GenX and the politics of global warming. Ontario Liberal by-election.

http://www.science20.com/science_20/why_generation_x_so_skeptical_about_climate_change-92230

Generation X, they say, is lukewarm about warming - they are uninformed about the causes, unconcerned about the potential dangers and doubt it is happening.

It isn't just the stupid people, 12% of those who aren't buying it are quite scientifically literate. This corresponds to other surveys which also found that as scientifically literacy went up, so did skepticism about global warming.   That larger study didn't just do the simple liberal or conservative (which is codespeak for Democrat and Republican to simplistic sociologists) correlation this new analysis did. The new analysis found that 50% of liberals were very concerned about global warming while 0% of conservatives were.  The conservatives are Flat Earth Holocaust Denying Baby Killers, right?  Well, no, unless 50% of Democrats are the same thing.

--------------

D: BIAS ALERT - I am a card-carrying member of the Ontario Liberal Party!!!
I'd also like to apologize for the big mess I made of fonts. I have not used the new Google blog interface and forgot about its quirks.

D - This is pretty near 'n dear to my heart. I'm helping Eric Davis win the local Ontario provincial byelection. This riding may be the key to a Liberal majority in the province. Two issues dragged me off my complacent butt to help last election:
1) hefty grant for university undergrads (I sympathize) and
2) taxation on fossil fuels.
I'd like to mention that I read ScienceDaily, the best science news site on the web, well, DAILY. So feel confident I understand the general consensus by scientists about human-emitted CO2 and global warming.
For the record I do believe in the idea of human-caused CO2-based global warming. However, there is no need for me to 'place all my eggs in 1 basket' on the issue. In fact, I do not need to mention global warming whatsoever.  How?
Pollution and health complications is widely understood and accepted, even by global warming deniers. As is the toll that vehicle accidents impose.

Here are the positions of the 3 major parties:
1) Liberals - incentives for green alternative power sources such as solar and wind. They took quite the hammering in rural areas with wind generators. There is some sentiment that signing a deal with a foreign company (Samsung) for solar capacity was not well researched. Status quo for taxes.
2) NDP - http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1034082--ndp-vows-to-wean-ontario-off-nuclear-power For home retrofits for efficiency. Against nuclear power. On taxes: http://ontariondp.com/en/tag/hst Hudak adopts New Democrat position on hydro affordability NDP Energy and Finance Critic Peter Tabuns says Ontario families should take Tim Hudak’s support for New Democrat Leader Andrea Horwath’s proposal to take the HST off hydro and home heating with a grain of salt.
D - but the NDP go farther than the Conservatives:
 NDP Leader Andrea Horwath unveiled her plan to protect drivers at the pumps by setting a weekly price cap on the cost of gasoline. NDP Leader Andrea Horwath unveiled her plan to protect drivers at the pumps by setting a weekly price cap on the cost of gasoline. “Life keeps getting more and more expensive and it’s time to give people a break,” said Horwath. “We can’t fix everything, but we can take steps to protect households from gas gouging.”
3) Like I said, the Conservative plan is "NDP lite". 

D - OK, these are messy issues. Not all base electricity generation in Ontario is derived from fossil fuels. 

http://www.theobserver.ca/2012/08/03/close-coal-plants-now-report-advises

Ontario has said its remaining coal plants must close by Dec. 31, 2014 but unions for 300 workers at the Lambton Generating Station at Courtright, as well as community leaders in Sarnia-Lambton, have been pushing the province to convert it to natural gas power.

The alliance says that’s not needed because Ontario’s electricity generation capacity has grown by 13% since 2003. It adds that closing the coal plants now could reduce electricity rates by about $367 million annually, or about 2.3%.

D - OK. I'd like to say that, while I do NOT support the construction of brand-new nuclear reactors, that refurbishing the existing ones are the mid-point in their lifespan is highly cost effective. The cost to refurbish, thereby doubling lifespan, is only about 10% the total cost of building it in the first place. Once built, it is a no-brainer to invest in such mid-life refurbishing. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/natural-gas-winning-the-race-for-energy-efficiency/article4465567/

D - natural gas generators have become increasingly efficient, whereas coal plants have stagnated for decades.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/natural-gas-plants-have-become-more-efficient/article4465551/?from=4465567

http://www.nrwc.ca/about-wind/research/

http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/images/content/figure5.jpg

(D - Ontario power sources, past present & future.)

D - right now we still have rich uranium ore sources that make nuclear power a source of low-CO2 power. At some distant future time, as we turn to poorer ore sources, there will a break-even point in CO2 emissions where it will only match natural gas. Natural gas is a much better source of power for low CO2 than coal. Coal sources, as we increasingly turn to marginal and lower-quality sources, has become increasingly less efficient. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Coal_as_fuel

The typical thermodynamic efficiency of coal power plants is about 30%, so of the 6.67 kW·h of energy per kilogram of coal, 30% of that—2.0 kW·h/kg—can successfully be turned into electricity; the rest is waste heat. So coal power plants obtain approximately 2.0 kW·h per kilogram of burned coal.

The U.S. Energy Information Agency's 1999 report on CO₂ emissions for energy generation,^[64] quotes a lower emission factor of 0.963 kg CO₂/kWh for coal power. The same source gives a factor for oil power in the U.S. of 0.881 kg CO₂/kWh, while natural gas has 0.569 kg CO₂/kWh. Estimates for specific emission from nuclear power, hydro, and wind energy vary, but are about 100 times lower.

D- so yeah, Google coal pollution to see just how messy it is. By the time we introduce new clean coal tech to make it comparable to other sources coal is no longer particularly cost-effective from a power perspective. 

http://k-w-bike-walk-bus.blogspot.ca/2008/04/cars-are-not-cost-effective.html

D - the above blog of mine continues many entries on the cost of privately-owned vehicles for transit in our society. IMHO, the price of gasoline, to reflect incorporating the expense of negative externalities of its use on society, should be DOUBLE. The #s support me. 

It's pretty rich that the NDP on one hand want to have incentive to improve home power efficiency (while subsidizing power and heating costs with tax breaks, thereby removing any price incentive to do so), and on the other hand, wish to merely subsidize 'Big Gas' on the road without any matching incentive at all! 

The end result of this ill-thought out policy (and the Conservatives are just "NDP lite" on this, remember) is increased use of fossil fuels, little incentive to conserve or reduce usage, and increased costs to health care due to pollution emission. 

The conservatives are locally touting a new widened highway between Kitchener and Guelph. I use this road part way to Cambridge via Fountain street to get to work. 

http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/765058--businesses-see-crisis-as-new-highway-7-stall-stretches-on

Ontario’s Liberal government approved a divided, four-lane freeway in 2007, but delayed construction until some time after 2015, with no date to begin...

In 2007, Ontario cited economics and safety in approving the 18-kilometre replacement highway, north of the current two-lane road. It was estimated to cost $300 million.

D - here is where the Conservative plan gets into trouble. Where is the funding coming from in their plan?!

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/998840--hudak-promises-income-tax-and-spending-cuts

"(Hudak) He said the cuts will not touch spending on health care and education, which he will increase at levels similar to what McGuinty outlined in his March budget.The Liberals warn there’s a $12 billion gap between the taxes a Hudak government would cut and the revenues it would bring in.“The numbers just don’t add up,” Infrastructure Minister Bob Chiarelli said..."

http://k-w-bike-walk-bus.blogspot.ca/search?q=ontario+coal

D- here we have a (bit dated) pic of Ontario and coal plant locations. 

The Liberals are trying to wean Ontario off of King Coal: http://news.ontario.ca/mei/en/2012/07/ontario-converts-coal-plant-to-biomass-creates-200-jobs.html

Eliminating coal-fired electricity in Ontario is the single largest greenhouse gas reduction measure in North America.

D - in summary, the 3 parties have the following positions:
1) NDP - biggest fossil fuel tax cuts. Anti-nuclear. Home retrofit incentive.
2) PC - medium fossil fuel tax cuts.
3) Liberal - no tax cuts. Pro-nuclear. Anti-coal.
D - why do I support the Liberals? Because only their plan recognizes the combo of CO2 and health care costs that subsidizing fossil fuels with special tax cuts would incur. The consumer is ALREADY getting  a special break to handle the impact of various electricity-related costs in the form of a 10% Liberal discount.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/907641--utilities-forced-to-tout-ontario-government-s-10-discount
"Ontario’s Liberal government is forcing utilities to tout the 10 per cent electricity discount on hydro bills every month for the next five years, the Star has learned.

Over the next few weeks, millions of households, farms, and small businesses will begin receiving the new “Ontario Clean Energy Benefit” on their monthly hydro bills.

The measure is designed to offset an expected 46 per cent increase in electricity costs in the coming five years."

McGuinty said Wednesday that the discount is important to Ontario families and small businesses.

The price break would save a homeowner using 800 kilowatt hours a month $153.60 a year...

“We’ve asked a lot of Ontarians. We’ve asked them to invest in a long-term energy plan. We put it all out there. It’s thoughtful, it is responsible, it is honest . . . we’re renewing 80 per cent of our system over the next 20 years,” the premier (McGuinty) said at Ryerson University.

-------------------
CONCLUSION:
D - There is no way to encourage increased household efficient use of electricity with even more cuts, all which cost revenue to the tax base. Only the Liberals stand firm in their conviction that paying more health costs via subsidizing fossil fuels makes no sense.