When writing your "thoughtful" editorial on climate change advocating adaptation rather than mitigation ("Thoughtful strategies for a warmer world", 5/1/2000), did you give much thought to the reactions of non-Annex 1 parties to the Kyoto protocol, such as China and India, who will use our lack of action on climate change as further justification for their growing reliance on fossil fuels?
Published 8 January 2000
It was awfully kind of Joe Howieson to offer to live with hundreds of CANDU-type fuel bundles in his house (letter, 17 January). Presumably this would be before rather than after the bundles had been through the reactor.
Submitted 19 January 2000
Once again, William Thorsell espouses what he believes to be the benefits of climate change without considering its possible negative effects (Some like it hot: the good side of global warming, 22 January). As an example, Mr. Thorsell ignores the potential of extreme weather events coupled with thermally-induced sea-level rise.
This past weekend in the Maritimes may be an indication of things to come. A combination of high tides and a low pressure system resulted in extensive flooding and widespread damage in many coastal areas in all three provinces. Adding sea-level rise to events such as these will simply intensify the problem.
Anthropogenic climate change will have a profound impact on all our lives. For Mr. Thorsell to suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of the enormity of the problem we are facing.
Published: 29 January 2000
A brief note to all those who will be switching to Euro-hot models this year: Wake up and smell the smog, 5000 dead Canadians can't be wrong.
Submitted 2 June 2000
So the developed countries might offer drugs to counter HIV/AIDS to the developing countries in Africa. Will this be before or after the drugs arrive for overcoming diarrhoeal diseases, measles, malaria, and maternal-related deaths?
Published 13 July 2000
The G8's proposed Digital Opportunities Task Force (DOT), intended to encourage the spread of information technology throughout the developing world, can only be described as an insult to those living in the developing world.
An information-based society is dependent upon sources of electricity. The very fact that the leaders of the G8 would even propose DOT without considering its energy implications shows how out-of-touch these "leaders" really are.
At present, some two billion people worldwide (i.e., one-third of the world's population) have no access to electrical supplies. Of the remainder, over two billion suffer severe unreliability of electricity supply. Although 95 percent of people living in industrialized countries have access to grid-based electricity, less than 30 percent of people in developing countries can say the same.
In some low-income countries, less than 10 percent of people have access to electricity. For example, in Nepal, only three percent of its people have access to the grid. While in rural Uganda, more people use batteries for their energy needs than use grid electricity.
The developing world needs access to electricity, but not for computers. Electricity is needed for lighting, communications (radio, television, and telephones), refrigeration, and the operation of tools such as sewing machines and pumps. Given the enormity of the problem, it is best addressed using renewable and sustainable technologies such as micro-hydro, wind, and photo-voltaics in non-grid and micro-grid applications.
Before the G8 countries force their IT products onto developing countries, the developing countries must have the means to generate electricity to support their basic needs.
Published 26 July 2000
Many of the relatives of the 118 sailors lost on the Kursk are, understandably, demanding that the bodies of the sailors be returned to the surface for burial. As part of the retrieval process, the submarine's reactors should also be retrieved to protect the Arctic environment.
Submitted 24 August 2000. Unpublished.
Earlier this year, in an effort to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, I purchased two 64-watt solar panels (made in the United States) for our farm. The total cost for protecting the environment was about $1433 -- $1246 for the panels and $187 in HST.
If the federal and provincial governments want to do anything with their tax 'windfalls' from the sale of fossil fuels, they can remove the taxes from renewable energy technology. This offers two potential benefits to Canadians. First, it will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, thereby lowering our greenhouse gas emissions. Second, it could stimulate a renewable energy industry in Canada, as is being done in other countries such as Germany and the United States.
Submitted 20 September 2000. Unpublished.
According to your editorial "Alternatively Energetic", praising the potential of the fuel cell, "Twenty years ago, the idea of an iMac in every house seemed like science fiction, too" [26 October].
Since an iMac in every house is still science fiction, perhaps we'd all better invest in bicycles.
Submitted 27 October 2000. Unpublished.
The experience in the United States with sulphur dioxide emissions trading between a limited number of large electrical generating stations has demonstrated that emissions trading does work, as stated in the editorial "A licence to pollute - an incentive not to" [14 November 2000]. However, the greenhouse gas emissions trading proposed by the United States and other countries overlooks the complexities and uncertainties involved.
For example, consider the mass installation of solar photovoltaic [PV] panels in a developing country under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism. According to the protocol, any electricity produced by renewable energy sources, such as PVs, can be claimed for emission credits, which can subsequently be traded. The problem is, how many credits? Variations in the number of hours of sunshine, orientation of the panels, and the age of the panels all contribute to the uncertainty of the amount of electricity produced. Furthermore, monitoring [or policing] of the equipment becomes problematic in developing countries with limited infrastructures.
Even if greenhouse emissions trading is adopted, it is worth remembering that the Europeans want a limit of fifty percent put on the amount of emissions that can be traded. This means that Annex 1 countries [such as Canada] will still be responsible for reducing the remaining fifty percent of their emissions.
Submitted 15 November 2000. Unpublished.
Article 12 of the Kyoto protocol describes the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The purpose of this mechanism is two-fold, first to help developing countries achieve sustainable development from the use of clean energy technologies, and second, to allow developed countries, such as Canada, obtain emissions credits in exchange for this technology.
Canada is arguing that nuclear power should be part of the CDM. This is a self-serving attitude that not only overlooks the problems of proliferation, uranium mill tailings, and reactor decommissioning, it also overlooks a more fundamental problem -- grid-access. Consider:
Without a massive investment in grid infrastructure, the two-thirds of the world's population without access to reliable sources of electricity will not be helped by large-scale, centralized nuclear power stations. However, small-scale, renewable energy systems, such as photovoltaic, wind, microhydro, and bio-energy, connected directly to houses or local microgrids can make a difference, since they can be installed quickly and are independent of regional or national grids.
With limited development in renewable energy technologies, it should not be surprising that Canada is pushing for nuclear power to be included in the CDM. On the other hand, thirty years of investments in wind and solar technologies means that the Europeans are in a strong position to benefit from the CDM.
Submitted 21 November 2000. Unpublished.
It is worth remembering that The Hague was a failure of diplomacy, not science.
Published 28 November 2000.