Please sign my petition at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gpm_gmo/
Full text of petition copied following sources.
Dear Premier Selinger and Agriculture Minister Struthers,
I am writing this letter in the wake of United States Department of Agriculture`s (USDA) approval of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa, in hopes that the Manitoba Government will take action to prevent the introduction of GE alfalfa in Manitoba.
Ensuring that alfalfa in Manitoba remains GE free is vital to the growing organic food industry in Manitoba. Alfalfa serves as both a nitrogen fixing cover crop, and an important source of feed for livestock. If GE alfalfa enters Manitoba it will contaminate non-GE alfalfa and this will mean a loss of certification and income for Manitoba's burgeoning organic food sector. It is also noteworthy that 107 national and local farmer and consumer organizations accross Canada were signatories to the No GE Alfalfa Campaign. The Manitoba contingent included: Manitoba Forage Council, Organic Producers Association of Manitoba, Robertson - Stow Farms Ltd., JUST Community Market Co-operative Ltd., and Keystone Grain Ltd. - in additon to numerous national organizations that represent Manitoba farmers.
The Canadian government and CFIA have already approved Monsanto’s GM alfalfa, but Monsanto has not yet applied for “variety registration” -- the next step before the crop can be commercially grown in Canada. Passing the buck along to the Federal Government or the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency (CFIA) is simply unacceptable! The province of Manitoba should be lobbying the Canadian, American, Ontarian, Saskatchewan, North Dakotan, and Minnesotan governments to avoid growing GE alfalfa because GE contamination does not respect political borders - bees can carry pollen several miles, and the cross-border sale of hay and livestock could also cause contamination.
The Green Party of Manitoba (GPM) implores the Manitoba government to pass legislation which makes Manitoba a GE free zone – at least for those crops which have not yet been contaminated. As indicated in our 2007 platform if elected the GPM would: “Ban agricultural biotechnology in Manitoba and require labelling of all products sold in Manitoba containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).”
The GPM is furthermore initiating an ongoing educational campaign regarding the pracautionary principle as a reasoned approach to public health and safety policy, especially in relation to our food systems. Under the precautionary principle, the onus to prove food safety or the safety of other new products being introduced into the marketplace. Unfortunately, the increasing privatization of research has called into question the impartiality of corporate-driven research, as the case of Health Canada whistleblower Shiv Chopra and countless others have shown. The long-term safety of genetically-modified organisms on human and ecosystem health have simply not been proven according to verifiable scientific principles.
As the Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiaves (MAFRI) website page Alfalfa Hay5 acknowledges, in addition to the United States presently alfalfa from Manitoba is exported to: Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan. If Manitoba alfalfa is contaminated with GE alfalfa then these export markets may be closed to Manitoba producers.
Manitoba agricultural producers, particularly organic producers, have lost the opportunity to sell their produce and save their seed through the introduction of GM canola. Most canola grown on the Canadian prarires is gentically modified (GM), and even those who do not plant GM canola likely have GM canola in their crops due to cross-breeding and volunteer canola plants. This has largely denied organic certification for Manitoban canola growers and caused restrictions on the exports of Canadian canola.
In contrast, agricultural producers in Prince Edward Island, where GM canola is not grown, fulfill a demand for oilseed that is not contaminated with genetically modified crops and have seen an influx in orders from Japan as of late – they are even marketing the oil in Japan with a picture of P.E.I. on the bottle, thereby promoting the province of P.E.I. as well.
Consumers do not want GE foods, and at minimal they want the right to know if they are eating GE food or not. As reported by CBC's Marketplace “...numerous surveys... [indicate] up to 90 per cent of Canadians want mandatory labelling of GM [Genetically Modified or Engineered] food.”
It also seems worth noting that your federal NDP counterparts have introduced Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm)8, is scheduled for third reading today, February 9th, 2011. The bill would support Canadian farmers by requiring that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.
So, will you now do the right thing and stand with your federal counterparts along with small, family organic producers? Or will you side with the Conservative Party of Canada, Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry on this critical issue?
I look forward to a prompt response regarding what the Manitoba Government intends to do regarding the threats posed by new GE crops, including but not limited to alfalfa.
Respectfully,
James R. Beddome
Leader, Green Party of Manitoba
leader@greenparty.mb.ca
-Sent Electronically (why waste paper?) to Selinger and Struthers on February 9th-
SOURCES:
Unites States Department of Agriculture press release (January 27, 2011). USDA Announces Decision to Fully Deregulate Roundup Ready Alfalfa, availabel online at: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2011%2F01%2F0035.xml retrieved February 2, 2011.
Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (March 23, 2006). Position Paper on the Introduction of Genetically Modified Alfalfa, available online at: http://www.cban.ca/About/Priorities/GE-Alfalfa/Position-Paper-on-the-Introduction-of-Genetically-Modified-Alfalfa retrieved February 2nd, 2011.
National Organic Coalition (March 3, 2010). No to GE Alfalfa Campaign, available online at: http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/GE-Crops-and-Foods-Not-on-the-Market/Alfalfa/National-Organic-Coalition-Submission-on-Alfalfa retrieved February 2nd, 2011.
Green Party of Manitoba 2007 Platform (pg. 12), available online at: http://greenparty.mb.ca/GPM/pdf/GPM-Platform-2007.pdf retrieved February 2, 2011.
Government of Manitoba website: Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Alfalfa Hay, available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/forages/bjd29s01.html retrieved February 2nd, 2011.
CBC News (December 8, 2010). Japan eager for P.E.I.'s non-GMO canola, available online at: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2010/11/08/pei-japan-gmo-canola-584.html#ixzz1629nYbeCwhere retrieved February 2nd, 2011.
CBC (March 6, 2002) Marketplace, available online at: http://archives.cbc.ca/lifestyle/food/topics/1597-10956/ retrieved Fenruary 2nd, 2011.
House of Commons of Canada, Bill C-474: An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (1st Reading November 2, 2009). Availalbe online at: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=4330153&file=4 retireved Februrary 2, 2011.
PETITION
TO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA:
The background to this petition is as follows:
1. January 27, 2011 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved genetically engineered (GE) pesticide resistant alfalfa for commercial use.
2. The Canadian government has already approved GE pesticide resistant alfalfa, but variety registration -- -- the next step before the crop can be commercially grown in Canada -- has not yet been applied for.
3. 107 national and local farmer and consumer organizations accross Canada, including Manitoba Forage Council and Organic Producers Association of Manitoba were signatories to the No GE Alfalfa Campaign sent to the USDA March 2010.
4. Experience with othe GE crops such as Canola and Flax has shown that GE crops contaminate non-GE crops, and this contamination closes off important export markets for producers – parttcularly organic producers who also lose their certification from GE contamination.
5. GE crop contamination does not respect political boundaries.
6. The use of pesticide resistant crops has led to the development of pesticide resistant weeds thereby leading to the use of more not less pesticides.
7. Producers right to save seed is jeopardized by GE crop contamination and proprietary restirictions against saving seeds following GE contamination.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
1. To pass legislation which prevents new GE crops from being grown in Manitoba.
2. To require the labelling of all products composed of GE substances and sold in Manitoba.
3. Lobby the Canadian, American, Ontarian, Saskatchewan, North Dakotan, and Minnesotan governments to avoid growing GE alfalfa, or at least create border buffer zones, to prevent cross-border contamination.
SIGN ONLINE AT: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gpm_gmo/
BUT I will aslo need your ink signatures - sorry petition guidelines of the Manitoba Legislature.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Manitoba Consumers Pay More Than American Utilities
- A Closer Look At Manitoban Electrical Exports & Future Hydro Development
The construction of Bipole III is very much tied to the idea of building new dams in Manitoba's North. If the $5.5 billion 695 MW Keeyask dam and $7.7 billion 1485 MW Conawapa dam are built a Bipole IV and V will likely also be needed. So we as Manitobans need to ask ourselves do we need all this power? And do we need all this debt?
Most Manitobans seem to be under the false impression that Manitoba Hydro charges more per kilowatt hour (Kwh) for power exported to the U.S. than charged to local consumers.
Basic charges and rates vary among customer types in Manitoba: residential rates start at 6.38 cents per Kwh and ratchet up as demand increases, small and medium size general service customer rates start at 6.84 cents per Kwh and ratchet down as demand increases, large size general use customers pay less than 3 cents per Kwh but face additional demand charges.
In contrast Manitoba Hydro receives from 5.4 to 6 cents per Kwh for long-term fixed price contracts, and 2.4 to 4.5 cents per Kwh for power sold on the short-term spot markets. Manitoba Hydro's 59th Annual Report (pp. 100-101) shows: roughly 13.6 billion Kwh in annual sales to Manitoban general service customers grossed Hydro $669 million; nearly 7 billion Kwh in annual sales to Manitoban residential customers grossed Hydro $477 million; and of the nearly 10 billion Kwh in net exported electrcity Hydro grossed 427 million.
Now exports are bulk sales and the price to individual residents and businesses in Manitoba reflect the added costs of distribution lines, converter stations, maintenance costs, etc. Higher costs to Manitoban customers is therefore justified to a certain extent. Additionally revenue from export sales is used to subsidize domestic rates (not to mention helping spendtrhift governments balance the books from time to time).
But what about the risk of building these new dams in Manitoba's North?
There is obvious financial risk. The billions of dollars of debt being accrued to construct dams largely for export outside of Manitoba creates the risk that adverse fluctuations in currency and/or energy prices could threaten Hydro's profitability. Likewise, with a warming planet the threat of drought increases and lower water levels also threaten Hydro's profitability. Additionally if water levels or delays in dam construction result in Manitoba being unable to meet contractual power sale obligations, this could also harm Hydro financially. Since we the taxpayers underwrite Hydro's debt, we will be on the hook if Hydro defaults.
There is also the ecological and social costs of futher dam construction. Flooding, mercury poisoning, shoreline and river embankment destabilization, habitat disruption, introduction of new species in foreign water systems, and greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs are some of the ecological costs of large-scale hydro-developments.
Socially, Manitoba Hydro certainly has a checkered past in regards to its relations with First Nations peoples. Construction of Dams in the 1960s and 1970 resulted in flooding, mercury poisoning, and the relocation of entire First Nation communities. The new model, set by the Wuskatim dam presently under construction, appears to be one of “engaging” First Nation communities in so-called “joint partnerships”. However observers, such as Peter Kulchyski of the University of Manitoba's Native Studies Department describe the Wuskatim agreements as “deeply flawed” and note how Nelson House band council came to power in a “deeply divided election.” Blocakdes of the Wuskatim Dam construction site in the summer of 2009 is further evidence of the continuing divisiveness of Hydro development in Manitoba's North.
These risks and external costs should be enough to give us pause, or atleast to argue for greater scrutiny of Hydro's risk management. Fortunately the Manitoba Public Utilities Board is presently undergoing a review of this very same issue. Manitobans would be wise to pay close attention to the hearings as they develop.
Getting serious about energy conservation in Manitoba, rather than patting ourselves on the back for a baseless A+ is a good place to start. Over the past ten years per customer electrcity demand in Manitoba has been relatively stable. Manitobans remain among the most wasteful users of electricity in the world. Hydro has some incentive to reduce energy use to free up additional electrical capacity which could then be exported. But it is the Government of Manitoba rather than Hydro which needs to take the lead on this. Helping consumeres to reduce electrical consumption is good government policy. It will help residents and businesses to save money, and it can avoid the financial, social and ecological costs of additional Hydro development.
Editors Note: I will return this issue again, but in the meantime I encourage your feedback on this issue. (jbeddome at yahoo.com)
The construction of Bipole III is very much tied to the idea of building new dams in Manitoba's North. If the $5.5 billion 695 MW Keeyask dam and $7.7 billion 1485 MW Conawapa dam are built a Bipole IV and V will likely also be needed. So we as Manitobans need to ask ourselves do we need all this power? And do we need all this debt?
Most Manitobans seem to be under the false impression that Manitoba Hydro charges more per kilowatt hour (Kwh) for power exported to the U.S. than charged to local consumers.
Basic charges and rates vary among customer types in Manitoba: residential rates start at 6.38 cents per Kwh and ratchet up as demand increases, small and medium size general service customer rates start at 6.84 cents per Kwh and ratchet down as demand increases, large size general use customers pay less than 3 cents per Kwh but face additional demand charges.
In contrast Manitoba Hydro receives from 5.4 to 6 cents per Kwh for long-term fixed price contracts, and 2.4 to 4.5 cents per Kwh for power sold on the short-term spot markets. Manitoba Hydro's 59th Annual Report (pp. 100-101) shows: roughly 13.6 billion Kwh in annual sales to Manitoban general service customers grossed Hydro $669 million; nearly 7 billion Kwh in annual sales to Manitoban residential customers grossed Hydro $477 million; and of the nearly 10 billion Kwh in net exported electrcity Hydro grossed 427 million.
Now exports are bulk sales and the price to individual residents and businesses in Manitoba reflect the added costs of distribution lines, converter stations, maintenance costs, etc. Higher costs to Manitoban customers is therefore justified to a certain extent. Additionally revenue from export sales is used to subsidize domestic rates (not to mention helping spendtrhift governments balance the books from time to time).
But what about the risk of building these new dams in Manitoba's North?
There is obvious financial risk. The billions of dollars of debt being accrued to construct dams largely for export outside of Manitoba creates the risk that adverse fluctuations in currency and/or energy prices could threaten Hydro's profitability. Likewise, with a warming planet the threat of drought increases and lower water levels also threaten Hydro's profitability. Additionally if water levels or delays in dam construction result in Manitoba being unable to meet contractual power sale obligations, this could also harm Hydro financially. Since we the taxpayers underwrite Hydro's debt, we will be on the hook if Hydro defaults.
There is also the ecological and social costs of futher dam construction. Flooding, mercury poisoning, shoreline and river embankment destabilization, habitat disruption, introduction of new species in foreign water systems, and greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs are some of the ecological costs of large-scale hydro-developments.
Socially, Manitoba Hydro certainly has a checkered past in regards to its relations with First Nations peoples. Construction of Dams in the 1960s and 1970 resulted in flooding, mercury poisoning, and the relocation of entire First Nation communities. The new model, set by the Wuskatim dam presently under construction, appears to be one of “engaging” First Nation communities in so-called “joint partnerships”. However observers, such as Peter Kulchyski of the University of Manitoba's Native Studies Department describe the Wuskatim agreements as “deeply flawed” and note how Nelson House band council came to power in a “deeply divided election.” Blocakdes of the Wuskatim Dam construction site in the summer of 2009 is further evidence of the continuing divisiveness of Hydro development in Manitoba's North.
These risks and external costs should be enough to give us pause, or atleast to argue for greater scrutiny of Hydro's risk management. Fortunately the Manitoba Public Utilities Board is presently undergoing a review of this very same issue. Manitobans would be wise to pay close attention to the hearings as they develop.
Getting serious about energy conservation in Manitoba, rather than patting ourselves on the back for a baseless A+ is a good place to start. Over the past ten years per customer electrcity demand in Manitoba has been relatively stable. Manitobans remain among the most wasteful users of electricity in the world. Hydro has some incentive to reduce energy use to free up additional electrical capacity which could then be exported. But it is the Government of Manitoba rather than Hydro which needs to take the lead on this. Helping consumeres to reduce electrical consumption is good government policy. It will help residents and businesses to save money, and it can avoid the financial, social and ecological costs of additional Hydro development.
Editors Note: I will return this issue again, but in the meantime I encourage your feedback on this issue. (jbeddome at yahoo.com)
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Quick Update: Energy in Manitoba
Further to my last post "East, West, or Windtower", a couple of notworthy updates.
1. TRANSMISSION LOSS FROM NORTHERN DAMS -
“More than 10 per cent of the power generated by the next generation of mega-dams will vanish when it's shipped south down the three Bipole transmission lines, including the contentious west-side line.
... Once Keeyask and Conawapa are up and running in 2023, total line losses will grow by 254 megawatts to 479 megawatts,” according to Winnipeg Free Press (Jan. 18, '11) freedom of information requests.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/premium/mega-dams-to-lose-megawatts-line-loss-increases-with-distance-travelled-114079764.html (subcription required).
2. IS CHEAP ENERGY A GOOD THING? OR WOULD A LOW INCOME PROGRAM BE MORE EFFICIENT?
A November 2010 report submitted to the Public Utilities Board (PUB) by Green Action Centre and TREE (Time to Respect Earth’s Ecosystems) argues for:
-A maximum affordability level for energy bills set at six percent of income.
-Subsidies to low-income households to offset energy bills above this amount, based the customer’s previous average energy bills
-Low income households would have the incentive and opportunity to increase conservation as the benefit is fixed for a period of time based on previous usage rates.
-Manitoba Hydro and all its customers would benefit as the subsidy could be reduced over time, taking into account reduced consumption as a result of conservation measures already taken.
I commend this report for challenging the conventional wisdom that cheap energy is always a good thing, while at the same time being mindful of the tenets of social justice.
“Revenue from these exports is currently used to keep rates as low as possible for all Manitoba consumers, including residential, commercial, and industrial power users. Our cheap energy undermines our province’s commitments to conservation, while doing a poor job at meeting equity goals. In fact, to the extent that higher energy bills often correlate to larger home sizes and higher incomes, these subsidies are regressive and benefit wealthier Manitoba families. (Emphasis added.)
Green Action Centre argues instead that at least some of the proceeds from our exports could be used to support a low-income energy affordability program that would give all Manitoba families, regardless of income, the opportunity to keep their energy bills affordable.”
http://greenactioncentre.ca/content/electricity-how-affordable-is-cheap/
http://greenactioncentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Home-Energy-Affordability-in-Manitoba-A-Low-Income-Affordability-Program-for-Manitoba-Hydro.pdf (Full Report)
1. TRANSMISSION LOSS FROM NORTHERN DAMS -
“More than 10 per cent of the power generated by the next generation of mega-dams will vanish when it's shipped south down the three Bipole transmission lines, including the contentious west-side line.
... Once Keeyask and Conawapa are up and running in 2023, total line losses will grow by 254 megawatts to 479 megawatts,” according to Winnipeg Free Press (Jan. 18, '11) freedom of information requests.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/premium/mega-dams-to-lose-megawatts-line-loss-increases-with-distance-travelled-114079764.html (subcription required).
2. IS CHEAP ENERGY A GOOD THING? OR WOULD A LOW INCOME PROGRAM BE MORE EFFICIENT?
A November 2010 report submitted to the Public Utilities Board (PUB) by Green Action Centre and TREE (Time to Respect Earth’s Ecosystems) argues for:
-A maximum affordability level for energy bills set at six percent of income.
-Subsidies to low-income households to offset energy bills above this amount, based the customer’s previous average energy bills
-Low income households would have the incentive and opportunity to increase conservation as the benefit is fixed for a period of time based on previous usage rates.
-Manitoba Hydro and all its customers would benefit as the subsidy could be reduced over time, taking into account reduced consumption as a result of conservation measures already taken.
I commend this report for challenging the conventional wisdom that cheap energy is always a good thing, while at the same time being mindful of the tenets of social justice.
“Revenue from these exports is currently used to keep rates as low as possible for all Manitoba consumers, including residential, commercial, and industrial power users. Our cheap energy undermines our province’s commitments to conservation, while doing a poor job at meeting equity goals. In fact, to the extent that higher energy bills often correlate to larger home sizes and higher incomes, these subsidies are regressive and benefit wealthier Manitoba families. (Emphasis added.)
Green Action Centre argues instead that at least some of the proceeds from our exports could be used to support a low-income energy affordability program that would give all Manitoba families, regardless of income, the opportunity to keep their energy bills affordable.”
http://greenactioncentre.ca/content/electricity-how-affordable-is-cheap/
http://greenactioncentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Home-Energy-Affordability-in-Manitoba-A-Low-Income-Affordability-Program-for-Manitoba-Hydro.pdf (Full Report)
Friday, January 14, 2011
East, West, or Wind Tower? -Green Leader Exposes Manitoba Energy Myths-
Manitoba Hydro (Hydro), and more specifically the issue of where to route Bipole III, is likely to be one of the major issues in the upcoming 2011 Manitoba General Election. It is unfortunate this binary “east side” vs. “west side” has dominated the public discourse, because the larger questions about how we use, produce, distribute, and sell energy within and beyond Manitoba remain largely unasked.
Hydro's $8.5 billion debt is the single largest debt obligation of Manitoba – accounting for just under 37% of provincial debt obligations. To be fair Hydro is at present successfully managing its debt, but the taxpayers of Manitoba will be on the hook if Hydro failed to meet debt obligations. Over the next decade this debt could easily soar above $20 billion as Hydro anticipates spending an additional $18 billion, largely on the construction of new dams in Manitoba's North.
Hydro already produces enough electricity for Manitoba's needs – although we do at times import fossil fuel based energy. This means that new energy sources are largely being developed in Manitoba for the purpose of increasing electrical exports. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, but this does mean that we as Manitoba taxpayers bear the risk if these export markets become unprofitable for whatever reason.
By far the cheapest way to free up more energy for export – or to prevent the need to import dirty energy – is to use energy more efficiently. Manitoba's per capita consumption of electricity is among the highest in the World! For all the NDP and Hydro rhetoric about getting an A+ in energy efficiency, if you look at Hydro's financial returns you can see that for the most part energy demand per customer (for both elecctricity and natural gas) has remained more or less stable in Manitoba over the past ten years. So what exactly did we get the A+ for?
On January 10, 2010 the Manitoba Government announced that the St. Joseph Wind Farm (St. Joseph) was operational. The 138 megawatt (MW) wind farm was built in ten months at a cost of of $345 million ($260 million in financing was provided by Hydro which will be repaid in energy).
A comparison of St. Joseph with the $1.6 billion 200MW Wuskwatim dam reveals that that wind-generation is cheaper than hydro-electric energy. Yes it is true that Hydro operates at an average efficiency of 65-75%, while wind operates at an average efficiency of 40%. But even after this is taken into account St. Joseph cost $6.25 million per megawatt (MW) of average deliverable capacity – only costing to Hydro $4.7 million per MW – whereas in contrast Wuskwatim cost $10.666 million per MW of average deliverable capacity.
Now granted there is also a need to create the infrastructure to connect the wind energy to the grid, and wind energy has intermittency issues. There is however also lower transmission losses when the energy is produced in Southern Manitoba, which is both closer to export markets and where most energy is consumed in Manitoba, rather than hydro dams located in Manitoba's North.
Manitobans are smart innovative people! We are constrined not by the technological capacity of better energy efficiency, or the feasibility of non-fossil fuel based alternative energy such as wind and solar, but by the limits of our own creativity. It starts with having an open, honest, and frank public discourse about energy. The point here isn't to provide all the answers, but to point out that a more thorough debate on energy use, production, and distribution is drastically needed in Manitoba.
Unfortunately this debate is impeded by the political rhetoric, and energy myths propagated by Manitoba's three other political parties.
James Beddome, Leader
Green Party of Manitoba
Calculations:
Wuskwatim - $1,600 million/(200MW *75%) = $10.666 million/MW
St. Joseph - $345 million/(138MW * 40%)= $6.25 million/MW
(When the $95 million Pattern Energy contribution is added into the equation the cost to Hydro for St. Joseph reduces to $4.7 million per MW)
Hydro's $8.5 billion debt is the single largest debt obligation of Manitoba – accounting for just under 37% of provincial debt obligations. To be fair Hydro is at present successfully managing its debt, but the taxpayers of Manitoba will be on the hook if Hydro failed to meet debt obligations. Over the next decade this debt could easily soar above $20 billion as Hydro anticipates spending an additional $18 billion, largely on the construction of new dams in Manitoba's North.
Hydro already produces enough electricity for Manitoba's needs – although we do at times import fossil fuel based energy. This means that new energy sources are largely being developed in Manitoba for the purpose of increasing electrical exports. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, but this does mean that we as Manitoba taxpayers bear the risk if these export markets become unprofitable for whatever reason.
By far the cheapest way to free up more energy for export – or to prevent the need to import dirty energy – is to use energy more efficiently. Manitoba's per capita consumption of electricity is among the highest in the World! For all the NDP and Hydro rhetoric about getting an A+ in energy efficiency, if you look at Hydro's financial returns you can see that for the most part energy demand per customer (for both elecctricity and natural gas) has remained more or less stable in Manitoba over the past ten years. So what exactly did we get the A+ for?
On January 10, 2010 the Manitoba Government announced that the St. Joseph Wind Farm (St. Joseph) was operational. The 138 megawatt (MW) wind farm was built in ten months at a cost of of $345 million ($260 million in financing was provided by Hydro which will be repaid in energy).
A comparison of St. Joseph with the $1.6 billion 200MW Wuskwatim dam reveals that that wind-generation is cheaper than hydro-electric energy. Yes it is true that Hydro operates at an average efficiency of 65-75%, while wind operates at an average efficiency of 40%. But even after this is taken into account St. Joseph cost $6.25 million per megawatt (MW) of average deliverable capacity – only costing to Hydro $4.7 million per MW – whereas in contrast Wuskwatim cost $10.666 million per MW of average deliverable capacity.
Now granted there is also a need to create the infrastructure to connect the wind energy to the grid, and wind energy has intermittency issues. There is however also lower transmission losses when the energy is produced in Southern Manitoba, which is both closer to export markets and where most energy is consumed in Manitoba, rather than hydro dams located in Manitoba's North.
Manitobans are smart innovative people! We are constrined not by the technological capacity of better energy efficiency, or the feasibility of non-fossil fuel based alternative energy such as wind and solar, but by the limits of our own creativity. It starts with having an open, honest, and frank public discourse about energy. The point here isn't to provide all the answers, but to point out that a more thorough debate on energy use, production, and distribution is drastically needed in Manitoba.
Unfortunately this debate is impeded by the political rhetoric, and energy myths propagated by Manitoba's three other political parties.
James Beddome, Leader
Green Party of Manitoba
Calculations:
Wuskwatim - $1,600 million/(200MW *75%) = $10.666 million/MW
St. Joseph - $345 million/(138MW * 40%)= $6.25 million/MW
(When the $95 million Pattern Energy contribution is added into the equation the cost to Hydro for St. Joseph reduces to $4.7 million per MW)
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Looking for the real bottom line in the 2010 budget
The most recent budget clearly demonstrates that the current government of Manitoba refuses to accept that economic health and social well being require more than Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The Selinger Government is trying to convince Manitobans that a $555 million budgetary shortfall is not so bad since our debt to GDP ratio is only 24.4%.
It is not unreasonable to run a deficit during tough times, but the flip side is that you pay down your debts when times are good. Budgets are about planning. This implies reasonably attempting to foresee the future. In this regard, successive decades of NDP and Conservative governments have failed us.
When Greens talk about budgeting, we speak not only about the public coffers, but also about the public goods, natural resources and ecological habitats in this province. A sustainable society is based on understanding our natural capital, and planning appropriately is at the core of the responsible Green approach. Nowhere within the budget documents can you find an impugned value for vital ecological services, such as fresh air, clean water, and fertile soils -- nor for other important indicators of economic health, including healthy families and communities, active citizen involvement, and volunteer contributions.
These non-monetary costs are not captured in the budget, nor are they captured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) statistics, which measure the value of all monetarily exchanged goods and services in an economy. GDP sums all goods and services within an economy without regard for the attributes of the service in question. This leads to some strange results. For instance, the costs associated with a stolen car: filing an insurance claim, paying the deductible, the police hours spent on apprehending or attempting to apprehend the thief, justice related costs (including the cost of the court and any costs of incarceration), plus the costs to repair the vehicle, are all added into GDP. Likewise, costs associated with toxic spills and the resultant clean-up are also positively added into GDP. Obviously we do not want more car thefts and toxic spills, yet these add to the GDP number, and we're told this is a good thing?
There is inherent value in sustaining our planet -- our survival depends on it! Forests ecosystems, for instance, have considerable value. A provincially supported study conducted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD] valued the ecological services of a section of boreal forest East of Lake Winnipeg at $121.35 to $130.30 million annually (That’s for fresh air, fresh water, carbon sequestering, and various other valuable activities like eco-tourism, hunting, and fishing). If we extrapolate the IISD's valuation, Manitoba's forests yield $854.75 million dollars in ecological services to Manitobans every year.
Though numbers on a spreadsheet cannot adequately capture the tranquil beauty of our irreplaceable and wondrous ecosystems, we need to recognize that these ecosystems have value. They provide clean air, clean water, and habitat for wildlife. Perhaps if economic value was placed on these ecosystems, and these numbers were transparently included in the budget documents, and new well-being indicators such as the Genuine Progress Indicator were also incorporated, Manitobans would have a clearer picture of where we stand. Perhaps this could help facilitate a long-term plan to ensure that Manitobans leave their children and their children’s children a better planet than the one they have inherited.
------------------------------------------------
The IISD study valued 40,000 km² of forested land at 130 million per year (http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2008/ecosystem_valuation.pdf). According to Conservation Manitoba there are 263 000 km² of forested land in Manitoba (http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/forest-education/general.html). Assuming that 130 million per year for 40,000 hectares is a fair valuation, then the entire forested area in the province yields $854.75 million in ecological services.
The Selinger Government is trying to convince Manitobans that a $555 million budgetary shortfall is not so bad since our debt to GDP ratio is only 24.4%.
It is not unreasonable to run a deficit during tough times, but the flip side is that you pay down your debts when times are good. Budgets are about planning. This implies reasonably attempting to foresee the future. In this regard, successive decades of NDP and Conservative governments have failed us.
When Greens talk about budgeting, we speak not only about the public coffers, but also about the public goods, natural resources and ecological habitats in this province. A sustainable society is based on understanding our natural capital, and planning appropriately is at the core of the responsible Green approach. Nowhere within the budget documents can you find an impugned value for vital ecological services, such as fresh air, clean water, and fertile soils -- nor for other important indicators of economic health, including healthy families and communities, active citizen involvement, and volunteer contributions.
These non-monetary costs are not captured in the budget, nor are they captured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) statistics, which measure the value of all monetarily exchanged goods and services in an economy. GDP sums all goods and services within an economy without regard for the attributes of the service in question. This leads to some strange results. For instance, the costs associated with a stolen car: filing an insurance claim, paying the deductible, the police hours spent on apprehending or attempting to apprehend the thief, justice related costs (including the cost of the court and any costs of incarceration), plus the costs to repair the vehicle, are all added into GDP. Likewise, costs associated with toxic spills and the resultant clean-up are also positively added into GDP. Obviously we do not want more car thefts and toxic spills, yet these add to the GDP number, and we're told this is a good thing?
There is inherent value in sustaining our planet -- our survival depends on it! Forests ecosystems, for instance, have considerable value. A provincially supported study conducted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD] valued the ecological services of a section of boreal forest East of Lake Winnipeg at $121.35 to $130.30 million annually (That’s for fresh air, fresh water, carbon sequestering, and various other valuable activities like eco-tourism, hunting, and fishing). If we extrapolate the IISD's valuation, Manitoba's forests yield $854.75 million dollars in ecological services to Manitobans every year.
Though numbers on a spreadsheet cannot adequately capture the tranquil beauty of our irreplaceable and wondrous ecosystems, we need to recognize that these ecosystems have value. They provide clean air, clean water, and habitat for wildlife. Perhaps if economic value was placed on these ecosystems, and these numbers were transparently included in the budget documents, and new well-being indicators such as the Genuine Progress Indicator were also incorporated, Manitobans would have a clearer picture of where we stand. Perhaps this could help facilitate a long-term plan to ensure that Manitobans leave their children and their children’s children a better planet than the one they have inherited.
------------------------------------------------
The IISD study valued 40,000 km² of forested land at 130 million per year (http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2008/ecosystem_valuation.pdf). According to Conservation Manitoba there are 263 000 km² of forested land in Manitoba (http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/forest-education/general.html). Assuming that 130 million per year for 40,000 hectares is a fair valuation, then the entire forested area in the province yields $854.75 million in ecological services.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Planet is the source of all prosperity
The letter below was in response to this article which was itself a response to an earlier argument.
PLANET IS THE SOURCE OF ALL PROSPERITY
Spencer Fernando’s recent article, “A Conservative’s View on Climate Change” (Jan. 13, 2010) requires a serious response from a green perspective. First, it must be said that not everyone who showed up at Rod Bruinooge’s office to rally for a strong Canadian stance on climate change was in fact a Green Party member or supporter. Greens support vigorous debate, and within the party itself there is a wide range of perspectives on how best to create a sustainable planet.
Fernando mischaracterizes the green position on the carbon economy by implying that greens are so naive as to seek to stop the carbon economy overnight. Rather, greens wish to introduce a pragmatic strategy towards greatly reducing Canada’s carbon emissions. This program would include a revenue-neutral carbon tax at extractive sources, to be offset by reductions in income tax, primarily in the lower taxable brackets. Greens advocate an orderly transition to a green economy by granting incentives to industries willing to invest in producing economically — and environmentally — sound energy and technologies. Retooling infrastructure and retraining workers will be necessary in this transition, but will require strong leadership from the federal government — leadership not being shown by Stephen Harper.
Greens are not opposed to technological advancement; in fact, we embrace it. The appropriate technology and transition movements sweeping across Great Britain and Europe shows locally-coordinated, cooperative solutions in action, and effectively undermines the conservative fear-mongering that jobs must be lost in the transition to a post-carbon economy.
Fernando claims the conservative government's position is "clear," yet there are few concrete ideas that he puts forward. The only idea is the notion of carbon capture and storage. Yet in the same paragraph Fernando declares, "Now is not the time for extreme and unproven experiments." Perhaps Mr. Fernando is unaware that carbon capture is really little more than an unproven experiment still being conducted. Even if this technology proves itself useful in the long term, it will still be a very expensive “band-aid” approach that fails to deal with the problem at its source. In essence, government support for carbon capture is a subsidy to the oil industry. How does this create a “fair market” with a level playing field? Instead, this creates an uneven playing field that unduly benefits carbon-intensive, multinational fossil-fuel companies to the detriment of our planet.
The Alberta model calls into question the notion that the tar sands benefit all Canadians. A recent report illustrates how the gains from the tar sands are private while the costs associated with social, health and ecological problems stemming from the industry are paid for by the public. The Norway model, meanwhile, illustrates how high state royalties on oil and gas development allow for industry profitability, while Norwegians are justly compensated and the funds are prudently managed: Norway invests over 95 per cent of its royalties from the industry in long-term, secure funds. A strong federal government would mitigate the oil patch profit-at-all-costs mentality by recognizing that Canadians will need a steady economy and social standards well after the boom ends. The UK-issued Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change showed the costs associated with not taking strong action on climate change are greater than those associated with regulating and moving away from fossil fuel use.
Mr. Fernando claims that the trend of human progress has been unmistakably positive. If we want to ignore the disappearance of species at a hugely inflated rate, the rapid melting of ice caps, the eutrophication of our oceans, the pollution of our air, water and soil, the rise of cancer and heart disease in OECD developed nations — then yes, we’re progressing. The rest of us working to create sustainable and just societies beyond the boom and bust cycle of linear resource extractive industries are a little more realistic. The planet is finite. Greens understand that our delicate planet sustains a complex web of living systems, which we are both part of and dependent upon. There are limits not only to the total biomass of the planet itself, but also on our planet and our own capacities to absorb pollutants and remain healthy. A wise government would understand the real source of prosperity is the planet itself.
Fernando claims that Conservatives support vigorous debate. With many Canadians disgusted by conservative obstruction of climate negotiations in Copenhagen, and with Parliament shut down, the Campus Greens will happily debate Canada’s climate policy with the Campus Conservatives, publicly. Will Conservatives rise to this challenge?
PLANET IS THE SOURCE OF ALL PROSPERITY
Spencer Fernando’s recent article, “A Conservative’s View on Climate Change” (Jan. 13, 2010) requires a serious response from a green perspective. First, it must be said that not everyone who showed up at Rod Bruinooge’s office to rally for a strong Canadian stance on climate change was in fact a Green Party member or supporter. Greens support vigorous debate, and within the party itself there is a wide range of perspectives on how best to create a sustainable planet.
Fernando mischaracterizes the green position on the carbon economy by implying that greens are so naive as to seek to stop the carbon economy overnight. Rather, greens wish to introduce a pragmatic strategy towards greatly reducing Canada’s carbon emissions. This program would include a revenue-neutral carbon tax at extractive sources, to be offset by reductions in income tax, primarily in the lower taxable brackets. Greens advocate an orderly transition to a green economy by granting incentives to industries willing to invest in producing economically — and environmentally — sound energy and technologies. Retooling infrastructure and retraining workers will be necessary in this transition, but will require strong leadership from the federal government — leadership not being shown by Stephen Harper.
Greens are not opposed to technological advancement; in fact, we embrace it. The appropriate technology and transition movements sweeping across Great Britain and Europe shows locally-coordinated, cooperative solutions in action, and effectively undermines the conservative fear-mongering that jobs must be lost in the transition to a post-carbon economy.
Fernando claims the conservative government's position is "clear," yet there are few concrete ideas that he puts forward. The only idea is the notion of carbon capture and storage. Yet in the same paragraph Fernando declares, "Now is not the time for extreme and unproven experiments." Perhaps Mr. Fernando is unaware that carbon capture is really little more than an unproven experiment still being conducted. Even if this technology proves itself useful in the long term, it will still be a very expensive “band-aid” approach that fails to deal with the problem at its source. In essence, government support for carbon capture is a subsidy to the oil industry. How does this create a “fair market” with a level playing field? Instead, this creates an uneven playing field that unduly benefits carbon-intensive, multinational fossil-fuel companies to the detriment of our planet.
The Alberta model calls into question the notion that the tar sands benefit all Canadians. A recent report illustrates how the gains from the tar sands are private while the costs associated with social, health and ecological problems stemming from the industry are paid for by the public. The Norway model, meanwhile, illustrates how high state royalties on oil and gas development allow for industry profitability, while Norwegians are justly compensated and the funds are prudently managed: Norway invests over 95 per cent of its royalties from the industry in long-term, secure funds. A strong federal government would mitigate the oil patch profit-at-all-costs mentality by recognizing that Canadians will need a steady economy and social standards well after the boom ends. The UK-issued Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change showed the costs associated with not taking strong action on climate change are greater than those associated with regulating and moving away from fossil fuel use.
Mr. Fernando claims that the trend of human progress has been unmistakably positive. If we want to ignore the disappearance of species at a hugely inflated rate, the rapid melting of ice caps, the eutrophication of our oceans, the pollution of our air, water and soil, the rise of cancer and heart disease in OECD developed nations — then yes, we’re progressing. The rest of us working to create sustainable and just societies beyond the boom and bust cycle of linear resource extractive industries are a little more realistic. The planet is finite. Greens understand that our delicate planet sustains a complex web of living systems, which we are both part of and dependent upon. There are limits not only to the total biomass of the planet itself, but also on our planet and our own capacities to absorb pollutants and remain healthy. A wise government would understand the real source of prosperity is the planet itself.
Fernando claims that Conservatives support vigorous debate. With many Canadians disgusted by conservative obstruction of climate negotiations in Copenhagen, and with Parliament shut down, the Campus Greens will happily debate Canada’s climate policy with the Campus Conservatives, publicly. Will Conservatives rise to this challenge?
Re: Tories Do Bluegrass, Greens Twist and Shout
In the Feb. 3rd article, "Tories Do Bluegrass, Greens Twist and Shout”, printed in The Manitoban, Blaike Hamm makes the absurd argument that having seen no Campus Greens in attendance when James Bezan, Conservative Member of Parliment (MP), spoke at the University of Manitoba on January 18th, that this was evidence of "...indifference to environmental issues at its finest." This is absolutely ridiculous! There is any one of a numerous reasons why the Campus Greens may or may not have been in attendance, such as conflicting academic or work schedules. I can only speak for myself, but I had a group project due and was working on the project with my project partner accordingly.
Hamm should check his information when he criticizes the Campus Greens for submitting three letters. I was absolutely delighted to read Ms. Beaudette's letter, but I do not know her personally, and thus I had no idea that she submitted a letter with similar argumentation. I do know Alon Weinberg, and he was instrumental in the writing and editing of the commentary piece published in my name in the January 27 edition. Afterwards, Alon decided that he wanted to pen a few more of his thoughts and they were subsequently published online.
To state that the issue of prorogation "...does not directly affect the Green Party at all...", is offensive and undemocratic. The operation of Parliament concerns more than simply the 308 MPs. Inside or outside of Parliament all Canadians have an interest in the activities of our government. MPs have a duty to represent all of their constituents, not just those that voted for them. By extension, this means that the present Conservative government needs to govern in the interest of all Canadians, not simply in the interests of the roughly five million Conservative voters. I will accept that this minority government was duly elected in our present first-past-the-post system, but these five million voters only accounted for twenty-two percent of the registered voters who cast their ballot. This government then needs to be mindful of the concerns of the forty per cent of people who did not vote, and those that voted for another party; including, of course, the one million, and growing, Green Voters. To quote Hamm: "I will let the reader come to a conclusion, based on the facts and numbers...", to determine if the Conservatives had adequate support to unilaterally shut-down Parliament at tax-payers expense?
Perhaps more Campus Greens should have been in attendance when Bezan spoke, but what exactly does Mr. Hamm want? Perhaps he wanted Campus Greens to show up and pound a drum whenever someone was trying to speak? That is what the Campus Conservatives did during the December 16th, 2009 Copenhagen rally in front of Winnipeg South MP Rod Bruinooge’s Office.
The sarcastic tone of Mr. Hamm's letter is distasteful. Had Parliament not been shut-down, or if it had been simply adjourned, Mr. Bezan could be continuing with his work as Chair of the Environment Committee, but as with all other Committees it is now shut down post-prorogation. Perhaps Mr. Bezan made some good points regarding what the Conservative Government is doing? Unfortunately, and by Hamm's own admission, "no specifics on environmental policy" were discussed in his letter. The Campus Greens have no problem debating ideas, but if the Campus Conservatives really want to have a "respectful exchange of ideas" then perhaps they should stick to the issues.
Hamm should check his information when he criticizes the Campus Greens for submitting three letters. I was absolutely delighted to read Ms. Beaudette's letter, but I do not know her personally, and thus I had no idea that she submitted a letter with similar argumentation. I do know Alon Weinberg, and he was instrumental in the writing and editing of the commentary piece published in my name in the January 27 edition. Afterwards, Alon decided that he wanted to pen a few more of his thoughts and they were subsequently published online.
To state that the issue of prorogation "...does not directly affect the Green Party at all...", is offensive and undemocratic. The operation of Parliament concerns more than simply the 308 MPs. Inside or outside of Parliament all Canadians have an interest in the activities of our government. MPs have a duty to represent all of their constituents, not just those that voted for them. By extension, this means that the present Conservative government needs to govern in the interest of all Canadians, not simply in the interests of the roughly five million Conservative voters. I will accept that this minority government was duly elected in our present first-past-the-post system, but these five million voters only accounted for twenty-two percent of the registered voters who cast their ballot. This government then needs to be mindful of the concerns of the forty per cent of people who did not vote, and those that voted for another party; including, of course, the one million, and growing, Green Voters. To quote Hamm: "I will let the reader come to a conclusion, based on the facts and numbers...", to determine if the Conservatives had adequate support to unilaterally shut-down Parliament at tax-payers expense?
Perhaps more Campus Greens should have been in attendance when Bezan spoke, but what exactly does Mr. Hamm want? Perhaps he wanted Campus Greens to show up and pound a drum whenever someone was trying to speak? That is what the Campus Conservatives did during the December 16th, 2009 Copenhagen rally in front of Winnipeg South MP Rod Bruinooge’s Office.
The sarcastic tone of Mr. Hamm's letter is distasteful. Had Parliament not been shut-down, or if it had been simply adjourned, Mr. Bezan could be continuing with his work as Chair of the Environment Committee, but as with all other Committees it is now shut down post-prorogation. Perhaps Mr. Bezan made some good points regarding what the Conservative Government is doing? Unfortunately, and by Hamm's own admission, "no specifics on environmental policy" were discussed in his letter. The Campus Greens have no problem debating ideas, but if the Campus Conservatives really want to have a "respectful exchange of ideas" then perhaps they should stick to the issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)