The darker side of solar power

[Hugor Hill]

Don't shoot the messenger.

The messenger always gets killed.

[inane]

You guys got a problem or what?

Don't shoot the messenger.

'Hey, I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just putting it out there'

[Heretic]

If I didn't know better, I'd say the OP works for an oil company...

Indirectly I work for an "Energy" Company.

I just found it interesting that there are some environmental hazards with solar energy - not going to stop my long term plan to have them installed one day. Maybe wind power is a better choice for those us us north of the 39th parallel.

[Heretic]

'Hey, I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just putting it out there'

Yes, I put it out there for discussion - not to be attacked by trolls.

How much environmental waste is there in manufacturing?

What about batteries? Though you would need them for wind as well.

[inane]

Yes, I put it out there for discussion - not to be attacked by trolls.

How much environmental waste is there in manufacturing?

What about batteries? Though you would need them for wind as well.

I thought you were just the messenger?

No energy source is a magically going to be perfect. But put your 'discussion' points in context if you actually care to discuss.

[aGENT]

Indirectly I work for an "Energy" Company.

I just found it interesting that there are some environmental hazards with solar energy - not going to stop my long term plan to have them installed one day. Maybe wind power is a better choice for those us us north of the 39th parallel.

Bird murderer!! Never mind the environmental waste in manufacturing those wind turbines and the batteries used to store their power!

[Ghostsof1915]

[Langdon Algur]

Possibly the most biased article I have ever read.

[TOMapleLaughs]

KONRAD YAKABUSKI

Why Canada needs to develop the oil sands

Opponents of the oil sands warn that Canada will pay a hefty price if it allows the development of this vast resource to continue at its present pace. Persuaded of Stephen Harpers fealty to the oil lobby and Albertas interests, they are asking U.S. President Barack Obama to save Canadians from their own government by killing the Keystone XL pipeline. In the pursuit of their goal of permanently shutting down the oil sands, they even warn that Canada risks becoming a petro-state akin to Iran or Nigeria.

These are serious charges, but they are hard to take seriously. Petro-states are so dependent on oil revenue that their governments, often democratic in name only, suppress any interests inimical to oil development. Despite their vast (but unequally distributed) oil wealth, they slide backward in social and economic development. Does that sound at all like Canada? The Economist Intelligence Units Democracy Index for 2012 ranks Canada in eighth place. Other than Australia and Switzerland, the only nations that rank higher are tiny, unitary states with (until recently) entirely homogenous populations.

Meanwhile, our economy is among the worlds most diversified. The oil and gas industry accounts for about 8 per cent of Canadas gross domestic product, a smaller share than manufacturing. Oil sands crude makes up a growing share of overall petroleum production, but remains below 60 per cent of the total as conventional sources and Newfoundlands offshore industry continue to experience growth.

To be sure, oil sands royalties are critical to Albertas fiscal health. And Ottawa relies on oil-related tax revenue from Alberta to fund federal programs. But Canadas economy is not a single-cylinder engine. In fact, it is the most diversified economy among the G7 rich nations, with a diversification quotient of 6.25, compared with 5.55 for the United States, according to a 2008 Booz & Co. study.

While the oil sands will likely account for a greater share of Canadas economy in the future, they are unlikely to expand at the furious pace their critics fear. (Indeed, they have rarely matched growth projections in the past.) Rising costs, a stubborn price discount on Alberta crude and fast-rising U.S. shale oil production are likely to temper the rate of oil sands development for the foreseeable future.

Still, the government would be foolish not to encourage such development. It is a source of valuable foreign investment that contributes to the countrys economic prosperity. The oil sands provide employment for thousands of highly skilled engineers and tradespeople, precisely the kind of workers Canada needs more of to ensure the survival of middle-class lifestyles.

Whats more, the Conference Board of Canada has demonstrated the extent to which the wealth generated by the oil sands flows across the country through interprovincial trade. That would accelerate with the proposed reversal of Enbridges Line 9 and the construction of TransCanadas proposed Energy East pipeline, which would send Alberta oil eastward, fulfilling the long-elusive goal of a national energy strategy.

The oil sands also represent a tremendous opportunity for innovation through the development of low-carbon extraction methods. Made-in-Canada technology has allowed for a significant reduction in per-barrel carbon intensity of oil sands crude since 1990. Though oil sands crude is not the environmental scourge its critics make it out to be, faster progress needs to be made to lower its carbon profile. If it takes a carbon tax (higher than Albertas current $15-a-tonne levy) to accomplish that, the sooner the better.

Indeed, the environmental movements fixation on the tar sands has crowded out discussion of other important policy issues. Keystone has sucked up all of the oxygen in our national conversation and is tying up Canadian diplomats in Washington, whose precious time would be better spent on other files.

The Keystone obsession is actually proof of the vigorous debate and heightened scrutiny to which the oil sands are being subjected. Funny, then, that Thomas Homer-Dixon conflates the backlash against NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair who, in 2012, said the oil sands had given Canada a case of Dutch Disease with the erosion of our democracy. Mr. Mulcair can speak for himself. But it is unlikely his decision to tone down his rhetoric in the past year has anything to do with a suppression of his freedom of speech (see The Economist index). It probably stems from recognition that such talk is unbecoming of a national leader.

Distrust of Mr. Harper has blinded environmentalists to the fact the oil sands are not the pet project of one government or party. Campaign promises notwithstanding, it is debatable whether another federal regime would have moved faster to introduce climate-change legislation. But it is certain none could or would shut down the oil sands. For that would be truly undemocratic

http://www.homerdixon.com/2013/06/03/oil-sands-debate/

Konrad Yakabuski

My pluralism includes freedom to oppose gay marriage

During the acrid debate over the Parti Québécoiss now thankfully doomed values charter, my gay friends were among the staunchest opponents of the proposal to ban public employees from wearing religious symbols. Having been on the receiving end of discrimination, they filled their Facebook pages with anti-charter diatribes and countless links to more of the same.

Few of them have shown the same spirit of religious tolerance toward Brendan Eich, the U.S. technology superstar who just lost his job for opposing gay marriage. And dont get them started on Trinity Western University, the private B.C. Christian college seeking accreditation for its law school despite the fact that it requires students to sign a covenant abstaining from sex outside marriage, which it defines as a strictly heterosexual affair. The B.C. Law Society may decide Friday whether to accredit TWUs law program. Ontario will follow soon.

Frankly, I dont see much difference between firing someone for wearing a hijab or hounding them from their job because they oppose gay marriage. As long as they dont let their religious views interfere with their jobs, there are no grounds for dismissal. Similarly, private law schools should be assessed based on their curriculum, not the religious beliefs of their faculty or students.

If our commitment to pluralism is to mean anything, we must be willing to stand up for religious freedom, even if we find the tenets of some religions objectionable. Otherwise, we are no better than the Taliban, imposing an orthodoxy that makes us all smaller as human beings.

Mr. Eich is no anti-gay fundamentalist. The creator of the widely used JavaScript programming language gave $1,000 (U.S.) in support of Californias Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in that state. That appears to have been the extent of his activism.

In gay marriage terms, 2008 is a century ago. Back then, even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were against it. Public opinion has shifted dramatically since Prop 8 was struck down, albeit on narrow legal grounds that did not establish a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.

Still, in the past year, the number of U.S. states that allow gay marriage has doubled to 17. The champions of marriage equality are winning just not fast enough for some fanatics, who seek to blacklist even those who object to gay marriage based on sincerely held religious or moral grounds.

Mr. Eich stepped down last week as chief executive of Mozilla, the purveyor of the popular Firefox Web browser, barely 10 days after he had been named CEO. Officially, he resigned. But it seems Mozillas board could not get rid of him fast enough. It succumbed to employees and the Twitter mob demanding Mr. Eichs head. Were sorry. We must do better, said Mozillas chairwoman.

Mr. Eich has been classy throughout this ordeal. He apologized to those for whom his views on gay marriage had caused pain. But, in a New York Times interview, he offered wise advice to all of us who toil in an increasingly diverse workplace: If you cant leave your other stuff at the door, youre going to break into other groups. We have to be one group.

That does not mean bigots should be allowed to invoke religious freedom to legitimize their bigotry. The Christian right has been pushing to allow businesses to invoke religion to deny services to gay couples, following lawsuits against photographers and bakers who refused to cater to gay weddings, or commitment ceremonies where same-sex marriage remains illegal.

Last week, the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed into law by Governor Phil Bryant. Critics say the law will codify discrimination. Arizonas legislature passed a similar law in January, although Governor Jan Brewer wisely vetoed it a month later.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case of a New Mexico photographer who had invoked her right to free speech (rather than freedom of religion) to deny her services to a lesbian couple. But the court will rule soon on a case involving a business that is challenging, on religious grounds, the Obama administration law that requires employer-provided health insurance to include free contraception coverage.

Canadians like to think were above the U.S. culture wars. But as Quebecs charter and TWUs application have shown, we have culture skirmishes of our own. Theyll only get worse unless, as Mr. Eich says, we leave our other stuff at the door.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/my-pluralism-includes-religious-tolerance/article17906112/

This man... Is a dinosaur.

[Heretic]

That is cool hot!

I need about 4 or 5 of those Bistro's.

[Langdon Algur]

 

http://www.homerdixon.com/2013/06/03/oil-sands-debate/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/my-pluralism-includes-religious-tolerance/article17906112/

This man... Is a dinosaur.

That would explain his love of fossil fuels. Fossils gotta stick together.

[Heretic]

Possibly the most biased article I have ever read.

I think that's the point - I mean, go to any one of a half dozen or so "pro" Solar energy sites whare they are selling and you will see the bias from the other side.

[inane]

I think that's the point - I mean, go to any one of a half dozen or so "pro" Solar energy sites whare they are selling and you will see the bias from the other side.

So why'd you only post one side of the story?

[Heretic]

So why'd you only post one side of the story?

Because I'm a heretic - everyone else seems to post only the other side.

[Fox Mulder]

Does anybody bother to discuss the relevance of the articles anymore? Or is it more enjoyable to attack the posters over why they posted them.

[inane]

Because I'm a heretic - everyone else seems to post only the other side.

Woe is you.

[theminister]

I introduced you to that one, right?

I hope it bears fruit.

It's a big part of the puzzle.

[Ghostsof1915]

Does anybody bother to discuss the relevance of the articles anymore? Or is it more enjoyable to attack the posters over why they posted them.

Because the article is one sided. If you look at energy as a whole look at the drilling, carbon monoxide, fracking, nuclear waste, burning coal, and the pollution that causes. Now you're looking at the big picture. It also fails to mention Organic Solar Cells and other developing technologies. The simple fact the only existing energy source that exceeds global demand is solar. So until someone develops nuclear fusion or something. We need renewables, because as Sadoway says in the video I posted. We can't drill our way out. We can't bomb our way out. We have to invent our way out.

[Ghostsof1915]

I introduced you to that one, right?

I hope it bears fruit.

It's a big part of the puzzle.

Yes you did, and I found a lot of other like minded individuals that are looking at other solutions to our energy problems. I don't think there's going to be one answer, but a bunch of different technologies providing us with our long term energy needs.

[Heretic]

Because the article is one sided. If you look at energy as a whole look at the drilling, carbon monoxide, fracking, nuclear waste, burning coal, and the pollution that causes. Now you're looking at the big picture. It also fails to mention Organic Solar Cells and other developing technologies. The simple fact the only existing energy source that exceeds global demand is solar. So until someone develops nuclear fusion or something. We need renewables, because as Sadoway says in the video I posted. We can't drill our way out. We can't bomb our way out. We have to invent our way out.

True, but this thread was supposed to be just about Solar Energy and what impact it has on the environment - not all energy sources - though that is a good idea, maybe we should have an "Energy" thread?