I have posted a summary of the low emission research we did for the David Suzuki Foundation and the Climate Action Network, in the publications section. I have also posted a short comparison of the Government Plan with our study. (There may be a problem with the pdf files so if you can't read them try later -- we are fixing it.)

Our study is one of a small but growing number of analyses that suggest reducing greenhouse gas emissions to much lower levels in the rich countries is not only possible but offers a preferable future to the status quo. This type of thinking is outside the policy box in Canada, but it is where the box needs to be. Take a look at the British White Paper released last week to see how different the discussion over Kyoto can be if we can get it out of our heads that reducing emissions must necessarily be a painful, expensive undertaking. The British paper, accompanied by a major speech by Blair on the topic, lays out a plan for a 60% reduction in UK emissions by 2050. It was put out by the Department of Industry and Trade, not the Dept of Enviroment, which by itself is indicative of the perceived strategic, economic advantage the Brits see down this road.
Link to the UK White Paper is at:
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/index.shtml

There was a lot of coverage in London dailies -- did anyone see any coverage of this anywhere in Canada?

Its not the future that comes with lower emissions that we should be worried about -- the painful, expensive future is the one we get with increased emissions.

Mr. Torrie,
I am interested in your take on Mr. Ballards comments in The Globe on Friday ( www.globeandmail.com Hydrogen: inside the future ). He sugggested that we need to use more energy, not less to protect the environment and clean up the cities. The result will be a cleaner environment for healthy society. Specifically He is championing the nuclear-hydrogen pathway. How and where does next generation Npower fit into your future scenarios. What is your take on this option? Can the soft energy path and the nuclear path coexist in the current market? What changes need to be made to promote coexistence? Will nuclear energy ever be able to be cost effective without subsidies?

I was dismayed by Ballard's comments. He is demonstrably wrong on the question of the relation between fuel and electricity consumption and economic growth. This point is developed in some detail in the early sections of "Kyoto and Beyond", which has been posted in the documents section of this forum. His comment that "for society to continue to progress in medicine, social responsibility, science, education and quality of life, we must ensure there is an ever-increasing supply of energy per capita" approaches the bizarre coming from a scientifically trained mind. The idea that it would even be possible for there to be an "ever-increasing supply of energy per capita", never mind the suggestion that it would be a good thing, is nonsense. It is ever increasing efficiency of fuel and electricity consumption that is our best bet for anything like a sustainalbe future and the only hope for widespread adoption of the hydrogen-based technologies that Mr. Ballard is rooting for.

Ironically when his comments first came across my desk last week I was preparing some charts that illustrate a scenario of how Canada's three provinces with nuclear power (Ontario, New Brunswick, and Quebec) could phase out their existing nuclear and coal plants in a transition toward a distributed electricity system in which Canada's already developed hydroelectric resources would be more than enough to meet the residual demand for grid electricity, with lots left over for hydrogen production, if that turns out to be the best thing to do with it. Read Lovins's latest book "Small is Profitable" (named by The Economist of one of three business "books of the year" for 2002); you can order it from www.rmi.org.

Here in Ontario, where we bit into the nuclear apple with a vengeance, as I type this ALL EIGHT reactors at the Pickering Nuclear Plant are out-of-service. The four units at Pickering A have not operated since 1997. The four units at the Bruce A plant have also been shut down for the past five years. The newest plant -- Darlington -- has been operational for ten years now and has a lifetime energy availability of less than 70%. The performance of the reactors in Quebec and New Brunswick has been deteriorating in recent years and both reactors will have to be shut down in the next few years for billion dollar repair jobs, barely halfway through what was supposed to be their useful lifetimes. These plants are extremely risky and "lumpy" investments, and added to the financial risk of renewing a commitment to nuclear power in Canada is the familiar agenda of other nuclear-related risks and costs, including the possibility of a large release of radioative materials from one of the aging plants, the fact that after 50 years of nuclear research and development we still have no long term solution for the radioative wastes produced by the plants, the uncertainties over what it will really cost to dismantle and dispose of a CANDU power plant, and the various ways in which nuclear power programs present opportunities for terrorists.

Nuclear power is antithetical to "soft" or safe energy paths. Ballard is just about as wrong as one can be on this.