More About Doug The Slug

In my previous post, I wrote rather scathingly of Doug Ford and his refusal to put back into the building code a requirement for new home builds to have a plug built in to facilitate EV chargers. To clarify any confusion left by that post, the extra $500 charge to new homes would have been for the infrastructure, not the actual charger.  Unfortunately Ford, who takes his direction from developers, refused at their behest this simple requirement, disingenuously citing his desire to make life more affordable for Ontarians burdened by his benighted 'leadership.

Toronto Star readers, a generally perceptive group, were quick to point out the error of Doug's ways:

Setting homes up for EVs makes sense

Ford government won’t make electric vehicle chargers mandatory in new homes despite championing EV industry, April 11

The Ford government’s position on the inclusion of roughed-in wiring for EV charging stations in new homes is disingenuous and short-sighted. An additional $500 cost will not deter the buyer of a new home, with average costs approaching $1 million in major markets. It is literally a tiny percentage of the overall cost, and will be amortized over 25-30 years. In comparison, pre-wiring during construction would eliminate over half the cost of installing an EV charging station. It seems obvious that our government is happy to spend our money to entice EV component manufacturers, but totally unwilling to assist Ontarians in future-proofing their new homes, to reduce our carbon footprint and lessen the impact of our changing climate. Did past governments argue the same way against requiring electric dryer circuits in the building and electrical codes?

Doug Lewis, Clarington, Ont.

The Ontario Conservatives won’t make house builders install plugs for electric cars. Putting another plug in a million dollar house would have little or no effect on the price of the house. Builders put in plugs for microwaves, stoves, clothes dryers, et cetera. Putting in one more plug for an electric car charger is not a big deal. It becomes a bigger deal if the plug has to be installed once the house is built. The homeowner still has to buy a charger to plug into the plug but at least the house is not ripped apart to install the plug. Like many of the Ford government’s policies, this call does not make any sense.

Wolfe Erlichman, Godfrey, Ont.

Doug Ford's illogic and hypocrisy are manifest. The question, however, is whether enough of the electorate notices or even cares.

But A Brief Reprieve

If our thoughts have been able, even briefly, to break out of their ongoing obsession with Covid-19 and death, we will have realized a couple of things:

One, that we really aren't masters of the universe, our supposed natural supremacy just a cruel delusion that has led us to this particular juncture in history. An invisible presence has sent us scurrying to our basements. How truly humbling.

And two, that our forced confinement has been extraordinarily beneficial to the environment, with a reported global average drop of 6% in greenhouse gas emissions; it is an improvement, however, that isn't nearly enough to mitigate climate change and will likely prove ephemeral.

But I fear these realizations will prove to be short-lived. Forced contemplation and reflection are uncomfortable. Teachable moments pass; lessons learned are quickly forgotten. Already, we passionately pine for a return to a normal that was never normal: getting and spending, overpopulating the earth, plundering the world's pantry with barely a second thought.

Yet some are hopeful that we can mend our ways, and that current hard-won environmental benefits can be retained:

...climate scientists and activists hope this moment can be a turning point, when our efforts to combat one global crisis inspire action against another, and governments use their unprecedented spending on economic recovery to accelerate a transition away from fossil fuels and toward a green economy.

Robin Edger, executive director and CEO of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, sees this as our last, best chance:

Even before the pandemic it was going to take a massive investment and radical change to meet these targets, Edger said. “We were already talking about a public mobilization along the lines of nothing we’d seen since the Second World War. So now we’ve had this economic collapse as a result of a health crisis and the government has a choice to make: Are we going to make investments in line with our country’s stated climate goals and set ourselves up for the future, or are we going to try to cling to the past and pour money into shovel-ready but unsustainable projects?”

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used the occasion of Earth Day earlier this week to draw a parallel between the global efforts to fight COVID-19 and climate change, calling the climate crisis an “even deeper emergency” and urging governments to target their economic recoveries toward a more sustainable future. “The current crisis is an unprecedented wake-up call,” he said. “We need to turn the recovery into a real opportunity to do things right for the future.”

Chantal Hebert, on the other hand, is dubious of the prospects for progress as she recalls what happened to Stephan Dion's Green Shift platform in the midst of the 2008 world financial crisis:

The 2008 storm hit as voters were headed to the polls in a federal election.

One of its immediate consequences was to sweep the campaign carpet from under then-Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and his climate-change platform.

As attention shifted to the quickly deteriorating economic scene, Dion came to look as if he had brought the wrong lines to the electoral audition. A plurality of voters opted to keep Stephen Harper in the role of prime minister.

Only a few months before the federal campaign, the climate-change issue had legs. It faltered quickly in the face of a looming recession.

Will history repeat itself under the Covid-19 scourge?

Back in October, an overwhelming majority of voters supported parties that promised more proactive measures to mitigate climate change.

An equally high proportion of Canadians also told pollsters that strong environmental credentials — in the shape of a credible climate change plan — should be a must for any party aspiring to power.

But whether the public and political commitment to addressing climate change will remain strong as minds shift to repairing the damage of the pandemic remains an open question.

Already, polls are showing a shift in voters’ priorities, with climate change taking more of a back seat not only to the economy but also to health care.

Will cash-strapped governments, under the gun to restore some sense of normalcy to the daily lives of Canadians in time for their next electoral appointments, be in a good place to walk the talk of a green big picture?

Will we prove to be apt students as we move forward? My three decades as a teacher require a less than definitive answer.

And the greatest teacher of all, history, unfortunately renders a far less ambiguous answer.

A Mound Of Sound Guest Post: Climate Change By The Numbers

One of the great malignancies of the 20th century was the spread of neo-classical economics. the macro- and micro-stuff that you probably had to learn in university.

I did a good bit of fraud work in my legal career. One of the key ways to unravel a well-crafted fraud was to ferret out the inconsistencies, the gaps, the irreconcilable contradictions. Neo-classical economics, being a work of fraud, also is replete with inconsistencies, illogic and irreconcilable contradictions, but it bundles them all up and jettisons them under the category of “externalities.” It’s sort of like your teenager shoving all the dirt and debris under the bed before proclaiming his room ‘clean’ before demanding the keys to the family car.

The use of externality is a dandy way of keeping incidental costs off the balance sheet. Carbon emissions? An externality. Impacts on climate change, ditto. Deaths in the hundreds of thousands? That too.

In yesterday’s Guardian there’s an item that reveals the face of climate change since the 1970s in 8 charts. It’s taken from a UN study.

What is most telling are two bar graphs toward the end of the article. One of these is titled, “Disasters ranked by reported deaths (1970-2012)”. The countries that dominate that list are Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Mozambique – essentially the Third World. The other is entitled, “Disasters ranked by economic losses (1970-2012)”. Here the top players are Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Andrew and Ike along with flooding in China and Thailand.






What this reveals is that for the Third World, climate change is a matter of life and death. For the developed and developing countries, it’s an economic problem. Economic challenges are approached from a “cost/benefit” basis. That’s where externalities, such as all those Third World deaths and suffering, come into play. Even though the industrialized world is responsible for almost all of the greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution that are wreaking death and suffering in the Third World, we externalize that. We keep it off our books. It’s not relevant.

What have we become?

A Mound Of Sound Guest Post: The Relentless Growth of CO2

I put this item together a while ago but I was reminded of it today while reading a report from the WMO, the World Meteorological Organization, that April will go in the books as the first month in which atmospheric CO2 topped 400 ppm throughout the northern hemisphere. Not just one nasty region here or there, the entire bloody northern hemisphere. That's change you can believe in (sorry Barack).

Scientists say emissions will need to peak by 2020 and then decline rapidly to limit warming to 2C, a target agreed at the 2009 round of UN talks in Copenhagen.

According to the UN climate science panel, the world has already used between half and two-thirds of its “carbon budget” the amount of CO2 that can be released before the 2C goal is impossible.

This got me thinking about our chances of peaking our emissions by 2020 and then slashing them rapidly after that. At that point a quiz I recently spotted in The Globalist popped to mind.

The Globalist website posts a weekly quiz and they're generally pretty thought-provoking.

A recent one dealt with automobile manufacturing in 2013. How many cars were built in 2013? How about 83-million! China accounted for 27% of global sales. More telling was the fact that it wasn't until 2010 that we reached the 73-million auto mark. That's an increase of 10-million in just three years. Even more depressing is the forecast of 100-million cars to be produced in 2018, a third of them for the Chinese market.

What does that information tell you? In eight years we're going to go from producing 73-million cars to building 100-million. That means we'll be adding another hundred million cars a year to the hundreds of millions of older cars already prowling the planet's roads and highways. Now imagine what that's going to mean in the context of oil and gasoline consumption, water consumption (it takes 39,000 gallons of water to build a car), and of course greenhouse gas emissions. Hey kids, we're so screwed!

Another Globalist quiz looked at energy rich Nigeria and how much electricity the average Nigerian consumes in a year. It's about as much as the average person uses to power their microwave over the course of a year. That's because Nigeria is a corrupt petro-state and all that oil wealth mysteriously never makes it down to the ordinary folks.

How about electricity production from renewables? Brazil is the winner in the clean power contest at 82%. Canada comes in at 63% clean electricity, mainly through provincial hydro-electric generation (no thanks to Ottawa). The United States? Under 13%, well below the global average of 20% which also happens to be China's renewable electricity level.

You can find all the quizzes, including archives, here. If, like me, you're interested in issues pertaining to globalization, you can subscribe to their daily e-mail briefing. It's as timely as it is insightful.

A Stinging Indictment Of Joe Oliver And The Harper Mentality

It would seem that Chad Beharriell of Windsor has Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver's number:

Make transition to a green economy

Like a dinosaur that can see the comet coming, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver is now reaching for the public relations panic button as he sees growing resistance across the globe to unchecked fossil fuel development.

Oliver, a former investment banker who leads the Conservative charge to monetize everything in the ground regardless of environmental and health costs, realizes that Canadians, North Americans and the world-at-large are waking up to the very real effects of climate change and global warming brought on by continued fossil fuel consumption.

The world’s atmosphere now contains 400 parts-per-million of carbon dioxide — the last time carbon dioxide was in such high amounts was approximately four million years ago when the planet was very different and humans did not exist. Humans are recreating a climate that normally wouldn’t exist within the natural cycles of the planet.

The current Canadian government and Oliver are lazy. Rather than take on the adventure to transition to clean energy and a green economy that will create thousands of jobs during that transition, Oliver and company wilfully damage the atmosphere and life-sources of water to squeeze black money from the tar sands.

Oliver recently said that Canadians, in terms of expanded fossil fuel development, must act quickly to “decide whether to take that opportunity or let it pass us by.” Oliver, your time has passed; the coming generations want a different planet.