Canadians Want a Clean Energy Future

One goal of the Premier’s conference last month was to develop a national energy strategy. That did not happen. According to news reports, this failure occurred because Premier Christy Clark would not agree to any general energy strategy unless BC and Alberta could reach some agreement in their current dispute. Clark had laid down five conditions that would need to be met if the proposed Keystone oil pipeline, promoted by Alberta, was to pass through BC. The single condition that is generating the most controversy has to do with the sharing of the revenues resulting from the export of the bitumen/oil. 

At first glance there seems to be much wisdom in such a stance: if we can’t agree on the detail on this specific aspect of energy development, what’s the point of talking about general agreements. The devil is in the detail.

But on second thought, much of that wisdom evaporates. The dispute seems to be about who gets what revenue. The dispute framed that way assumes the resource, bitumen/oil, ought to be developed, exported and sold. But should and do Canadians accept this assumption?

A new survey commissioned by Tides Canada speaks to this. The results are striking. According to this new poll, Canadians believe the country needs an energy plan that reduces fossil fuel dependence, cuts energy waste, creates more clean-energy jobs, fights climate change, and sets aside a portion of oil wealth to help prepare for a clean and renewable energy future.

“Citizens are hungry for a smart plan that will move the nation forward on the emerging global clean-energy opportunity and tackle climate change at the same time,” says Merran Smith, director of the energy initiative at Tides Canada.

Tides Canada commissioned Harris/Decima to do the survey. Canadians were asked to indicate to what degree they would prioritize a series of objectives for a potential Canadian energy strategy. They identified as a “top” or “high” priority “improving energy efficiency” (82 percent), “creating more jobs in clean energy” (75 percent), “reducing Canada’s carbon pollution to slow down climate change” (66 percent), and “reducing our reliance on fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal” (66 percent).

In contrast, only 33 percent of those surveyed placed a “top” or “high” priority on “exporting more of Canada’s oil and gas resources.” 

 

Meanwhile, 82 percent of those surveyed said that they either “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” that “Canada should set aside a portion of its oil wealth to help prepare the nation for a clean and renewable energy future.”

The idea of a Canadian energy strategy resonates strongly with citizens. Fully 87 percent of those surveyed either “strongly” or “somewhat” agree with the statement “the nation needs a Canadian energy strategy to plan its energy future.” 

Oh that our governments would listen!

Eric Rempel

Natural Systems Agriculture Field day

I attended the Ecological and Organic Farming Systems Field Day at Carman last Monday. As in previous years, the plots and the work we were shown was most impressive. In introducing the day, Dr. Martin Entz informed us that their work indicates they can produce field crops using 37% of the fossil energy needed in conventional farming. The 150 guests there spent the rest of the day seeing how the research team goes about achieving this remarkable efficiency.

This reported efficiency is astonishing for two very different reasons.

It is astonishing that, given this efficiency, only very few people produce food in this way. Why don’t they? Because current economics does not reward this efficiency. The current fossil energy price is artificial. True, the price is determined by free market forces. In that sense it is the free market price, but that price only includes the cost of extracting the oil, and does not even include all of those costs. Furthermore, that price includes no compensation to future generations who will not have access to this precious resource because it will be gone. Whatever that compensation ought to be, whether it is high or low, it is never included in the market price of fossil energy. The market price of fossil energy is artificially low. Because of this low market price, it currently makes economic sense to use fossil energy extravagantly, in the production of our food.

But the number is also astonishing because it shows what is possible when good science is applied to a problem. In conventional agriculture, the posed challenge is, maximize net economic return by managing fertility, weed control, pest control and genetics. Prodigious amounts of research dollars have been and are being devoted to addressing the challenge defined in this way, and the results have been truly impressive.

The Natural Systems Farming research team has redefined the challenge. Their focus is not on economic return, but on return to energy. Prior to the fossil era, prior to this era when fossil fuel has been readily available, the food production challenge has always been that: how to get the necessary food, while expending the minimal amount of energy. What was lacking prior to the fossil era, was the application of the scientific method, and world wide communications.

When my grandfather farmed with horses, he was very aware of energy in and energy out. There was no cheap energy. His tools to enhance fertility were summerfallow, alfalfa, sweet clover, and to a limited extent, barnyard manure. The Carman researchers, today, are able to choose for some twenty different potentially useful green manure crops. My grandfather was very limited in the tools he had available. Today many more tools are available to both researcher and farmer.

The work done at Carman needs to be nurtured. Input manufacturers will not do this research, because it does not result in a return for them. Such research needs to be and only will be funded by a forward thinking government.

By Eric Rempel

Does extreme weather add up to climate change?

I have no trouble remembering a time when a drought was just that: a drought. Sure, even as we lapped up the sunshine and enjoyed our ice cream, we were concerned about our gardens and the crops our farmer friends were tending. But no one doubted then, that the drought would come to an end – sometime.

But things are not that way anymore. Now we have extreme weather, and we wonder: is this just another weather cycle, or are we beginning to experience climate change. There can be little doubt that we are experiencing extreme weather. For us in Manitoba it began with the record flooding on the Assiniboine River in the spring of 2011. That was followed by the record dry summer in 2011, an extremely warm winter, and now again record high temperatures and prolonged drought.

Britain by contrast has been incredibly wet. The reporting leading up to the Olympics refers to this every evening. The wettest April ever was followed by the wettest June (more than double average rainfall), and July has started the same way.

Russia had its hottest summer ever in 2010, with peat wildfires raging out of control — over 5,000 excess deaths in Moscow in July alone — but this summer it’s wet in Russia too.

This past week we have been hearing about flash floods in China

One could go on, enumerating extreme weather events in Australia and the US, but in fact, they are all just anecdotal. Anecdotes – extreme weather events – do not prove that climate change is occurring.

So can we say anything about climate change with absolute certainty? Well, no, we can’t. It is just possible that all of the events we are witnessing are just a random collection of extreme events that signify nothing at all. But it’s a long-shot. Occasionally a tossed coin comes up heads six times in a row. But usually it doesn’t.

Were global warming actually occurring we would not feel it. If the actual temperature of our planet went up one or two degrees, we would not notice this. The glaciers and the polar ice caps may be affected, and, say the climate scientests, the weather would get wilder.

We never really experience the climate; what we feel is the daily weather that it produces. A climate that is changing will produce unfamiliar weather — and if it is getting warmer, it will be more energetic weather. Wilder weather, if you like.

That means hotter, longer heat waves, and bigger storms that bring torrential rain and killer wind speeds. But it can also mean prolonged droughts as rainfall patterns change — and much more severe winters, like the “Snowmageddon” storm that hit Washington in February 2010 and shut down the U.S. federal government for a week.

You can’t prove that all this means we are sliding into a new and steadily worsening climate right now — that the long-threatened future has arrived.

The statistics aren’t good enough to support that conclusion yet. But if you have to put your money down now, bet yes.


By Eric Rempel

The Need for Resilience

In 2006 we became aware of The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Even if we did not read the book, author Michael Pollan effectively raised all of our awareness of the implications of our food choices: the distance some of the food on our dinner plate has travelled, the inputs used in growing our food, the labour conditions present in the production of other food, and the sustainability of our whole food system. Pollan’s other concern is agricultural policy, and how subsidies, some overt, but many covert, affect our food choices.

On the heels of that book came The 100-Mile Diet: A Year of Local Eating. This is one couple’s account of life when they had set themselves the challenge of eating only food grown within 100 miles for a year. Inspired by that account, others have set themselves identical or similar challenges. All the people I have heard talking about this experience say the same thing: the discipline was a good experience, one they encourage others to try, but it is not a discipline they intend to follow for the rest of their life. They do not advocate it as a lifestyle.

Now there is The Localivore’s Dilemma. The book seems to make some good points primarily in drawing attention to the fact that long distance transportation may not be as large an energy input in the production of our food as say, the heating of a greenhouse. Had they stopped there, the book would be a good contribution to the whole food discussion. Unfortunately, the authors seem exceptionally intent on debunking The Omnivore’s Dilemma and The 100-Mile Diet. Without that emphasis, the book would be much more helpful to us as we make food choices.

Perhaps more helpful is The Resilience Imperative, a book I have been reading lately. This book suggests that with regard to our entire way of life, things have been going well. Nevertheless, shocks will come, whether they be the result of financial breakdown, resource depletion, or political breakdown. How well are we prepared for such a shock?

Our food system is predicated on a number of largely unexamined assumptions. The first assumption is that cheap fertilizer made from distant fossil and rock deposits will always be available. Conventionally, large quantities of energy are needed in both the production and delivery of food. The second assumption is that this energy will always be available.

A few dedicated researchers at the University of Manitoba are devoted to developing a food production system independent of imported fertilizers, and less dependent on fossil energy inputs. If these questions concern you, consider attending the Natural Systems Agriculture field day in Carman July 23.

At the South Eastman Transition Initiative we discuss and delve into these important questions. Join us Thursday, July 26 as we spend the evening with Kim Shukla and Richard Whitehead of Stonelane Orchard discussing the challenges and rewards of growing food without chemical inputs.

Eric Rempel

Phosphates in our Ditches

I have previously written about the phosphate cycle. In nature, plants take up phosphate from the soil, and it becomes a part of plant tissue. The nutrient is returned to the soil when the plant dies. If it is ingested by animals or people, the phosphate is returned to the soil when the animal defecates. The cycle is complete.

In modern food production systems phosphate is a scarce resource. It is mined thousands of miles from here, is transported to where it is needed and applied to fields and gardens. The phosphate works its way up the food chain, and ultimately ends up in a livestock barn or human stomachs.

We flush our toilets and that phosphate is on its way to Lake Winnipeg. Animal manure is applied to agricultural fields. If the same amount of manure phosphate is applied as what the plants will take up, the natural phosphate cycle is intact. If surplus manure phosphate is applied, the extra is on its way to Lake Winnipeg. No matter how the phosphate is treated, it does not simply disappear.

As the phosphates get to Lake Winnipeg, they encourage algal growth in the lake, which in turn consumes oxygen resulting in a sterile lake unable to support fish or anything else. 

There are currently projects underway to see whether excess phosphate can be removed from Lake Winnipeg. Experimentally, cattails in the lake are being harvested and removed to see if the lake could benefit from such a removal. This may offer possibilities, but in my mind, the biggest problem is not addressed: the recovered phosphate is now a long ways from where it is needed, namely the farm fields.

Recently, David Dawson pointed out to me that the Highways Dept and Municipalities cut the grass and cattails in our ditches regularly. The lush growth in the ditches is the result of nutrients coming off the adjacent fields. In spring, many of these ditches become raging torrents. The rotting mass of cut grass is flushed down into the rivers and into Lake Winnipeg where it releases its phosphates.

Suppose, David says, an enterprising farmer cut the grass in the ditch, baled it up, took it to his farm and fed it to his cattle. Then the farmer collected the manure from his cattle and dumped it back in the ditch. There would be an outcry and rightly so. But, in fact, the farmer would be returning less to the ditch than he had taken out. The cattle would have utilized a good part of it. So why is it OK to leave all that grass in the ditch but not OK to dump the manure back in the ditch?

If we are seeking ways of removing phosphate from Lake Winnipeg, surely it makes more sense to prevent the phosphate from getting there in the first place. A relatively simple solution would be that the Highways Dept include in its grass cutting contracts a clause that the cut grass be removed. The material could be composted and recycled for public use. It’s not rocket science.

By Eric Rempel

Beyond Capitalism

We had a booth at Summer in the City. Our theme was Envisioning a Solar Future. We drew attention to the many opportunities we have to harness solar power: solar for electricity – to light our houses and to pump water in off-grid situations; solar to heat water – for domestic use and to heat our homes; solar to bake our food and solar to dry and preserve our food. We had some excellent conversations.

Many people wondered what price they would pay for the various solar systems. We did have the answer that question and advised them to check with suppliers.

However there is another answer to the question of cost, that suppliers can’t answer. I recently spoke with a friend who has covered most of his south facing roof with solar electric panels. On a sunny day he generates more electricity than he can use, and sells the surplus to Manitoba Hydro. When the sun goes down, he purchases electricity from Manitoba Hydro. It all looks impressive.

I challenged my friend and suggested it would take him twenty years to recover his investment. He told me that, by his calculations, cost recovery will take seventeen years without considering interest; perhaps thirty years considering interest. But, he challenged me, why should the rate of return on an investment be considered the most important criteria when making an investment.

“Were I seeking the highest financial return on an investment I am making,” he continued, “I should invest in the Alberta tar sands. Were I to do that, I believe my investment would be bad for my children on the long run. With these solar panels, I am investing in something I believe will be good for them.”

As I have reflected on what he said, I come to realize there is something very profound in that way of thinking.

Capitalist thinking has had a profound effect on all of us. It has taught us that the most important, perhaps only, consideration when making an investment is the financial return on that investment. I dare say those of us who have our savings in the Credit Union, have them there primarily because the return there is higher than at the bank. The fact that the Credit Union is built on not-for-profit principles is incidental to our investment choice. This is capitalism at its best, but not humanity at its best.

Capitalism does not ask whether an investment contributes to the creation of beauty or the destruction of beauty. It does not ask whether an investment contributes to the taking of life or the giving of life. It is concerned only with the financial return.

This does not mean capitalism is bad. It becomes bad, however, when the investor is not conscious of capitalism’s limitations. Unfortunately, all too often we are so enamored with the allure of capitalism that we forget this limitation. If more of us would apply ethical criteria to our investments, there is little doubt that the world would be a better place.

By Eric Rempel

Measuring Wellbeing

Last week I lamented the continuing emphasis on GNP and growth, not only by our governments at all levels, but also within our news media. The media is educating us in the inadequacy of GNP as a measure of our wellbeing, and then that same media floods us with information about GNP as if that is the only measurable indicator of wellbeing.

As long as we focus on GNP, our concern will be the amount of money changing hands each quarter, not the actual well-being delivered by the economy. Taking seriously a different way of measuring wellbeing is crucial to establishing a sane, sustainable, steady state economy.

The unlikely country of Bhutan, a kingdom in the Himalayas with a population about that of Winnipeg, is giving world leadership in the development of a “Gross National Happiness” indicator. By the standard measurements of wealth, Bhutan is not a rich country. In terms of GNP per capita, Bhutan is ranked 130 in the world. But they have established as a national goal, to become happy, rather than to become rich. As early as 2007, Business Week ranked Bhutan as the happiest country in Asia, and the eighth happiest in the world.

At a recent UN conference, the Prime Minister of Bhutan observed that GDP growth is killing the planet, destroying our future, and making humanity less equitable and, on the whole, more miserable. I think he’s right.

Any attempt to measure happiness will, without a doubt, draw the skeptical response that any such measure must, by its nature, be subjective. While this is true, the implied inference that such a measurement is then unreliable and of little value needs to be challenged. If we limit our pursuits to the attainment of indicators that are easily measured (economic growth), we are doomed to pursue that which is unattainable: perpetual growth.

Remember, if you hang your laundry out to dry, letting the sun and wind do the drying, you do not contribute to GNP. But if you throw it in the dryer and use electricity, you give the GNP a nudge upward. If one parent stays home to care for children, the GNP index is not happy. If both parents take a job and place their children in daycare, the GNP smiles.

It is interesting to note that following Bhutan’s lead, Britain's David Cameron, and France's Nicolas Sarkozy have become supporters of adding well-being to raw economic indicators. Australia, New Zealand, China, Italy, Japan and South Africa are some other countries that are considering measuring wellbeing as a way of informing policy.

Here we have the Canadian Index of Wellbeing. Data for this is being collected by a non-government group, which may be a good thing in that it makes it independent of political bias.

Unfortunately however, any reading of the federal omnibus budget bill now before the house must conclude that the only interest this federal government has, is in economic growth. This bias could be offset by greater enlightenment at the provincial or municipal level. But it is lacking there too.

Eric Rempel

Why the Continuing Emphasis on GNP?

It happened again last night. The national news reported “Canada's gross national product [GNP] grew at a 1.9 per cent annual pace in the first three months of the year, the same pace seen at the end of 2011.” So what does this tell us? Well it tells us that the total value of everything produced by enterprises in Canada grew by 1.9% annually. What it does not tell us is whether this growth was good or bad.

I find this discouraging! Discouraging because 30 years ago, in 1992, the same broadcaster, the CBC, first showed me how inadequate and potentially misleading reporting GNP is. 1992 was the year of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. If you don’t remember it, google for it. This was the first UN conference on the Environment and Development. The CBC, and other media covered it extensively. It was because of that conference and that reporting that conference, that many of us first realized the fragility of the environment we depend on, and the negative impact human activity is having on the very resources we depend on for life.

Specifically on the GNP, I came to realize that an oil spill off the coast of British Columbia does more to raise the GNP than the discovery of a new cure for cancer. We were told then, of the need for more meaningful indicators of well-being than GNP.

And much as been done to develop a new index. Best known is the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW). But it is hardly well known. It is ironical that the same media that covers and applauds the existence of this index, does not use it.

I find it discouraging that the media, in spite of giving us these stories about the need and development of better indicators of national well-being, continue to use GNP in their reporting as if it is the only indicator of our nation’s economic health with any value.

No doubt the GNP is easier to measure than the CIW. I suspect it is realistic to expect a report on GNP every quarter, whereas a quarterly report on CIW is probably not possible. Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable to expect a news item on GNP to include some comment on more meaningful context. For example “GNP rose slightly this month, but we don’t expect that to have an effect on the CIW because . . .” I think our news media is guilty of biased reporting whenever it reports on GNP and doesn’t place that in the context of wellbeing.

Somewhere within us, we all know that some growth is good, and some is not good. When reporting growth, the media has a responsibility to help us discern the likely effect that growth is having on our wellbeing. Were the media to do that, we all would be more critical, in a good sort of way, of any growth occurring around us. And were we all to have that critical capacity, it would affect the policies favoured by our politicians.

 Eric Rempel

Oil Development = Wellbeing?

Canada has become an energy giant – at least this is what Wikipedia says. According to the US Energy Information Administration, Canadian oil reserves are the second largest in the world. Only Saudi Arabia has greater assessed reserves. Mind you, much of Canadian oil is hard to get. It is either tied up as bitumen in the Athabasca Oil Sands, it is in the frigid north, or it is off shore where drilling is difficult.

As world oil supplies become more and more scarce, there is, and will continue to be increasing interest in these Canadian deposits. The question is: how should Canada as a nation respond to this growing interest? Conventional wisdom seems to say that we view this as a bonanza: we need to cash in on it as quickly as possible. But why? Last week I suggested that the market for our oil will not disappear, and the price of oil will only go up.

We know that oil companies need to show their investors a quick return on investment, but this is not true of governments. Our government needs to take a longer term, broader perspective on the development of such a resource. It is probably not reasonable to expect an oil company to consider what is best for our children and grandchildren in its long term strategy. However, I think it is the responsibility of a government to take such a long term perspective.

This is simply good conservative thinking. I am very disappointed that our current government, which claims to be conservative, applies what I call “company thought” to an issue that requires “nation thought.”

Furthermore, because the oil reserves we will be wishing to develop in the future will be hard to get at, their development will be more labour intensive than the oil developments of the past. We see this already. Labour demand in Alberta is high, and anecdotes of problems associated with this high labour demand are abundant – a shortage of housing, weak communities, and jobs simply not being filled. At the same time, some of the cities in eastern Canada are in recession.

Will there be any real winners if jobs continue to be lost in Eastern Canada and people wanting work need to continue to move to those areas where the oil is? Will there be any real winners if some of the areas we have considered part of Canada’s natural heritage become tailings ponds and other scars of open pit mining for oil.

Once wealth, whether it is national or individual has risen beyond a certain point, happiness is not a function of GDP or income. Happiness then is a function of family and community stability. Happiness is consistent with a country has stable communities and a diversified economy exporting a variety of products.

Given that we are dealing with a much sought after, but also very limited resource, the role of a conservative government needs to be to temper and guide the development of that resource. Instead, we see our government cheerleading the unfettered development and export of our non-renewable [once it is gone it is gone!] oil resource.

By Eric Rempel

When in Doubt, Use Caution

When in doubt, proceed with caution! When an input is scarce, use it sparingly! To my way of thinking, these are two core conservative values. I believe in these values, and find it puzzling that these values seem absent from many of the policies and actions of our current conservative government.

Take the promise, in the recent federal budget, to streamline environmental approvals. In general we all agree that streamlining is good thing. It removes unnecessary bureaucratic blockages. But if statements made by Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, are any indication of government intent, the intent of this streamlining is to not to assess the process. Instead, it seems, the government simply wants to get the environmental review process out of the way as quickly as possible so it can get on with its real agenda. Where is the caution here?

Why the rush? A successful business needs to know when to bring its product onto the market. It is not uncommon for a business enterprise to have to make a choice. It can choose to bring an inadequately developed product onto the market early and capitalize on an “early delivery” premium. Or it can spend more time on product development, sacrifice the “early delivery” premium, but deliver a good product.

I can understand why the oil companies are in a hurry to get things done. Each company wants to get in ahead of the other company because there is a premium in that. I can understand why the oil importing countries are lining up to fund the building of Canada’s pipelines. If they get in early, they have a better chance to get Canada’s oil.

But I can see no reason why Canada needs to be in a hurry. Why the hurry in exporting Canada’s oil resources? Why the desire to shorten the environmental approval process? Why the desire to attract non-Canadians to invest in the extraction of Canada’s oil? Why create jobs in the oil industry, when the jobs need to be filled by attracting immigrants? I could understand the hurry if it would be likely that we would lose if there were a delay in getting our oil onto the market.

But Canada won’t lose if we take our time in getting our oil onto the market, if we “take the time to develop a good product.” As the world oil supplies become harder to get; as the oil the world depends on comes increasingly from sources hard to get at (such a deep sea wells and Alberta’s tar sands), the price of oil will only go in one direction – up. The longer we delay in bringing this resource to the market, the higher will be the price. What’s to lose?

If Canada slows the delivery of tar sand derived oil onto the market, this delay will accelerate the rise in world oil prices. And this will affect what we pay at the pumps. That will hurt. It always does. Be that as it may, a substantial increase in the price of oil is inevitable. If not sooner, then it will be more later. Higher prices mean more pressure to find alternatives. We need that pressure. We need it soon.


By Eric Rempel

We Are Running out of Miracles

You may not have noticed. Today we do not treat medical infections the way we treated those twenty years ago. I recently accompanied a friend to the emergency room at the hospital. It turned out he had a serious infection. Twenty years ago, he would have been given an injection of antibiotic, a prescription of oral antibiotic and sent home. Not today!  He immediately got a dose of antibiotic intravenously, and then needed to come back to the hospital two times a day for the next several days for further intravenous antibiotic.

This, my medical friends tell me, is because of antibiotic resistant bacteria. I am not old enough to remember infections before antibiotics, but I am old enough to remember the first generation of antibiotic: Penicillin. Penicillin was followed by second, third and fourth generation antibiotics. Now, it seems, the only way antibiotic is sufficiently effective is if it is administered intravenously. And once that no longer works, what is the next step?

This should surprise no one. Natural selection decrees that this will occur. The bacteria resistant to an antibiotic survive and reproduce.

Had we known then, when penicillin was first discovered and available to doctors, what we know now, would we have used these wonder drugs in the way we have? For example, would we have allowed their use in animal feed? We have a problem.

Within our food production system, we face a similar situation. Conventional food production conveniently disregards nature’s cycles.

Within nature, there are many natural cycles. The ones we understand best are the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle and the phosphate cycle. In each case the plant, as it is growing, take up elements from the soil and air, converting them into plant tissue. The plant dies and the elements return to the soil and air. Some plant tissue is eaten by animals, but as the animals defecate and die, the cycle is still completed.

But our conventional food production system does not recognize these cycles. Instead, the science behind our conventional food system recognizes that plants need phosphate and nitrogen to thrive. Science has found a way of converting natural gas into nitrogen fertilizer. The plant response to this fertilizer is phenomenal. The natural nitrogen cycle, it seems, is no longer pertinent.

In the same way, conventional science has found that phosphate, mined at Kapaskasing, can be converted to fertilizer. Again, the plant response to this fertilizer is exceptional.

But there are problems with this food system. First, the supply of both, natural gas and phosphate rock is in limited. Already we have used up the most accessible supplies of both resources. Secondly, when the plant tissue we consume is “used up”, the “waste” consists of the nitrogen and phosphate. Nature says that needs to go back to the soil to feed future generations of plants. But it does not. Instead, it becomes a pollutant. Much of it ends up in Lake Winnipeg.

Fortunately, for food production, there is an alternative, at least a partial one. While scientists and farmers within the conventional food production stream have been looking for ways of increasing the plant response to chemical nitrogen and phosphate, a much smaller group of scientists and farmers have been looking at an alternative, a way of enhancing food production within the natural cycles. They call themselves organic producers. As we remove our conventional blinders and become more aware of what these scientists and farmers have discovered, what we find is truly impressive.

By Eric Rempel

Can Organic Farming Become Mainstream?

Had someone asked me five years ago to describe the organic food industry, I would have placed organic food production somewhere on the fringe. I knew of consumers who believed organic food was healthier than conventional food. These consumers are willing to pay a premium for organically grown food and are complemented by farmers who grow food organically. These organic growers need the organic price premium in order to compensate for lower yields. Everyone is happy.

But not everyone, really. Anyone prepared to take a critical look at conventional agriculture, has always been concerned about the vulnerability of that production system because of its dependence on scarce and exotic chemicals; scarce in that phosphate and nitrogen as inputs are non-renewable resources, and exotic because chemicals are carefully developed in order to address a defined problem under defined conditions. The understanding of how these exotic chemicals work and of their side effects is limited.

The above thoughts should really not be new to anyone. What follows may surprise you.

In February, I attended the first ever Canadian Organic Science Conference in Winnipeg. The conference was fascinating in many respects, but what struck me most was the growing awareness by the conference attendees that organic food production is able to compete with conventional food production on its own terms: that is, organic food producers are poised to compete in the same market place with conventional food producers.

The Rhodale Institute in Pennsylvania has been a leader in the research, development and promotion of organic food production methods since 1947. They have been running a farming systems trial for 30 years comparing conventional and organic farming systems. The Institute has recently published a report thirty years into the study. They have found that:

• Organic yields match conventional yields
• Organic outperforms conventional in years of drought
• Organic systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system
• Organic farming uses 45% less energy
• Organic systems produce 60% of the greenhouse gases a conventional system does
• Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional

Organic food production is not simply the elimination of chemicals in the growing of food. An organic producer told me recently, that a conventional farmer monitors his field, and when he detects a problem, he goes to his agricultural input supplier, buys the appropriate chemical and applies it. An organic producer, on the other hand, needs to be aware of the problems he is likely to encounter two or three years earlier, and begin to deal with them then. Organic production requires an understanding of the biological systems at work in the field or garden, and a familiarity with the wide array of tools now available to the organic grower.

Nobody said organic food production is easy, but as fuel prices go up and weeds and insects develop chemical resistance, more and more of us will need to embrace organic food production.

Eric Rempel

Everything we thought we knew is wrong!

Okay, maybe not everything. But what if some of our core beliefs about how the world works turn out to be seriously flawed? Last Thursday some of us watched a documentary that flipped our world upside down to see what makes it tick, as it explored the most critical question of our time:

How do we become a sustainable civilization?

Water shortages, hunger, peak oil, species extinction, and even increasing depression are all symptoms of a deeper problem – addiction to unending growth in a world that has limits. GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth goes way beyond prescribing Band-Aids to slow the bleeding. This film examines the cultural barriers that prevent us from reacting rationally to the evidence that current levels of population and consumption are unsustainable.

It asks why the population conversations are so difficult to have. Why it’s more important to our society to have economic growth than clean air. Why communities seek and subsidize growth even when it destroys quality of life and increases taxes.

Our growth-centric system is broken. It’s not providing the happiness or the prosperity we seek. But that’s good news; it means a shift to a sustainable model will be good for us. We’ll be happier and more prosperous!

Individual and public policy decisions today are informed by a powerful, pro-growth cultural bias. We worship at the Church of Growth Everlasting. Undeterred by the facts, we’re on a collision course powered by denial and the illusion that growth brings prosperity. Before we can shift our civilization meaningfully, effectively, and substantially toward true sustainability, the world must be “prepped.” We must become self-aware and recognize the programming that keeps us hooked. GrowthBusters attempts do just that. We heard from leading thinkers of our time – scientists, sociologists, economists – to help us separate fact from superstition.

We’re approaching the end of growth. Will we embrace it and find a winning solution? Or will we deny it and go down fighting?

From Las Vegas to Atlanta, Mexico City to Mumbai, the White House to the Vatican, GrowthBusters took us on a whirlwind tour of growth mania. Kind of like Wild Kingdom with a twist: the cameras are turned on humanity as our own survival skills were examined. GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth looks into the psychology of denial and crowd behavior. It explores our obsession with urban and economic growth, and our reluctance to address overpopulation issues head-on. This documentary holds up a mirror, encouraging us to examine the beliefs and behaviors we must leave behind – and the values we need to embrace – so our children can survive and thrive.

The movie, of course, does not focus on southeastern Manitoba. It looks at the world as a whole, and examines how embracing growth has affected some specific communities. The people of New York, Toronto, Hong Kong and Mexico City need to ask how they should be living if they want to leave a habitable planet for their children. But it’s a question we, living in southeastern Manitoba, need to ask as well. When will we do that?

Eric Rempel

What About Wood Heating

A series of columns on home design and home heating with a view to energy efficiency would not be complete without a discussion of the potential wood has for heating our homes.

Mary and I heat our home with wood. We like it. It helps us maintain our connection with the earth that supports us. This connection with the earth is so much more vivid when I am splitting wood in the morning or watching the flame in the glass window than if I were simply to set the thermostat higher and feel the heat come out of the forced air register of a natural gas furnace. For me that is one up side to heating with wood. The satisfaction I get from heating with wood is similar to that of growing the vegetables I eat.

But heating with wood is also energy efficient. We need to learn to pay attention to a new insight called EROEI (energy return on energy invested). When oil was first discovered in the 1930s, the EROEI for that oil was 100:1. Now all the readily accessible oil is gone. We are now developing the tar sands where the EROEI is only 5:1. If I apply that insight to wood heat, I consider the fuel used by my chain saw and my pickup truck. If I get my wood fuel about 45 km from my home, the EROEI is about 24:1. So for residents of southeastern Manitoba, where there is plenty of bush and forest, wood fuel is one of the most efficient sources of home heating.

Furthermore, as we become increasingly dependant on hard-to-get-at oil supplies, notably tar sands and offshore oil, the price of oil-based fuels is going to become increasingly volatile. There is comfort in being dependent on a local fuel resource, wood, the price of which is likely to be considerably more stable in the years ahead.

Now before we all run out and install wood burning heaters, there are some cautions to consider. Wood heaters produce smoke. Outdoor wood boilers are the biggest culprits in this regard. New, certified, indoor wood heaters produce much less smoke. In the last twenty years much research and development has gone into the development of improved heaters. The results are impressive. Nevertheless, where there is a wood fire, there is at least some smoke. If everyone in Steinbach heated with individual wood heaters, we would likely have an air pollution problem. A comprehensive solution to that problem exists and that is district wood heat. In Scandinavia, district wood heating is common.

Maintaining a wood fuel supply is labour intensive. That human energy is not included in the EROEI. This is because human energy is not fossil energy; it can be replaced. Furthermore, much, if not most of the labour going into the maintaining of a wood supply is wholesome energy, energy that ought to be expended in order to maintain the health of our body. Maintaining a wood fuel supply is good, healthy, outdoor exercise.

Eric Rempel 

Building for Tomorrow

It seems today’s home owners and home builders would rather bury their heads in the sand than work at envisioning the future. Conventional, contemporary home building technology has been developed in a situation when energy for home heating was cheap. It still is cheap – but for how long?

As we make decisions about the houses we build today, we ought to be making our best guess as to what energy will cost twenty or thirty years from now, and build accordingly. But we don’t. We go to default mode, and expect implicitly that energy prices in the future will not change significantly. We all know that’s absurd, but we do it anyway. In reality, humans are remarkably uncomfortable with forward thinking.

These were the thoughts going through my mind at the information event Solar in the Southeast last Thursday evening. The South Eastman Transition Initiative had organized the event. Three southeast homeowners shared their experience with building and living in energy efficient homes. Listening to these homeowners, there was little doubt that they, at least, are convinced that most of us are headlong into a herd mentality.

An annual heating bill of $800 or $1,000 is acceptable today for most homeowners. But energy prices will go up! Then what?

Today it is practical and cost effective to build a house that can be heated for $100 annually. In Europe, where energy prices are much higher, passive house design is becoming normal. In North America, innovative builders, here and there, are building energy efficient houses. CMHC has a program promoting energy efficiency in housing. But interest in these housing technologies remains far from the main stream.

Donald and Randy Proven are strong advocates of energy efficient home construction. They have concentrated on infill housing. They have done both, built new houses as well as retrofitted old, drafty houses. Where standard construction today expects walls with R20 insulation, they strive for R60. Where many houses today have 6 air changes per hour, they strive for 0.6. Most of the heating their houses need comes from solar, but when the sun don’t shine, they do use electric heat.

Kyle Friesen, who lives near Mitchell, has put a large solar array on the roof of his house. The array is hooked into Manitoba Hydro. When Kyle’s array generates more electricity than his household uses, Hydro buys his surplus. When the sun don’t shine, Hydro makes up the difference. Manitoba Hydro does not pay much, so this is not a great money maker, nevertheless Kyle expects to recover his investment over the long haul. Kyle admits, “If I had invested this money in the Alberta Oil Sands, I would be getting a better return on investment, but” he adds, “an investment in the oil sands is not an investment in the future.”

Herman Unrau of St. Malo has had vacuum evacuated tubes on his roof for three years. He continues to be very happy with them.

If energy efficient housing interests you, there is more information on our web site southeasttransiton.com.

By Eric Rempel

Solar Heating Reduces our Vulnerability

Last week I considered solar heating as a way of heating our homes applying the usual economic grid. Solar heating makes sense economically, but its economic viability is affected by projected energy prices, the ability to add extra heat on the coldest, shortest days of the year, and perhaps a willingness to modify lifestyle, that is, to demand our hot water when the sun shines. Economics may be one reason to choose solar.

But a more powerful reason to choose solar is that a well planned solar installation decreases vulnerability. There is a vulnerability inherent in a dependence on energy generated or extracted thousands of miles away, whether that is hydro from northern Manitoba or natural gas from Alberta. One hardly needs a vivid imagination to envision an electrical power disruption. We experience some every year. The ones we have experienced always are short, but what assurance is there that they always will be?

Similar things could be said about our supply of natural gas. How many vulnerable spots are there along that pipeline from the gas field in Alberta to my house? I may not know what they are, but we all know they exist. That is simply the nature of any constructed system.

Solar thermal panels on a south facing roof may not keep us toasty warm on the coldest days of the year, but when used on a well insulated house, solar panels will maintain an adequate temperature even on the coldest days. Although a solar heating system is dependant on pumps to circulate the fluids, but the system can be designed with a special photoelectric panel on the roof to power the necessary pumps.

Perhaps the strongest argument for solar heating is that it simply is the right thing to do. It is gentle, it does not require a huge infrastructure, it affirms our link with the environment around us and it is sustainable on the long run. Heating with natural gas is not sustainable because natural gas is a fossil fuel. The amount of natural gas available is limited. Although fracking technology has made it possible to access natural gas today that was not available just twenty years ago, and although it may be that after we have exhausted the shale gas deposits, other gas may be found, we have no assurance of that. To live a lifestyle that conserves scarce resources for future generations is living responsibly.

Getting the heat we need from electricity, whether it be through direct heat or through a heat pump system does offer some sustainability here in Manitoba, where our electricity is hydro generated. However our supply of electricity is dependent on the flow of water through the Lake Winnipeg system, and who knows what impact climate change will have on that. Furthermore, we now know that building dams in northern Manitoba has an impact on the environment and the people there that has not been considered by Manitoba Hydro.

Join us this Thursday, February 23, 7:00PM at the Eastman Education Centre for a discussion of solar possibilities.

Eric Rempel

Does Solar Thermal Make Sense Economically?

Anybody who has used a black garden hose in summer knows that solar energy will heat water. But that same garden hose in winter will be useless. This has been the problem with harnessing solar energy to heat our water or our homes. In winter, when we need the heat most, the heat loss to ambient air is such that collected energy becomes useless for the heating of water. Passive solar, that is south facing windows, certainly collects solar heat during the day, but unfortunately, much of that heat is then lost at night.

But new technology has significantly changed what is possible. This new technology is vacuum evacuated tubes. Vacuum evacuated tubes make it possible to heat a liquid in a roof panel in the middle of winter, and deliver hot water into the house. In other words, technology that allows us to heat water in a useful way in the middle of a Manitoba winter now exists.

The question is how much does an installation cost and will it save me money? Well, that depends on what you want.

If you are solar dependent and want your hot shower in the morning, the necessary water will have been heated the previous day and will have been kept hot all night. Hot water when the sun is shining is relatively easy to deliver, whereas hot water first thing in the morning brings its challenges. The challenges can be overcome, but it costs money.

Furthermore, a system that can fully utilize the sun’s energy every day of the year will pay back  more quickly than a system that utilizes the sun’s energy in winter, but finds the sun’s heat in summer a liability.

In other words, a system designed to only heat water for domestic use will pay back quite quickly, especially if the homeowner is willing to accept the discipline of doing the tasks that need hot water when the sun shines. Some solar proponents say the system will pay for itself in less than four years.

On the other hand, it is also possible to design and build a solar hot water system that will keep the house warm in winter. Unfortunately such a system will not be doing anything useful in summer. In fact such a system needs to be protected from overheating in summer. It will take longer to pay back the investment in this case.

The other factor affecting the economic viability of a solar hot water system is the future price of hydro and fossil energy. We know the price will go up. We don’t know how fast.

A practical solution will probably be something in between: a system designed to deliver enough energy to only look after domestic hot water needs in December and January. This system will deliver surplus heat which can be used to heat the house as the days get longer.

Join us Thursday, February 23, at the Eastman Education Centre. A panel of solar users that will discuss their experience with solar energy.

Eric Rempel

The Keystone XL Pipeline is Rejected: So?

So President Obama has rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline. I think the President must feel good since he has finally lived up to the spirit of his election promises, environmentalists in the US are celebrating a victory, the Republicans seem to think they have an issue to take to the fall election, and Canadians, by and large, don’t know what to think.

The stance of our present Conservative government in this respect is puzzling. Apparently it is acceptable to this government (as it has been to previous liberal governments) to treat our oil sands as a renewable resource that will go on yielding oil forever. For a government to take this stance is not new – it seems to have been the government stance of choice all over the world again and again and again. However, such a stance can hardly be considered a conservative approach to resource management.

One hardly needs data to support an argument that all non-renewable resources will diminish and become harder to get if such a resource is consumed in large quantities. Nevertheless, here is some data. The oil Alberta was pumping in the 1930s required the input of one unit of energy to get 100 units of energy [for the powering of cars and the heating of homes]. The oil was close to the surface; easy to get at. Conventional oil in 1970 yielded about 30 units of energy for every unit of energy expended. The oil sands today deliver only five units of energy for every energy unit expended.

Clearly we are witnessing the depletion of a non-renewable resource. Why would a rational, conservative government try to sell this resource as rapidly as possible? It makes no sense to me.

What we are hearing from those touting the merits of the Keystone XL pipeline as well as the Northern Gateway pipeline is that the sale of oil derived from the oil sands will bring jobs to Canadians. That seems likely. However, a pertinent question is whether jobs in the oil patch are indeed the kind of jobs we want if quality of life is our goal.  Furthermore, there are other ways of generating jobs. The easiest way of creating jobs is to move away from a cheap energy policy, to a policy that would reward those with the creativity to find ways of living with less energy. A fee and dividend energy policy would transfer wealth from those intent on consuming energy to those committed to conserving energy, and would put money into the hands of Canada’s true innovators.

Without a strong and deliberate policy to reduce Canada’s dependency on fossil energy and the income derived from energy sales, we will be no better off when the oil deposited in the Athabascan sand is gone. We see feeble attempts with mandates for light bulbs and policies to encourage biofuels, but that is greenwash. As long as the government avoids full cost accounting, and promotes oil sales without considering the cost of those sales to future generations and the environment, Canadians, sadly, will not make a serious move towards renewable energy.

Eric Rempel

We Need a Resource Consumption Tax

Most taxes in Canada do not encourage the right activities. Behavior that should be encouraged is taxed, and behavior that should be discouraged has no tax. That was the assertion I made in last week’s column and applied that thinking to property tax. But this thinking is relevant to other taxes as well.

Most taxes in Canada are based on income earned, both for the corporation and for the individual. The more income the person or company earns, the more taxes are due. But why tax income? So many other things could be taxed: consumption, land, the use of resources, energy use, capital gain, inheritance, to name the most obvious. Of course, to a limited extent, all of these items are being taxed, but the heavy tax remains the income tax.

But why tax income. It only makes sense if there are no better options. But there are many better options. To make my point consider just one simplified example. A factory pays a certain amount of tax. Under today’s tax policy, most of that tax would be based on income. As the company becomes more profitable, it pays more tax; less profitable, less tax. It follows then, that there is only one incentive the tax gives to the company and that is to hire more accountants and lawyers. Their skill lies in finding ways to avoid the payment of tax.

But now assume our tax policy changes. The same amount of tax is paid, but the tax now is based on consumption. The tax could be on overall consumption (like our GST), but better would be a tax on a scarce resource, say oil. Note this tax shift would not affect the disposable return of the factory. The same amount of tax is paid. The firm still has the same freedom to invest and procure, but the more oil it consumes, the more tax it pays; the less oil it consumes, the less tax it pays. This tax shift creates a huge incentive for the factory to reduce its oil consumption and become more energy efficient. Conceivably the incentive would result in more jobs as the company re-focuses from energy efficiency to labour efficiency.

The simple tax shift from income focus to oil focus will result in other beneficial changes over time. Nobody forfeits any freedom. Those who wish to continue to consume oil at a high rate, are free to do so, but it will cost them more. Those who find ways to reduce their oil consumption, save. Obviously, factories become more efficient. Nation-wide, less oil is consumed, so more oil is left for future generations. Pollution generally accompanies oil consumption. There is less pollution. Transportation costs increase, so there is less traffic. Everyone walks and cycles more, with concomitant benefits to physical and mental health. The tax shift has redefined efficiency.

A tax shift away from income tax to a tax based on consumption benefits everyone. It is more fair, encourages more efficiency, and encourages conservation.

Tax Land, Not Buildings

Fundamentally, most tax structures in Canada are doing the very opposite of what they ought to be doing: they tax behavior that should be encouraged and don’t tax behavior that should be discouraged. This is the opinion of Frank de Jong, former leader to the Ontario Green Party. He outlined his argument at a recent meeting in Winnipeg.

De Jong’s critique could be applied to many taxes, but municipal property tax will be the focus of this column.  Property tax in southeastern Manitoba is based on property value. This means that if a property owner does something to improve the value of his property, his taxes will go up. This is true in the case of a businessperson who begins with a bare piece of land and puts a high value commercial property on it, or of a homeowner who finishes a basement in an existing house.

But ought the property improvement to trigger an increase in taxes? The property owner has just done a good thing. He has transformed a piece of land with minimal value into an asset with substantial value. This developer ought to be applauded and rewarded for that activity; instead our system penalizes him by increasing his tax bill.

There are two reasons to own land: it may bring the owner what he wants now, whether that be revenue or enjoyment; or it may be owned in expectation of an increase in value. Our current tax structure discourages the owner from taking steps to enhance the revenue earning potential of the land. By default then, the tax system encourages the holding of the land for speculation. I am not against the holding of land for speculative reasons. It has its place, but the tax system ought not to reward speculation at the expense of development.

De Jong asserts that taxing land rather than buildings has had a demonstrated good effect on cities, suburbs and towns. This has been observed in Pennsylvania, where tax on buildings is minimal. Taxing land rather than buildings has the effect of densifying cities, thereby making them more people friendly, walkable, bicycable. There is less unused land.

Taxing land rather than buildings, is neither tax relief, nor a tax grab. It is a tax shift.

Not yet convinced? Consider the new Credit Union building we will soon see in downtown Steinbach. I am not privy to the building plans, but basically the design could be one of two: the new building could be built very much like the current building, that is, two story with the entire building devoted to the business of credit unioning. Were that to occur, all the current business space in that block of Main Street would be gone permanently, taking with it all associated pedestrian traffic – probably somewhere north of the city centre. Our current property tax system encourages that kind of development – sprawl. It has been very effective. But without a tax on the building, there would an incentive to add an additional story to the building so the ground floor space could be devoted to small businesses: walaah – a more pedestrian friendly city.

By Eric Rempel