Please find below the link to the video documentary you may have heard about from the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Be prepared to have your assumptions about global warming seriously rocked by this documentary. I was told it was just some piece of reactionary propaganda, but guess what? It's a very serious and convincing piece of journalism and a welcome antidote to Al Gore and his film An Inconvenient Truth. This should be mandatory viewing for anyone who cares to voice an opinion on the global warming topic as it debunks a lot of myths and offers a compelling explanation of the role of solar wind, cosmic rays and water vapor in the atmosphere. I was especially struck by the detailed evidence that a rise in CO2 follows (not leads) natural warming trends going back millenia. I was also struck by the "case closed" science that a slightly warmer earth will see fewer, less violent storms, not the opposite claimed by proponents of the anthropgenic warming theory.

I really enjoyed it and hope you do, too. Watch it and make up your own mind!

Here's the link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

Permalink | Comments (0)

What to make of the Harper government’s conviction that meeting our Kyoto commitment would drive the country into recession and leave thousands unemployed and facing soaring gas and energy prices?

According to federal environment minister John Baird, the deep reductions in emissions starting as early as next January required for Canada to start living up to its Kyoto commitments is “not the answer we’re looking for”. The why is clearly obvious, according to Baird: “the numbers just don’t add up.” An analysis that Baird presented to a Senate committee found that by 2009, over 275,000 Canadians would lose their jobs, electricity bills would jump by 50% after 2010, prices at the pump would shoot up by 60%, and natural gas prices to heat homes would double, if the ruling Conservatives had to comply with a Liberal bill passed by the House of Commons requiring the government to meet its Kyoto targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It would be easy to dismiss Baird’s comments as mere fear mongering. After all his party fought against the accord, voted against its ratification, voted against reaffirming Canada’s commitment, and seems quite comfortable with making Canada the only country to sign the international accord and then abandon it. But, still, I think his concerns, deserve the benefit of the doubt.

After all, what if he’s right? The transportation sector in particular would suffer tremendously because it would be a primary target. Transportation activities generated more than one-quarter of Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2004 and accounted for 28% of their growth from 1990 to 2004 (during which time GHG emissions from transportation increased 30%). And trucking is the mode most likely to go under the magnifying glass, largely thanks to its success. From 1990 to 2003, the amount of freight carried by the for-hire trucking industry grew nearly three times faster (75%) than all other modes combined (up a collective 27% over the same period).

So Baird’s concerns do warrant investigation and consideration. But so do the many things left out of Bairds comments.

To begin with, we need to understand what would happen if Canada walked away from Kyoto. The Kyoto Accord is a legally binding treaty and Canada ratified it after a majority vote in Parliament. The target agreed to by Canada is not optional. By deciding to abandon Kyoto, Canada would be violating international law. If Canada doesn’t meet its commitments, or buy credits from other nations to help it get there, other trading nations can impose sanctions on Canadian exports under World Trade Organization rules. What would be the cost to the Canadian economy of that?

To be fair, the government report provides only a partial view of the costs of Kyoto because it did not examine any economic benefits. Why did Baird choose to deliberately ignore the benefits that come from better energy efficiency, lower energy use and jobs related to the benefits of emissions reductions?

The link between less reliance on oil consumption is not as clearcut I think as Baird would have us believe. Consider the example of the US economy. In 2007, total energy expenditures in the US will come to more than a quadrillion dollars, which amounts to about a tenth of the country’s gross domestic product. You would think a sizeable reduction in this activity would have a definite impact on the economy. Yet when we look at period of 1977 to 1985 when oil use fell steeply in the US (by about 17%), the economy actually grew by 27%.

If Kyoto is so disastrous to economic activity, why have so many countries signed on? The accord has been signed by 180 countries, including 38 industrialized countries. I find it hard to believe Canada is the only nation with a ruling government that cares about its economy.

Finally, the government report doesn’t answer what would be the economic costs of not taking action on climate change through Kyoto (although, again to be fair, the Conservatives will be releasing its own plans for GHG reductions). Sir Nicholas Stern, the former chief economist of the World Bank, produced an authoritative review of climate change economics that was released last October. Stern found that unchecked climate change would devastate the world's economy, costing between 5 and 20 per cent of global GDP. In contrast, the cost of solving the climate change problem is just one per cent of the world's GDP. Stern's conclusion was that "Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy; ignoring it will ultimately undermine economic growth."

Permalink | Comments (0)

I recently came across an article from the Associated Press about a new program in Kansas that puts cops in the cabs of trucks to enforce traffic laws. You can read about it here.

What a great idea. Basically, police officers ride along with truck drivers and report offences to other cops who are patrolling the road ahead by car. The Highway Patrol trooper in the truck radios details of infractions ahead to his co-horts, who then pull over the offending vehicle and hand a citation or warning to the driver. Within the first few days of the program, 53 citations and 67 warnings were dished out to four-wheelers – many of whom were caught driving in an unsafe manner around big rigs.

The trucking industry has donated the trucks and drivers for the program free of charge.

"We get feedback from our drivers consistently that there are increasing numbers of excessive speed, road rage, and reckless driving," Maynard Skarka of Yellow Transportation, the trucking company that partnered with the patrol in the first week of a seven-week campaign told the Associated Press. "We believe that we get a return on the commitment that we make here because accidents are very expensive; (the problem) not only endangers lives, but costs a lot of money."

I would like to see this program adopted here in Canada. Too often, four-wheelers drive recklessly around trucks because they don’t expect a cop to be riding shotgun and they simply don’t understand the stopping distances required by tractor-trailers. Not only could a program like this punish the worst offenders but it would also serve as a useful educational tool.

Permalink | Comments (0)

Driving along Hwy. 401 on the weekend, I couldn’t help but shake my head as I passed by literally thousands of pieces of trash along the highway. The ditches are covered in debris tossed aside by inconsiderate motorists who treat the highway like their own personal landfill.

It’s completely disgraceful, and while littering is a year-round problem, never is it as obvious as in the spring when the snow finally melts away uncovering a season’s accumulation of trash. Coffee cups, windshield washer jugs, shopping bags – they’re everywhere along the province’s roads, especially in the GTA.

My girlfriend and I commented on the sad situation as we drove along in shame, embarrassed that visitors from other countries would witness this disgrace. Now, I’m not the tidiest guy, and the interior of my car is a bit of a disaster area as well. But I would never even consider tossing some of the empty coffee cups or water bottles that clutter the floor of my car out the window.

I think it’s time that litter bugs should be reported. If you see someone throwing trash out their vehicle, you should be able to call a number and report the offender. Then, the licence plate should be traced and the owner of the car sentenced to some ‘ditch time’ where they have to clean up after others who are as inconsiderate as themselves. Wasn’t you behind the wheel? Well, be careful who you lend your car to then.

Okay, that may not be the most practical solution, but short of re-introducing chain gangs to clean our ditches, there aren’t a whole lot of options. Something has to be done because we are at risk of losing our reputation of being a ‘clean’ country.

Permalink | Comments (0)

In a surprising move, the US trucking industry has actually said it would welcome higher fuel taxes. The caveat being, the money would have to be set aside for infrastructure funding. And we’re not talking bicycle paths here, which sadly has been where some of the current fuel tax revenue generated in the US has been directed.

American Trucking Associations president Bill Graves recently told the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, that the industry prefers fuel taxes as a source of funding for the nation’s highways. It opposes slapping tolls on existing highways.

“We are prepared to pay,” he said. “We do favour fuel tax as a method of payment. And we believe in a program that is tied to system use. The sense now is that given the right plan, there could be some great things accomplished.”

It’s an interesting view, and one that certainly won’t be shared by many motor carriers. Canadian carriers operating in the US will also have to pay if they fuel up south of the border. But those companies will also benefit if roads are kept in better condition and congestion is alleviated.

The federal fuel tax on diesel in the US is 24.4 cents per gallon and it hasn’t been increased since 1993.

Grave’s position echoes comments made by FedEx Freight CEO Doug Duncan made at last year’s Ontario Trucking Association convention. He too said the US government should hike fuel taxes and allot that money specifically to highway funding. Perhaps these comments signal a changing philosophy in the trucking industry, or according to ATA economist Bob Costello, a ‘maturing.’

Costello was at Bizcon 11 (Bridgestone Firestone’s annual dealer conference) earlier this week. He said inadequate infrastructure costs the US trucking industry $7.8 billion per year and the industry has come to terms with the fact it will have to help shoulder the costs of bringing that infrastructure up to par. He said the industry’s voluntary tax increase is one of several signs the industry has come of age in recent years.

Truckers may not like the idea of shelling out even more at the pumps than they already do. But if it means spending less time in traffic or having to fix fewer parts that were broken due to bumpy roads, perhaps it’s a small price to pay.

Permalink | Comments (0)