Tories to unveil major eco-friendly initiatives
Patrick_Ross @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:13 am
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada
$1:
Tories to unveil major eco-friendly initiatives
CTV.ca News Staff
Ottawa plans to earmark about $200 million for research into environmentally-friendly ways to produce electricity, CTV News has learned.
The government is expected to make the announcement on Friday.
"If you're going to deal with climate change, you have to deal with energy," Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki Foundation told CTV News.
"The burning of fossil fuels is what leads to climate change. So we need to move towards using less energy and we need to move towards cleaner forms of energy."
And there are other environmental plans in the works, too. On Wednesday, the government will show its support for so-called "green heat" -- using solar and geo-thermal energy to heat homes and other buildings.
Also this week, Ottawa will unveil a reworked version of the EnerGuide for Houses program, which encouraged consumers to make their homes more efficient.
Conservatives axed the Liberal-created program when they took office, and sources say their new version could offer tax credits instead of direct subsidies.
News of the environmentally-friendly initiatives came on the same day Liberal Leader Stephane Dion gave a major speech in Toronto, arguing that green plans are good for business.
Dion emphasized that it is in Canada's economic interests to tackle global warming as the fiscal opportunities are enormous.
"Countries that embrace the environment as a core priority will lead the global economy in the 21st century," he told the Economic Club of Toronto.
Not only will their companies become profitable from selling green solutions to the world, they will be shielded from rising energy costs, and boast higher qualities of life, he said.
"If we play our cards right, I believe this could be Canada's greatest economic opportunity of the 21st century," the Liberal leader said.
Dion called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to implement a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions; to reverse cuts to the Liberals' Project Green; and to set a target of 12,000 megawatts of renewable power production.
And in another criticism of the Tories, he said he would re-establish Canada's participation in the Kyoto Protocol and look forward to future solutions in a post-accord world.
He also said Canadian businesses must focus more on innovation and bringing ideas from the lab to the market, referring to Research In Motion's Blackberry as a product with huge success.
"Yet if Canada is to continue to prosper we need many BlackBerry-style inventions across the country produced by innovative Canadians in large or small companies, often companies that have not yet come to existence," he said.
Dion would not comment, however, on who his shadow cabinet will include.
He is expected to unveil his shadow cabinet soon, but has so far stayed tightlipped on whether long-time Saskatchewan MP and Opposition House Leader Ralph Goodale will be part of it.
With a report by CTV's David Akin
CTV.ca News Staff
Ottawa plans to earmark about $200 million for research into environmentally-friendly ways to produce electricity, CTV News has learned.
The government is expected to make the announcement on Friday.
"If you're going to deal with climate change, you have to deal with energy," Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki Foundation told CTV News.
"The burning of fossil fuels is what leads to climate change. So we need to move towards using less energy and we need to move towards cleaner forms of energy."
And there are other environmental plans in the works, too. On Wednesday, the government will show its support for so-called "green heat" -- using solar and geo-thermal energy to heat homes and other buildings.
Also this week, Ottawa will unveil a reworked version of the EnerGuide for Houses program, which encouraged consumers to make their homes more efficient.
Conservatives axed the Liberal-created program when they took office, and sources say their new version could offer tax credits instead of direct subsidies.
News of the environmentally-friendly initiatives came on the same day Liberal Leader Stephane Dion gave a major speech in Toronto, arguing that green plans are good for business.
Dion emphasized that it is in Canada's economic interests to tackle global warming as the fiscal opportunities are enormous.
"Countries that embrace the environment as a core priority will lead the global economy in the 21st century," he told the Economic Club of Toronto.
Not only will their companies become profitable from selling green solutions to the world, they will be shielded from rising energy costs, and boast higher qualities of life, he said.
"If we play our cards right, I believe this could be Canada's greatest economic opportunity of the 21st century," the Liberal leader said.
Dion called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to implement a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions; to reverse cuts to the Liberals' Project Green; and to set a target of 12,000 megawatts of renewable power production.
And in another criticism of the Tories, he said he would re-establish Canada's participation in the Kyoto Protocol and look forward to future solutions in a post-accord world.
He also said Canadian businesses must focus more on innovation and bringing ideas from the lab to the market, referring to Research In Motion's Blackberry as a product with huge success.
"Yet if Canada is to continue to prosper we need many BlackBerry-style inventions across the country produced by innovative Canadians in large or small companies, often companies that have not yet come to existence," he said.
Dion would not comment, however, on who his shadow cabinet will include.
He is expected to unveil his shadow cabinet soon, but has so far stayed tightlipped on whether long-time Saskatchewan MP and Opposition House Leader Ralph Goodale will be part of it.
With a report by CTV's David Akin
The Green Party should be happy about this one. Their "energy policy" called for $100 million for essentially the same thing.
Although, this is little more than a pretty good start.
ReliableIntelligence @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:27 am
The funds announced today are just over $200 million, but that's spread out over 4 years.
Also, research is important, but where are the incentives for adopting green technologies? Either as they are developed, or those that are already available. Conversely, where are the caps on emmissions for business?
Minister Lunn was talking a lot about the miracle of nuclear power today. While it's an improvement over coal power generation, it's also got problems of its own. Is this money going to subsidize nuclear research, or is it to find alternatives to nuclear? If so, why are we not looking at promoting and implementing alternatives that already exist as well?
SJ-24 @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:35 pm
Perhaps waiting for the policy to go public would be better than asking a whole lot of "What abouts". I am just as interested in reading this policy as the Liberals are to bad mouth it. May I suggest you Liebrals get you BS machines cranked up because i got this feeling you'll need it for this coming election. We know the turth won't get you elected. 
ReliableIntelligence @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:08 pm
I'm responding to the - very much public - announcement that was made this morning:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/ ... nergy.html
ridenrain @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:18 pm
source
Looks like Dion's not getting the green traction he wanted.
hurley_108 @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:21 pm
Y'know, how can that be argued with? After all, open polls on internet news sites are the most accurate means of measuring not only the opinion of the general public, but also of determining who is best equipped to do a job. 
ridenrain @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:30 pm
Come on. The Liberals swear by polls. 
You're just mad that this one wasn't done by another Liberal kick-back media firm. I don't put that much faith in them myself but it sure puts a wet blanket on Dion.
As to who can do the job..
Dion already had a chance as enviro minister, and they did worst than nothing. That was even with a majority government. How many more years does he need?
Triple_R @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:54 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
source
Looks like Dion's not getting the green traction he wanted.
Looks like Dion's not getting the green traction he wanted.
The numbers for the NDP should be higher, but I'm glad that people aren't forgetting the Liberals' record on this issue - which is abyssmal.
Green-house gas emissions increased under the Liberals.
If this poll is in any way reflective of the opinions of Canadians as a whole, then the Liberals are in big trouble. This is their big issue to use against the Tories, and the Tories are beating them on it.
Patrick_Ross @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:58 pm
Clearly, not all of the details are out yet, but I'm personally convinced that nuclear energy really is the way to go for the oilsands.
Although, in the long run, Hydrogen is way of the future.
hurley_108 @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:31 pm
Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:
Clearly, not all of the details are out yet, but I'm personally convinced that nuclear energy really is the way to go for the oilsands.
Although, in the long run, Hydrogen is way of the future.
Although, in the long run, Hydrogen is way of the future.
At least in this thread, you and I agree completely.
Patrick_Ross @ Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:47 am
We should also consider that nuclear reactors can also be used for hydrogen production.
This, however, raises a key problem: how to properly dispose of the nuclear waste. It may be possible to build deep disposal sites in the Canadian Shield, but this could pose a longer-term risk.
sandorski @ Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:31 am
What a difference a couple weeks makes.
Rihx @ Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:51 am
nuclear waste can be recycled.. and that tech will only get better with more research.
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?p ... egmentID=1
$1:
GELLERMAN: From the Jennifer and Ted Stanley studios in Somerville, Massachusetts, this is Living on Earth. I'm Bruce Gellerman, sitting in for Steve Curwood.
For 30 years, U.S. government policy has banned the reprocessing of nuclear waste. Presidents since Gerald Ford have concluded that reprocessing was too costly and too risky – it creates weapons-grade plutonium that could fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states.
Now the Bush administration wants to reverse that policy with something called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. It's a multi-billion dollar research effort aimed at recycling spent fuel not just from reactors in the U.S., but in the future from developing countries as well.
Living on Earth's Jeff Young reports from Washington.
YOUNG: Recycling your trash is a good idea, right? So Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell asks, why not recycle our nuclear waste?
SELL: All leading thinkers that have looked at nuclear power, that have looked at how we can accomplish our goals for clean development, recognize that that will eventually lead us to recycling of spent fuel.
High purity uranium oxide product recovered from spent nuclear fuel (Photo: Department of Energy)
YOUNG: Sell says technology called UREX Plus developed in DOE labs, could allow for that to safely happen. Waste from traditional light water reactors would go through a chemical process separating some elements. It would not yield pure plutonium, as technology now used in Europe and Asia does. Instead, plutonium would be bound up with other chemicals in a material that could later be fuel for an advanced reactor.
SELL: It allows you to extract much greater energy out of the spent fuel, and it also results in a waste form at the end of the process that is much more stable and much easier to dispose of.
YOUNG: The proposal also aims for greater international control of the movement of nuclear materials. If a developing country wanted nuclear power, it could lease fuel from the US, France or Britain, then return the waste for reprocessing.
SELL: If a country has the ability to enrich uranium, or to reprocess plutonium, it effectively has the bomb.
YOUNG: So that's Sell's sales pitch: slow the spread of nuclear weapons materials, get more energy from fuel, and reduce waste. His first audience on Capitol Hill was receptive. New Mexico Republican Senator, Pete Domenici , is a fan of nuclear power and reprocessing.
DOMENICI: In the 70s the US decided to abandon its leadership on nuclear recycling and let the rest of the world pass us by. With the creation of this new global nuclear energy program we're going to get back into the ballgame.
YOUNG: South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called the program "visionary." But the reprocessing idea is getting a frosty reception elsewhere.
LYMAN: Well of course it sounds good, the slogan that we should be recycling our nuclear waste instead of throwing it away is appealing on the surface. But the problem is once you start looking at the details, the program completely falls apart.
YOUNG: That's Ed Lyman of the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists. Lyman says materials produced by the technology DOE is pushing could still be used to make weapons. And he's skeptical of claims that reprocessing would solve the waste problem.
LYMAN: Unfortunately reprocessing doesn't actually reduce radioactive waste. All it does is shuffle it around. The fact is all these materials have to be disposed of somewhere.
YOUNG: Some scientists who support the administration's general ideas are still uneasy with the proposal. Ernie Moniz teaches physics at MIT and served the Clinton administration as a science advisor and undersecretary of energy. Moniz says reprocessing technology is not ready.
MONIZ: It may lead us down the wrong technology pathway. So again, rushing into large-scale reprocessing would seem to be a bit premature until one has technologies for the whole integrated system in hand.
YOUNG: And then there's the price tag. The administration wants $250 million for the Nuclear Energy Partnership next year. But that's just a down payment on a program that Energy Secretary Sam Bodman says could cost tens of billions of dollars.
BODMAN: This is going to be a very expensive undertaking if we decide to go forward with it. My own estimate, personal estimate, is that it's gonna be between $20 and $40 billion to accomplish all this.
YOUNG: England, France, Japan, and Russia all reprocess spent nuclear fuel with mixed results. There's less waste, but the countries still have some 240 tons of plutonium to store and guard. But that does not deter the DOE's Sell, who says new technology would make a US-led program different.
SELL: A program based on the old reprocessing technology cannot and should not survive. But we believe that there is a better way.
YOUNG: As it considers the President's budget Congress must decide if it agrees that this "better way" is worth billions and the reversal of long-standing policy. For Living on Earth, I'm Jeff Young in Washington.
For 30 years, U.S. government policy has banned the reprocessing of nuclear waste. Presidents since Gerald Ford have concluded that reprocessing was too costly and too risky – it creates weapons-grade plutonium that could fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states.
Now the Bush administration wants to reverse that policy with something called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. It's a multi-billion dollar research effort aimed at recycling spent fuel not just from reactors in the U.S., but in the future from developing countries as well.
Living on Earth's Jeff Young reports from Washington.
YOUNG: Recycling your trash is a good idea, right? So Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell asks, why not recycle our nuclear waste?
SELL: All leading thinkers that have looked at nuclear power, that have looked at how we can accomplish our goals for clean development, recognize that that will eventually lead us to recycling of spent fuel.
High purity uranium oxide product recovered from spent nuclear fuel (Photo: Department of Energy)
YOUNG: Sell says technology called UREX Plus developed in DOE labs, could allow for that to safely happen. Waste from traditional light water reactors would go through a chemical process separating some elements. It would not yield pure plutonium, as technology now used in Europe and Asia does. Instead, plutonium would be bound up with other chemicals in a material that could later be fuel for an advanced reactor.
SELL: It allows you to extract much greater energy out of the spent fuel, and it also results in a waste form at the end of the process that is much more stable and much easier to dispose of.
YOUNG: The proposal also aims for greater international control of the movement of nuclear materials. If a developing country wanted nuclear power, it could lease fuel from the US, France or Britain, then return the waste for reprocessing.
SELL: If a country has the ability to enrich uranium, or to reprocess plutonium, it effectively has the bomb.
YOUNG: So that's Sell's sales pitch: slow the spread of nuclear weapons materials, get more energy from fuel, and reduce waste. His first audience on Capitol Hill was receptive. New Mexico Republican Senator, Pete Domenici , is a fan of nuclear power and reprocessing.
DOMENICI: In the 70s the US decided to abandon its leadership on nuclear recycling and let the rest of the world pass us by. With the creation of this new global nuclear energy program we're going to get back into the ballgame.
YOUNG: South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called the program "visionary." But the reprocessing idea is getting a frosty reception elsewhere.
LYMAN: Well of course it sounds good, the slogan that we should be recycling our nuclear waste instead of throwing it away is appealing on the surface. But the problem is once you start looking at the details, the program completely falls apart.
YOUNG: That's Ed Lyman of the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists. Lyman says materials produced by the technology DOE is pushing could still be used to make weapons. And he's skeptical of claims that reprocessing would solve the waste problem.
LYMAN: Unfortunately reprocessing doesn't actually reduce radioactive waste. All it does is shuffle it around. The fact is all these materials have to be disposed of somewhere.
YOUNG: Some scientists who support the administration's general ideas are still uneasy with the proposal. Ernie Moniz teaches physics at MIT and served the Clinton administration as a science advisor and undersecretary of energy. Moniz says reprocessing technology is not ready.
MONIZ: It may lead us down the wrong technology pathway. So again, rushing into large-scale reprocessing would seem to be a bit premature until one has technologies for the whole integrated system in hand.
YOUNG: And then there's the price tag. The administration wants $250 million for the Nuclear Energy Partnership next year. But that's just a down payment on a program that Energy Secretary Sam Bodman says could cost tens of billions of dollars.
BODMAN: This is going to be a very expensive undertaking if we decide to go forward with it. My own estimate, personal estimate, is that it's gonna be between $20 and $40 billion to accomplish all this.
YOUNG: England, France, Japan, and Russia all reprocess spent nuclear fuel with mixed results. There's less waste, but the countries still have some 240 tons of plutonium to store and guard. But that does not deter the DOE's Sell, who says new technology would make a US-led program different.
SELL: A program based on the old reprocessing technology cannot and should not survive. But we believe that there is a better way.
YOUNG: As it considers the President's budget Congress must decide if it agrees that this "better way" is worth billions and the reversal of long-standing policy. For Living on Earth, I'm Jeff Young in Washington.
Numure @ Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:44 am
Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:
We should also consider that nuclear reactors can also be used for hydrogen production.
This, however, raises a key problem: how to properly dispose of the nuclear waste. It may be possible to build deep disposal sites in the Canadian Shield, but this could pose a longer-term risk.
This, however, raises a key problem: how to properly dispose of the nuclear waste. It may be possible to build deep disposal sites in the Canadian Shield, but this could pose a longer-term risk.
With the technology we posses today, I doubt it could be a huge risk. We have the technology to ensure containement, until dissolution of nuclear waste. The best place to build storage facilities is in the north, as the cold helps containement.
ReliableIntelligence @ Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:55 am
Liberal press release today notes that the Conservative announcement is strangely similar to something that was in Budget 2005:
www.liberal.ca www.liberal.ca:
Conservatives Re-Announce Liberal R&D Program After Year Long Delay
January 17, 2007
The Conservative government kicked off its week long project of re-announcing Liberal initiatives by announcing $230 million of funding for research and development in the field of green energy said Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.
"It's nice to see that the first thing that they did when they realized that the Canadian public is demanding action on climate change was to read the 2005 Liberal budget," said Dion. "Research and development of green technologies is extremely important in the fight against global warming, which is exactly why we made these investments almost 2 years ago."
In Budget 2005, the Liberal government set aside $200 million over 4 years for the development of a Sustainable Energy Science and Technology Strategy to develop and commercialize leading-edge environmental technologies. The money was scheduled to start flowing in 2006-07. By announcing this funding just before the end of the fiscal year, this government may have actually saved the bulk of the program, which cannot be said for most climate change programs in Canada.
"The fact of the matter is, this should only be one part of a broader strategy on climate change," said Mr. Dion. "The only way that we will make real progress on climate change is if the federal government promotes an integrated strategy with action on a wide range of fronts. We hope that the government will finally listen to Canadians and provide that kind of integrated strategy."
The Liberal Party is looking forward to the events that have been scheduled for Friday and Sunday, where it is expected that the Conservative government will announce that it has reversed its position on the Wind Power Production Incentive and the Energuide for Houses programs and will be reinstating these Liberal initiatives.
January 17, 2007
The Conservative government kicked off its week long project of re-announcing Liberal initiatives by announcing $230 million of funding for research and development in the field of green energy said Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.
"It's nice to see that the first thing that they did when they realized that the Canadian public is demanding action on climate change was to read the 2005 Liberal budget," said Dion. "Research and development of green technologies is extremely important in the fight against global warming, which is exactly why we made these investments almost 2 years ago."
In Budget 2005, the Liberal government set aside $200 million over 4 years for the development of a Sustainable Energy Science and Technology Strategy to develop and commercialize leading-edge environmental technologies. The money was scheduled to start flowing in 2006-07. By announcing this funding just before the end of the fiscal year, this government may have actually saved the bulk of the program, which cannot be said for most climate change programs in Canada.
"The fact of the matter is, this should only be one part of a broader strategy on climate change," said Mr. Dion. "The only way that we will make real progress on climate change is if the federal government promotes an integrated strategy with action on a wide range of fronts. We hope that the government will finally listen to Canadians and provide that kind of integrated strategy."
The Liberal Party is looking forward to the events that have been scheduled for Friday and Sunday, where it is expected that the Conservative government will announce that it has reversed its position on the Wind Power Production Incentive and the Energuide for Houses programs and will be reinstating these Liberal initiatives.
Source (emphasis is mine).