Energy and the Environment in the Current Federal Election

With few exceptions, the current federal election campaign has been devoid of discussions about energy and environment policy. None of the major political parties has raised energy policy as an issue.

This is disappointing, because there can be no doubt that we will soon be forced to live with energy significantly more expensive than it is now. The sooner we begin to adjust to an expensive energy environment, the better off we will be on the long run. Furthermore, given human technological capacity, we humans now have the ability, as never before, to impact our entire habitat, including our climate. To live on the presumption that our activity has no effect on climate involves a monumental risk, and is not fair to future generations.

However, none of the politicians are addressing these concerns. Why the silence? Is it because in the last election, the Liberals under Stephan Dion made this an election issue, and they were thoroughly trounced? Perhaps.

But the South Eastman Transition Initiative coalesces precisely around these issues. In order to highlight these issues, we sent a questionnaire to each of the Provencher candidates asking for responses to four questions. We received replies from five of the six candidates. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party candidate chose not to respond.

These are the questions we put to the candidates:
1. Do you believe that we have reached peak oil or are about to?
2. Do you believe human induced climate change is happening?
3. Do you believe that peak phosphate is here or near?
4. Do you believe it is appropriate to produce bio-fuels with food to supply our energy needs?

The Pirate Party is a single-issue party, and the party platform does not speak to environmental and energy issues. However, Ric Lim, the local candidate shared his personal opinions. He is somewhat equivocal on all of our questions, but does not think a belief in peak oil, climate change or peak phosphate is a precondition to dealing with our resources more responsibly. He strongly advocates for cleaner energy alternatives to carbon based fuel and the recycling of the phosphate in sewage. He is uneasy about the competition between food crops and biofuel crops.

David Reimer of the Christian Heritage Party is of the opinion that peak oil is not an issue and that human activity is not affecting the climate. In this he reflects what the party website says, which vigorously denies global warming. The CHP believes we need to address particulate air pollution, water pollution and soil pollution. Reimer recognizes the need for alternative fuels and the need for research and development into finding such a fuel. He is cautious about the use of bio-fuels because the production of bio-fuels will probably reduce the supply of food. He believes that peak phosphate is near and that a governmental strategy of better education is needed to deal with this problem.

Terry Haywood, the Liberal Candidate, did not answer our questions but referred us to the Liberal Party platform. The Liberal Party election platform consists of five planks, and a clean environment is one of them. A major part of their environmental strategy has to do with more stringent regulation of oil extraction and transportation. It recognizes that Canada does not have a clear strategy on many aspects of energy use and proposes that this be addressed. The Liberals will establish a cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse gases, end tax breaks to the oil industry and move to greater regulation of oil sands development. The Liberals say they will not wait for US leadership in matters of carbon pricing and other energy related initiatives. The current election platform does not mention the carbon tax that was part of the Liberal platform in the last election.

Al Mackling of the NDP gave a minimal response to our questions. The NDP election platform has seven planks, and Tackle Climate Change is one of them. They would put a price on carbon through a cap and trade system, end subsidies to the oil and gas industry, and provide incentives for the development of renewable energy. The revenues collected through the cap and trade system would be redirected as subsidies to encourage cleaner energy production. They believe Canada can become a world leader in renewable energy.

Janine Gibson of the Green Party gave the most comprehensive response to our questions. Gibson believes peak oil, climate change and peak phosphate are real. She is strongly opposed to the use of agricultural produce for the production of biofuels. Janine has made a lifestyle choice to live in a way that minimizes her dependence on fossil fuels, and is actively engaged in promoting organic food production and sustainable life styles. The Green Party platform advocates revenue neutral carbon pricing and an early end to subsidies to the nuclear and fossil fuel industries. This would be combined with incentives for the development of cleaner technologies. Janine is unique among the candidates in that she is calling for a simpler lifestyle in order to share more equitably the world’s limited resources.

Vic Toews of the Conservative Party chose not to respond to our questions. The Conservative Election platform consists of seven planks. Environmental care is not one of them. Any environmental or energy policy comes as a sub-point under other headings. There is no suggestion in the election platform that any Conservative policies with respect to energy and the environment will change. They are committed to maintaining a tandem relationship with the US with respect to relevant policy and remain of the opinion that Canada made a significant contribution at the Copenhagen meetings. There will be some incentives to develop more energy saving technologies.

We recognize that the questions we raise do not have simple answers, and that they cannot be adequately dealt with in a short survey. We invite you to our web site for a more complete report on the survey. There you will find the complete response of each candidate, and a link to each of the party web sites.

In our view it is unlikely that the issues that are going to have the greatest affect on our quality of life in the future, namely peak oil, climate change, peak phosphate and biofuel policy will be dealt with more comprehensively by our government as a result of this election. The Green Party takes a different approach to these issues than any of the other parties, but given our current electoral system, it is unlikely that they will play a significant role in Ottawa. Nevertheless we need to live responsibly if we are to pass a reasonable habitat on to our children and grandchildren. To do this effectively, we need government leadership, but in the absence of that, there are things we can do. Join us at the South Eastman Transition Initiative to explore possibilities further. More at http://www.southeasttransition.com/

Eric Rempel

Why Lawns?

Culture is an insidious thing. Culture is life giving in the sense that it helps us find a place to belong. It gives us a sense that we are where we belong. But culture can also be destructive, as when our culture expects us to do things that ultimately contribute to the destruction of our habitat.

Take one of our cultural icons: THE LAWN. We deliberately set our houses well back on our lots so there will be room for a lawn, and we expect our lawns to meet certain very precise standards. It needs to look “healthy”, but ironically, healthy in this context means that it is and looks different than anything ever found in nature. This “healthy” lawn, if neglected by humans for a little more than a week, begins to look unhealthy. So we create an artificial ‘normal’ for our lawns, and redefine the word “healthy” to describe that look.

And nuturing that “healthy lawn” contributes to the destruction of our habitat. Note:
• This lawn needs nitrogen fertilizer. This fertilizer is derived from natural gas, a limited resource, that surely ought to be preserved for other more important purposes. Also to satisfy our notion of a “healthy” lawn, it is imperative that more nitrogen be applied than the grass will use up, which means there will be nitrogen runoff, fouling our water ways.
• This lawn needs phosphate fertilizer. This fertilizer too is in limited supply, and the readily available deposits are used up. The fertilizer we have needs to be saved for food production. Again to achieve our ideal, more phosphate needs to be applied than the lawn can use, so there will be nutrient runoff – and fouled water ways.
• Clippings need to be removed. They fill up our landfills (unless of course they are composted).
• This lawn needs herbicides. Herbicides are chemical products used to kill plants we don’t want. Farmers use them to remove weeds from their fields, the US military uses them to defoliate forested areas so enemy soldiers cannot hide there, and we use them to keep our lawns “healthy”. The question is, how confident can we be that these chemicals do only what we want them to, and don’t have any negative side effect? What is the effect of repeated use of these chemicals? Are we OK with risking our children’s health so we can have a dandelion free lawn?

Dr. June Irwin, a Quebec dermatologist became convinced there was a link between the skin rashes she was seeing and exposure to lawn-care chemicals. In the end she succeeded in convincing the city council that the use of herbicides for cosmetic purposes was not in the town’s interest. This resulted in a ban on the use of those products in that city, a ban that has spread to many other cities. Her story is told in the movie A Chemical Reaction.

Eric Rempel

Downsizing for Resilience

Already back in 1976, Maxine Hancock wrote a book entitled, Living on Less and Liking it More. She eloquently made the case that the quality of one’s life is not dependent upon acquiring more stuff, but rather in modest living, sharing good things and looking out for one another.

That same year, Gary Becker published The Economic Approach to Human Behavior.  In his book he sought to prove that all human behavior is guided by the same self-centered greed that underlies economic capitalism. For this discovery, Becker received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1992. In other words, the brightest minds on the planet agreed that selfishness is what makes the world go round. That people only practice generosity if that somehow serves their self-interest.

I think Becker has had more influence on how people live today than has Hancock. And the consequences are stark: Greater degrees of injustice. Deterioration in political discourse and stability. More unhappiness. And a huge strain on environmental integrity.

But the good news is that many studies since 1976 have proven Hancock to be at least as realistic about human nature and potential as Becker. Although the degree of cooperation varies widely, all the studies show that in no cultures do people behave 100 percent selfishly. And, furthermore, studies in neuroscience have proven that humans have  “…in-built desires for altruism and fairness as well as selfishness and avarice.” Different areas of the brain “light up” when in the process of grasping for one’s self or sharing with others.

From a faith perspective, it is right after all then, to assert that all humans carry the image of God within them. Another way of saying it is that underneath the veneer of selfishness we have come to expect from one another, there lies a more cooperative spirit than we had thought. We have all experienced how such virtue surfaces in the context of emergencies like natural disasters.

This brings me to my point about downsizing for resilience. One way to tackle the ecological crisis facing our planet is to look for alternative sources of energy and materials to satisfy our needs at present levels of consumption. Another is to downsize our expectations on a broad front. And in order to accomplish this we can appeal to those deeper levels of altruism and fairness in people that often lie hidden behind a façade of selfishness and greed we have come to expect.

If those of us in the overprivileged world begin to understand the human and environmental holocaust that is unfolding around the world we can find it in our hearts to downsize for the sake of a little more justice, peace and environmental protection. Downsizing will not look the same for everyone. But if we are serious about it, we can find ways to downsize our homes, travel plans and our need for ever-more stuff. And in the process we will discover that we can live on less and like it more.

Jack Heppner

Are Woodlot Skills Relevant Today

             Forty years ago Mary and I were living in Botswana. I became amazed at the familiarity local inhabitants had with trees. Not only did everyone, young and old know the name of each tree, they would also recognize any piece of wood as to species at a glance. By contrast, how many of the trees dominant in our community do we recognize? How many of these trees do children growing up in Manitoba’s southeast today recognize?

This thought came back to me last week as a group of us met to discuss how best to manage the woodlots surrounding our community. What struck me was how little we all know about that topic.

Consider one example. Coppicing is a traditional method of woodland management which takes advantage of the fact that many trees make new growth from the stump or roots if cut down. Some of those at the meeting knew about this method, some did not. What struck me was that no one at the meeting knew how that method can best be applied in the aspen forests that dominate this area.

Really this is not surprising. We all retain the knowledge that is relevant to our effective functioning in the world we inhabit. So the Batswana, who were dependent on wood for their cooking, were familiar with the tree species because this was relevant to their way of life. In my early growing up years, my father practiced woodlot management. He was dependent on that woodlot for firewood. But when I was about 10 years old, that skill became irrelevant, as we switched to oil heat in our home. I did not learn those skills from him. Today familiarity with computers and automobiles is seen as more relevant than knowledge associated with the life of yesteryear.

Many years ago, when our children were in elementary school, I found myself on the parent teacher council. We were concerned, then, that our children have sufficient access to computers, because we thought the acquisition of computer skills needed to be an essential component of relevant education.

Today the Hanover School Division has decided its educational focus should be “Education for a Sustainable Future”. The question then becomes: what is the knowledge and what are the skills that will be needed ten, twenty, fifty years from now? Who knows?

The world as we know it will carry on for a while, so honing the skills associated with our current way of life is necessary. But there also no doubt that we are facing an era that will be different. Probably the most significant change we are facing is hugely more expensive fossil fuel energy. It is hard to anticipate how that will affect our lifestyle, but it will affect how we heat our homes, how we get our food, and how much we travel. Can we anticipate what knowledge and skills will be relevant when those changes come into effect? To some extent we can. The South Eastman Transition Initiative consists of people who are committed to developing futuristic skills and knowledge now so we will be more prepared when we need them.

Eric Rempel

Reflections on Vulnerability

Just how vulnerable the human race is to the unpredictable forces of nature was reinforced recently by events in Japan. The devastation caused by an unprecedented earthquake and tsunami was immense. To make matters worse, the Fukushima Dai-ich nuclear power plant was severely damaged.

It is a bitter irony indeed that the only country in the world to have experienced the atomic bomb during wartime is now experiencing the potential of another nuclear holocaust during peacetime. How could this wartime devastation have been traded for an enthusiastic embrace of nuclear reactors to create electricity?

During the move to adopt nuclear reactors, there were voices raised citing the dangers of building nuclear power plants in an earthquake-prone region. But notions of sovereignty and independence trumped such concerns and eventually 55 nuclear power plants dotted the Japanese countryside.

How, we ask, is it possible for a society to live so near the edge without being concerned? Part of the answer, I believe, lies in the fact that only the dangers of “normal” earthquakes and tsunamis had been taken into account when building nuclear power plants. The Japanese had not prepared for the fact that nature has the capacity to outdo itself.

Sometimes we refer to such events as a “perfect storm” where two or three phenomena, sometimes feeding on each other, merge to create unexpected forces of destruction. For example: A 9.0 earthquake - creating a 15-meter tsunami - in turn disabling a nuclear power plant.

Right, we say. That is Japan; we are different! Are we really? It doesn’t take a lot of insight to recognize that we too are vulnerable to a toxic mix of natural and man-made disasters. For example, we are dependent for our basic necessities upon a massive network that spans the globe. Highways, rail lines, airways, waterways, power grids and pipelines deliver our comfortable lifestyles pretty much on time, every time.

Yes there have been occasional glitches in the past that we take into account. There might be an occasional shortage of oil but we are assured that will, as in the past, only be temporary. There will be a major ice-storm knocking down power lines but power will be restored in short order. Aging pipelines spring an occasional leak, but they can easily be fixed.

But have we taken into account the possibility of some kind of a “perfect storm”? What happens, for example, when a massive ice storm, downing power lines, is followed immediately by a three-day blizzard with minus 30-degree temperatures? Would we suffer in the Southeast? Quite likely, and not only a little.

This is just one “perfect storm” possibility. You can think of many more. And when one or the other does strike, it will be asked of us, “How could they have lived so comfortably so near the edge – unaware of their vulnerability? Could they not have done something ahead of time to reduce the suffering when the perfect storm hit?”

Jack Heppner

Woodlots are Important

What’s the value of the poplar forest on our doorstep?  Well, that all depends.

Conventional wisdom says it has a negative value. The bush needs to be removed! Only then can we use the land for something of value: grow annual crops, spread hog manure, or build houses.

But it has not always been that way. Both the aboriginal inhabitants and the early settlers had a preference for the transition areas; the space between the forests and the prairie where they had access to both the trees and rich soils for food production.

But that changed with the arrival of more convenient, cheap energy: oil and natural gas. Given our culture’s focus on human efficiency, heating our homes with oil and natural gas now makes sense. And as our dependency on that gas and oil grows, our need for energy derived from wood diminishes. The forest on our doorstep has lost much of its value.

So this is now “normal”. We heat our homes with oil and gas pumped or trucked from Alberta 1200 km from here. Our “normal” fuel is a fossil fuel of a finite quantity. The price of this fossil fuel is determined by the cost of extracting it, with no thought for replacing it. At one time oil was available by simply scooping it up. That oil is long gone. Then we learned to drill for oil so we could pump it up from underground. That oil supply too is dwindling rapidly. Now we are extracting oil from tar sands, which is even more challenging, but possible. This is the current “normal.”

But even as we increase our dependence on this dwindling, distant energy supply, we have a renewable energy supply on our doorstep – and consider it a liability.

Not only that. The current tragedy in Japan makes it obvious that large scale interdependency has created significant efficiencies, but the interdependence also creates incredible vulnerabilities when that interdependency is disrupted. Our dependency on an energy source 1200 km away brings with it a vulnerability we trivialize at our peril.

At South Eastman Transition Initiative we try to look at things non-conventionally. Depending on a distant non-renewable resource while we waste a local renewable resource is simply not sustainable on the long run. It is foolish. It does not make sense. On the long run we will run out of energy. We need to find other ways of doing things. Utilizing the woodlots in our neighbourhood is one such way.  

How much do we know about the potential benefit of a woodlot in southeastern Manitoba? For most of us, not much. Our emphasis has been on efficiently clearing the bush, not managing the woodlot. This emphasis needs to change, and it will – either now, as a result of vision, forethought and conservation, or later as our oil and natural gas reserves dwindle.

  

Eric Rempel

Oil and Turm-oil

Much of the world is holding its breath because of turmoil in the Middle East. 

 Some are worried about where this will leave Israel and others about where the United States will find military bases in the region. But most of us are anxious about what the present turmoil might do to world oil prices and how that will affect our lives. For the most part oil markets have not yet panicked, but even so prices of crude have climbed into three-digit territory. But where to from here?

Even before the present political turm-oil began in the Middle East, the situation was tenuous. Many analysts are of the opinion that world oil production peaked somewhere around 2005 and that it is now in steady decline. This, they say, has set off a predictable pattern. Oil prices rise to the point where a global recession sets in, then decline follows, reflecting lower demands. Lower oil prices stimulate the economy, which is then followed by rising oil prices. The cycle repeats itself. Over and over. It is called the “Bumpy Plateau.”

So as we began climbing out of our world recession last year, China alone added a million barrels of oil a day to its demand. Two million extra barrels were demanded globally. That does not take into account the four million barrels of oil lost every year as oil wells dry up. So that means we need six million new barrels of oil in one year. Where will it come from?

Traditionally, the calming answer has come from Saudi Arabia, which officially declares that it can easily increase production to cover global shortfalls. While claiming it can pump at least 12 million barrels a day – 4 million more than now – it is becoming increasingly clear that such a claim is not based on fact. Cables from the U.S. embassy in Riyadh, recently released by Wikileaks, confirm what many have thought for a long time: Saudi Arabia has little more to give besides rhetoric.

Even a few weeks ago many analysts were betting that political unrest in the Middle East would not touch the major oil producing countries in the region. Now they are not so sure. So instead of limping along on that “Bumpy Plateau,” there is a real possibility of major oil shortages just around the corner. And this, of course, would mean higher prices. Some are predicting $200 a barrel. Some double that.

Whatever the case, it appears certain that there will be no safe havens left in the near future where life can continue on as usual based on relatively cheap and abundant oil supplies.

Most people will not consider a paradigm shift toward lower energy consumption until it hits them hard in their pocket books. Well, that is likely to happen sooner than we had anticipated. While that will create tremendous hardships in the short run, we can be optimistic that in the long run it will leave us and our planet in better shape.

Jack Heppner