Apolitical Staples

The problem with nukes for the oil-sands is that the debate itself is going to take ten years. There would probably be plebicites, they’d probably indicate that nobody wants a plant in their back-yard. Or not, but no shovels go into the dirt to build the actual facility until 2020 at least. There isn’t really time for that.

I understand that it was bad communications for the Conservatives to use the 2050 target but does not mean it is bad to start projects that are extended out. If we are truly “saving the planet for our children and grandchildren” as people like to say then does 13 years matter in the grand scheme of things.

If there isn’t time for actions that will take effect in 2020, then we are toast anyway. Remember, Canada is only 2% of the emissions, and I don’t see China stopping all coal projects in the next year or two. In reality, this is a 50-100 year problem, not 10 years.

China has the virtue of being a dictatorship. I suspect they could move quite quickly.

In any case, there are things that could be being done now. And will have to be done quickly, if California like emission regulations spread to other states, and Alberta wants to sell to those other states.

“And with carbon dioxide the most common of the greenhouse gases”

Ah, subtle half-truths, inserted by an “impartial” member of the media for effect. CO2 is the most common, but certainly not the most potent of “greenhouse” gases produced by human activity. Overall, water vapour actually forms the overwhelming majority of “greenhouse” gases.

Nuclear power is not the answer, coal is. Within two years coal will be the cleanest viable power source, this is common knowledge in the energy sectors.

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas. CO2 is more potent than water vapour. CO2 is only the most commonly discussed greenhouse gas.

Evaluating different electricity generation schemes is needed. All have pros and cons. Coal, for example is tarnished with the number of historic coal miners deaths. I live in a metals mining town, so perhaps new techniques and remote equipment can help keep people safe. It is just something to consider.

John M Reynolds

OK so here’s where we stand. The oil sands are (we’re told), a tremendous and super-abundant source of energy. Therefore billions of dollars of government investments and subsidies are being poured in. Actually, they’re a tremendous source of energy, but not tremendous enough to be able to pay for their own extraction. Hmm, oh well, no matter. The good news is, in order to recoup the billions of dollars of public money being shoveled into the tar sands, we can use nuclear reactors. Which in Canada means buying them from a government monopoly which costs many billions of dollars of subsidies. Aha, I see what you’re thinking. Billions of dollars and terajoules of energy being thrown away for no particular benefit except for the people directly employed in the boondoggles (and the bureaucrats, politicians, bankers, etc. who help fund and manage the non-industries). No problem! Right now, even as I’m typing this, dedicated and selfless government employees in Ottawa, Toronto, Quebec City, Edmonton and right across this great land are planning for a new, greater and more splendiferous technology which will rescue Canadians from the economic catastrophe towards which they are being led by greater and greater government energy boondoggles. It’s called, “sitting at home listening to a wind-up radio in the dark”. It will require a massive amount of new investment in education, media campaigns, high-technology research, … the whole sausage. And of course taxes will have to be raised again, both in order to pay for the new technology and to prevent anyone from doing anything other than what we want them to do. It may sound like a daunting task, but it’s worth it. The alternative (firing bureaucrats, cutting taxes and letting Canadians buy energy in a free market) is unthinkable.

And then - we can export our ideas to the world!