 for each child ($115.50 for the first child in a single parent family). The maximum credit is reduced by 2 per cent of net income in excess of $31,711 for single individuals and $36,997 for families.

Myth: Government said that the carbon tax is revenue neutral for every individual.
Fact: Government said it would return every dollar collected from the carbon tax to taxpayers through tax reductions. The tax reductions for individuals and families for the years 2009/10 to 2012/13 fiscal years consist of:

• The first two personal income tax bracket rates were reduced by 5 per cent effective January 1, 2008;
• Low Income Climate Action tax credit paid quarterly along with the federal GST credit and BC HST Credit;
• A Northern and Rural Homeowner benefit of up to $200 as of the 2011 taxation year.

Revenue neutrality is intended to apply to the total carbon tax revenues collected rather than on a sector by sector or individual basis. If everyone was given back the exact amount of carbon tax they paid there would be no incentive to use less fuel and reduce emissions. Some individuals, businesses, or sectors will pay more than they receive through recycling measures and some will pay less, but the carbon tax as a whole is revenue neutral. All carbon tax revenue is returned to taxpayers through tax reductions.

Myth: Government gets more tax revenue when gas prices rise.
Fact: The carbon tax, like the other B.C. fuel taxes on gasoline and diesel, is levied on a per volume basis and is not related to the selling price of the fuel. The government collects the same amount of carbon tax per litre at any price. For example, if someone bought 100 litres of gasoline after July 1, 2012 they would pay $6.67 in carbon tax when the tax is equivalent to $30 per tonne of CO2e. This is the case whether the gas costs 50 cents per litre or $2.00 per litre. In fact, to the extent that higher prices lead to lower consumption, the B.C. government will get less tax revenue.

Myth: The carbon tax applies to goods other than fuel (e.g. vehicles).
Fact: The carbon tax is only applied to the purchase and use of fuels in B.C. Therefore, it is applied to gasoline or diesel used in a motor vehicle but does not apply to the vehicle itself.

Myth: People are being double taxed because local governments have to pay the tax and because they do not get income tax reductions taxpayers will have to pay again.
Fact: All of the revenue from the carbon tax, whether from individuals, businesses, or local governments is returned to British Columbians through personal and business tax reductions.
Local governments and School Districts that commit to carbon neutrality by 2012 can access the Climate Action Revenue Incentive, a grant that offsets 100 percent of the carbon tax local governments and school districts pay.
Those municipalities that move soonest to reduce their fuel consumption create the greatest benefits for their residents. In addition to the tax reductions funded by the carbon tax, municipalities have the opportunity to pass the carbon tax and fuel savings back to their local ratepayers.

Myth: The carbon tax is just another gas tax. It does not actually tax carbon dioxide emissions.
Fact: The carbon tax is a tax on carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e) emissions generated from the burning of fuels in B.C. including gasoline, diesel, natural gas, fuel oil, propane and coal. It is not just a “gas tax.”
Environment Canada determines emission factors (EFs) that measure the CO2e emitted from combusting each type of fuel. The EFs are reported in Environment Canada’s “National Inventory Report, Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks.” The B.C. carbon tax rates for different fuels are determined by the amount of CO 2e emitted when the fuels are combusted.

Myth: When gas prices rise by so much, there is no need for a carbon tax.
Fact: The historical volatility of gas prices, rising and then falling, has blunted the price signal for consumers and resulted in less conservation than required to meet government’s targets. The purpose of the carbon tax is to ensure that a consistent long term price signal is provided to consumers so that they continue to make the choices required to reduce their fuel use and emissions.

Myth: Many people have no alternatives and no way to reduce their emissions.
Fact: Business and individuals can choose to reduce their carbon tax by reducing usage, increasing efficiency, changing fuels, adopting new technology or any combination of these approaches. We can all begin to make the small changes towards a cleaner future that fit into our own individual circumstances, such as choosing energy efficient lights, lowering the temperature on the thermostat at night, or keeping our cars tuned-up.

cont

 

[GLG]

Myth: The carbon tax will not have any effect on people’s behaviour.
Fact: The tax is based on the assumption that consumers respond to price signals. The purpose of the tax is to send a price signal to reduce the use of fuels and thereby emissions. Several studies show that consumers generally respond to higher gasoline prices by reducing consumption either by purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles or by driving less.
Based on new car sales data for British Columbia since 2001, it is evident that the increase in gasoline prices has caused many consumers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. The market share of subcompact and compact passenger car sales has increased steadily while the market share of larger cars, SUVs, pickups and minivans has declined.

Myth: The carbon tax will adversely affect the economy.
Fact: British Columbia remains committed to addressing climate change. However, four years in, the revenue-neutral B.C. Carbon Tax remains the only one of its kind in North America. As we implement the final scheduled rate increase, this is a good time to pause and examine how the carbon tax is affecting our economic competitiveness. We are beginning a comprehensive review that will cover all aspects of the carbon tax, including revenue neutrality, and will consider the impact on the competitiveness of B.C. businesses such as the agricultural sector, and in particular, B.C.’s food producers. The Province will be seeking written submissions over the summer on the revenue-neutral carbon tax to help inform the review. Submissions will be considered as part of the 2013 Budget process.

Myth: The carbon tax will have virtually no impact on reducing B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Fact: British Columbia’s carbon tax is one of the broadest and most comprehensive in the world. The fuels included in the tax base account for about 70 per cent of British Columbia’s current GHG emissions. The tax rates were deliberately set low to begin with and scheduled to rise slowly over time to send the correct price signal while giving consumers and businesses time to reduce their fuel use. It is important to look at the whole range of initiatives government is introducing to meet its targets rather than just the tax.
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/A6.htm

cont..

 

[GLG]

How do we know if it works?



[TABLE="class: cst-tbl-data, width: 100%"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TH="class: cst-tbl-unit2, bgcolor: #E6ECEE"][/TH]
[TH="class: cst-tbl-unit, bgcolor: #E6ECEE, colspan: 5, align: center"]thousand litres[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cst-tbl-r1, colspan: 6"]Canada[TABLE="width: 100%, align: right"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]200888[/TD]
[TD]2009[/TD]
[TD]2010[/TD]
[TD]2011[/TD]
[TD]2012[/TD]
[TD]2013[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: cst-tbl-r1"]Net sales of gasoline[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]39,708,461[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]40,101,125[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]40,412,210[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]40,444,103[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]41,449,632[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TH="class: cst-tbl-r1, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]Gross sales of gasoline[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]41,028,454[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]41,452,699[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]42,076,411[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]42,032,522[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]42,902,507[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: cst-tbl-r1"]Net sales of diesel oil[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]16,188,394[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]16,778,508[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]17,797,512[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]17,455,812[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]17,897,757[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cst-tbl-r1, colspan: 6"]Alta.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: cst-tbl-r1"]Net sales of gasoline[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]5,350,400[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5,410,900[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5,774,000[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6,001,700[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6,199,500[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: cst-tbl-r1"]Gross sales of gasoline[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]5,569,300[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5,618,300[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5,973,000[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6,221,400[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6,369,700[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: cst-tbl-r1"]Net sales of diesel oil[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]3,632,700[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3,629,600[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3,863,300[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4,054,000[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4,204,500[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cst-tbl-r1, colspan: 6"]B.C.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: cst-tbl-r1"]Net sales of gasoline[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]4,536,112[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4,560,666[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4,537,496[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4,348,707[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4,336,807[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: cst-tbl-r1"]Gross sales of gasoline[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]4,646,008[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4,715,626[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4,741,085[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4,682,115[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4,504,633[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: cst-tbl-r1"]Net sales of diesel oil[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]1,647,876[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1,838,578[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,221,338[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1,761,637[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,145,516[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/trade37c-eng.htm

 

[GLG]

I never said subsidize China, you put words in my mouth and for that to happen you're assuming the price gap between cost and selling of the hydro would have to outweigh the total income from the LNG industry. Very unlikely when you consider we're talking billions of dollars in construction alone. People are up in arms about everything, no coal, no nukes, no gas, no wind farms near urban areas, no hydro, no stopping consumption. Does this sound familiar, does it seem realistic?

Yes people are up in arms with all this. We have no choice. We have no plan. Except the one for Business as Usual (BAU) and deny we have a problem or lets do LNG and increase BC's CO2 and wish that it will work. It's called Social Licence and so far I don't see coming with the BAU. Could that change? I sure hope so because the science of climate change is telling us we need to kick it a few notches if we are going to avert damage to the things we both hold dear.

369 million for the potential billions in investment sounds like a bad deal to you? 169 million in revenues, cool, how much in land sales, income tax from direct and spin off jobs, are royalties the only money that flows to the government from the industry? Do you really think the powers that be are spending blindly with no current or future returns? Hint refer to previous stumpage examples. Dodge those question too please.

I don't care about the money.... I care about the future of my kid and the generations to come. Why don't we invest it in Wind, Solar, Tide, Geothermal. They are just numbers and granted they are big but we need big numbers in clean energy if we are going to have a chance.

Just for once look past the end of your nose, it's the same short sightedness that keeps you from seeing we're on the same planet when you say Asia can find their own solutions. Yup we all have targets to get to, except the biggest emitter they can go wild for the next 15 years. Full on no accountability, more coal is what your stance is forcing on them. Don't address this point please, actually you already have you don't care what they do, they can find their own solutions you already fish less.

Yes they can find their own solutions and perhaps we can force them to make the right choice. How about we stop shipping them any coal until they clean up there act. Not going to happen but it's a thought. Yes I care what they do but I care more about what we do. I'll repeat... find a way to ship them LNG without costing me a arm and a leg and do it without increasing CO2 in this province.

Clean energy is awesome but it can't do it on it's own, it cannot break the cycle. It can't build enough solar panels and windmills on it's own to get to where it can supply it's own needs for manufacturing and to supply the rest of the market, the dirty dirty is still a necessity. How dirty do you want it? Please don't answer that. I wonder where Gabenergy gets it's panels and wires and steel and plastic etc.............Probably built in china powered by coal if they're anywhere near price competitive but as long as they don't point it out most will never ask. Have fun.

The Stern Report say's that we can do it with today's tech. We just need the will. FYI it takes 2 years worth of energy to create a solar panel. That panel has a life span between 25 and 30 years. Elon Musk is building a solar panel factory in the US that is powered by solar panels. Same with is his battery factory. So you see it only takes will power.

Link to info on Stern Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

If you think I didn't answer a question .. post it separate as this is getting hard to edit....

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/r...la-sterritt-on-the-oilsands-paradox-1.2877814
Reporter’s Notebook: Angela Sterritt on the oilsands paradox
By Angela Sterritt, CBC News Posted: Dec 26, 2014 12:00 PM ET| Last Updated: Dec 26, 2014 12:3
Angela Sterritt
CBC Reporter

Angela Sterritt is an award winning Gitxsan journalist and filmmaker from British Columbia who currently resides in Yellowknife NT. She is a CBC TV and radio reporter and often subs as a TV host and producer. She has worked with CBC since 2003. Sterritt is also a visual artist, mother and writer.

Reporting on a tiny community downstream from Alberta’s Athabasca oilsands was one of the hardest stories I have worked on in my life.

It was not the 200-kilometer drive to Fort Chipewyan on the ice road, infamously known as the 'roller coaster,” nor was it the blistering 50 below cold, nor the fact that government officials who constituted half my story didn’t show up. It was coming to terms with the reality that Fort Chip would not fit neatly into the suspecting black and white narrative of oilsands activists verses oilsands developers.

What I found was not a community rife with conflict but one rich with complexity with an investment in the environment, treaty rights, human rights and the economy.
■Elevated population levels recorded in Alberta oilsands
■For more top stories visit CBC Aboriginal

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation elders told me they used to run between huge white spruce trees as children, but those timbers were cleared for oil production.

Some, like Alice Rigney witnessed the oilsands deposits in Alberta bloom to the size of New York State. A survivor of cancer, Rigney believes the oilsands are in part to blame for the high rates of cancer in the community. She also worries the fish are too toxic to eat, that wild game has been pushed out and the kids are no longer able to swim in the water, since the boon of big oil.

But the oilsands are a hard resource to ignore in Fort Chipewyan.

Fort Chipewyan map
Fort Chipewyan is located downstream of the Alberta oilsands. (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers)

While driving through the snowy community to cover a highly anticipated cancer report, I found it hard to avoid the pervasive presence of the oilsands companies there. The school, the elders centre, the health centre -- all sponsored by oil companies like Shell, Syncrude and Suncor. Many people who had grave concerns about the oilsands were also somehow profiting or in partnership with them. But the more I spoke with the community the more I realized that situation could not be narrowly interpreted.


“It’s a real challenge, what other resources do we have here?” Rigney told me sitting beside her wood stove in Fort Chipewyan. “We don't have trapping, we don't have fishing, tourism is a far shot. We were in tourism my husband and I – and our slogan was “Alberta's best kept secret”, we had people from Europe coming but now they don't because we are downstream from the dirtiest, filthiest project on earth.”


To my surprise, many in Fort Chip blamed the environmental movement that campaigned against the fur trade, bringing down the price or fur, for the situation they are in now - thrust into what they refer to as a monolithic oilsands economy they are now largely dependent on.

hi-shell-oilsands
(Jeff McIntosh/Canadian Press)

Raymond Cardinal starting working for ACDEN – the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation’s business arm, in 2009. The group of companies works with the oilsands industry, holding contracts with most of the major players. But his words echo those who are battling the oil giants.

“All we are saying is find the technology to make it safer, because the way things are being developed, they have the tailings that are leaking into the Athabasca, we have been telling industry for years to try to clean up that or try to find a different way to clean it up, slow production down until you can find another way to make it safe.”

Cardinal, like others working with oil companies, was just as concerned about treaty and environmental rights as he was about providing for his family. Some feel that by working within, change can be influenced much more than by holding placards on the outside.

On the flip side, oilsands activists, like elder Alice Rigney were just as focused on having a prosperous future for their children as they were on environmental sustainability -- searching for solutions that involve renewable energies and back to the land youth programs.

There is no single conclusion to this story as it continues to develop and transform but the takeaway for me - is that the people in Fort Chipewyan are not just sitting on the sidelines. They are taking part in an economy that was essentially created in their backyard without their consent, and working hard to participate in it, and imagine a life without it, to effect changes for the future generations.

The last thing I learned and maybe the most important, is that there are currently no oilsands projects within Fort Chipewyan. Community members have created a no expansion zone in some regions and continue to hold governments and industry accountable.

 

[triplenickel]

No I can't have solar tomorrow but I will have solar soon.

OK I'm sure you've gotta be trolling me there's no way you can be missing the point over and over so I'll drop it after this. You could have solar but choose the luxury of a boat instead. I don't have a problem with it, I'm at peace with my own choice to do the same.

I don't have to have a global impact.... I have to have a personal impact.

Totally right, I feel the same and am capable of making those choices myself which is why I don't want the government getting in my affairs. sadly most of society won't do the same. When you listed all the things you did and said still not good enough you want LNG it reads like what you've done is an end game. I'd say you've got the personal impact well under control but like you said you don't have a global impact, neither does LNG production in the grand scheme of things but it can still have a net positive effect by offsetting coal usage.

Yea I'm frustrated... sorry for taking out on you..

Me too sorry, we're on the same side we just want to do things differently.

It's still the fossil fuel industry.... it still has a huge carbon footprint. It's still expanding. It still wants to expand to feed the LNG industry. You still flair gas. Your maintenance and assorted processes still release methane and CO2. You may be the best in the world but it's still where the problems are.

You betcha it is and we do emit and will continue as long as there's a market someone will fill it. Of course it's expanding, gotta keep pace with the demands of a growing population. What was the point of your quote about my paycheck depending on not understanding? We sell to Spectra which goes straight to the lower mainland, you yourself NG was OK on the domestic level. Yes I know where Spectra stands emission wise, hard to avoid when you're the big player and feed everyone. I'm also sure they have room for improvement and as technology advances so will they.

I don't care about the money

Obviously not supporting a winner like the carbon tax that from your own link has given $500 million more back than it generated. Hint; that's more than double the discrepancy (your link again) between royalties and provincial government NG investment that you're so upset about. Factor in cost of administering the program and it stinks of failure and political pandering to the short sighted masses that won't look at the whole picture, they just hear carbon tax on the 6 o-clock news and think good screw those oil companies! Francine turn up the thermostat and grab me a cold one from the fridge. lol

Let them figure it out. If Russia want's to fuel them with NG so be it.

Yes they can find their own solutions and perhaps we can force them to make the right choice. How about we stop shipping them any coal until they clean up there act

Yes I care what they do but I care more about what we do.

I'm not going to police the world but I will have a say in my province.

Therein lies the major problem with your solutions and futility of your protest. The lack of willingness to think globally, Canada is a fart in the wind as I'm sure you're well aware. Depending on the source you want to believe We're barely in the top 10 for global emissions, #8-10 by most accounts, less than 2% globally, 1.5%-1.8% by most accounts. Drill down to where BC is, then drill farther down to where LNG is not what's required for the domestic supply you earlier said you were ok with us (but not Asia) having and it's even lower. Fractions of a percent. China alone is close to 30% of global emissions, per capita not as bad but as they start to demand a more western lifestyle and become more industrialized it's gonna compound fast. Let's not tie them to coal as they move forward. Like it or not the reality is they will move forward.

BC is in great shape, we could go to zero tomorrow and change nothing in the grand scheme of things. This isn't the place to focus if one wants to make a significant difference.

http://www.livesmartbc.ca/learn/emissions.html

Yes people are up in arms with all this. We have no choice. We have no plan. Except the one for Business as Usual (BAU) and deny we have a problem or lets do LNG and increase BC's CO2 and wish that it will work. It's called Social Licence and so far I don't see coming with the BAU. Could that change? I sure hope so because the science of climate change is telling us we need to kick it a few notches if we are going to avert damage to the things we both hold dear.

Barking up the wrong tree, focusing on the wrong thing. Not sure why other than manipulation by media, social influences and lack of looking at the big picture. Increasing locally will reduce globally see my questions below for how I get to that theory.

Why don't we invest it in Wind, Solar, Tide, Geothermal. They are just numbers and granted they are big but we need big numbers in clean energy if we are going to have a chance.

We totally should, the extra $500 million that the government gave back to consumers in it's winning carbon tax scheme would be a great start I reckon.

I read your links on the carbon tax and am still having trouble finding the answers I seek so that's why I ask for you to explain since you've likely read way more than I, I've got to be missing something obvious as it makes no sense to me. I'll put my main questions at the bottom so they don't get lost in here.



Here's a couple questions;

If we stopped the coal/LNG train to them tomorrow do you actually think they'd stop consuming or find somewhere else to buy it?
When they did find a new supplier do you think that supplier would be better or worse than Western Canada?
Do you think it would be better for the next generation shifting the production to a different part of the planet, and once BC's emissions dropped and were shifted elsewhere would it be a win for your kids?
Knowing where LNG stands on a scale emission wise, and where the entire gas industry relates to feed lots and agricultural industries nationally why is this your campaign de jour? Don't say you eat less meat that doesn't answer the question.
With transportation being the largest emitter in the province, why aren't you focusing on that? Don't say you bought a hybrid that doesn't answer the question.

On carbon tax a few that I couldn't find answers for;

If it's revenue neutral and goes back to individuals and business (from your links) and doesn't drive costs up how does it curb consumption? Wouldn't it have to drive costs up to persuade people to use less?
Are you 100% sure it's the revenue neutral carbon tax and not the dramatic price increase that accounts for the miniscule drop in consumption?
Based on the consumption figures from your link, what I've found on the link below, and what you know from first hand experience it looks like fuel went up on a conservative provincial average about 70%. While usage went down less than 5%. Knowing this do we really think a neutral tax had anything to do with the drop?
http://www.bcgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

Thanks for the Stern Report link, gonna read up on that and see what it says compared to the Google study linked earlier in this thread.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/so...e=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=socialmedia
Whatever the Light Touches
Rooftop solar installations and huge solar farms are both booming.
BY Brian Palmer | @PalmerBrian | 1 week ago

Photo: Green MPs

Americans, take your pick: Massive farms of high-efficiency photovoltaic panels in our deserts, or cheap, inefficient solar cells fastened to every roof in the country?

The above is a slight caricature of the long-running quantity-vs.-quality debate over what the solar industry in the United States should look like. Both scenarios can coexist, of course, but still, some debate exists over which type of technology might push U.S. solar along faster.

One camp argues that efficiency is king: Since there is a limited amount of space where we can realistically place solar panels, engineers ought to squeeze every drop of electricity possible out of a ray of sunshine. Their path forward is relatively clear. Cutting-edge solar cells are capable of converting around 44 percent of solar energy to electricity, but the high cost of that technology limits it to applications like space exploration. Thus, the goal of solar research, according to these experts, should be to bring that tech to huge solar farms that can provide clean energy to the masses.

The other side says that cheap solar technology—I mean really cheap, like a few dollars for a bucket of photovoltaic paint—is the key. They envision a world with solar cells covering sidewalks, cars, luggage, baby strollers, windows...basically everything sunlight touches. These photovoltaics could be pathetically inefficient, say only a few percentage points, but it won’t matter, because the potential surface area they could cover would more than compensate for poor conversion rates.

I first learned about these philosophical differences five years ago while reporting on the topic for another article. At the time, I would have guessed that half a decade’s worth of research and development would have produced a winner by now. But that’s not the case. (They both seem to be winners.)

Both residential and utility solar have experienced incredible growth in recent years. Residential solar, which includes individual setups on rooftops and in backyards, hit a record last quarter, with American homeowners installing more than 300 megawatts of solar capacity over a three-month period. For 2014, residential solar is projected to top 1,200 megawatts of new capacity, about six times the amount installed in 2009.

Falling prices are one of the major drivers of residential solar growth, supporting the “first, make it cheap” theory of solar development. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, photovoltaic panel prices dropped a remarkable 12 percent to 19 percent last year, and for 2014 they are expected to have fallen another 3 percent to 12 percent.

Innovations in financing, such as Mosaic, have also aided rooftop solar. “Third-party ownership arrangements now allow homeowners to lease the panels and agree to buy the power at a set price,” says Michael Barker, a senior analyst with the watchdog firm Solarbuzz. “You can see a 5 to 10 percent reduction in utility bills immediately with no out-of-pocket expense.”

Small installations are only half the story, though. Big solar—such as the 3,230-acre Solar Star project underway in California—is growing, too, despite higher costs for equipment and real estate. Installations for vast solar farms grew by 52 percent between the third quarters of 2013 and 2014, and total capacity has more than quadrupled in two years. In fact, utility-scale solar generates well over twice as much electricity as every residential solar unit combined. This growth provides ample ammunition for the efficiency crowd.

Now let’s take a look at how the government plays into this. At present, large-scale power plants are arguably more reliant on government support than rooftop panels. Most states have renewable portfolio standards, which require them to generate a certain portion of their electricity from solar, wind, or other green sources. Without these rules, many utility companies would have nothing to do with solar farms. Meanwhile, tax incentives for home installations have helped the residential solar industry take off. That market, however, appears to be emerging from this supportive cocoon. More than one-half of the new, record-breaking residential solar installations of last quarter came without financial help from state governments. That’s what low prices can do.

It would be wrong, however, to imagine that residential solar is or can ever be truly free from government intervention.

“All energy markets are dependent on the policy structure,” said Noah Long, legal director of the Western Energy Project at NRDC (which publishes Earthwire). “Even as solar becomes more and more cost competitive, the fate of residential solar depends on state interconnection policies and compensation for homeowners.”

So, what’s it going to be: big farms in open spaces or solar panels on every stationary surface?

“Local jurisdictions will decide for themselves,” says Barker. “The Southwest deserts, with available land and ample sunshine, may favor utility-scale solar. Urban areas may favor rooftop solar with a smart grid system. It’s not an ‘either or,’ but an ‘all of the above.’”

Speaking of “above,” there’s still plenty of room up there. Less than 1 percent of U.S. homes have solar panels. (C’mon America, they’re a bargain.)