Canadians now own more consumer debt than Americans. The odd thing is I think Canadians take a perverse pleasure in this.
Anything Canadians can do better than USA has the potential of becoming a national obsession. Consider the rioting that broke out in Vancouver last night after Canada's hockey team was defeated by the American team. I think there are some Canadians who feel good because as a nation Canada has taken the lead against the USA in consumer debt.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Subsidizing Electric Cars
Recently, I was asked how I feel about subsidizing electric cars, and I don't think it is a good idea. I was questioned specifically about a program of subsidies in Quebec and Ontario in which those two provinces offer huge incentives to make the purchase of electric cars much more affordable. The reason for my objection is that the program does not achieve its goals.
In general I am in favor of subsidies if they stimulate socially and environmentally responsible behavior, but this program does not pass that test. Electric car manufacturers would have you believe that the use of their cars in Ont and Que would help the environment. In reality it doesn't. The electricity to power those electric cars must be generated somewhere and waste is a bi-product of that generation. Greenhouse gases cause the earth to get hotter. Whether the greenhouse molecules come from the tail pipe of a car or the smoke stack of a distant power plant makes no difference to the heat radiating from Earth's surface. Thus the use of electric cars would only change the location where waste gases are emitted, it wouldn't eliminate green house gases.
In fact electric cars could generate more exhaust. There is a significant loss of energy in the transmission of electricity. The greater the distance electricity is carried over power lines the greater the loss. The loss is due to resistance. It is necessary to produce far more electricity than is actually consumed because of this loss. For this reason distancing cars from the source of the energy via electric cars ends up causing great losses in energy.
Of course some argue that nuclear energy is the clean alternative, but Fukushima served as a powerful reminder of the dangers and massive costs of nuclear. In my opinion nuclear energy is not worth the risks.
The best way to protect the environment is to reduce consumption not to increase consumption. Manufacturing more cars only adds to our problems whether the cars are electric powered or gas powered. Seldom is the solution to a problem more of what caused the problem in the first place. In other words if you are in a hole of your own making that you want to get out of, STOP DIGGING!.
We should be reducing our use of cars and encouraging the use of mass transit instead. That is a better way to reduce green house gases. Ideally we should reduce all travel, but changing how we travel is a good step in the correct direction. An example of reducing travel is telecommuting. A saying I created to get this message across is: "Work the desktop not the blacktop." Please note I am not suggesting here we stop working, I am suggesting we work more efficiently.
Of course there are many other ways consumption can also be reduced. A search engine search of the words: "reducing consumption list" brought up promising results.
This is a counter-intuitive idea, but I suggest that we should not subsidize electric cars. The car companies especially the ones developing electric cars can be expected to disagree with me. I would be more interested in a program to subsidize bicycles than a program to subsidize cars.
In general I am in favor of subsidies if they stimulate socially and environmentally responsible behavior, but this program does not pass that test. Electric car manufacturers would have you believe that the use of their cars in Ont and Que would help the environment. In reality it doesn't. The electricity to power those electric cars must be generated somewhere and waste is a bi-product of that generation. Greenhouse gases cause the earth to get hotter. Whether the greenhouse molecules come from the tail pipe of a car or the smoke stack of a distant power plant makes no difference to the heat radiating from Earth's surface. Thus the use of electric cars would only change the location where waste gases are emitted, it wouldn't eliminate green house gases.
In fact electric cars could generate more exhaust. There is a significant loss of energy in the transmission of electricity. The greater the distance electricity is carried over power lines the greater the loss. The loss is due to resistance. It is necessary to produce far more electricity than is actually consumed because of this loss. For this reason distancing cars from the source of the energy via electric cars ends up causing great losses in energy.
Of course some argue that nuclear energy is the clean alternative, but Fukushima served as a powerful reminder of the dangers and massive costs of nuclear. In my opinion nuclear energy is not worth the risks.
The best way to protect the environment is to reduce consumption not to increase consumption. Manufacturing more cars only adds to our problems whether the cars are electric powered or gas powered. Seldom is the solution to a problem more of what caused the problem in the first place. In other words if you are in a hole of your own making that you want to get out of, STOP DIGGING!.
We should be reducing our use of cars and encouraging the use of mass transit instead. That is a better way to reduce green house gases. Ideally we should reduce all travel, but changing how we travel is a good step in the correct direction. An example of reducing travel is telecommuting. A saying I created to get this message across is: "Work the desktop not the blacktop." Please note I am not suggesting here we stop working, I am suggesting we work more efficiently.
Of course there are many other ways consumption can also be reduced. A search engine search of the words: "reducing consumption list" brought up promising results.
This is a counter-intuitive idea, but I suggest that we should not subsidize electric cars. The car companies especially the ones developing electric cars can be expected to disagree with me. I would be more interested in a program to subsidize bicycles than a program to subsidize cars.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Rebranding the Green Party
A constituent recently suggested the following: "...the Party needs to develop a full and viable position on all the affairs that a government must handle; and with that I advise a change of name for the Party..." The first idea to come to mind is "Rainbow Party", and I like it.
Slogan Ideas for the Green Party
Here are some Green Party slogans I have brainstormed. Do you have any thoughts on these? Any ideas of your own to add? (Presented in Reverse Alphabetical Order)
Let me remind you of a couple important rules about brainstorming:
- Write down EVERY idea
- Don't criticize ANY idea
Slogan Ideas by Larry Waldinger
Vote While You Still Have The Chance!
Vote While You Still Can!
Vote While You Can!
The Green Party Kicks Grass
The Green Party Is Growing
The Green Party Doesn’t Suck
Vote While You Still Can!
Vote While You Can!
The Green Party Kicks Grass
The Green Party Is Growing
The Green Party Doesn’t Suck
“Suits don’t make you smart.” Google
It’s time for Green!“It’s Not That Easy Be’n Green” Kermit T Frog
It’s Cool to be Green.
I was Green before it was cool
I've Been Seen as Green
Have You Ever Greened?
Have You Ever Been Green?
Feel Comfortable in Green
Green your Scene
Green Means Go!
Green is not Mean
Go Green
Get Your Green On
Better Green than a Has Been!
Be Seen as Green
Be Seen Green
Be See’n Green
BC’n Green (for British Columbia Greens)
Have You Ever Been Green?
Feel Comfortable in Green
Green your Scene
Green Means Go!
Green is not Mean
Go Green
Get Your Green On
Better Green than a Has Been!
Be Seen as Green
Be Seen Green
Be See’n Green
BC’n Green (for British Columbia Greens)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)