You are currently browsing the daily archive for October 17th, 2008.
Green leader: ‘I’m not going anywhere’
By MARY ELLEN MACINTYRE Truro Bureau
Thu. Oct 16 – 6:01 PM
[Green Leader Elizabeth May and her daughter, Elizabeth Cate May Burton, watch early election results at her New Glasgow campaign headquarters Tuesday night. (Tim Krochak / Staff)]
NEW GLASGOW — Wednesday was a good day to be a Tory in the riding of Central Nova.
The air was clear, the sun shone brightly and long-time area MP Peter MacKay was safely returned to his seat in Parliament.
All was right with the world.
So why was there a big smile on the face of the Green party leader whose party did not win one seat in the federal election — including her run at Mr. MacKay’s seat.
“I know there’s a lot of people who wanted to see us there,” said Elizabeth May at a news conference Wednesday morning.
“I’m not going to pretend I’m not disappointed . . . but we still attained the highest level of public support of the Green party,” she added.
The Green party grabbed nearly one million votes across the country.
Ms. May said she intends to continue living in the riding because she considers it her home.
“I’m not going anywhere,” she said.
“However, if before the next general election there is a byelection, I will run there so that I can get a seat in the House.”
In the short term, she said she will concentrate her efforts on bringing down the party’s $4-million debt load.
“We weren’t in debt before the election,” she said, urging Green Party supporters to send in donations. As well, she offered a way for those who hoped to see her in government, but voted for other party candidates, to assuage their conscience.
“Go to our website, click on and donate to the party,” she said, smiling.
As for her future with the party, Ms. May said she’s still very much in the game.
“I think a political party leader has to assume the responsibilities of leadership and that means being on the Hill, watching the dismal spectacle below,” she said.
Ms. May said she would never be tempted to lead any other political party.
“I am not in any way attracted to any other party,” she said, suggesting perhaps the Green party’s role in the Canadian system is to act as a social conscience.
“I’ve been offered to run for other parties and I’m not interested,” she said.
“We may fulfill a role such as Tommy Douglas when the CCF was young and fresh,” she said.
“I don’t know that our ultimate quest is for me to become prime minister.”
If good, Green party ideas are adopted by other parties, she says that’s fine with her.
( mmacintyre@herald.ca)
Source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1085050.html
Posted by Keith Johnson
People, not just politicians, pay a lot of lipservice to clean energy. Are they serious?
Take California’s three-year running battle over proposed new transmission lines to carry more renewable energy to the San Diego area. The route proposed by the utility, San Diego Gas & Electric, would go through a national park—which has sparked plenty of opposition by environmentalists and local residents.
Hurdles_cs_20081015103223.jpg
Still plenty of hurdles for clen energy (AP)
Where do things stand? The environment seems to be trumping energy, according to the draft conclusions just published by the California Public Utility Commission. Far from endorsing SDG&E’s transmission plan, California officials say the “environmentally superior” alternative would be to build five new fossil-fuel power plants at “already disturbed sites”; SDG&E’s proposals are at the bottom of the commission’s list of eight viable alternatives.
That’s frustrating for the power company, which says the only way to comply with state requirements to build more renewable energy is to build new lines to carry the juice. It’s also frustrating for local businessmen, who say they’d like to see more power to keep their businesses running.
But most of the hundreds of public comments collected on the proposed “Sunrise Power Link” express strong opposition. People said they’re worried downed power lines will mean more wildfires, will wreck home values, or fear the plan is a smokescreen to transmit fossil energy from plants in Mexico. Most, though, are simple variations of old-fashioned NIMBYism. Tim Larson of Sonoma County, Ca., wrote via email:
Please do not ruin Anza-Borrego [park] with this huge waste of money and needless environmental impact. I camp and hike there often.
Political rhetoric over clean energy is only going to heat up, even if oil prices are settling down. Expect the fight to shift from vague yearnings for alternative energy to the nitty-gritty details of how to actually get that new energy into people’s homes.
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/15/not-in-my-backyard-californians-dis-plan-for-renewable-energy/trackback/
Posted by Keith Johnson
Oil prices are locked in an epic struggle: Which is going to pull harder? The downward tug of slumping economies around the world, or the upward pull as oil-producing countries tighten spigots to defend their wealth?
Figuring out what oil should cost is no easy task, because in today’s world of Asian economic growth, resource nationalism, and flat-lining oil-field technology, history isn’t the best guide. Deutsche Bank figures oil will cost about $92.50 a barrel next year, but given all the pessimism that’s roiled oil markets in the past week, it also set out to figure just how low oil could go. (Mute point today; crude jumped above $82).
The conclusion? If past really were prologue, oil should bottom out at $35 a barrel. But in today’s world, $60 is the new cheap—and also far too cheap for OPEC’s liking, which will likely keep output tight and oil above $90 a barrel.
What are the different options for oil prices? To get back to its historical average price, oil would go as low as $35 a barrel. Or maybe purchasing power would be a better guide: Back in the heyday of cheap oil, rich-country consumers could buy 1,000 barrels of year, if they had any place to put it. To do the same today, oil would have to fall to $45.
But rich countries don’t rule the roost anymore—perhaps global GDP is a better yardstick. For the last 40 years, oil has represented more or less 2.5% of global GDP, Deutsche Bank says. That should peg oil today at about $59 a barrel.
Then again, oil producers won’t produce if it costs them money. Deutsche Bank figures the most expensive barrels to produce today cost about $80 a barrel, making that a natural floor. Not that oil-patch economics can trump oil-country politics: Countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran rely overwhelmingly on oil revenues, and need oil at between $55 and $95 a barrel to balance their budgets.
That seems to put big oil producers in the catbird seat heading into 2009, with one big caveat. OPEC is pretty successful at tightening oil supplies to shore up oil prices, with one big exception, Deutsche Bank says. When the world economy truly goes south, with global growth rates at or below 2%, oil prices lead a race to the bottom, and even OPEC has a hard time braking that fall.
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/14/crude-counting-how-much-should-crude-oil-really-cost/trackback/
Posted by Keith Johnson
CaliWildFires_art_257_20081014140352.jpg
Is it global warming or growth? (AP)
Like every October, when the Santa Ana winds strengthen wildfires in southern California, the debate is on. Is the seeming increase in recent California fires, as Gov. Schwarzenegger suggested this summer, due to higher temperatures and droughts brought about by global warming? Or are the fires a lot like hurricanes—similar in strength and number over the past century, but perceived as a lot more damaging now because there are simply a lot more houses (and camera crews) in the way?
One of the Los Angeles-area wildfires, whipped by Santa Ana winds gusting to 50 miles per hour, threatened to break out to the Pacific Ocean Tuesday, forcing the evacuation of thousands of residents and torching parts of Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency for the area.
The answer, it seems, is a little bit of everything. Scientists figure that climate change, including melting snowpacks and warmer temperatures, primes the ground for the naturally-ocurring fires and makes wildfire season last longer. Other causes include environmental strategies that appear to have backfired—like snuffing out small wildfires that traditionally eliminated underbush which now serves as kindling.
But the majority of new development in southern California also takes place in fire-prone areas (as the L.A. Times pointed out in its five-part series this summer, and as The Onion wryly noted). That kind of pell-mell growth is like “pitching a tent on the railroad tracks,” the Washington Post argued.
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/14/burning-brush-global-warming-or-mcmansions-to-blame-for-california-wildfires/trackback/
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/14/burning-brush-global-warming-or-mcmansions-to-blame-for-california-wildfires/
Posted by Keith Johnson
paperCrude oil futures slipped to $71 amid signs of weakening demand in 2009, Bloomberg reports, taking crude’s plunge to more than 50% since summertime highs. Falling oil prices could force adjustments to the Russian budget, also in Bloomberg.
Turkmenistan is poised to join the big leagues of natural gas producers, with a field estimated to be the fifth-largest in the world, in the WSJ (sub reqd.). Elsewhere, financial turmoil is clouding the picture. Bigger companies with strong balance sheets will probably lead consolidation in the exploration sector—such as BP’s plans to pick up some of Chesapeake’s gas leases, both in the WSJ (sub reqd.). The credit crunch scores another casualty: France’s EDF won’t make a new bid for Constellation, in Bloomberg.
Electric car maker Tesla is another victim of the crunch, announcing job cuts and delaying production of its next model due to limited funding, in the L.A. Times and the NYT. Tesla’s woes are a sign that the party is temporarily over for clean tech, Earth2Tech notes: “Tesla was turning into the poster child for how a Silicon Valley startup can disrupt an established industry in the green space. But disruption takes a lot of money. And now is the not the time to be spending large amounts.”
While both presidential candidates sparred in last night’s debate, neither has really adjusted energy plans to new economic realities. Energy Outlook examines some looming questions, such as Sen. Obama’s approach to domestic oil and gas: “If anything, he seems to regard the domestic oil industry not as a potential source of new supply, but as a source of new tax revenue.” Bloomberg reports that Sen. Obama will label carbon dioxide a pollutant, opening the door to emissions regulation under the Clean Air Act.
The economic meltdown is undermining momentum for action on climate change around the world, the WSJ reports (sub reqd.). European countries, especially, are worried. “If industry is in a difficult pass, most sensible governments will be reluctant to impose new costs on them in the form of carbon-emissions caps,” said UN climate boss Yvo de Boer. That’s forced Europe to water down its climate-change proposals to make sure they are “cost-effective,” reports AFP. The U.K., meanwhile, says it will aim for even more stringent emissions curbs, despite the slowdown, in The Guardian.
How about the U.S.? California unveiled the final draft of its plan to curb emissions, drawing fire from business groups and environmentalists alike, in the L.A. Times. Florida unveiled its own plan, arguing that the economic crisis “sharpens” the need for aggressive action on energy and the environment, in Grist.
Climate change makes a stronger case for nuclear power, the OECD says in a new report, arguing that nuclear power could supply 20% of the world’s electricity, in Bloomberg. Once there is a pricetag on carbon emissions, nuclear power will be the most cost-competitive source of generation, notes Green Inc.
Is Google’s newfound interest in clean energy and electricity just another stab at organizing information to make a buck? asks the L.A. Times’ Money & Co. Finally, the big California wildfire was caused by a downed power line, reports the L.A. Times, bolstering critics of new transmission projects in the region.
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/16/green-ink-tough-times-for-tesla/trackback/
Recent Comments