An amusing quote from the Green Party

In the Alberta Green Party's platform for this election, they talk about promoting geothermal energy, saying, "If there is on thing Albertans know how to do well; it is drill holes in the ground."

I'd like to see the Green Party get some MLAs elected. I just hope their leadership and ideas are better than their spelling and grammar.

Funniest part of the debate

I watched Thursday's debate between the leaders of Alberta's biggest political parties. I suppose I could comment on what I thought of their policies and leadership abilities, but instead I'll just tell you what I thought was the funniest part of the debate. Maybe I'll comment on policies and leadership another time.

One time when everyone was trying to talk at once, Ed Stelmach interrupted and said, "One at a time. You have had your chance. This is not the Legislative Assembly."

Judgment

Have you ever heard someone say it's worth being a Christian simply because there's a remote chance that hell exists? I've heard that a number of times, and the last time was about a week ago. While I have a lot of respect for the person who I heard say this a week ago, it doesn't sit right with me.

The problem: this plays into the hands of fearmongers. We end up following whichever religion claims the worst punishment for its non-followers (as long as the religion seems somewhat plausible). Then religion becomes a tool for controlling people, rather than something that tries to make the world a better place and connect people with God. Would you be willing to make the world a worse place if there's a slight chance it would help you avoid hell?

I'm not denying that there is judgment after death (whether or not it fits the traditional definition of hell) or that there's one right religion. Actually, in a way I think it's good that Christianity is split into so many denominations that--for the most part--respect the fact that other denominations are legitimate Christian churches. This makes it harder for Christian leaders to control people.

Besides, judgment has its good side. Jack White shows that he realizes this in the song "You Don't Know What Love Is". He criticizes someone who refuses to judge, saying, "but in his mind there can be no sin if you never criticize." The Bible shows one reason that judgment can be good in Psalm 76:9 (NLT), which says, "You stand up to judge those who do evil, O God, and to rescue the oppressed of the earth."

(I just found out the music video for "You Don't Know What Love Is" was filmed in Iqaluit, Nunavut. It looks warmer than Edmonton was a week or three ago.)

Why sugar is good

I saw this article about artificial sweeteners:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/02/11/lowcalorie-study.html

I don't think I know too many people who drink more diet pop than regular pop, but I know a few. I have heard some people say that sugar is so bad for you, you shouldn't drink regular pop at all. Now I feel vindicated. (Yes, I know diabetics generally shouldn't have regular pop, but I think it's alright for most of us, in moderation.)

I'm not a big pop drinker. I rarely drink it at home, except for the occasional time when I have guests, and I sometimes drink it when I'm at a restaurant or visiting someone. After I've had a glass or two, I often feel like I have too much sugar in my system. When that time comes, I'd rather drink water than pop. My experiences seem to confirm that article. Do yours?

Emissions intensity

Last week I talked about the possibility of a carbon tax to encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions. Today I'm talking about another controversial subject in emission reductions: emissions intensity. And once again, I am assuming the majority of climate scientists are correct--human activity is causing climate change. If you disagree with that, feel free to say so, but I am not prepared to debate it.

The Alberta government wants industrial polluters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions intensity (emissions per dollar of product produced) rather than their absolute emissions. This is controversial because it allows growing companies to actually increase their total emissions while the world actually needs reduced total emissions. (Actually, the world needs reduced CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and that's going to take some major reductions in total emissions.)

Assuming most scientists are right, I would agree that we need absolute reductions, but I think requiring each company to reduce its emissions intensity is a good way to divide up the responsibility. If every company needed to do absolute reductions, it would take a lot of the flexibility out of our economy. If a company comes up with a newer, much more efficient way to produce something, expanding their production could actually be good for the environment because their more-polluting competitors could lose market share. Requiring absolute emissions reductions would make this more difficult. It would also make it hard for companies to respond to changing demands from consumers.

Another example: as it gets harder to find conventional sources for oil, we're getting more development of the oil sands and other less conventional oil sources. These sources need more energy, so they pollute more. I hope we can reduce our dependence on oil, but as long as there's so much demand for oil, the oil sands will have to expand. The emissions intensity of oil sands plants will have to decrease, but we can't expect overall emissions from oil production to decrease.

This situation also shows that each of a company's activities should probably be treated separately (for example, oil sands should be considered separately from conventional oil) in evaluating emissions intensity. Also, we don't want companies expanding their low-polluting activities just so they can get away with doing nothing to improve their high-polluting activities.

One question I have: is emissions intensity a good way to divide up reduction targets for countries, provinces/states, and individual people? This would seem to favour the rich over the poor, because the rich can pollute more. Or maybe it would prevent introducing a new barrier to development in poor places. And maybe it is unrealistic to expect absolute emissions reductions in places like Alberta, in the short term. I already mentioned some reasons for oil sands expansion. That's happening because of increased demand and decreased supply of oil from other places. That's not Alberta's fault. Yes, we need to produce the oil as efficiently as we can, but we can't be expected to reduce other places' demand for oil. Or is this favouring a rich province while holding back the poorer ones?