A casual letter to Justin re renewable energy
Leonie Zurakowsky
Sent: March 3, 2016 12:57 PM
To: justin....@parl.gc.ca
Subject: oops forgot to send you the link
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/clean-disruption-renewable-energy-canada-1.3470590
Sent: March 3, 2016 12:48 PM
To: justin....@parl.gc.ca
Subject: Renewable, green energy
Dear Justin,
Thanks so much for being a great PM so far.
However, in BC (I'm in V5L 3A6, Vancouver) and all over the country people don't want heavy duty extraction of anything. It's filthy and polluting and our country has already suffered enough due to coal and oil and natural gas.
Let's look at renewals and LEAD North America in green energy and FOOD SECURITY. Perhaps combining the two, could put us ahead in terms of food supplies as we face an uncertain future coming quickly due to climate change.
These are two of the biggest fears Canadians have now - fear of loss of fuels including food for humans and other creatures.
I know you'll stop listening to Big Oil and foreign countries and let Canada fend for itself - perhaps people would even become more welcoming and generous without these fears and we could invite more refugees to live here in peace.
Thanks so much,
Joan Janzen aka Leonie Zurakowsky
Carol Crabtree
Carol
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Communities Against Pipelines" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to communities-against-...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to communities-ag...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Leonie Zurakowsky
Pretty good, you? When would you like help with your computer? Let me know. J
Sent: March 9, 2016 11:23 AM
To: communities-ag...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A casual letter to Justin re renewable energy
Yvon Raoul
Dear Minister of the Environment:
“The path of the past won’t lead us to the future we want.”
It is clear that increasing production of gas from fracking is bound to make it even more difficult to achieve the goal of reducing our carbon output in BC by 33% just six years from now. Even without increasing our output of unconventional gas we would have a hard time reaching that target. According to what I have read, the Suzuki Foundation claims that we would need to remove 17 megatons of CO2 to reach our 2020 target. They claim that we are going to do exactly the opposite: increase CO2 by 17 percent!
Reported emissions have increased between 2012 and 2013. (63 to 64 megatonnes). The initial success of the B.C. carbon tax in curbing greenhouse emissions seems to be faltering. Why wait to 2018 to increase it (by only 10%) if we want to make it effective? The Suzuki report mentions a possible programme to offset carbon production, but provides very little information on the form it might take. How would such a programme work and how effective would it be in countervailing the effects of increased carbon emissions?
If BC’s proposed LNG venture should be canceled or fail for economic reasons, there is no Plan B, so to speak. We know what happens when an extractive industry becomes the sole cash cow in a volatile energy economy. The Albertan government and taxpayers are now confronted with this reality. The proposed scale of shale gas extraction projects in B.C. could meet a similar fate, given the availability of gas from cheaper sources.
Can we rely on Asian demand to sponge up an excess of world energy? Right now (and for the foreseeable future) there is a glut of real and potential gas and oil offered at prices that could put us out of the competition. Quatar, Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Brunei and others are providing natural gas to India; China is maximizing its energy independence by developing synthetic natural gas (SNG) derived from an abundant coal reserve, while fast tracking sustainable clean energy. It seems that the U.S.A., at least for the immediate future, does not need our gas...or our tar sands. Add to this th cost of an $8 billion dam, built to provide electrical energy to back up extractive mining and fracking. That money could be put to better use by providing a permanent sustainable energy infrastucture that would first serve our needs. Are we condemned to be hewers of natural resources and drawers of gas and oil for ever? Why is the panel not seriously considering geothermal energy, which abounds in B.C.? “Big is better” is an outdated mind set.
What is needed is a courageous but realistic leap into a new future based on the reality of climate change and the need to wean the world off fossil fuels and into renewable, sustainable sources of energy.
Yours truly,
--
Earle Peach
From: Yom Shamash <yom.s...@gmail.com>
To: communities-ag...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: A casual letter to Justin re renewable energy
Yom
Thanks for the article Joan...Here's one that I'm sending:
Dear Minister of the Environment:
“The path of the past won’t lead us to the future we want.”It is clear that increasing production of gas from fracking is bound to make it even more difficult to achieve the goal of reducing our carbon output in BC by 33% just six years from now. Even without increasing our output of unconventional gas we would have a hard time reaching that target. According to what I have read, the Suzuki Foundation claims that we would need to remove 17 megatons of CO2 to reach our 2020 target. They claim that we are going to do exactly the opposite: increase CO2 by 17 percent!Reported emissions have increased between 2012 and 2013. (63 to 64 megatonnes). The initial success of the B.C. carbon tax in curbing greenhouse emissions seems to be faltering. Why wait to 2018 to increase it (by only 10%) if we want to make it effective? The Suzuki report mentions a possible programme to offset carbon production, but provides very little information on the form it might take. How would such a programme work and how effective would it be in countervailing the effects of increased carbon emissions?If BC’s proposed LNG venture should be canceled or fail for economic reasons, there is no Plan B, so to speak. We know what happens when an extractive industry becomes the sole cash cow in a volatile energy economy. The Albertan government and taxpayers are now confronted with this reality. The proposed scale of shale gas extraction projects in B.C. could meet a similar fate, given the availability of gas from cheaper sources.Can we rely on Asian demand to sponge up an excess of world energy? Right now (and for the foreseeable future) there is a glut of real and potential gas and oil offered at prices that could put us out of the competition. Quatar, Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Brunei and others are providing natural gas to India; China is maximizing its energy independence by developing synthetic natural gas (SNG) derived from an abundant coal reserve, while fast tracking sustainable clean energy. It seems that the U.S.A., at least for the immediate future, does not need our gas...or our tar sands. Add to this th cost of an $8 billion dam, built to provide electrical energy to back up extractive mining and fracking. That money could be put to better use by providing a permanent sustainable energy infrastucture that would first serve our needs. Are we condemned to be hewers of natural resources and drawers of gas and oil for ever? Why is the panel not seriously considering geothermal energy, which abounds in B.C.? “Big is better” is an outdated mind set.What is needed is a courageous but realistic leap into a new future based on the reality of climate change and the need to wean the world off fossil fuels and into renewable, sustainable sources of energy.Yours truly,
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Leonie Zurakowsky <leon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
He's casual so let's all write him about stuff that's bothering us. Please!
Danaca Ackerson
Thanks for the article Joan...Here's one that I'm sending:
Dear Minister of the Environment:
“The path of the past won’t lead us to the future we want.”
It is clear that increasing production of gas from fracking is bound to make it even more difficult to achieve the goal of reducing our carbon output in BC by 33% just six years from now. Even without increasing our output of unconventional gas we would have a hard time reaching that target. According to what I have read, the Suzuki Foundation claims that we would need to remove 17 megatons of CO2 to reach our 2020 target. They claim that we are going to do exactly the opposite: increase CO2 by 17 percent!
Reported emissions have increased between 2012 and 2013. (63 to 64 megatonnes). The initial success of the B.C. carbon tax in curbing greenhouse emissions seems to be faltering. Why wait to 2018 to increase it (by only 10%) if we want to make it effective? The Suzuki report mentions a possible programme to offset carbon production, but provides very little information on the form it might take. How would such a programme work and how effective would it be in countervailing the effects of increased carbon emissions?
If BC’s proposed LNG venture should be canceled or fail for economic reasons, there is no Plan B, so to speak. We know what happens when an extractive industry becomes the sole cash cow in a volatile energy economy. The Albertan government and taxpayers are now confronted with this reality. The proposed scale of shale gas extraction projects in B.C. could meet a similar fate, given the availability of gas from cheaper sources.
Can we rely on Asian demand to sponge up an excess of world energy? Right now (and for the foreseeable future) there is a glut of real and potential gas and oil offered at prices that could put us out of the competition. Quatar, Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Brunei and others are providing natural gas to India; China is maximizing its energy independence by developing synthetic natural gas (SNG) derived from an abundant coal reserve, while fast tracking sustainable clean energy. It seems that the U.S.A., at least for the immediate future, does not need our gas...or our tar sands. Add to this th cost of an $8 billion dam, built to provide electrical energy to back up extractive mining and fracking. That money could be put to better use by providing a permanent sustainable energy infrastucture that would first serve our needs. Are we condemned to be hewers of natural resources and drawers of gas and oil for ever? Why is the panel not seriously considering geothermal energy, which abounds in B.C.? “Big is better” is an outdated mind set.
What is needed is a courageous but realistic leap into a new future based on the reality of climate change and the need to wean the world off fossil fuels and into renewable, sustainable sources of energy.
Yours truly,
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Leonie Zurakowsky <leon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
He's casual so let's all write him about stuff that's bothering us. Please! <OutlookEmoji-&#X1f603.png>