Months after Ontario lifted the moratorium on offshore wind projects, Toronto Hydro announced it is finally breathing life into plans to test the winds off of Lake Ontario near the Scarborough Bluffs. The utility, whose only shareholder is the City of Toronto, hopes to build a 60-turbine offshore wind farm capable of generating 100 megawatts. In light of last week’s big energy announcements – the Ontario government’s controversial plan to push forward on nuclear power with two more plants to be built in Darlington, Saskatchewan following suit, and the federal Liberal’s carbon tax plan, now embroiled in a name blame game – the proposed Toronto Hydro wind farm highlights an interesting trend. In the pursuit of clean energy and clear air, cities seem to be where the winds of change really blow.
The plan has been floating in the breeze (get it?) for two years and was delayed when the Ontario government imposed a moratorium on offshore wind projects. The announcement to place a device in the lake to test the waters, or rather, winds, comes a day after the snazzy launch of a Toronto-wide initiative bringing high-powered businesses, NGO’s and the government together to effectively coordinate action towards building a greener, if not the greenest, city. Toronto Hydro is one of the many partners and it goes to show when it comes to real action on clean air and renewable energy, cities are not just blowing hot air. Read the story about the Bluffs project here, which is mercifully lacking in wind analogies.
A garden gnome with an uncanny resemblance to a certain 72-year-old environmentalist. A veritable Godzilla in the form of the chemical industry.
This epic battle is one of stark contrast.
On one side, beautiful and bountiful gardens and lawns that are safe for children to play in. One the other, yards covered in toxic pesticides linked to neurological damage, cancers and thousands of poisonings annually.
Right now in Bonn, with little fanfare or attention from the world’s media, a revolution is taking place in negotiations for a new international agreement to limit global emissions to acceptable levels and support those affected by the impact of climate change.
It is clear that most of the world’s governments are aware of what’s at stake with climate change and are thinking about what they need to do to respond adequately. It’s not clear yet that they will actually agree to do what is needed, and we will only know in December of 2009. But now for the first time some options are clearly on the table that can get us there.
In terms of emissions reductions, the European Union has been leading the way with targets of 30% reductions from 1990 levels as part of an effective global deal. Germany has said it will reduce to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
But the really difficult part is getting developing countries with rapidly growing emissions to shift to a low emission development pathway which means ensuring their poverty reduction and development goals are not undermined by the need to restrict greenhouse gas emissions.
This can only happen with a dramatic increase in financial and technological support from the world’s wealthy countries, as promised in the 1992 Climate Convention.
This brings us to the really encouraging signs in Bonn. Instead of the finger-pointing and stale recriminations that have characterized such discussions in the past, now there are constructive, realistic, and even visionary ideas and proposals.
Developing countries have brought forward practical proposals for how their countries can shift to clean technologies, with ideas for specific institutions and models of technology transfer.
And most surprisingly, industrialized countries have proposals for dramatically ramping up financing for technology transfer for emissions reductions and adaptation in developing countries. Norway is proposing an auctioning of emissions allocations to wealthy countries – based on the idea that the international community has responsibility for the global atmosphere and thus has the right to some of the revenue created from selling rights to use the atmosphere as a dumping ground for greenhouse gases.
Germany is already planning to use some of the revenue from auctioning emissions permits to their industry for supporting international climate change activities. The leading cap and trade legislation in the US Congress, the Lieberman-Warner bill, also has provisions for using some of the auction revenue to support international adaption to climate change and the reduction of deforestation. Mexico and Switzerland have proposed interesting ways of generating revenue under the Climate Convention through a levy or tax on countries according to their emissions, populations, and wealth.
So far in these two weeks of negotiations, we have seen more ambition, creative thinking and concrete proposals than in the previous six years I have been observing these negotiations. The optimism and sense of momentum in the meeting rooms and corridors is palpable, which has partially overcome the typical negotiating dynamic of each side waiting for the other to move first.
Now some developed countries are talking about the need to move forward in response to the openness and constructiveness of developing countries, and developing countries are willing to accept accelerated discussions about the areas most sensitive to them. A virtuous circle.
And where does Canada fit in all this? Unfortunately, nowhere.
Canada’s contribution in Bonn has been variously silent, irrelevant or obstructionist. As the Bonn meetings opened, Harper was returning from Europe and reporting that the Europeans were backtracking on their ambitious goals. This has clearly not been borne out, and European countries like Germany, Switzerland and Norway have proposed ambitious new funding mechanisms, and shown no sign of backing off their strong targets.
Canada is sitting on the sidelines, watching the world race by.
Expensive gasoline has accomplished in a few months what might have taken years by other methods: ending the dominance of the SUV on North American roads. General Motors announced last week that it's cutting production of the rolling behemoths. SUV owners find it costs several hundred dollars a week to fuel them. Forget selling them -- nobody wants one. Dealers won't take trade-ins because they've got showrooms full of new SUVs nobody wants. What everybody wants instead are hybrids. That's spiked demand and pushed up prices. For more on the hustle to hybrids, here's a segment from the Today show.
We're catching too many fish, with too much bycatch and with dire consequences. The psecific and some solutions are explained in detail in Taras Grescoe's new book, "Bottomfeeder." Here's a shorter overview of the problem from NBC's environmental correspondent, Anne Thompson.
| 
ly blow.
