A few weeks ago I posted a video that outlined a plan by the
Rocky Mountain Institute to reduce carbon emissions in the United States to
near zero over the next 40 years. Many people don’t think that this is an
important goal because they don’t believe that human activity is warming the
planet; my goal is to show you why it’s in our best interest to do this even if
it turned out that human activity is having no effect on the climate.
One positive to renewable energy is the huge financial
benefit! This is true on a national scale, a global scale, and most importantly
for most people, on an individual scale. Getsolar.com
recently posted an article that predicted 1 million solar installations in
California by 2020, which will add $30 Billion to the economy and create 20,000
jobs. This will also reduce dependence on coal power plants, resulting in
cleaner air (which is a huge issue in California) and lower electricity costs.
The same article also mentions that Environment California (which is an
environmental advocacy group) suggested some steps that California could take
to ensure that the state continued to have strong solar installation numbers;
one of which was the implementation of a Net Zero home building requirement
that would require either solar or other on site renewable energy source for
every new home by 2020 and the same for non residential buildings by 2030. This
may seem like an unrealistic goal (to see all new buildings generate at least
as much energy as they consume by 2030) but some builders are working towards
this already. Avalon
Master Builders based in Calgary, Alberta has said that they will build
exclusively Net Zero homes by 2015! This is what they had to say about it on
their website:
“Our mission is to build 100% of our homes as Net-Zero energy homes by 2015 for no additional cost to the consumer while creating homes people love to live in... It means meeting the needs of today without compromising the environment's ability to meet future generations’ needs.Save money now. Save the environment for your kids.”
So to recap what they’re saying; every new home that they
build will generate as much electricity as it consumes with no additional costs to the
consumer!!! Not only will the home cost the same to build, but it will
not cost anything to heat or for electricity! These will be homes that have all
the benefits of a solar installation with none of the extra upfront costs, so
the savings are realized from day one. This is not some non profit organization
that is subsidizing building these homes; this is a business out to make a
profit. The homes are profitable for them, save money for the consumer, and
reduce pollution all at once! I can’t think of a downside that would offset any
of these benefits.
Since there are so many examples of ways to improve
efficiency and reduce dependence on fossil fuels, you have to wonder why it is
that so few people know they exist and why there isn’t more support for these
initiatives. I would suggest that it is because global warming doom and gloom
gets so much attention right now that the people who don’t believe in man made
global warming get turned off completely to environmental issues. This causes
people to be skeptical of “green” initiatives and prevents them from seeing the
value it can have beyond reducing carbon emissions. This is a scary trend,
because it’s what has allowed the Canadian government to gut environmental
protections with their latest budget bill. Just one example is the freshwater research
center, which the government is selling in order to “cut costs.” The problem
is, it costs $50,000,000 to close, and only $2,000,000 per year to keep open.
In other words, it will take the government 25 years to recoup the funds it
will cost them to close the facility, and in that time we will have lost the
worlds foremost freshwater research facility. The website Saveela.org outlines a few
things that the experimental lakes area does:
Research at ELA makes crucial contributions to
environmental policy and law in Canada and around the world.
It addresses real-world problems and solutions with the goal
of providing advice to policy-makers and industry on issues such as:
- Strategies for combating harmful algal blooms
- Regulation of air pollution to reduce acid rain
- Designing reservoirs to minimize greenhouse gases
- Effectiveness of proposed measures to lower mercury contamination in fish
- Environmental impacts of aquaculture and escaped genetically-modified fish
- Impacts of hormones present in sewage effluent on fish health
- Evidence that flame retardants degrade into banned toxic chemicals
- Toxicity of antimicrobial nanoparticles ─ commonly used in clothing ─ to aquatic life
Legislation and action on these issues have saved taxpayers
and industry billions of dollars and improved the health of our environment.
The Toronto Star published this
op-ed regarding the closure of the facility; the author suggested that the
reason the government has decided to pay $48,000,000 under the guise of “cost
savings” rather than continue to run the facility is that the data that comes
out of the experimental lakes area typically contradicts the government’s
position on environmental issues, as well as suggests policies which the
conservative government does not want to follow. This author was not alone in
that assessment, and there are many examples of cases where the ELA produced
data that was contrary to the conservative’s ideology on environmental issues.
The Globe
and Mail also published another article that came to the same conclusion.
If this facility closes the world will have lost a valuable asset in addressing
issues that threaten freshwater resources, which is an issue that is becoming
more relevant as the global population increases and sources of freshwater are
becoming increasingly scarce. This is just one of the many casualties of the
new budget bill passed recently by the conservative government.
Just to bring something a little more positive in; below is a video which is a TED talk given by Bjark Engels,
an architect who specializes in sustainable architecture that is highly
functional, yet also beautiful to look at (and usually fun and exciting). I
think his designs are good reminders that sustainability doesn’t have to be
depressing or expensive.
