BC wants your thoughts on green energy, carbon trading
November 30, 2009 by CVNews
Filed under BC democracy, BC news, Business, Energy, Environment, Notices
Green energy advisory task force seeks input.
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
B.C.’s Green Energy Advisory Task Force has launched a website that invites British Columbians to submit their ideas and input on the future of clean and renewable energy in B.C.
Following its first meetings, on Nov.27 and 28, the advisory task force has launched the website, www.greenenergyadvisorytaskforce.ca. The website asks British Columbians to submit their ideas and input on the following subjects: clean energy procurement and regulatory reform; carbon pricing, trading and clean energy export market development; community engagement and First Nations partnerships; and clean energy resource development.
Submissions can be made via an email form until Dec. 31, 2009. The ideas and input submitted through the website will help inform the recommendations the task force makes to government in January 2010.
The Green Energy Advisory Task Force is dedicated to ensuring B.C. remains a leader in clean and renewable energy. The advisory task force is composed of four advisory task force groups, reporting directly to the Cabinet Committee on Climate Action and Clean Energy.
Victoria
November 30, 2009
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
2009EMPR0022-000694
Not credible, this CO2 emission reduction game. If the BC government were serious about cutting carbon dioxide emissions and working toward a green economy, why are they paying people stimulus money to clear bush and reduce all that supposedly good sequestering of carbon? For that matter, why are they trying to think up new reasons to log forests, when cutting trees works against the whole reduce-your-carbon-emissions idea. Methinks this carbon trading thing is little better than political double-talk.
Besides, CO2 is good for us. It makes plants grow better and that helps feed everyone.
A good way to cut C02’s would be to prevent any possible construction in and aroundJumbo glacier. They are already running big equipment up there with out permits.
this global warming is a scam, check out Lord Monkton on you tube, open your mind and look at the B,S.
You really need to check your facts Russel. In your views on JGR it may be an ‘inconvenient truth.’
Afternoon Shanna. In regards your comments vis a vis carbon dioxide and bush vs trees?
Being a graduate forester who has worked in the industry both in sales and marketing and engineering as well as having a few ecology courses under my belt, I would like to respond to your questions.
The amount of CO2 sequestered in bush per se, is minimal to essentially non existant. On the other hand, the very best thing for this planet earth is to plant young trees. That is where CO2 is captured. Reason? A young growing tree absorbs and captures that CO2 in a manner that takes from the atmosphere and puts into the tree. A mature tree although it might look GREAT ! does nothing to capture any more CO2. It has already done that whereas the young are growing ergo, capturing carbon.
The reason the provincial and federal governments have been hiring unemployed forestry workers to do necessary work, is to put a financial stimulus back into our valley. Employment = dollars in pocket = groceries.
Shanna, you did ask some very good questions. I applaud you for those questions.
As to Russel in this string, obviously not in tune with this topic so I like many others tend to let him / her drift.
.
David R Pacey
BCLiberal Constituency President
1 250 342 1524
David, It is my understanding that trees keep growing for their entire life, and thus they are sequestering carbon all that time, perhaps faster than young trees because larger trees often grow more in a year.
As for ‘bush’, again it depends on whether it is still growing or not. Most likely it is. The same for grass. If it is growing then it is sequestering carbon.
My comments, however, were mostly geared to the idea that they were paying people to remove underbrush to make way for pasture and to intentionally remove undergrow that could fuel wildfires. Certainly both of these would be removing carbon-sequestering plants and there was no talk of replacing them with anything else, much less about the interval between clearing and regrowth, during which no sequestering would take place.
All that said, it is my understanding that CO2 is good for plants and life generally, that it does not cause climate change, and that we should not be sequestering carbon anyway.
So my comment was more to point out the hypocrisy.
Shanna, you are correct in that all trees, as long as they live capture carbon. However, and I guess I didn’t make it too clear, younger trees capture far more carbon than older trees especially on a per tree basis, and on a per square foot basis.
And yes, brush captures some carbon but in relation to a ” tree ” it is an insignificant amount to be almost non existant relative to a healthy younger tree.
The primary reason for the removal of the brush was /is as I mentioned, to put dollars back into the economy, employ unemployed forestry workers that then put that money back into the economy.
As to CO2 being good for plants, yes, it is it is very necessary. For humans, it is a by product of our respiration and as such is useless for our well being aside from the plants. Too much however, is helping, argueably, to make ” global warming ” occur faster than it has over the last 150 to 300 years previously
Helpful, I don’t know but if not, ask again and I will try again
David R Pacey
Thanks. As interesting as this carbon sequestering subject is, for me it has little relevance beyond curiosity because I am not about to jump on the climate change bandwagon unless/until I see some solid, practical and most of all REAL evidence that carbon dioxide produced by humans is having any effect on the climate, and specifically on global temperature. If and when someone comes up with an honest and intelligible explanation for that, maybe I will think about what I can do to mitigate my impact on the environment.
As a serious environmentalist for many decades, I long ago adopted a low-impact lifestyle that very few even now can hope to emulate, so again, for me personally climate change is a practical non-issue — though I do worry about what foolish or dangerous things the politicians may do in an effort to perpetrate their big climate change lie — for until it has some REAL scientific backing it is just that, a lie.
I rant. I rant. Should have been a preacher. Sorry…