With a four-year mandate firmly in hand, Stephen Harper, viewed by hard-core environmentalists as the scourge of those who would put environmental issues well before those of good governance, jobs, and the economic well-being of the country, faces significant challenges in developing energy policies and managing energy issues.
According to Lawrence Solomon, writing in the Financial Post, "environmentalists fear a mean-spirited Harper will ignore their goals in a single-minded determination to eliminate the deficit and obtain smaller government. In fact, a hard-headed Harper could decide to meet many of the environmentalists' demands to better realize his economic and small government goals."
Some Other Energy-oriented Suggestions for the Prime Minister
Among the other suggestion made by Solomon in his review of the Harper government's potential energy initiatives are the following:
- Privatization of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)
- Elimination of taxpayer subsidies for ethanol production
- Rejecting facilities for carbon capture and storage
- Eliminating subsidies to major energy-consuming countries
As if the Prime Minister was reading Solomon's mail (or columns) and listening to his advice, the government announced in June that AECL had been sold to engineering firm SNC-Lavalin for $15 million, albeit following some two years of efforts to sell the company, with some intellectual property rights remaining to provide future royalties.
As Solomon explained, before the sale was announced, "by selling AECL to a company that could salvage some value from it, Harper would not only recoup some of the past losses, he'd also staunch the future flow of federal dollars to AECL, lower the federal government's regulatory costs and eliminate an entire agency that has mostly brought grief to Canada."
The sale will enable the federal government to divest itself of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and get out of the business of subsidizing nuclear reactor sales and servicing, although the government has agreed to provide SNC up to $75 million to complete development of a new reactor called Enhanced Candu 6.
AECL Has Cost Taxpayers Over $1 Billion Over the Past Several Years
AECL has been a headache for successive federal governments and has cost Canadian taxpayers about $1.2 billion over the past several years in subsidies, as well as facing major cost overruns at key projects in recent years while struggling to find a buyer. AECL has bid for the two new reactors Ontario wants to build, but the province won't make a decision until the company's future is certain, and the looming provincial election makes an early decision on Ontario's nuclear energy future will not be decided soon.
AECL has been struggling to modernize its technology to keep up with rivals Areva, Westinghouse, Hitachi and others. Last year, the company lost $800 million, and has not sold a new reactor since the 1990s.
The Ethanol Boondoggle
While agricultural programs throughout North America support the development of corn from ethanol, detractors point out how food prices have soared as a byproduct of diverting corn and wheat to fuel production, resulting in food riots in some Third World countries. Ethanol is now recognized as an undesirable solution to both reducing carbon emissions as well as weaning the engines of the world off of fossil fuels.
There are several reasons for this dramatic shift. Some studies show that ethanol-related smog increases fatalities in various air-sheds. As well, the production of ethanol fuels requires a significant amount of energy: one liter of ethanol takes more energy than the liter of ethanol contains; and producing one liter of ethanol requires up to 1,700 liters water.
Reject Proposals to Bury Carbon Dioxide
Harper should also take action on climate change by rejecting calls for burying carbon dioxide. Greenpeace and Energy Probe both oppose these attempts to bury carbon dioxide because of the health and environmental risks they pose, as do the many NUMBY (Not Under My Back Yard) communities which could host carbon 'grave yards.'
Just imagine what could happen if billions of tons of CO2 were pumped underground. Escaping CO2 on a calm night, when it would not be dispersed, could suffocate an entire low-lying community! This colorless, odorless, heavier-than-air gas would lay like a blanket on unsuspecting sleepers. Alternatively, if the gas migrates underground, it would contaminate water-carrying aquifers. Noting these risks of burying CO2, it should also be mentioned that there is the possibility that the underground storage facility will explode. Seismologists are also concerned about another risk: that the vast store of CO2 injected underground under pressure could result in earthquakes, even in areas not known to be seismically active.
Energy Conservation is the Path of Choice
Most knowledgeable and thinking environmentalists accept that energy conservation is the best way to meet our energy needs, except for followers of Al Gore, who is trapped on an iceberg by a stable polar bear herd that doesn't believe in global warming, or who can be seen cavorting in Washington with his coterie of celebrities, trying to keep the U.S. from transferring its oil imports from unfriendly foreign suppliers to ethical oil-sands energy from Alberta.
Doing more with less by using energy more efficiently should be a common goal. Interest in energy conservation is dealt a blow of disservice by governments, like the Ontario government, which artificially lower the cost of consuming fuels through government subsidies.
Be Fair to All Forms of Energy
The fairest way for the Harper government to treat all forms of energy, is to eliminate all subsidies to all energy-producing industries. There should be no 'get-in-free' or subsidized tickets for gas and oil pipelines, transmission corridors, nuclear plants, or wind farms.
There are other ways to simultaneously save money, promote the public good, and protect the environment, and if the Harper government takes on some environmentally acceptable directions along the energy conservation roadway, it could reduce government expenditures and deliver smaller government.
Sources:
http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/Science+settled/5315908/story.html
Duane Sharp - I am a retired professional engineer (electronics), with over 40 years of writing experience in technology topics, with a focus on the IT ...
