Env Minister Gary Lunn today announced the "Eco Energy Technology Initiative" to battle the global warming crisis.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/17/clean-energy.html
However, Lunn did not state the source of the crisis he is apparently addressing, which is: "fossil fuels emissions that cause global warming and climate changes". Nope, he didn't say it. That is because the agenda here is to find ways to keep fossil fuels as our main source of energy. The Exxon-funded GW denial industry failed to calm the winds, but the fossil FOOLS continue to play the stall game when it comes to weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels and embrace renewable energy.
Canada will not achieve any dominance in the new technologies sector when we trail California and Europe in reducing dependance on fossil fuels. Those jusistictions are beating Kyoto targets by using solar power, wind power, and bio-fuels. DUH!!!
Arnold Schwartzenegger, also from the conservative side of the policital spectrum,has a different plan, likely because California does not have fossil fuels to support the politicians like Harper's base in Alberta. Arnold is going to put solar panels on the roofs of a million houses!!
He also has declared that 33% of all power that comes from utilities must be from renewable sources - Now THATS taking real action compared to this weak Technology Fund announcement of Lunn's.
The Canadian announcment had only fossil fuels and nuclear industry supporting programs, which Lunn called "cleaning up conventional energy".
"Nuclear, clean coal, tar sands cleaner, carbon sequestering" - these are the programs that Lunn mentioned. All of them will help the heavy industry sector stay profitable, which is all Harper really wants to do. They said that $230 million is to be spent on 'some of these ideas'... no committments to any particular one of these programs.
The main focus seemed to be a message for the corporate side, repeating the phrase that Canada must/will become an "energy superpower" in the world. Allways that competitive spirit, even if it does mean missing the point that we are facing an immense crisis in climate change from fossil fuel emissions.
On the positive side, Lunn did mention the seriousness of continued emissions, as well as the issue of efficiency [only 5% of the energy in fuels we use is actually used, the rest is lost as heat].
Unfortunately, there is a limit, a rather low one at that, of how much these measures announced by Lunn today will actually cut our greenhouse gasses emissions - Glen Murray, the chair of the national roundtable on environment and the economy said clean energy technologies will not help Canada meet its first targets set under the Kyoto Protocol ; he said Canada is lagging behind other countries in the development of environmental technology. Instead of beating Kyoto targets like other places are managing to do, Murray said that Canada will have a hard time in meeting any targets set under the protocol. Kyoto is merely a starting point and much bigger reductions in fossil fuel emissions are needed to actually reduce the threat.
We remain locked into the corporate culture of retreat from responsibility.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/17/clean-energy.html
However, Lunn did not state the source of the crisis he is apparently addressing, which is: "fossil fuels emissions that cause global warming and climate changes". Nope, he didn't say it. That is because the agenda here is to find ways to keep fossil fuels as our main source of energy. The Exxon-funded GW denial industry failed to calm the winds, but the fossil FOOLS continue to play the stall game when it comes to weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels and embrace renewable energy.
Canada will not achieve any dominance in the new technologies sector when we trail California and Europe in reducing dependance on fossil fuels. Those jusistictions are beating Kyoto targets by using solar power, wind power, and bio-fuels. DUH!!!
Arnold Schwartzenegger, also from the conservative side of the policital spectrum,has a different plan, likely because California does not have fossil fuels to support the politicians like Harper's base in Alberta. Arnold is going to put solar panels on the roofs of a million houses!!
He also has declared that 33% of all power that comes from utilities must be from renewable sources - Now THATS taking real action compared to this weak Technology Fund announcement of Lunn's.
The Canadian announcment had only fossil fuels and nuclear industry supporting programs, which Lunn called "cleaning up conventional energy".
"Nuclear, clean coal, tar sands cleaner, carbon sequestering" - these are the programs that Lunn mentioned. All of them will help the heavy industry sector stay profitable, which is all Harper really wants to do. They said that $230 million is to be spent on 'some of these ideas'... no committments to any particular one of these programs.
The main focus seemed to be a message for the corporate side, repeating the phrase that Canada must/will become an "energy superpower" in the world. Allways that competitive spirit, even if it does mean missing the point that we are facing an immense crisis in climate change from fossil fuel emissions.
On the positive side, Lunn did mention the seriousness of continued emissions, as well as the issue of efficiency [only 5% of the energy in fuels we use is actually used, the rest is lost as heat].
Unfortunately, there is a limit, a rather low one at that, of how much these measures announced by Lunn today will actually cut our greenhouse gasses emissions - Glen Murray, the chair of the national roundtable on environment and the economy said clean energy technologies will not help Canada meet its first targets set under the Kyoto Protocol ; he said Canada is lagging behind other countries in the development of environmental technology. Instead of beating Kyoto targets like other places are managing to do, Murray said that Canada will have a hard time in meeting any targets set under the protocol. Kyoto is merely a starting point and much bigger reductions in fossil fuel emissions are needed to actually reduce the threat.
We remain locked into the corporate culture of retreat from responsibility.
