Great article. Ontario could be 100% powered by renewable energy in five years. Listen to Dr. Hermann Scheer, architect of the German Renewable Energy Act, describe exactly how in our video interview at www.thesolarvillage.com .
Join the campaign for a Green Energy Act in Ontario at www.greenenergyact.ca!
perhaps if we compared the structure of their respective governments, and not just the effect of their policies, we might come closer to the original question: why such a massive difference? much of the progress achieved in the german example is credited to the strength of the green party in germany, and specifically their participation in a coalition federal government (1998-2005) and the pressure they were able to exert on the mainstream parties. it is since then that the issue has taken its urgency. even the more conservative parties, like the CDU/CSU headed by angela merkel, now address climate change as the most important crisis of our time.
what is astounding is that the popularity of the greens in germany is not totally different from that of those in canada. both parties have roughly the same level of popularity (10%). but whereas in canada, the first past the post system of representation converts this level of support into 0% of seats in the house of commons, germany's mixed member proportional system means that 10% of support roughly attains 10% of representation in their federal parliament.
Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). sounds familiar.
an addendum: analysis of proportional representation by andrew coyne on its prospects concerning the recent coalition news. such prospects would have certainly altered the focus on climate change.
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/12/10/different-electoral-system-different-coalition/
This is the sort of article that makes one wonder what is wrong with our politicians. All new homes and businesses should be required by law to include solar and geothermal heating, plus wind turbines for all new rural ones. Put government money into doing this and the retrofitting of older homes and businesses, and the requirement for new power stations would be reduced by 80% or more. Now is the time to really push for this, what with the political and economic uncertainty abroad in the land, so strike while the iron is hot.
Things have changed since you visited Windsor, Chris, but not for the better. More and more people are out of work as the governments are tripping over themselves to bail out a failed social mobility experiment. How much of this money and effort could have been redirected to establishing fertile ground for green developments such as those you experienced in Germany, we will never know because, as you stated, we are still at the lip-service stage. Even our ground-level municipal leaders are clinging to the status-quo mirage of auto-jobs instead of looking for real, sustainable solutions. We have yet to take our future into our own hands in this city.
It is through articles such as this one that we will begin to change the electoral mindset, however. With more and more fingers pointing to what works instead of what failed, maybe some of the voters who have the ability to enact real change will throw their power behind developing Windsor's local economy instead of subsidizing it. Because as we all know, reactive politicians will only respond when their irrate, engaged constituents start demanding this kind of change. Until that happens, we will continue to "spin our wheels".
Cross your fingers.
Canada is still stuck in the early 20th century. Oil and automobiles are still considered the most important ingredients to a healthy economy. Even in this age of the internet, we continue to drive to and from the city to work,instead of having work come to us which would rid our world of so many problems.
If we would empty our tall buildings and have them converted into Verticle Farms, we would be on our way to the earth's salvation. Stop havesting every creature in the sea, and eat organically-grown food from verticle farms everywhere in the world. No more starvation because of lack of land. No more wars to increase land. Why doesn't our government spend our money on something that we need, instead of throwing good money after bad in support of the archaic automobile.
Canada has so many opportunities and the vast land mass to make renewable, clean energy a reality, do they have a government that can actually do something?
Well at least some in the Con party have good intentioned ideas, don't know if the rest might be able to see the possibilities.
Try this read...
http://www.freewebs.com/elmwood_transcona/beyondkyoto.htm
The article could have illustrated the difference to another cross-subsidy mechanism, the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). RPS require power producers to have a minimum of x% of their electricity produced by renewables. There are fierce discussions over this. Consumer advocates claim that RPS are lower cost to the consumer as the technologies with the lowest generation costs (rather than a mix of renewables) are chosen by the utility. Denmark apparently moved away from a FIT, as they passed the 15% mark covered by wind. However, a comparison between countries with a FIT to that with a RPS show that FIT-countries have a much higher growth rate – and promote a more decentralized, diversified portfolio of renewables.
In any event, our love affair with renewables – in Canada it has really only been a flirt, as the article points out – is partly due to the idea that we could keep living the live style we do, if only we replace brown power by green power. Energy efficiency, on the contrary is associated with having to do with less.
Compact fluorescent lamps simply don’t have the same appeal and visibility as a solar panel on your roof. A CFL is inside your house and often hidden behind a lamp shade.
The question is what do we want to achieve. If it is promoting our renewable energy industry and manufacturers a FIT is certainly the best solution. If we want to reduce GHG emissions, we should have another sober look at FITs: generation costs for most renewable energy technologies are above that of conventional fuels, even if you add some of the external costs. Most energy efficiency technologies, in contrast, have negative avoided costs, i.e. you make money with it, even without a cross-subsidy or a carbon tax.
So why don’t we replace these old freezers with new ones, if we can save more money than the new freezer costs? There are number of reasons, the most evident being that the markets don’t work. The idea of a homo oeconomicus is far fetched, few of us do a comparative cash-flow analysis when we stand in front of the shelf with incandescent and CFL light bulbs.
The Walrus should be following up with another three-letter acronym: LCP. Sounds like a mind-altering drug, but really is just comparing the costs of generating power with that of saving power (Least-Cost Planning). Several US states require utilities to proof that saving energy is less cost effective than generating new power, before they get the go-ahead for a new plant.
What it would take is a utility to change from an energy delivery company to a service provider. Internet providers do it – they go past the modem right into your computer and install anti-virus and all kinds of other software for you. So far most energy utilities stop at the meter. But they need to go beyond that, into the houses, and replace these old fridges free of charge. Sounds like freakonomics, but they could actually make money with this, lots of money, especially with an export driven utility like BC Hydro. Negawatts instead of Megawatts.
The voice of a north wind.
An alley
brings me in
the sound
of a waterfall,
with a white
water recalling
the purpose
and the flight
of a swallow.
Francesco Sinibaldi
The photos accompanying this article put me in mind of aerial shots of the hectares of industrial/commercial/institutional rooftops we have that could, no should, be covered with solar panels augmenting the grid and our energy use.
Consider this: a program that mandates and supports the installation of such technology in new builds and phases in the supported conversion of the rooftops of schools, hospitals, government buildings, existing factories and malls could have a significant impact on energy production.
In any event, our love affair with renewables – in Canada it has really only been a flirt, as the article points out – is partly due to the idea that we could keep living the live style we do, if only we replace brown power by green power. Energy efficiency, on the contrary is associated with having to do with less.
I think California's Gov. Schwarzenneger has the right idea in pushing the solar initiative and it's definitely something that Canada can implement as well. Green power is where it's at!