Economically-Minded Solutions to Global Warming

HuffPost Canada posted an article on their Twitter feed today about the air quality in Beijing being at 755 at 8 PM on Saturday. In a country that was excluded from the Kyoto Protocol because of its status as a developing nation, this is a hideous turn of events. Residents are wearing masks, as you would expect. Compare this reading to the reading in New York City, which was 19. Yes, that's right. I'll spell it out, even. Nineteen compared to seven hundred fifty five.

Needless to say I read the article, or I wouldn't have the information. It led me to do my research on where we stand with Global Warming agreements. First I took a gander at the Kyoto Protocol, and there I found that Canada, the country of which I am proud to be a citizen, had withdrawn from it in 2011. I was shocked.

It turns out we did it for economic reasons, which shocked me even more. Canadians are not known for being materialistic, although we still consume goods. It's just that ambition is not prized as highly here because it's not considered 'nice' to be too ambitious. That's an understandable point of view, but I do think it limits people here. We're afraid of being too goal-oriented, and it's a peer-pressure kind of fear.

Anyway, after further research I discovered that Canada had agreed to the legally binding agreement developed at the Durban, South Africa UN Climate Change Conference in 2011. The idea is for countries to continue with the Kyoto Protocol, however, so I'm more than a little disappointed in my country for opting out for economic reasons. There are any number of things that we could be doing to lower our emissions, and not only are they not being done, emission rates are actually rising rather than dropping!

Okay, so disappointment might not have adequately described my feelings on the subject. I'm disgusted, to be perfectly frank. I know, a lot of people bitch about things their governments are doing, without having a thorough understanding of the issues, and so I make it my business to be aware of the other ramifications. After all, I'm a writer, and a good one does their research. I'm also the kind of person willing to admit when they've made a mistake, so when that does happen in my writing I update it accordingly and re-post. I've done that in my blog, if you care to look at the entry on Pirate Bay. I also make a point of letting my readers know it's an update or error correction, so that they see the difference and learn the real facts as I've had to learn them.

The ramifications of legislation to improve the climate change situation are far-reaching, and they do affect the economy. I'm a realist. It would suck if everyone lost their jobs. Oh, wait, that already happened. We've already been through a financial crisis recently. We lived through it. There are ways of dealing with greenhouse gases and reducing emissions that don't necessarily mean breaking the bank, however.

We're already shutting down coal plants, but not activating the nuclear plants, so we're experiencing power shortages and brown-outs. For some reason the government isn't too keen on solar or wind turbines, despite the fact that even residential use can provide full power for a family home. Not only that, but now the technology is at a point where it has become less expensive to operate a solar or wind farm than it is your standard coal plant. The ROI (return on investment) is improving all the time.

The building and manufacturing of massive quantities of photovoltaic panels, and wind turbines would actually be a boost to the economy, considering the job creation factor. The more people who are employed, the more taxes go into the government coffers. Fewer people on welfare programs and Employment Insurance results in smaller drains on government funds.

Nuclear power is supposed to be fairly clean energy, but it has a bad rap, especially after the incident in Chernobyl. Now we're stuck with coal plants and hydroelectric power, as well as non-functioning nuclear plants that are taking up space and resources that could be recycled for other purposes if they're not going to turn the stupid things on!

Niagara Falls produces a fair bit of power, but only so much can be harnessed realistically speaking. There are other waterfalls in Canada, but whether or not they're ideal for producing power is another issue. Some lie in national parks, which is not something we want to start infringing on if we want to reduce emissions. Sure the hydro generation wouldn't hurt, most likely, but it opens the door to further development of parks, and usually that is hard on the environment.

So, my first suggestion would be turbines and solar. If we're looking to assist the economy further we could start selling more of our oil and natural gas to other countries, but that would be counterproductive to the environmental corrections we're trying to make. Other solutions for economic issues include sustainable shelters, so that government funding is no longer required. I've developed my own model of what could be done there. It would just need seed funding to get it off the ground, but it would actually start turning a profit once it was going. Let me explain how.

Steel buildings are very inexpensive, and there are a number of manufacturers in Canada. Anything can be done with the interior of a steel building, as they're built using an arch structure that requires no load-bearing walls. Insulation literally snaps in with some of the designs. It takes 2 days to put one up once the concrete pad has cured, and it can be done by 2 people. Talk about quick and easy. Once the building is up, many rooms can be built inside the structure, which could house a large number of people. Any building today can be built off-the-grid electrically. The technology exists. Solar and wind turbines again become the focus. If the building does not require utilities from local companies it's a hell of a lot less expensive to run.

Food can be grown on-site. A vegetable garden is extremely inexpensive to start, and the work would be done by the residents of the shelter as part of the agreement for being allowed to live there. Trading agreements can be made with egg farmers, or other protein sources procured from farmers dealing in livestock. Or, excess vegetables can be sold to gain funds for the direct purchase of meat.

So far we have power and food provided internally. Water and sewage are determined by location. A well may not be able to provide a high enough quantity of water, particularly within a city or town, so a water and sewage bill is still a strong possibility. A septic tank will only hold so much, so even if the shelter is in an area where a septic tank can be built, it would require constant emptying, with the frequency being dependent on the tank size.

Heat is easily provided internally. Electric heat, particularly radiant in-floor heating, would be covered under solar or wind turbine power generation. The combined body heat of a large number of people reduces the need to generate heat, as well. Then there's the increased amount of cooking required, which also generates heat. Air conditioning will likely be the real drain on power resources, but is also dependent on location.

Now, here's the best part. A shelter provides an opportunity for training people in employable trades. If they want to live in the shelter, they have to agree to training of some sort. The best training in the world is on-the-job training. There are any number of manufacturing opportunities here, and I'm not talking about slave labour. People need to earn money in order to get back on their feet. This would be a way for them to do that, while training for jobs in the regular job market. Yes, a portion of their salary could go for their food and housing expenses in the shelter, negating their obligation to work in the gardens.

This clears people off the streets, or at least the ones who really don't want to be on the streets. There are those who prefer to be left to their own devices, but for the ones who are just looking for a little help it would be a huge boost for them. Internet access is inexpensive, so it would be a simple thing to provide it for those who need it. It's offered for free in many restaurants and cafes for that reason. It's a cheap way of bringing in business.

Even better, the efforts of the people living in the shelters could be directed toward the manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels. These skills would be easily transferable to other manufacturing industries. Other green industries are out there if there's not enough of a market in solar and wind. Car conversions to bio-fuels or electricity, recycling programs, cultivation of oxygen-producing plants, air filtration systems, green cleaning products, environmentally-friendly building supplies, and tear-downs of buildings for recycling building materials (something being done through Habitat for Humanity on a relatively small scale).

Now tell me how this is a bad idea. People collecting welfare cheques could be shoved into these programs as a part of their requirements for continued collecting, making welfare a less-desirable method of earning for those who are simply lazy and don't really need to be on it. It also makes double-dipping a thing of the past. It would be pretty hard for people to present themselves for work every day in two different places, which they would have to do if they were collecting illegally from more than one jurisdiction.

Governments, corporations and philanthropically-minded citizens have poured a great deal of money into shelters, with zero returns. Why not make it work for the benefit of everyone, including the ever-increasing warming of our climate? You can't tell me it's not possible, and if nothing else it's an improvement over the existing system.