Every week, as part of my job, I read hundreds of articles that show where the clean technology and renewable energy industries are heading. And every week, Canada lurches off in the opposite direction. Every week, billions of dollars flow through the European Union, Obama’s America, China, South Korea, India, Japan — in fact, every major economy in the world. And every week, that money ignores Canada because the federal government has put all our eggs into the Alberta Tar Sands basket.
But Nova Scotia now has an intelligent, pragmatic leader, faced with just the slimmest chance to reposition our province for the coming century. Darrel Dexter must be bold, visionary, and decisive. It will be a difficult road, but our energy-rich natural bounty and the resourceful nature of Bluenosers give me reason to hope.
To begin, we have to transform Nova Scotia into Canada’s renewable energy capital.*
So we need money, fast. Dexter should raise consumption taxes this instant, and only offer rebates to the poorest — short term pain on the road to prosperity. Bump the HST back to 15 percent, implement a temporary 10 cent surcharge on gas while it’s still cheap, and, toughest of all, impose a carbon tax of $10 per ton for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, rising by $10 every second year.
And then we work tirelessly to make those taxes irrelevant. In so doing, we’ll develop a stable growth industry, so that our sons and daughters can find clean energy jobs right here at home, rather than reluctantly working dirty energy jobs out West.
Offshore Energy: Make Mine Renewable
Firstly, Premier Dexter needs to court — and win — a major wind turbine manufacturer. Whatever it takes, he needs to convince General Electric, Vestas, or another high-quality producer to make us, not Ontario, Canada’s turbine manufacturing hub. Then we strive to ensure those turbines never leave the province, because we’re perfectly positioned to sell renewable wind power to the United States. Under Obama’s climate change agenda, the U.S. will impose onerous renewable energy requirements on utilities over the next decade. It’s already begun in New England and New York. Those states — heck, the whole eastern seaboard — will soon be crying for wind and wave power, and if we’re ready, Nova Scotia can sell almost every kilowatt we produce from our massive onshore and offshore wind farms. We’ll keep some for ourselves, and shoot the rest across the Bay of Fundy on high-energy direct current cables.
The minutia will matter. Siting the factory in Shelburne or Sydney, areas that need an economic boost, will offer the advantage of deep, open harbors, so we can easily deploy turbines offshore. The next generation of turbines are enormous and difficult to transport over land, so our natural resources will work in our favor. We’ll ramp up turbine manufacturing and repair programs at Community Colleges province-wide, giving Nova Scotians the chance to work at home in high-paying green jobs.
Depose King Coal
Secondly, we put Nova Scotia Power to work. Without any competition, the corporation has been slow to implement low-carbon policies. A carbon tax will encourage NSP to stop burning coal, which contributes massively to global warming, and as we phase out the coal, consumers pay less carbon tax. Coal hurts everyone, emitting a cocktail of mercury, sulphur, radon and more, even with top-quality scrubbers in place. If NSP needs a nudge, we can educate consumers about coal’s inefficiency and NSP’s numerous energy options: geothermal, combined heat and power, tidal power, and many more crucial low-carbon technologies.
To force the issue, Dexter must stand firm on his 25 percent renewable energy standard for NSP by 2015. Yes, it can be done. A flurry of new construction will follow as we sprinkle the province with turbines — some in less populous areas, some offshore — and build facilities to store excess energy. Dozens of solutions can overcome wind power’s intermittency, from fuel cells to thermal energy, and we’d be wise to become experts in their deployment.
Cutting Power Bills
Thirdly, Dexter must decouple profits at NSP, so the power company makes more money by selling less electricity, as in California and Oregon. NSP would have incentive to install smart meters in every home, so consumers can see and modify their energy use, and offer consumer rebates to install insulation, solar panels, and other devices that are repaid over time from energy savings.
In that vein, Dexter’s government should update our building code so that future construction doesn’t overburden the grid. Buildings account for 40 percent of global CO2 emissions The UK has adopted legislation ensuring that homes built after 2016 will be carbon neutral, tight as a drum, and powered by renewables. If they can do it, so can we.
Saving Kilowatts
Fourthly, energy efficiency is king everywhere but Canada. Just this week, McKinsey & Company reported that investing $500 billion in energy efficiency will save U.S. businesses and consumers more than $1.2 trillion over the next 11 years.
We don’t have to reinvent the wheel; Cambridge, Massachusetts has done the work for us. There, the Cambridge Energy Alliance works with banks to offer businesses simple, one-step, low-interest loans to improve their equipment’s efficiency. The loan is paid back exclusively through the business’s energy savings. Here, too, existing energy efficiency technologies could easily cut business’s utility costs, and lower overhead costs mean more money for growth.
Peak Oil
Finally, peak oil is upon us, and gas will likely cost $2 a liter in 3 years. Automakers are building plug-in hybrid cars that can travel 40+ miles on electricity alone, and EVs that can go twice that distance. Let’s plan ahead, like cities, states and countries around the world that are now creating the electrical infrastructure needed to charge EVs in 15 minutes or less. Consumers merely pay a subscription fee, cutting annual transportation costs by 50 to 80 percent. If we follow suit, most of that saved gas money will stay right here, in Nova Scotia, supporting our province.
Even better, if we tie our EV network to the tourism industry, we can create low-carbon vacations for visitors. If we’re smarter still, we’ll plow profits from our lucrative renewable energy sector into an electric rail system to connect and rejuvenate our small cities and towns as they grow flush from long-term wind farm lease revenues. An inexpensive, reliable rail system would open up the province to both city and country mice. With the option of catching a train to see an evening performance of the symphony and dinner at Fid, we could easily attract more doctors and professionals to rural areas.
Our choice now is to rise to the greatness of our forebears who made Nova Scotia a prosperous and promised land in the 1800s, or fall into high-carbon obscurity. Until now, both our national and provincial leaders have been perfectly happy to trot blindly along the same economic and energy path we wore out in the twentieth century. The past thirty years haven’t been kind to this province, but now is our chance to turn things around and show Canada and the world just how profitable a low-carbon economy can be. Let’s start today, and maybe tomorrow Alberta’s youth will be going-down-the-road to a work in clean, green, prosperous Nova Scotia.
_______________
*A much shorter version of this commentary appeared in The Chronicle-Herald this week. I cut it by one-third to make it fit the op-ed format.
** Nova Scotia’s has an exceptional capacity for wind energy; a Université de Moncton professor rates our wind energy resources as among the best in the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI7MRgcyEtU
I wonder what these wind turbines will be made with?
Surely we can not use any industrial products to built these turbines.
There must be a new technology without any pollution we have not heard about…. Unless it is fine to pollute if a carbon tax of $10 per ton for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, rising by $10 every second year. why not call it “How to profit from global warming”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/6720119.stm
http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/polish-union-warns-eu-climate-law-job-cuts/article-183501#
Why are we fine with destroying our environment when it come to building these mills?
Are we running out of oil?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article3823656.ece
Reserves:
100 Billion barrels of heavy oil are estimated in the U.S. (DOE)
90 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Arctic (USGS)
89 Billion barrels of immobile oil are estimated recoverable using CO2 injection in the U.S. (DOE)
86 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (MMS)
60 to 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in U.S. Tar Sands (DOE)
32 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in ANWR, NPRA and the Central North Slope in Alaska (USGS)
31.4 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the East Greenland Rift Basins Province (USGS)
7.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the West Greenland–East Canada Province (USGS)
4.3 Billion (167 Billion potential) barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana (USGS)
3.65 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Formation (USGS)
1.6 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Eastern Great Basin Province (USGS)
1.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Permian Basin Province (USGS)
1.1 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Powder River Basin Province (USGS)
990 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Portion of the Michigan Basin (USGS)
393 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. San Joaquin Basin Province of California (USGS)
214 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Illinois Basin (USGS)
172 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Yukon Flats of East-Central Alaska (USGS)
131 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Southwestern Wyoming Province (USGS)
109 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Montana Thrust Belt Province (USGS)
104 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Denver Basin Province (USGS)
98.5 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province (USGS)
94 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Hanna, Laramie, Shirley Basins Province (USGS)
Comparison:
260 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Saudi Arabia (EIA)
80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Venezuela (EIA).
http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/post/security-trumps-environment-as-obama-gives-green-light-to-us-consumption-of-alberta%E2%80%99s-oil/
Could it be that some multinationals like General Electric stand to make Billions at the expense of a scared public?
Are our politicians on board for political expediency?
Excellent ideas for Nova Scotia!
I visited Nova Scotia in May, and can attest to the excellent quality of the wind resource.
And to the good character of the friendly, hardworking people, and the natural beauty of the province.
Wilbert: every decision involves resources and trade-offs, but there is little evidence to suggest that windmills would ‘destroy our environment.’ Windmills require an investment, but so do every other type of facility for electricity.
The statistics for oil you presented are interesting, but very few places use oil for generating electricity – it is too expensive. Windmills are a way to harness energy flows efficiently, and reduce pollution when they are used.
wilbert, now that you’ve given us all these “estimated” oil reserve numbers, which has very little to do with the generation of electricity, why don’t you give us some oil consumption numbers?
Hint: the United States alone consumes approximately 7.5 billion barrels of oil per year.
That 214 million barrels in the Illinois Basin is roughly a 10 day supply….
Nor does Wilbert mention that about 30 percent of oil reserves actually stay in the ground, that a great deal of the oil found today is dirty oil and hard to access, so oil must stay above $110 a barrel to make it economical to refine, and that more money would need to be spent in the refining. Nor does he consider the health care costs associated with burning oil. Perhaps he’s confident that socialist groups like the Lung Association are in on the conspiracy when they predict that California will save $40 billion on health care by 2030 just by making all government fleets run on electricity.
I’m amused that he chastises on General Electric, but gives the Exxons and Shells of the world a free pass. Perhaps he works for one of them.
Of course, once you add in the costs of climate change, going to renewable energy is a no-brainer.
In any event, this article is not about what’s best for North Americans, or Wilbert’s employer… It’s about what would be good for Nova Scotia.
I read the edited version of your text which appeared in the paper a couple days ago and I ‘m in broad agreement with what you wrote. However, there are a couple of crucial points you should have addressed in your piece:
1) Interconnections with New Brunswick. The Hatch report and the NBSO report from New Brunswick points out to this flaw in the Maritimes control area power grid. For instance, transfers to/from NS are limited to 350 MW, and the interconnection with New England is also constrained. Addressing this issue should be a top priority if you’re serious about increased wind in the Maritimes.
2) Quick response generation. NSP doesn’t have enough quick response generation to pick up the slack when the wind quiets down. Of course, the problem can be alleviated some by spreading wind farms across the province, but it’s less than optimal. In the short term, the best solution would be to build some gas-fired turbines to replace some of the coal capacity. But it is expensive even if you have some gas available.
we heard we are running out of oil before.
1885, U.S. Geological Survey: “Little or no chance for oil in California.”
1891, U.S. Geological Survey: “Little or no chance for oil in Kansas and Texas”
1914, U.S. Bureau of Mines: Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil, at most a 10-year supply remaining.
1939, Department of the Interior: Oil reserves in the United States to be exhausted in 13 years.
1951, Department of the Interior, Oil and Gas Division: Oil reserves in the United States to be exhausted in 13 years.
the Tar Sands of Alberta With a potential of 1.7-2.5 Trillion barrels. In Canada’s oil sands alone, the world supplies will last over 100 years.
Richard ” so oil must stay above $110 a barrel to make it economical to refine” meaning that we are running out of cheap oil ..right? and ” In any event, this article is not about what’s best for North Americans, or Wilbert’s employer” childish unproductive comment.
We are moving toward more alternative energy usage which will bring less oil consumption.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/347
‘destroy our environment.’ I have seen a few wind mills farms and what I saw was not what I would called a pristine environment. Power lines power stations and if in a ocean bay the power grid is under water football fields sizes..all on seabeds. These 400 ft high mills need to be secure in the bedrocks. They do not just lay them on the ground with a big suction cup!
. Is the wild life and sea life not important anymore when it comes to “It’s about what would be good for Nova Scotia.” ?
” Arnold Schwarzenegger. “It’s kind of schizophrenic behavior,” he complains. “They say that we want renewable energy, but we don’t want you to put it anywhere.”
he was responding to In California to hundreds of environmentalists who turned out at the end of July to protest a connection between the solar and geothermal fields of the Imperial Valley to Los Angeles and Orange County. they are now lobbying state commissioners to kill a 150-mile link between San Diego and solar panels because it would entail a 20-mile jaunt through Anza-Borrego state park. some people are never happy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121901822110148233.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
wind and solar power are proven effective power generation technologies.
Like any technology, they have their strengths and weaknesses.
There are certain situations where they are a good choice, and certain situations where they are not.One of their strengths is very low pollution.another is “automatic” power generation. panel where it will catch sunlight, or a turbine where it will catch wind, and it will keep on generating electricity.
One of their weaknesses is for “power generation on demand”. In other words, if you want power “right now, this minute”, and rely solely on wind or solar, you may be out of luck as they rely on forces of nature to work, and you cannot control forces of nature,even if some politician think they can, though you can often predict them.wind and solar as weaknesses and disadvantages. such as the relative cost per watt of power from a solar or wind power plant versus an oil or coal power plant, does not take away their strengths or their advantages over fossil fuels in certain areas. same goes for fossil fuel’s weaknesses and disadvantages, over renewable sources of power in certain areas.
TomG … Hint: I think you meant to say million not billion.
No mistake wilbert.
The United States uses over 7.5 BILLION barrels of oil per YEAR.
But if you prefer millions…that’s 20,680,000 per day (2007 data).
Google is a wonderful thing, just type in “oil consumption” and see what you get.
Wilbert, I am not arguing that we will run out of oil tomorrow. I do believe that the inexpensive, easy to extract oil is going fast, and that the price will rise as a result. And I believe that burning oil puts a variety of undesirable chemicals in the air. There is abundant evidence for both of these positions, and to me, that is enough to start developing alternatives.
You are right that the NIMBY syndrome can be a problem, even with wind energy. Some people will oppose any change. But I would rather live close to windmills than a coal or nuclear facility.
When I drove the Cabot Trail (‘backwards’) I crossed a bridge and suddenly came upon a medium sized windmill near Grand Etang – it was right near the road, and my wife and I found it charming, not scary. A bit later, there were three windmills on the other side of the road. To me, it seemed like a good fit. I have to wonder if the centuries old windmills of Holland were opposed in their time … today, they are a signature of that locale.
Attaching windmills to the bedrock in the ocean is not a huge problem, to the best of my understanding. In fact, it may act as a type of artificial reef, and improve sea life in the region. Compared to oceanic oil platforms (which can potentially leak and cause serious problems), I don’t see offshore wind as a catastrophe waiting to happen.
Power lines and power stations? Yes, that is with every type of electrical energy.
You are right that the sun and wind are not always available – sometimes it will be cloudy. Sometimes it will be calm. One way around that is to have a mix of different sources for generating electricity – a coal plant might be used only when other sources drop. Another strategy is to improve the grid – even if one local area is not generating renewable energy, others areas are. A better grid will tie these areas together and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Technology will improve over the next few decades, and it may be feasible to store the energy for a cloudy day.
If a region like Nova Scotia spends $100 million on a coal or nuclear facility, they still need to import fuel and pay for pollution control and waste disposal. If Nova Scotia spends the same amount on wind, it is possible to become a producer and exporter!
oops!your are right Tom.. I had read barrel per day .
“I believe that burning oil puts a variety of undesirable chemicals in the air.” Car Exhaust is a good example .
.
consists of:Harmless:- Carbon dioxide (CO2)- Nitrogen (N2)- Water vapor (H2O).
Some Pollutants:- Carbon monoxide (CO) Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)– Nitric oxide (NO) ogen dioxide (NO2) – Particulate matter (PM-10)- Sulfur dioxide (SO2).
“When I drove the Cabot Trail (’backwards’)” … Hope you got that transmission fix!
“I have to wonder if the centuries old windmills of Holland were opposed in their time. ” Don Quixote was a tad upset.
I see millions windmills not one.
the Irish do not seem not to be happy “representatives from more than 20 rural communities in 15 counties attended the high profile launch of the campaign in Dublin yesterday and said their lives had been ruined by the turbines.The average wind turbine now stands more than 400ft (120m) taller than the Spire of Dublin with rotor blades larger than the wing span of 747 Jumbo jet.Peter Crossan, IWETAIWETA smakesmaid: “If the Irish people do not shout ‘stop’, hundreds of miles of our ancient countryside and coastlines will be disfigured for generations.”"There is no evidence anywhere in the world that wind energy has had any impact on fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions, which are its entire raison d’etre,” he added.We have a situation where speculators and big financial interests, the breeze wheeze as it’s been coined in the US, are staking claim to some of our finest scenery, driven not by concern for the planet but the opportunity to pocket huge profits.”The construction of industrial wind power stations is causing unjustifiable and irreversible damage to some of our greatest assests, hills andand coaines, farmland, flora and fauna, sensitive eco-systems,” saidaid Mr Cros.When insinsuffint wind was blowing, the turbines would then have to be powered by conventional electricity.”Our rural landscape is part of what we are and is a source of great pride to Irish people.”If we continue to litter our hills and coasts with these structures, tourists will turn their backs on us,” he said.- Treacy Hogan”
http://www.greenchange.org/img/original/se%20wind%20turbines%20in%20ocean.jpg
http://www.windpowerninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/spain-wind-turbines.jpg
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article5977636.ece
Tell me wilbert, why are you so desperately against willmills?
I’m sure you’re not Irish, so I can’t see where you are concerned about the landscape in Ireland.
Most people I’ve come across could care less about windmills unless one ends up in their backyard and then perhaps the NIMBY factor kicks in.
Personally I love windmills. It’s that free fuel thing don’t you know.
Maybe that’s why you’re against them.
You don’t like that free fuel scenario.
Some pollutants from burning oil?
“VOC” sounds absolutely huggable. How about we call a spade a spade: benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
I’ve got another name for it: carcinogens.
And that’s just what you get from burning it.
>>“When I drove the Cabot Trail (’backwards’)” … Hope you got that transmission fix!
.
LOL – by that, I mean clockwise, I was driving north along the west coast when I saw the windmill I mentioned. Our friends who are locals think the scenery is better that way, and referred to it as ‘backwards’ because more people drive it counter-clockwise.
While carbon dioxide is non-toxic to mammals when present at 200 to 400 ppm, that does not mean it is ‘harmless’ … though this isn’t the place to try to persuade a skeptic that anthropogenic global warming is real.
An undeniable benefit from using wind is related to mercury – burning coal is a major source of mercury release into the atmosphere, and that increases the amount of highly toxic methyl mercury in fish and seafood.
TomG ” Tell me wilbert, why are you so desperately against willmills?”
I am not against windmills i only want to make sure we are doing the right move. “Chancellor Angela Merkel has again reiterated the need for Germany to build coal-fired power plants. Merkel said in Hamm, North Rhine-Westphalia on Friday [29 August] that Germany would only be able to continue meeting its own demand for electricity if it built new and efficient power plants. Those preventing the construction of new power plants would accept “serious risks” for the economy, the labour market and the future of Germany.”
Germany is now home to over 16,000 windmills and none of the 5 coal-fired power plants these windmills were suppose to replace have been shut down due to the unreliability of wind energy. Why not built “one” nuclear plant proven efficient and most of all Clean energy?
thanks for the “VOC” John…the old brain was stuck on neutral.
Agree with the “carcinogens.” By banning Freon (an inert, non-reactive refrigerant) who miraculously could float up in the atmosphere and destroyed the Ozone. We replace freon with HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 chemicals known to cause liver cancer in animals. we should not be surprise 10 to 15 years latter that we have an increase in liver and pancreatic cancer.
nathan Byron I knew about the (’backwards’)” just could not let that one go by.
“burning coal is a major source of mercury release into the atmosphere” agree but why worry? after all General Electric convince our governments to replace our light bulbs with CFL lamps which have mercury in them. burning also coal releases trace amounts radioactive uranium and thorium. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
I am not trying to hijack the thread just to show that sometime good intentions are not always the proper cure.
” While carbon dioxide is non-toxic to mammals when present at 200 to 400 ppm” … actually CO2 is detrimental ” respiratory center of the brain” to mammals at 50,000 ppm or 5% of the atmosphere.
” though this isn’t the place to try to persuade a skeptic that anthropogenic global warming is real. ” Agree and thank you for not using the degrading term ” Denier” .
Speaking of exercising caution and worrying about unintended consequences is fine, but too often it’s employed as a rouse for something else entirely (ie: not caution). The healthcare debate in my country is a good example. Politicians (mostly of the conservative persuasion) pleaded for caution and time to consider a good bill before our Legislature took their August recess. Has this time been used for a thoughtful consideration of the merits of healthcare legislation? Any reasonable look at events since the August recess would conclude with a resounding: “NO!”
Skepticism/denial… whatever term you prefer, what if manmade global warming is real (if this isn’t the place to convince someone anthropogenic global warming is real, what is?), it’s accelerating at an alarming rate, and the consequences for mankind will be cataclysmic. Pray tell, what unintended consequences could possibly trump action… now?
… make that ruse, not rouse. Sometimes I hate homonyms.
“what if manmade global warming is real” to ” it’s accelerating at an alarming rate” and jump to “the consequences for mankind will be cataclysmic” From a ” If ” to “real” to “alarming ” to “cataclysmic” are you Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon?
“We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.”
@Claude B:
Thanks for the comments and the insight. Yes, we would totally need to recreate the electrical infrastructure with high voltage direct current cables — and lots of them — so that Maritime Canada could send its energy stateside. That should be job one, before even lining up the wind turbine manufacturer because the lag time might be five or six years.
I did briefly mention that we need to allow for wind’s intermittency by becoming experts at energy storage, too. I also (very briefly) mentioned wave energy… The motion of the ocean never stops, but the technology is in its infancy. That would be where I’d put some notable long-term money.., creating stores of hydrogen from wind, pumping steam deep into undersea caverns that we used to run turbines when needed, and so on.
But you’re also right… We’d need to have peak capacity readily available if we’re to become popular in New England because Hydro Quebec already has many solutions lined up.
I find Wilbert’s whole spiel about wind turbines damaging the environment to be disingenuous and unconvincing. Sure, some environmentalists are against them, probably because they don’t understand what’s coming down the ‘pike with climate change. In any event, you’ll notice that I mention several times in this piece that our wind farms would need to be located well off our shores, or in isolated areas, to minimize NIMBYism. But I also think that rural communities would welcome windmills for the economic incentives they provide.
Wilbert also tries to minimize the harmful effects of pollution (a dash of this, a soupcon of that) while suggesting that wind turbines have serious environmental issues, too. I’ve never argued otherwise.
But I’m shocked that he would suggest that the photo on this page is somehow as hideous as the photos on this page and this page.
If Wilbert can’t see the difference, then we have nothing to talk about.
Oil and gas aren’t annoyingly dirty… They are dangerously dirty. We’re talking about 30 billion metric tons of CO2 annually, and billions of tons of toxic chemicals. And the science now says that even low levels of exposure to smog cause chronic lung problems and lasting damage. (As a former medical student, this is something that I’ve seen directly on the autopsy table). I could quote stories about how more than 186 million US citizens live in areas with unacceptable air quality, and I’m shocked that Wilbert would argue for the perpetuation of this system that has so clearly damaged the health of the planet, humanity, and the people who live here.
Similarly, he asks if I care about the pristine ocean surrounding this province, and he could almost be making my point for me. If we don’t do something about climate change, there is ample evidence that we’ll see mass extinctions and that huge areas of the ocean will become dead zones. We’re already destroying the planet. The science is clear.
We need to find solutions. This is one of my solutions because business as usual is killing us.
To quote James Taylor:
Tell me, Wilbert, is this you? Or perhaps this blog?.
Because if I’ve found you through the power of Google, then denier is the only category that fits your dogma. I have no problem with scientific skeptics. But anyone who takes a fact easily explained by scientists and then distorts that fact (to say, for instance, that carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming) must have his head planted firmly in the sand. Skeptics have an open mind, and can be convinced by the evidence.
The science is clear. And you can’t be convinced by it.
Here, by the way, is the scientific answer to Wilbert’s false talking point about CO2 lagging temperature increases.
Obviously, Wilbert and I share a common acadian ancestry, but that’s about it.
Finally, thanks to TomG and Jonathan for visiting and making cogent arguments. John K, of course, is an old and valued friend of OBM.
Wilbert, I appreciate your visits, too, but I find your arguments are just smoke and mirrors.
Thank you for the kind words Richard.
I’m merely a surfer and don’t tend to linger too long in one spot.
But certain names do tend to catch my attention….
Despicable liar..and you know what I mean. The truth always comes out. I know you will censor my post so I have no problem saying how ashamed you should be.On the other hand how can one who is so morally bankrupt be ashamed? . ..Hope your migraines gets better and not worst.
Ah Wilbert, I see you are still here.
You say “The truth always comes out.”
Indeed it does.
Just to follow this single thread shows which side of truth you fall on and it shows that it isn’t on the good side.
Wind energy as a clean and renewable energy, get more and more supports from government but we should pay attention to the health problem to the people near the wind farm. Noisy of wind turbine will affect the life and sleep of people.
fabulosa ssatesia mi eutemos te cobida guento emeje. zindu te prestemo tritid nos ncento o pexudir efeciare pavinses bien.
Nabożeństwo. Nader byczy twor. Polecam moją stronkę www. Niesłychanie jest sliczna i niewątpliwie Tobie się wkreci. Dodaj w ową stronę własną witrynę.