Thursday, June 10, 2010

New EKOS Poll: 4.6-pt Conservative Lead

EKOS's weekly poll shows some Conservative weakness and Liberal growth, but nothing spectacular in terms of movement.The Conservative lead has been shrunk to 4.6 points. They are at 31.4%, down 0.3 from last week. A statistically insignificant drop. The Liberals are up 0.6 points, slightly more significant, and stand at 26.8%. The New Democrats are down 0.8 points to 16.6%.

The Greens are up 1.1 to 12.6%, while the Bloc Québécois is at 8.9% and "Other" at a very high 3.8%.

In Ontario, the Liberals have re-taken the lead with a two point gain to 36.1%. The Conservatives drop two to 32.1%. That is a bad number for them. The NDP is stable at 17.1%. The Liberals lead in Toronto with 42.9% while the Conservatives lead in Ottawa with 48.4%. The Liberals are down 11 points in the national capital.

In Quebec, the Bloc is down five to 35.8% but still has a dominant lead. The Liberals are down one to 18.9%, a very bad number for them. The Conservatives are up two to 17.2% and the NDP is up one to 12.0%. The Bloc leads in Montreal with 37.2%.

In British Columbia, the Conservatives drop three to 30.8%. The NDP and Liberals are down one each, to 26.0% and 19.0%, respectively. The Greens have moved up into third place with a three point gain. They now stand at 20.2%, a terrific result for them. The Conservatives have a slim lead in Vancouver with 27.6%.

The Liberals lead in Atlantic Canada with 34.7% and the Conservatives lead in Alberta with 51.9%. In that province, the Liberals are up six to 22.7% while the NDP is down five to 8.7%.

In the Prairies, the Conservatives are up 11 to 49.8%, while the NDP drops five to 22% and the Liberals drop nine to 15.1%.

The Conservatives win 66 seats in the West, 34 in Ontario, 8 in Quebec, and 10 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 118.

The Liberals win 12 seats in the West and North, 54 in Ontario, 14 in Quebec, and 19 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 99.

The Bloc wins 51 seats in Quebec.

The NDP wins 16 seats in the West and North, 18 in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, and 3 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 39.

The Greens win one seat in British Columbia.

A bad poll for the Tories, a relatively good one for the Liberals, NDP, and Greens. With a combined 139 seats, a rainbow coalition of Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens would be possible. With a loss of 25 seats for the Conservatives and gains by all three parties of this coalition, it would be difficult to argue that it would be a "coalition of the losers".

In such a scenario, the Bloc would be in a powerful position - or would they? The RC (rainbow coalition) would have to be smart enough to not invite the Bloc, but also not upset them. So, we'd likely see a budget without any poison pills, and maybe even one or two out-reaches, and the RC government would muddle about for a year or two.

And then it could go one of two ways. On the one hand, support for the government could tank, giving the Bloc reason to defeat it and make gains in Quebec. Perhaps a Conservative majority would be the result. While a government like that would be anathema to the Bloc's social democratic views, it would likely be a boon to sovereigntism in Quebec, just when the Parti Québécois would be set to replace the provincial Liberals.

On the other hand, my gut tells me that this kind of progressive coalition would find support in Quebec, dropping the Bloc to the low-30s in support. This would make the Bloc nervous, and push them towards supporting the government. The RC coalition, knowing that their support in Quebec is one of their lifelines, would not introduce any legislation that would raise the ire of Quebecers and put the Bloc back into a dominant position.

So, it would be a gamble. It could go either way, but what is not a certainty is that the Bloc would be given a "veto". Their relative power would depend entirely on the policies set forth by such a government, and they could turn out to be far more stable than the minorities we've seen under Paul Martin and Stephen Harper.

84 comments:

  1. Point is, a Coalition Plurality would not need formal support of Bloc to present to GG. Just being biggest parliamentary grouping, after notifying Speaker would be sitting together in House, would be enough, whether or not CPC does right thing and resigns, advising GG to make LPC leader PM, or loses on 1st confidence vote, ie. throne speech.

    Then, Coalition Plurality would need only to pass throne speech and budget, and then future budgets. Only certain necessary confidence measures. Could for either CPC or Bloc support. I suspect Bloc would be likeliest for 1st throne speech and budget, but afterwards, having shown it had the confidence of the House, and was going to be around for at least one year, probably longer, second important point: Harper would resign or be forced out as leader of CPC. And then that ungainly coalition of Reformers, PCs and Bleus would be in chaotic internal fight, blame game, leadership troubles.

    This makes it entirely possible, even probable, the CPC will support 2nd budget and other measures, while doing necessary reconstruction. So Coalition Plurality could trade off between CPC & BQ, but could also implement long-awaited democratic reforms, more free votes, or 1-line & 2-line whips, instead of 3-line, allowing legislation to pass, or not, on basis beyond fundamentalist partisanery.


    And, inspired by UK example, Coalition Plurality would be well-advised to introduce AV (plebscite) in meantime. Once AV done, merger talk and all problems of divided progressives largely solved.

    But LPC-NDP need plurality.
    Did it in 2006.
    Not in 2008.
    I think they will next time, but it'll be close.

    ReplyDelete
  2. OK, 20% and 3rd place in popular vote but only 1 seat in BC? Sheesh, wonder what it'll take to actually get a handful of Green seats or will we just go from 0 or 1 to 50 in one feel swoop. Price of support being pretty much equal in most ridings.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Harper would have an additionally hard time casting the RC as a "losers' coalition" while the coalition would represent 52% Canadians versus only 31.4% for the conservatives.

    The last time a government was formed with a majority of popular support: 1984: PC 50.0%, before that 1958 with the PCs winning 53.7%.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Discussion of coalitons dealing focusing on their legitimacy, democratic nature, "coalition of losers", etc. is either spin or misguided.

    The only real consideration is math. To govern, you need to win votes in the House of Commons. Whoever has the most votes wins.
    If Stephen Harper has the support of the most MPs in the House, then he gets to be Prime Minister. If someobody else has the support of more MPs, then that other person gets to be Prime Minister. Not a hard concept.

    If after the next election, the NDP, Bloc, Greens and Andre Arthur have more combined votes in the House of Commons than Harper or Ignatieff can muster, then they could get together and form a government if they wanted to. It's just math.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes being the biggest block of seats is the key Gene.

    It's pure math.

    Not requiring the Bloc to actually be part of govt is also a key factor.

    However will Harper's new GG abide by the rules?? That's a BIG question ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I sent a discussion scenario to Eric this morning. Hoping to here back.

    http://forums.delphiforums.com/PCan/messages/?msg=6.1

    ReplyDelete
  7. Once again the problem i have with Ekos is their absurd overestimate of the Green/Other vote. In this poll, they have Green/Other at over 16%!! In the last election Green and others got a little over 7% and polls like Nanos and Environics that don't prompt have Green/Other at about 5 or 6 percent. It was bad enough for Ekos to prompt for Green - but why they had to add prompting other to the mix is some that has perplexed me all along.

    ReplyDelete
  8. GI,

    First off, you do know that would end up with the Bloc as the leading party, right? Duceppe might not be the PM, but a federal government spearheaded by the Bloc? Come on.

    Secondly, do you really think both Harper and Ignatieff would allow a coalition of the minor parties to take power from them? I think they'd sooner join in a Grand Coalition!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with Mr. Forsey that these results would justify a LIB-NDP coalition government. I would expect the CPC to provide support and work to make legislation better for Canadians to avoid concessions to the BLOC.

    If the CPC did as bad as this poll indicates there would indeed be turmoil in the CPC party.

    I think the point is moot now that Liberals have officially pressed the Panic button.

    This will be as bad a poll as the CPC will see for a long while as they are getting hammered on the costs of the G8/G20.

    The benefits of the G8/G20 are starting to roll in and their handling of the economy is becoming obvious. Canada doing so very much better than the socialist regimes in Europe that are being forced into drastic cutting of social programs is a potent argument.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Both Éric and Frank Graves are predicting a Green seat. They're right, but for the wrong reasons.

    The reported 20.2% Green level of support in BC is substantially too high. It's well above what we've seen in recent weeks and the simplest explanation is statistical variance.

    Having said that, Elizabeth May and Gary Lunn are running neck-and-neck in Saanich--Gulf Islands in private surveys. Those are the polls that really count. Also, the Green GOTV "discount" doesn't apply in SGI. The Green machine there is like no other in the country.

    Time is on May's side, not Lunn's; she's still getting to know the constituents while he's sitting on a slowly deflating Tory balloon. There won't be an election until the fall. A Green breakthrough in SGI is looking increasingly probable.

    As always, Guelph is the other riding to watch. One Green seat is more likely than none, but I'll go out on a limb and say that two Green seats in the next parliament are also more likely than none.

    Nationally, this week's EKOS report overstates Green support by perhaps half a point (relative to EKOS polls only). However, the upward trend is very real.

    ReplyDelete
  11. First off, it seems premature of commenters to start predicting a Lib-dipper takeover on the basis of a single poll within the MOE. Eric's post is correct; we're going to have to see how polls bet this out going forwards.

    More to the point, though, it is hard to imagine why the bloc would be any more likely to support a centre-left coalition by defeating the Harper Tories. After all, Duceppe is wise enough to recognize that a centre-left government would be attractive to Quebeckers, and would likely undermine the BQ's chances for continuing provincial dominance.

    The bloc support could, frankly, go either way. It's a toss-up until we see which leaders will be staying on and which will be moving out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So why include Greens in a "Rainbow Coalition"?

    The cold calculus of seats says that one or two Green Members make no difference as to whether a coalition government stands or falls. On that basis, Grits and Dippers would be better to leave the Greens out of the mix.

    However, those one or two seats would be the tip of a massive iceberg. By current surveys they would represent more voters than the Bloc's 50-odd seats. Legitimacy comes from respecting the will of Canadians, not just the seat count under first-past-the-post.

    When I first read Éric's post my reaction was, "Why would Grits even think about including Greens?" On reflection, they couldn't do otherwise. Liberal+NDP support in the latest EKOS poll is 43%. Liberal+NDP+Green support is 56%.

    Or in other words, an unassailable majority.

    ReplyDelete
  13. John_Northey: Sheesh, wonder what it'll take to actually get a handful of Green seats or will we just go from 0 or 1 to 50 in one feel swoop.

    Hang on while I blow the dust off my crystal ball... [cough]... right...

    2008: 0 Green seats
    2010: 2 Green seats
    2014: 35 Green seats
    2018: 80 Green seats under proportional representation

    The Green Party will be part of a coalition government from 2010 on with cabinet seats from 2014 on. The crystal ball goes fuzzy when I try to forecast the date of the first Green PM, but that's a "when", not an "if".

    ReplyDelete
  14. Graves has the Greens winning 4 seats, though I highly doubt it would happen in an election.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/conservatives-would-lose-23-seats-in-election-poll/article1599088/

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree about the coalition not being of losers. If the tories lose alot of seats and some of the others make (big) gains.

    James.. thanks for pointing out that in Canada's 150 years only the tories have ever formed a real 50%+1 majority.

    John. I am impressed that the greens made it to 3rd place in 2 provinces this week, gratz. :)

    Eugene, why are the liberals a "big tent party, while the tories are a "ungainly coalition of Reformers, PCs and Bleus".... wouldn't that form a big tent too?

    And lastly James,... static math,... doesn't work. Even when the Reform and the PC rejoined many of the voters spent 1 or 2 elections in the liberal party. If you are willing to parrot that 65% of Canadians don't want Harper, then you must also accept that 85% of Canadians don't want Layton, and 75% don't want Iggy, not to mention that 90% don't want Duceppe.... If they did then they would vote for them, and not the other guy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. James - the question would be how many of those voters support a coalition. All those numbers tell us is how many people supported candidates from those parties across the country - but not why.

    Only a very shallow analysis reaches your conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. John,

    I hope you're kidding me.

    80 seats = +25% of the vote. It means replacing two parties at the very least.

    You expect this in four years? Lawl.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Earl said...
    John let's hope there are no Green seats in our next Parliament. The Green Party and Ms. May in particular are a destructive force in our nation. One need only look at the damage being inflicted here in Ontario in the name of being green.

    The Green Party advocates the use of both wind and solar power. Neither efficient or reliable. Both are enormously expensive. Until the Green Party has realistic and economically feasible goals that take into account jobs and people's livelihood, I see it as a blight upon the country. I respect both your posts, sincerity and enthusiasm but not your Party's current goals.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Eric

    Mr. Graves at EKOS is poaching onto your territory.

    He says that based on his latest pools the seat distribution would be

    CPC 121
    Lib 90
    ndp 39
    Bloc 53
    Green 4

    The 4 green seats kind of indicate that Mr. Graves (like his buddies in the Liberal party) is panicking and out of control.

    Now he even doesn't believe his own polls.


    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/conservatives-would-lose-23-seats-in-election-poll/article1599088/

    ReplyDelete
  20. With these results given the talk of coalition possibilities by the Libs/NDP it would be perfectly legitimate for the Liberals to and NDP to try and form an alliance of some kind. I have no doubt Harper would meet Parliament and if defeated call for an election. It would then be up to the GG to decide if an election was warranted. Unfortunately no-one could govern without the support of a Quebec only party whose only objective is to destroy our nation.

    ReplyDelete
  21. To me the real "news" in this poll is what did NOT happen. In the past, the Tories have counted on the idea that every time there is a lot of talk and static noise about coalitions and the Tories get to touch their old "blarney stone" about "socialists and separatists" they go way up in the polls. That happened in Dec. '08 and again in Sept. '09. Now, for the past week virtually all the political news has been dominated by stories about possible Liberal/NDP coalitions and this being poo-pooed by the Tories etc...but this time - it has NOT led to any increase in Tory support at all.

    I think that maybe the Tories have been like the boy crying "wolf" a few times too many!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Power generation is more a provincial/municipal area than a federal area, but...

    Green policy is sustainability. There are many forms of power generation out there which aren't used, while power saving is barely touched on. Spend $1 billion on power saving (better insulation, etc) and you'll save more power than $1 billion will generate based on various studies. We still need power, obviously, and things like off-shore wind can generate fairly stable power generation plus solar is generating power when it is most required (middle of the day when power naturally costs the most as well) thus perfect to put into a mix.

    I could go on and on, but GPC stances are no more unrealistic than various CPC or LPC stances (More nuclear? Within a reasonable budget? Not considering what to do with waste? Yeah right.)

    Now, back to polls...

    Pre-2008 the GPC did not put any focus on individual ridings, thus creating the ability to get nearly a million votes with no seats. 2007 in Ontario we saw a focused effort part way through the campaign to win a seat (Bruce Grey-Owen Sound) with the best % vote ever for a Green in Canada (still not enough to win). 2008 saw a strong effort in Guelph that was killed by the shift from by-election to full election plus some effort to get May elected, but nowhere near enough. This time, well before the writ is dropped, we are focused on getting May elected and putting whatever resources we need into that riding. Similar (smaller) efforts are going into other key potential ridings. This will shift the vote pattern and hopefully result in a couple of seats and the sea change will start. Mix in the Liberals/NDP acting more like the same party and you might find more people jumping ship for an election to the only other alternative for the non-CPC supporter (outside of Quebec of course).

    Now, if at the end of the next election the GPC support is still around 6-7% and no seats then we'll probably see the GPC weakened drastically, especially if a CPC majority emerges and the $/vote vanishes. Then, if the Lib/NDP merge we could see a US style 2 party system in 2015 (collapse of the GPC and the BQ with no funding outside of donations) which, imo, would be a very bad thing indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. DL your single factor analysis is faulty. There are TWO stories going on right now, one helping the Tories and one hurting them.

    Canadians don't care about inside baseball. They don't care about 98% of the things Liberals/NDP complain about in Ottawa.

    They care about economic matters.

    1 billion on summit security + crazy pork in uncle Tony's riding = angry voters.

    This is probably costing Harper 4 points in the polls.

    Liberal implosion ? Since no election or take over is taking place in the near future the effect is muted.

    This is probably giving Harper 2 points in the polls.

    Net -2%

    ReplyDelete
  24. Volkov: 80 seats = +25% of the vote. It means replacing two parties at the very least.

    You expect this in four years? Lawl.


    I too would be skeptical of 80 Green seats in 2014. The prediction was 80 Green seats in 2018, eight years from now, in a larger Parliament.

    Furthermore, even 25% is an increase of only 12.4% from the latest EKOS poll, not far off the drop the Tories have seen in just the last 18 months. The first Green MPs will boost the party fortunes; after that it comes down to delivering the policies and politics that voters want. Also remember that Greens are particularly appealing to new voters. Everything is lined up for long-term Green growth.

    Wrong? It's certainly happened before; feel free to laugh at me in 2018. Unrealistic? Absolutely not. That 80-seat estimate could end up being a lowball.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Or, like the ADQ, an influx of unqualified neophyte MPs sends voters running for the hills and back to the traditional parties.

    ReplyDelete
  26. BC Voice of Reason: Now [Frank Graves] even doesn't believe his own polls.

    The problem is that he does believe them in all their individual glory. That's why he's forecasting three Green seats in BC while I'd expect only one there.

    For now.

    ReplyDelete
  27. To clarify, I project seat results from individual polls based solely on the results of those polls.

    So these paragraphs:

    Both Éric and Frank Graves are predicting a Green seat. They're right, but for the wrong reasons.

    The reported 20.2% Green level of support in BC is substantially too high. It's well above what we've seen in recent weeks and the simplest explanation is statistical variance.


    ...seems to misunderstand. I don't think the Greens will get 20.2% in BC. But the projections I make for individual polls do not take into account the likely MOE. If a poll had the NDP at 60% in Quebec, I'd make a projection based on that 60%, despite it being improbable.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I agree the G8/G20 summit is what's costing the Conservatives support right now.

    Why these people can't all just meet in a community hall in Goose Bay I have no idea. If they want opulence, let them host the meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  29. John,

    It's absolutely unrealistic. The Greens have neither the organization, nor the support, nor even the political gravitas to pull such a thing off, "larger parliament" or not.

    As I said, it would quite literally take the collapse of two other parties for this to happen. That's not happening any time soon. And if you're trying to compare it to the Reform/Bloc of the 1990's, then I'll have to call shenanigans - the Reform and the Bloc were either political or ideological insiders that essentially grew out of the PCs like a tumour. The Greens are an outside organization based around fluffy environmental feelings.

    Big, big differences in organization, base and platform. I don't see this scenario happening. Lord knows it hasn't happened in any other country with much more mature Green Parties.

    Could the Greens win a seat in Parliament? Absolutely. Could they get 10% of the vote one day? Maybe.

    Are they going to get over 20% of the vote and more than 80 seats? Hell no. Not in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Doing that well for the Green would require some populist issue to sweep them to new levels, like the ADQ almost was. I suppose something involving all party wide-spread corruption in parliament or maybe some kind of environmental catastrophe... but for the ADQ it helped that neither of the other parties was interested in immigration much before they made it a bugbear.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Greens don't have the party infrastructure to translate support into votes (ie. volunteers/GOTV).

    Of course, Eric and Frank Graves believe the polling in the sense that they model seats based on the assumption that a party's support in the polls will equal their support in votes.

    Organization, money, and candidate quality ensure this is NOT the case. A model taking these things into account would probably be too complex and involve more intuition than math.

    So seat projections like Eric's and Frank Graves' are instructive and fun but sometimes we need to take a step back from it all.

    The Greens are NOT going to win a seat in the next election. Let alone the four Graves is promising.

    Period. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Also, there was a vacuum in Quebec because there were only two parties there. In federal politics we already have four parties with seats in parliament to choose from - so there is less of a need for yet another choice.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Shadow

    Don't count out Liz May. looks like she could or will take the seat from lunn.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Peter its simply not possible for May to win with the vote splits.

    The Liberals have an impressive academic with an environmental background. I believe the NDP have a native/social activist. Greens have May of course. All three are outspoken women.

    So talk about splitting the feminist granola vote !

    What's left is a bunch of old people who'll vote for Lunn.

    This is one riding in which a Liberal/NDP merger or non-aggression pack would result in an easy pick up!

    Until then Lunn will keep getting re-elected.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Shadow,

    They have the organization, so I don't know what you're talking about. It's a pretty impressive organization too, all things considered.

    The problem is that its not exactly a strong one. It gets the job done in certain areas and ridings; SGI is one of them where they have a pretty effective vote base going on.

    Of course, the problem with the Greens right now, unless they've changed this strategy, is that they're devoting all their resources to SGI, and leaving other ridings on their own. They did the same thing in the UK, where Caroline Lucas won the first Green seat, but overall their votes went down.

    I think what might end up happening is that May will have the entire Green machine at her disposal, but it still might not be good enough in SGI, considering that I don't see NDP and Liberal voters drifting to May, unless their candidates drop out. I think her riding was the wrong choice. She should have gone for Guelph for Bruce-Grey-Owen-Sound, since those ridings either have an easily-poached Dipper/Liberal vote, or is a close two-party race which could easily turn into a three-party race.

    But, SGI is a battlefield for all three major parties. How may expects to win there, I just don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Volkov you just expressed four different opinions at once on the subject of the Green's organization, so i'm a little dizzy.

    Bottom line is that Greens always underperform their polls because they aren't targeting and turning out their voters on election day.

    They have a very high rate of staff turnover because its a mostly volunteer organization. They have no $$$ and what little donors they do have prefer to focus on provincial elections.

    And they have the largest amount of delinquent EDAs of all the parties even though they supposedly have the broadest support.

    I don't grade on a curve. You either have what it takes to win or you lose. They don't have the juice to win against Lunn.

    Check pundits. Same candidate ran in three elections before May. In '04 he got 16.7%, in '06 that dropped to 9.9% before rising in '08 to 10.5%.

    This is a strong Conservative riding under FPTP. Its not a contest between the three major parties, let alone four.

    Only way somebody wins is by pulling a Linda Duncan. Polarize the electorate by being the anti-Lunn and its a battleground between Lunn + 1 other like in '08.

    Two too many strong women running for that to happen, unless they both crash and burn and May takes everything and wins.

    More likely is May takes just enough left wing support to hold down the Liberal or NDP candidate and the vote split hands Lunn a victory.

    My guess is he'll be really, really glad May chose to run against him after all!

    ReplyDelete

  37. Until then Lunn will keep getting re-elected.


    In your dreamworld

    ReplyDelete
  38. Volkov,
    I'm not saying my scenario of a "coalition of the tiny" winning the most seats in Parliament is likely. I'm saying that any group of MPs that wants to get together to form the largest group in Parliament gets to form the government, no matter who they are composed of. When the dust is settled, "legitimacy", which the way it is being used here just means people's expectations, doesn't count for anything.

    "a federal government spearheaded by the Bloc? Come on"

    Why not? People had the same incredulous reaction to the Bloc forming the official opposition in 1993. "How could they be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition"?, they said. Well, they did it for 4 years. Anyone who has enough votes in the House can potentially form the government. A governing Bloc is an unlikely scenario solely because of current voting intentions. If those changed, anything is possible.

    ReplyDelete
  39. More infighting in the LPOC:

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/821800--hebert-rift-grows-between-chretien-and-ignatieff?bn=1

    ReplyDelete
  40. Iggy Needs to go:

    http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/l_ian_macdonald/2010/06/10/14340531.html

    ReplyDelete
  41. Liberal/ Conservative Merger makes sense:


    http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/821970--walkom-forget-the-ndp-the-real-coalition-partners-for-ignatieff-s-liberals-are-the-conservatives

    Said tongue in cheek?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Volkov: The Greens have neither the organization, nor the support, nor even the political gravitas to pull such a thing off, "larger parliament" or not...

    The Greens are an outside organization based around fluffy environmental feelings.


    Which step in the process is denial? And where is anger, since that occasionally surfaces too?

    Some of these statements may have been valid in 1997. Unfortunately, many members of other parties have trouble breaking out of the time warp. (This is not aimed specifically at Volkov; the quotes above just capture this common thinking.)

    The Green Party members I know tend to be senior high-tech people or farmers with hard-headed views on keepin their operations viable in the long term. No beads. No Birkenstocks. And definitely no fluff.

    In our riding, the last Green campaign was better run than the NDP's in all respects and the ballot box reflected this. Strikingly, we were also ahead of the Tories and Grits in some aspects.

    The Green national organization is growing in parallel. I see more election preparedness today than I did when the writ was dropped in 2008.

    So where does this knowledge come from? Some of it is organic, grown through hard campaigning. However, much of it comes from Greens who have run successful campaigns and strategies for other parties. A stream of organizers have decided that the older parties don't reflect their beliefs any more. This stream will become a flood when Greens start notching up political successes.

    Why don't other party supporters understand this? In part, it's strategic framing. Repeat the "Greens aren't ready" mantra often enough and some people will believe it. However, never underestimate the power of groupthink: of party members getting together and echoing wishes as facts. They don't see Greens at work. But their reassurances to each other are comforting.

    When the sun comes up, you can pretend that it's dark for some time by pulling up the blanket. But like it or not, the day has dawned.

    ReplyDelete
  43. In theory the Bloc could win an election - I remember a 'this hour' episode in which they ran the math - it would take the Bloc winning all seats in Quebec (extremely unlikely) and the NDP & Green increasing support but it could happen in theory with 4 parties having a higher percentage of vote.

    That is the scary price of FPTP - regional parties can win massive blocks of seats. If Ontario had its own 'bloc' then that party could win power a lot easier, especially after the next allocation of seats is made. In fact, back in 1993 we pretty much had 3 blocs - bloc Alberta (aka Reform), bloc Ontario (aka Liberal) and the BQ. Not good for national unity (as seen in 1995) and not good for the country as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I am opposed to abolishing party subsidies:

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/2010

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hi John:

    What if one simply disagrees fundamentally with some of the Greens policy premises and finds their current leader repulsive?

    Regards,

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  46. Volkov: Of course, the problem with the Greens right now, unless they've changed this strategy, is that they're devoting all their resources to SGI, and leaving other ridings on their own.

    Perhaps, but if so, I must be part of some other Green Party of Canada.

    The one I'm in certainly puts SGI at the head of the list. However, our EDA is getting best-ever support from the national organization. Not to mention the regional activities, which are buzzing.

    Out of curiosity, where do you get these ideas from?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Earl: What if one simply disagrees fundamentally with some of the Greens policy premises and finds their current leader repulsive?

    Well, you could make sure that the policies really are what you think they are, as opposed to what other parties say they are. I'd be happy to answer questions and clarify points.

    If you really don't believe in Green Party policies, then find a party with policies that you can support and vote for them. If your choice is based on informed reasoning, you'll have the respect of anyone whose respect is worth having.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hi John:

    I respect you as I've said but believe growth and jobs have to come before man made GW. I'm not a believer in man made GW, just GW. I do concede that we are getting warmer, just not that it is anything more than a normal variation in the earth's temperature cyclical.

    However it never hurts to be careful. That is why I do try and be somewhat green in my personal life recycling everything but glass, using the right light bulbs and driving a more fuel efficient car. We also try and do more in each trip in the car.

    It also makes sense to me to develop our northern resources of hydro-electric power in the James Bay area of ON or to import power from from MB and QC. Wind power and solar power don't make sense to me with the current technology. I'm also a strong proponent of using natural gas to power vehicles. Our local police cars use NG.

    Still I vote CPC because I am very concerned, especially under MS. May, that Green Party policies would be destructive for our economy and growth.

    John can you respond.

    Thanks,

    Earl.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Well, as to policies on growth what could be more destructive than skyrocketing taxes that are based on jobs? The CPC plans to skyrocket EI payments by 35% over the next 4 years when EI has been in a negative situation for 1 year after over a decade of surpluses. This will add hundreds of dollars of costs per employee to every business that hires people, plus cost those employees hundreds more.

    The Green plan is to cut payroll taxes (including CPP payments) by 33% in exchange for a tax on pollution and carbon. Thus cutting costs by hundreds per employee for all businesses upfront, and giving businesses (and individuals) the ability to cut what they pay in tax by reducing usage of polluting items.

    Given EI & CPP hit those making under $50k far harder than those making over $50k, and that those making under $50k are far more likely to spend their income than those over, there is no question this would seriously help the economy and encourage serious growth in the less polluting sectors. This plan has been viewed extremely positively by most economic think tanks and magazines.

    After all, shouldn't we tax things we don't want (pollution) and remove taxes from things we do want (jobs) rather than the other way around?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Earl,

    Éric has posted his next article. Since traffic on this thread will now go down and we're only inflicting this on Éric, I'm hoping he'll indulge us as we go off-topic.

    I won't try to convince you in this forum that GW is AGW. I may have previously referred to the Monbiot test: If ever you meet one of these people, I suggest you ask them the following questions: 1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide? 2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures? 3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide? 4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide? It would be interesting to discover at which point they answer no - at which point, in other words, they choose to part company with basic physics.

    You have doubts about wind and solar. I suggest that you read The cost of wind, the price of wind, the value of wind. It explains why seemingly generous feed-in tariffs can actually decreased the cost of power to consumers by displacing peaker sources. (Germany is the poster child and existence proof.) It also explains why the variability of wind is not the major problem it's claimed to be. The paper is not mathematical but does require some cogitation and contemplation to fully digest. The supply/demand curve graphs are easier to grasp if you've taken an intro economics course but should be accessible to any intelligent layman.

    Many of the same issues, objections and arguments apply to solar so I won't address that separately.

    Finally, the Green message is that sustainable jobs require a sustainable environmental policy; the two are absolutely not in opposition. One way or another, we won't see plants building muscle cars in 20 years. We also will see fewer and fewer oilfield jobs in more and more questionable places. The Gulf of Mexico is being beepeed on today; tomorrow it will be the east coast or the arctic--if we let it happen. But we have a choice.

    We can create and sell tomorrow's technology to the world or we can buy it from the world. I'd prefer the first option. I want green-collar jobs, and lots of them. Which is the Green Party plan for a green economy.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Oh, an FYI, I used to vote PC/Reform/CA with the odd exception where I'd toss a vote to the NDP (yes, I was one of those in 1990 - strong local candidate vs weak one for PC's, my local MPP was a cabinet minister and it was a flop).

    When the PC/CA merged I thought 'great' but then I saw Harper win the leadership and was concerned it would become just the Reform Party. Before the Ontario 2007 election I dug into the Green Party as the others were just not appealing anymore (school stance in Ontario was a big deal). I learned that the Green's had that tax shift and it made so much sense to me that I jumped over and started helping out. Dion didn't impress me as he was changing it from a shift to a cash grab and I just don't trust Liberals to ever do what they say they will.

    Thus how a PC became a Green. Didn't hurt that the GPC had an ex-PC as the leader pre-May either.

    ReplyDelete
  52. One more follow-up comment on wind power: a frequent argument is that there's not enough of it. Perhaps not for all our needs. However, IESO reports generation performance in Ontario, albeit years after the fact. In January 2008 the five existing wind farms generated roughly as much electricity as the bottom 24 of 60 hydro plants, 150,000 MWh for each type.

    This for a very new technology with very little installed plant. There's lots of room for growth.

    ReplyDelete
  53. John I'm sorry but I choose to part ways with your science on man made GW. The amount of CO2 has fluctuated in the atmosphere in the past as during the middle ages warming period. We don't know if the CO@ build up is mainly due to man or nature. Nor is there a clear correlation between CO2 levels and GW.

    I like John N idea of a carbon tax with reductions in payroll taxes. However how does that help someone like my mother-in-law who is retired on a fixed income. She'll pay more for fuel to heat her home, drive her car and electricity for her home. She'll have no costs off set.

    I recall from an earlier conversation that you conceded that the way McGuinty is developing wind power in ON was failure. You also pointed out or another poster did that Denmark and other nations who had gone full bore into wind power had found that it was not nearly as efficient as supposed. You also conceded that because of the variable nature of both wind and solar power that conventional power sources had to be built to to be ready ready to generate the needed power in the event of a lack of sun or wind. That more than doubles the capital costs of these power sources and isn't included in the costs of either wind or solar power. If I'm wrong please tell me.

    Regards,

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hi John:

    Just read your Green Party Platform:

    -no more grey-industry bail-outs

    -income-splitting for families

    -lower payroll and income taxes

    -higher taxes on polluting industries

    -turn blue collar work into green collar jobs

    I find these goals laudable but one, four and five are not economically realistic. We don't trade with Europe in any large amount. Our major trading partner is the US with 78% of our exports going there. If we tax "grey" industries, we make them less competitive with their US counterparts (even allowing for lower employer payroll tax contributions) and certainly with their Chinese counterparts. Canad'a industrial base is in serious trouble without new taxes adding to its burden. In North Carolina land for industrial development is cheaper and more importantly the cost of electricity is 4 cents a kilowatt hour. Compare that to Ontario where rates are going to climb to between 6.5 and 7 cents per KH. Industry uses a lot of electricity. How are we to compete then?

    Ontario has contracted with a South Korean company to develop most of our wind power and the technology that goes with it. We get 1400 permanent manufacturing jobs at best. They get override access to our grid. Not smart in my mind.

    There are no specifics in the GP platform on how we will turn blue collar jobs into green collar jobs. There never are. Finally Europe is on real financial trouble and Spain, one those countries who jumped on the green band wagon, is facing severe austerity measures. It will no longer be able to provide huge subsidies for solar power. France, Germany and the rest will soon follow as debt forces them to face reality. JMHO.

    Regards,

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hi John:

    I just read your link:

    "The cost of wind, the price of wind, the value of wind."

    Wind is only cheaper than other methods of generation because you assign a cost for CO2 emissions. Anyone can manipulate data like that. The truth is that currently in NA there is no cost for CO2 emissions. Nor is there in China our most fierce competitor. To me that's a bogus calculation. Nor as I pointed out does it include the capital costs of concurrent conventional generating capacity that must be built to ensure an uninterrupted flow of power.

    Regards,

    Keith

    ReplyDelete
  56. Well, for seniors there are no shortage of tax breaks that have been put into place by various governments and will continue to be put into place due to the fact seniors vote.

    If more people get jobs, and cutting the cost of hiring will create those jobs without a doubt (unless you don't believe in basic supply/demand principles), then the economy becomes stronger (fewer on EI/welfare, more paying taxes). If the economy is stronger then interest rates climb. If interest rates climb then fixed income people get more income (as their income isn't really fixed, it varies based on interest rates).

    With any tax policy there will be winners and losers. Yes, for those with fixed incomes a cut in payroll tax won't help. Just like income splitting for seniors did nothing for those of us with children, just like skyrocketing EI payments does nothing good for the working poor. I see the 'what about fixed income' as a strawman argument as any policy will have someone who doesn't win.

    Ideally there would be some form of support provided to those who are hit by energy prices climbing but no matter what someone would be missed. That shouldn't stop a smart policy that would help the economy (jobs jobs jobs as they say).

    ReplyDelete
  57. Earl:

    In discussing power required we need to differentiate between base load and peak. Currently in Ont. base load is partially hydro and partially nuke. Ramping hydro up and down to handle peak is relatively easy and quick. Nuke is not, hence the coal plants.

    Now this amazed me as solar is assumed to need big surface areas.
    What's
    Needed.



    Using a mix of hydro, nuke and solar makes sense to me. Yes you are quite correct, Denmark, biggest wind operator is backing right off as results have been unsatisfactory.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Éric, I said that I wouldn't discuss global warming on this forum. As always, it's my magic hot button. However, say the word and I'm outta here.

    Earl: The amount of CO2 has fluctuated in the atmosphere in the past as during the middle ages warming period.

    Could you provide a reference for that statement? This graph shows the opposite. The CO2 elevation in the 14 century is noise level compared to recent trends. Any measurable aspect of a natural system will of course fluctuate to some extent over time, but the modern CO2 climb is unprecedented in the geological record.

    There have of course been major variations in CO2 over the history of the planet. For instance, levels were elevated back when dinosaurs were the dominant life forms. It's instructive that their small-scale lung structure was quite different from ours and is better at moving air. Unfortunately, today's fauna (including humans) can't instantaneously evolve to that configuration.

    We don't know if the CO@ build up is mainly due to man or nature.

    We have high confidence (geek for, "no reasonable person in possession of the evidence can dispute") that the additional CO2 is human-generated on several grounds. Two simple ones:

    * We can calculate where it comes from. If the additional CO2 due to human activity isn't taken up in equal measure by some other process, CO2 concentrations will--and do--climb.

    * The carbon isotope ratios put an unmistakeable human fingerprint on the additional atmospheric CO2.

    Yes, natural sources of CO2 are significantly larger than humans ones. However, those natural sources were part of a balanced cycle before modern fossil-fuel burning. It's the imbalance that's critical.

    Nor is there a clear correlation between CO2 levels and GW.

    Global, regional and local temperatures vary for many reasons. For instance, it will be colder here in six months than it is now. That's not a refutation of AGW.

    When the swings due to other causes are averaged out, the correlation is very clear. You can get a feel for this at woodfortrees. But the pros are the ones to consult. Read the IPCC report, specifically the WG I section on The Physical Science Basis.

    The science isn't simple. That's why the professional climate change deniers are so successful; they know that a five-paragraph article in the National Post or the Sun dismissing climate change will trump any dozen scholarly papers, any day. People always prefer the comforting answer that doesn't make them think. However, the science is also unequivocal. There's uncertainty, all right; it's not clear whether we're heading for disaster at a high speed or at a very high speed.

    Either way, we don't have the luxury to find out before we start applying the brakes.

    I'll respond to non-AGW points separately.

    ReplyDelete
  59. John N cutting payroll taxes is only one part of the hiring equation. By increasing the tax burden on so called "grey" industries you make them less competitive because they have to raise their prices to pay for your carbon taxes and the increased costs for electricity. Who is going to hire more workers if the demand isn't there? Companies only hire workers when the demand for their goods increase. Simple as that. Workers working will use their savings to buy imported goods because they will be cheaper because industry in China and the US don't pay high electric costs and carbon taxes. Nice in theory but when reality kicks in it doesn't work. Canada can't do this in isolation. If and when the rest of the world is ready to do the same thing then I'm all for what you suggest.

    ReplyDelete
  60. John:
    For instance, it will be colder here in six months than it is now. That's not a refutation of AGW.


    There is no doubt in my mind that GW exists.

    I have been looking at this for several years now. Each summer these Arctic towns get more days at higher temps.

    http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm

    Archangel and Khatanga in particular last summer saw several days in the 30's

    Today Alert was showing +2. Hello ?? Look where Alert is !! Right in the arctic ice cap .

    GW is real and it is dangerous but those on the right or in thrall to Big Oil refuse top accept it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Peter: Denmark, biggest wind operator is backing right off as results have been unsatisfactory.

    That's a highly surprising statement. Could you provide a supporting reference? The country clearly needs to add transmission infrastructure before substantially adding to the current wind farms, but the problem isn't wind generation and the solution is clear.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Coming back for the non-AGW points...

    Earl: I recall from an earlier conversation that you conceded that the way McGuinty is developing wind power in ON was failure.

    "Conceded" isn't the right word here; I hold no brief for McGuinty. I criticized him for emphasizing cheap power over carbon power reduction. "Failure" isn't the right word either. I'm confident it will succeed at doing, if not the wrong thing, at least not the right thing.

    You also conceded that because of the variable nature of both wind and solar power that conventional power sources had to be built to to be ready ready to generate the needed power in the event of a lack of sun or wind. That more than doubles the capital costs of these power sources and isn't included in the costs of either wind or solar power. If I'm wrong please tell me.

    With respect, yes you are wrong, for several reasons. One is that we already have considerable standby power and there's no need to "more than [??] double the capital cost". This is explained in the paper cited earlier and you can see the Ontario figures for yourself (right column links to spreadsheets; inspect the "Actual Production Factor %" column). Secondly, power moves around the continent today and we'll see even more in future as power moves from windy or sunny places to calm, overcast ones. Thirdly, the market range for power will be expanded by the coming green grid of high voltage DC lines.

    Wind works, it's cheap and it's reliable as part of a green power mix and grid.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Earl: Just read your Green Party Platform:

    Thanks!

    I find these goals laudable but one, four and five are not economically realistic... Our major trading partner is the US with 78% of our exports going there.

    And that's why we have to move. Now. It's not economically realistic to sit on our hands.

    Ontario has contracted with a South Korean company to develop most of our wind power and the technology that goes with it. We get 1400 permanent manufacturing jobs at best. They get override access to our grid. Not smart in my mind.

    In place of "not smart", can we agree on "dumb"?

    Those South Korean jobs are precisely the ones that the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario want to keep in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Earl: [In] "The cost of wind, the price of wind, the value of wind", wind is only cheaper than other methods of generation because you assign a cost for CO2 emissions... The truth is that currently in NA there is no cost for CO2 emissions. Nor is there in China our most fierce competitor.

    Could you clarify where any carbon price is included in the calculations? I see only one: Europe's carbon value of $30/tonne factored into figure 6.8 on page 2. Since that's a real cost, the comparison seems fair. In fact, it seems overly generous to fossil fuel-based generation because carbon taxes in some form are coming.

    ReplyDelete
  65. John:


    http://domesticfuel.com/2008/12/26/us-now-tops-in-wind-energy/


    Interesting discussion

    http://forums.delphiforums.com/RelPol/messages/?msg=5736.1

    Wiki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power


    Can't find the piece re Denmark backing off wind. Fairly recent I think. Try a Google?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Peter: Can't find the piece re Denmark backing off wind. Fairly recent I think. Try a Google?

    Um... you understand that, "It doesn't work. I can't find evidence. Try Google.", is not entirely persuasive?

    For what it matters, I always go to Google first in this kind of situation. Which is why I called the statement "highly surprising".

    ReplyDelete
  67. John, with respect, after rereading your paper you are right about the cost of carbon being included in only figure 6.8. You did not address my point that there currently is no carbon cost in the nations we compete with - the US, China, Tiawan, Korea and India. While I don't agree that carbon should be a cost, my point is simple. Canada representing 2% of the world's emissions can't impose a carbon charge when they don't. If they do then we are playing on a level playing field. We are a trading nation. Canada is in a desperate battle to maintain its manufacturing base. That is where the good paying jobs are. Ontario, my province, has been devastated by the loss of manufacturing to China, Taiwan, Korea, the US and Mexico. We CAN NOT add carbon taxes to the costs of doing business in Ontario or Canada. What do you say?

    Secondly your paper admits that wind power costs much more than alternative sources of power. It requires set government rates to be paid for fifteen to twenty years. These rates are currently over three times what the government of Ontario pays other suppliers. When industry can choose between a low rate State like NC (4 cents per KWH) and a high rate ON (six to seven going to eight cents per KWH)where do you think they will locate?

    There currently is no continent wide power grid. When ON runs out of during high demand periods it must buy power from NY State or Quebec at extremely high rates. Sometimes these rate exceed a $1 per KWH. That doesn't help the cost of wind power.

    I don't want to keep coal generation going either. As previously stated I want us to develop our hydro electric resources in the north (James Bay).

    We agree the McGuinty wind power moves are dumb.

    One of our differences as I see it that you put the environment before the economy, I do the reverse to some extent.

    Thanks for the discussion. Let's continue it.

    ReplyDelete
  68. The Problem with Wind Power:

    http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

    The Denmark example!

    ReplyDelete
  69. John:

    From the link Earl posted:
    Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be accomplished with wind power, the Danish government has canceled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped.

    Drop the snark by the way. I know I'd posted the original story on World Politics but the typical Delphi search result couldn't find it. That's why I suggested Google.

    Earl's link shows Denmark clearly backing way off wind. Most other countries who were going for it are backing off to.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Earl:

    As previously stated I want us to develop our hydro electric resources in the north (James Bay).

    We agree the McGuinty wind power moves are dumb


    Just as a bit of an aside here Danny Williams is trying to develop the Lower Churchill. Immense power resource but he has to get that power to market. That means going through Quebec. To put it bluntly Quebec are being real bastards. Just think if some of that power could come across the top of Quebec to Ontario as well.

    Not with the current attitude of Quebec however. Williams is now looking at going undersea to get to the ultimate market, the US Northeast. More expensive and technically more difficult but if he pulls it off his power goes to market for way less than what Quebec wants to transmit it. Do we need to look at some kind of nationally run grid to keep power competitive ?

    ReplyDelete
  71. John:

    I don't know if the "Drop the snark" comment was directed at you or me. I see no snark in your replies.

    Regards,

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  72. Peter you absolutely correct about Quebec and the lower Churchill. Williams has offered to have NL build the lines itself if Quebec will grant it the right of way. No go. Everyone is afraid of Quebec. The sovereignty extortion.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I don't know if the "Drop the snark" comment

    Aimed at John. Relax Earl

    ReplyDelete
  74. The sovereignty extortion.

    Yeah Earl although I'm not so sure it is that in this case as opposed to pure greed on the part of Quebec.

    They figure they have Danny over a barrel and are going to take everything they can.

    Competitive in this country has to be a leveling of the playing field in terms of energy. That's why I suggested "national grid".

    ReplyDelete
  75. John and John N this is what we are competing against:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/a-breakthrough-in-china-branother-blow-for-sudbury/article1601530/

    Even our mining industry is under the gun.

    ReplyDelete
  76. As to that China information, you can mix in the fact China is seeing skyrocketing labour costs as they are hitting the limit for employable youth.
    http://www.economist.com/node/16319562?story_id=16319562&fsrc=nlw

    Capitalism works fairly simply. Supply & demand. As long as labour appear infinite in China they were super-cheap. Now their costs are rising, just like Japan's before them, and India is also beginning to move in that direction.

    The article Earl points out is actually a strong argument for the Green's. Counting on making it cheap for digging out minerals (including oil) is not a long term solution, it only brings in cash short term until someone comes up with a better solution. Far better to tax resources so that you have the funds to build a stronger R&D system so Canadians find solutions like the Chinese did. Or we can just keep subsidizing the old economy until we collapse under a massive debt load.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Peter: Drop the snark by the way.

    My apologies. I reread every comment (including this one) multiple times before I post to ensure that the attitude is always positive. I missed the bar if my message came across as a snark. It was meant to be wry but positive.

    [Earl, I'm glad that you find my views interesting. I'll respond to your comments later.]

    ReplyDelete
  78. John:

    Take a look at this. I await your comment.

    http://forums.delphiforums.com/PCan/messages/?msg=8.1

    ReplyDelete
  79. Peter:Take a look at this. I await your comment.

    It's a bit hard to know where to start with that one. If any low-environmental-impact power source showed signs of being viable, Greens would definitely encourage it.

    Having said that, the physics are unclear to me and the power density looks very low. It's certainly not a Crookes radiometer, which essentially heats low-pressure air to provide propulsion. The mechanisms I can envision (and I'm not a physicist) would require massive areas to generate meaningful power. Nothing in the description suggests that Tesla felt otherwise. (No question, by the way, that he was a genius several times over. And way cool to boot.)

    Greens have a strong streak of idealism, but the ones I know are also relentlessly pragmatic. Demonstrate a practical renewable energy source and we'll be all over it. Explain the theory in a peer-reviewed environment and we'll consider supporting research. Describe something "thousands of times more powerful than a Crooke's [sic] radiometer" and we'll work very hard at being polite, but that won't run a night light.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Earl: You did not address my point that there currently is no carbon cost in the nations we compete with - the US, China, Tiawan, Korea and India... We CAN NOT add carbon taxes to the costs of doing business in Ontario or Canada. What do you say?

    I listen to what Barack Obama says: "[The US] has to move towards a clean energy economy. That’s where the world is going. And that’s how America will remain competitive and strong in the 21st century." Europe is already there. All industrialized countries would be more than happy to wrap a tariff barrier around China and India if they don't do the same, because at that point they're no longer our competition.

    We can profit by being ahead of the curve or we can lose out by being behind it. It's not a case of "environment or jobs". It's "environment or no jobs".

    There currently is no continent wide power grid. When ON runs out of during high demand periods it must buy power from NY State or Quebec at extremely high rates. Sometimes these rate exceed a $1 per KWH. That doesn't help the cost of wind power.

    The supply/demand curves in the Cost of wind... paper are very enlightening. They show that we pay a lot less for peak power with wind in the mix because we shift the whole supply curve right.

    This is not an unmitigated good; cheap power does not reduce environmental impact. But it makes surprisingly high feed-in tariffs for wind a smart financial move.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Earl: The Problem with Wind Power:

    The Denmark example!


    I saw that 2006 paper but didn't take it seriously. It's not about Denmark; it's a general hatchet job on wind, but the hatchet needs sharpening. The wielder claims that "Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas)." By that logic, every plant on this continent would be running flat out 24/7 (leaving open the puzzling question of where the resulting power would actually go).

    There are other fun-with-figures games like quoting the low contribution of wind to Denmark in 1999; it was even lower in 1950, but it's not clear why we should care.

    I'll stop there because it's pointless to dissect the paper claim-by-claim. The crazy Danes have been muddling through since 2006 with no apparent problems save one: they generate so much power from wind that they can't get it where they want to with their current infrastructure. Again, there are worse problems to have.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Earl: John and John N this is what we are competing against.

    Even our mining industry is under the gun.


    The article says that what we produce for $5, the Chinese can produce for $7-8. With a lot more pollution and probable major carbon tariffs down the road. (NB: even if they use it internally, the resulting products will still face a carbon tax at western borders.)

    The article says that NPI stops nickel producers from price-gouging. It doesn't say that they can't be profitable.

    Judging solely by the evidence of this article, our mining industry is under a popgun.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Found the original site on that really hard to follow. There is supposed to be another device Tesla came up with that created power out of "nothing" which actually did worthwhile amounts. That said finding it on there ? Good Luck.

    The thing we were reading about, with some development and research might actually be useful. With Big Oil in control ain't no way it's getting anything.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Peter: Found the original site on that really hard to follow. There is supposed to be another device Tesla came up with that created power out of "nothing" which actually did worthwhile amounts.

    You may have had trouble following the description because you lack knowledge in the field. Or, there may have been nothing to follow. My money's on Option 2.

    Tesla did amazing things but he always respected the laws of thermodynamics. When he sucked power out of the ground, he made that possible by pumping it in elsewhere. Chemistry and physics have their own stern bookkeeping. TANSTAAFL.

    The thing we were reading about, with some development and research might actually be useful. With Big Oil in control ain't no way it's getting anything.

    Big Oil has much to answer for, but suppression of knowledge isn't in that list. Science doesn't work that way; organizations aren't that efficient.

    ReplyDelete

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.