Ignatieff’s ‘Clean Energy’ Proposal Bad Politics and Bad Policy
I am a former federal Liberal Riding President, and have largely distanced myself on matters of federal politics since leaving that position out of respect to those I worked with, but this I felt required comment. I hope it will not require much more action that writing a letter to the Leader of the Liberal Party to correct his facts.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade demonstrated a staggering ignorance on the ‘clean energy’ file. His speech today demonstrated a total lack of understanding of this division of power. What’s more, he incorrectly accused Canada of not being a green energy leader. We are. Hydroelectricity represents 88% of the world’s installed renewable energy source. Canada is second only to China in the production of hydroelectric power, and is forth in the world for use of hydroelectricity as a percentage of supply.
The majority of Canada’s power production (just under 60%) comes from hydroelectricity. We’re three times greener than Denmark – but more importantly because of energy use, considerably more than that megawatt to megawatt.
Four provinces, and one territory have 75% or more of their power supplied by hydroelectricity. They are Newfoundland (not including Labrador) (73%) and Labrador(100%), Yukon (89%), British Columbia (90%), Manitoba (96%), Quebec (96%). – This is all clean energy.
Ontario’s Nuclear and Hydro combined represent 75% of power production – all of which is non carbon emitting and therefore would meet the definition of ‘clean energy’ in the context of Ignatieff’s speech, where clean energy was energy that did not contribute to global warming through CO2 emissions.
Michael Ignatieff is right that just 1% of installed power supply in Canada is wind or solar. That doesn’t change the fact that Canada is a clean energy leader through serious investment in reliable, predictable, and affordable renewable technology. A lack of wind and solar in the grid simply means the Provinces aren’t jumping on unreliable, expensive technology that doesn’t work. That’s a good thing.
Denmark and Germany are false idols of clean power. The majority of Denmark’s power comes from coal fired plants, and due to the unreliability of wind power, much of their production is exported to neighbouring countries that rely heavily on hydroelectric, but dial back it’s production to use the unreliable wind power when available. What it means is that Denmark isn’t nearly the clean energy leader that Canada is and that even with 19% of their grid being wind, they aren’t even displacing carbon emissions because they success in using this unreliable power is based on trading a stable source of renewable energy for an unreliable one. Germany is building 26 new coal fired plants to make up for the unreliability of wind power, and isn’t nearly as far along as Canada in carbon free energy either.
If you want to dabble in unreliable power production like wind – you need a smart grid, so you can shut the reliable stuff off when the wind decides to blow (this is seriously how the science behind this works). Smart grids cost billions and the only people who think the provinces should be developing smart grids are wind farm developers. It’s like if Ford or GM thought building more highways were a good idea. With hydroelectricity or any other proven source of power – where there is capacity within the grid you can build more supply into it, no need for the kinds of sophisticated, and otherwise unnecessary enhancements wind barons would have taxpayers paying for so we can buy their electricity at three to five times the cost any other form of power sold into the grid goes for.
As for Michael Ignatieff attacking the federal government because Barack Obama is spending six times more than the Canadian government on renewable energy this year, the United States is ten times the size of Canada, so a six to one ratio wouldn’t actually be that bad, but when you consider that over 85% of US power is produced by carbon emitting sources – the real story is how little the United States is doing. If he is worried about carbon emitting sources of electricty production he should be condemning the United States. Considering this is really a provincial issue in Canada, I don’t see why it would be that out of line for him to propose policy for another country too. After all neither is his jurisdiction. Many provinces did this work in Canada decades ago, and they did it right. It isn’t a fair comparison, and is irresponsible commentary from and political and policy perspective. The others (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and PEI) each have the responsibility to set their own production mixes, but this certainly is not the role for the federal government and never has been.
This is a really bad issue for Michael Ignatieff to seize on. He is misleading the public about the powers and responsibilities of the Federal government, the experiences in other countries, and trying to ignore what is a really great Canadian success story – hydroelectricity – so he can score some shots, irresponsibility trying to look green for supporting an unreliable technology that not only doesn’t work but isn’t part of the area of responsibility he is seeking from the public. It also costs a bizarre and indefensible amount of money and is probably the hottest political issue in Ontario with an organized grassroots opposition movement opposing it.
I will be writing Mr. Ignatieff, in my capacity as President of Wind Concerns Ontario to discuss the success story of clean energy in Canada as it relates to hydroelectricity, to share my perception of electricity as a provincial jurisdiction and to strongly advise against trying to use wind and solar as a political wedge, because it is one which such a strong force of opposition working against it, and such a limited merit that it neither makes political sense or public policy sense.
I also intend to engage the Conservatives, NDP, Bloc and Green Party in defending the good work if many provinces in seeking carbon free electricity and educating Canadians on these successes and not allowing any party leader to mislead the public on the facts, should the Opposition Leader seek to continue this current line on Canada’s reputation as a renewable energy leader.
Tags: Clean Energy Speech Vancouver Board of Trade, Liberal Party Clean Energy, Liberal Party Green Energy, Michael Ignatieff, Michael Ignatieff Clean Energy Speech, Vancouver Board of Trade
October 14th, 2009 at 1:23 am
Wait a minute, haven’t you been complaining about how windmills’ “high initial cost, impact on habitats, potential disturbance of water quality and forced migration of local populations”?
Well see here:
http://healthcommentary.org/public/item/156769
Hydro has many of same costs as wind and yet you are extolling hydro’s virtues. Interesting…
Meanwhile the U.S. Government DOES NOT consider hydroelectricity to be a renewable source of energy.
And you think wind is the “probably the hottest political issue in Ontario with an organized grassroots opposition movement opposing it”?
Do you realize that in the last by-election the Liberals saw no decrease whatsoever in their support in St. Paul’s compared to the 2007 election?
You think wind is the hottest issue around but yet you also thought there was a chance the Liberals would lose the byelection only to have them go on to win by over 20% over the nearest competitor.
You sound like Kathy Shaidle with her talk of massive success of her “tea-bag rally” where really hardly anyone showed:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/10/london-teabaggers-redefine-concept-of.html
So what should have Michael Ignatieff proposed instead the status quo which has left Canada the worst in the G8 on the environment?
October 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
No wonder there is so much political green washing and wasted money being put into wind and solar when our supposed leaders don’t even understand the definition of “clean energy”.
Michael will be mind boggled when he finds out that there are other clean energy sources besides wind and solar.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
It would be more than 1% if idiots like you didn’t get in the way of Wind Energy Research and Development. We need these farms and as many of them as possible for them to evolve. A few headaches are better than nuclear waste and coal fired plant emissions. What are you going to do when they bury nuclear waste in your neighbourhood? They have been using windmills in Holland for decades with no ill effects. You probably would have protested them too!
Al
October 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
[...] Ignatieff’s ‘Clean Energy’ Proposal Bad Politics and Bad Policy [...]
October 14th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
‘He can do more’ apparently. Good points all around John. The Liberal strategy to add greenwashing as a tactic to the campaign is late in the game for the educated.
October 14th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
@Al
I’m sure your heart is in the right place but you – like the vast majority of green advocates – have no idea what it takes to run the worlds 6th largest electric grid. I’m sure Holland has been using wind for decades, but we’re not in the middle ages anymore. Canada, specifically Ontario is a heavy manufacturing and industrialized province. Wind energy cannot come close to providing the needs for such an energy hungry demand.
And there are more problems to wind than “headaches”. They are uneconomical, stochastic, have a lifespan of 10-15 years, have no back up storage and if we are to do as you say and stop using nuclear, where is that missing 50% of our energy supply going to come from?
I mean no disrespect but please read either of the following and learn more about the realities behind wind energy.
http://enviralment.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/attention-ontario-new-danish-study-proves-wind-energy-is-a-waste-of/
This is a great debate about if the grid can go green? Will help you understand our energy mix.
http://vodpod.com/watch/2238686-the-agenda-debate-can-the-grid-go-green
October 14th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
We can split hairs about calling hydroelectric dams ‘green’. The habitat changes they cause are significant. I don’t imagine Ignatieff is informed enough to know about this, especially considering he doesn’t understand the constitutional division of powers.
I am glad you got the facts right on the smart grid. It’s really poorly understood system. They really do fire-up coal plants when the wind doesn’t blow. Keeping a coal plant at hot standby is the least energy efficient condition.
The Ontario system doesn’t work that way in Ontario yet. From what I understand the gas ‘peaking plants’ that were supposed to serve this purpose have been running at almost full capacity since commissioning. The current system involves someone at the IESO calling factories and paying them not to operate on high demand days!
More power to you John. How can I help more?
October 15th, 2009 at 1:47 am
It is so easy to jump on a bandwagon, isn’t it? I would have thought they would proceed more carefully after Stephane Dion.
October 16th, 2009 at 12:39 am
You are pretty critical of Denmark for not being blessed enough to have the massive rivers that we have that contribute to our status as a hydroelectric powerhouse. Denmark has neither this, nor large quantities of high grade Uranium ore like we do. Its a very, very small country, and frankly only has a few options when it comes to its power generation.
Its true, they could probably build a single nuclear power plant, would could probably power their entire country, but that would take years to develop and build.
Besides. Denmark has 1/6 the population of Canada.
For the record, I’m pro nuclear and hydro as a means for Canada to control our carbon emissions.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Thanks for putting everything in perspective. You are bang on.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:33 am
[...] A: For Aqua. In the great white north, we have an abundance of the most important resource of all things life on the planet. The majority of Canada’s power production (just under 60%) comes from hydroelectricity. In Ontario, Nuclear and Hydro combined represent 75% of power production – all of which is non carbon emitting. (*Source: laforet.ca) [...]
October 18th, 2009 at 8:19 am
[...] A: For Aqua. In the great white north, we have an abundance of the most important resource of all things life on the planet. The majority of Canada’s power production (just under 60%) comes from hydroelectricity. In Ontario, Nuclear and Hydro combined represent 75% of power production – all of which is non carbon emitting. (*Source: laforet.ca) [...]
October 18th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
[...] Ignatieff’s ‘Clean Energy’ Proposal Bad Politics and Bad Policy – John Laforet Filed under Carbon Shaft, Iffy, Iggo Waffles, Kyoto, Liberal Party of Toronto, Peter Principle, environment, hypocrisy Comment (RSS) | Trackback | Permalink [...]
October 19th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Michael Ignatieff will say anything such as green initiatives….to get elected…He bullied his way into my father’s riding….He maybe a Harvard Professor…but is not knowledgeable regarding the environment and many Canadians feel he is not qualified to be Prime Minister…. He lives in Yorkville and not in the riding…He smoozes with the high ranking Liberals and the higher ups in society….I personally do not think he is smart enough or cunning enough to be prime minister…ENTITLEMENT AND ARROGANCE ARE NOT LEGITIMATE QUALIFICATIONS.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:58 am
In my opinion, Michael Ignatieff has shot himself in the foot and is already an unlikable lame duck candidate. Why anyone would consider him as a possible leader of Canada is beyond me. From the very outset, his tactics in beating another non-contender Bob Rae out of the race after Dionne emploded showed he cannot be trusted, and he has proved it repeatedly. The liberals need a real leader if they are ever going to come back again.
October 27th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
[...] world. Unlike the United States and most of Europe, the bulk of our energy production comes from hydroelectric and nuclear. We do not need [...]