This week CBC news reported that the city of Edmonton, Alberta had the worst air quality in the world due to smoke from British Columbia wildfires. The air is bad here in BC, too –another reason we’re grateful that we installed a Heat Recovery Ventilator in the house before we moved back in.
Our HRV was installed by Meadow Ridge Plumbing & Gas in September, 2016
The low air quality is due to the wild fires raging across the province as we experience the third worst fire season ever. The government has, once again, declared a state of emergency to mobilize resources. Fire fighters, armed forces personnel and other professionals are working hard and risking their lives to fight the fires. People are losing their homes and stepping up to help others in the same boat.
Doctors warn about the health impacts of climate change. People who are not under evacuation orders or alerts are curtailing outdoor activities and being advised to stay indoors. An oft-overlooked question is, how well-sealed is your home and how well-filtered is the air inside it?
Looking inside the HRV when it was brand new.
Sometimes it’s difficult to put your finger on the effects of climate change–I try to remember this and be forgiving when I pass people idling in gas-powered cars to keep their A/C running.
One easy way is to look at the filter in your furnace, air conditioner, or, in our case, HRV. It’s a lot like those cross-sections of smokers’ lungs. Unfortunately, in the same way those disgusting images of blackened lungs on cigarette packages don’t stop people from buying them, feeling the effects of climate change doesn’t seem to be speeding up our climate action.
In June of this year, 2018, I took some video of how a Heat Recovery Ventilator works and what a filter looks like after a bad season of wild fires (2017). The filter comes out at about the 5-minute mark.
As you can see in the video, an HRV is an important component in a well-insulated and sealed building. It removes stale air and exchanges the heat in it with fresh air drawn in from outside. It also filters the air so you can breathe easy.
This is a case where reducing greenhouse gas emissions by insulating and sealing your house also protects you against one of the indirect effects of climate change: severe wild fires.
Next week I’ll post a video showing you how I cleaned the filters and core of the HRV. In the meantime, check your filters!
Does Donald Trump’s victory mean the end of Climate Action in the United States?
Does it mean the end of the Paris Accord?
Does it really mean that half of the American people think that Climate Change is a hoax?
I don’t know about the first two, but I can’t believe people who voted for Trump don’t understand that Climate Change is a thing that we have to do something about.
Some of them, maybe…
I suspect they are mostly sick of having it pushed in their faces as if its their individual problem to solve.
Leanne and I can relate.
At this stage in our renovation and retrofit we’re just trying to finish enough of the house so that the building inspector will let us occupy it and we can get homeowner’s insurance again.
We’d like to spend Christmas in our house for a change instead of next door.
I haven’t been writing the blog because I simply don’t have energy at the end of the day. Weekdays I wake up early to make lunches for the kids, teach a class til noon, pick the kids up from school, and then work on the house til dinner time. Leanne works full-time and keeps up the electrical work with our electrician and her Dad. On weekends its all house all the time.
If this is what it takes for average folks to fight climate change, its no wonder we’re the exception, not the rule. My Eco-Warrior Badge is heavy.
Trump often railed against “the Mainstream Media”. Apparently, it struck a chord. Maybe when you are struggling to eek out a living and the media reports that climate change is the single greatest threat we face, it’s a little hard to swallow.
The truth is that the media have been under-reporting climate change. There is no confusion among scientists, researchers, NASA, the UN and everyone else who has looked at it for ten minutes but nobody seems to have any solutions besides buy more eco-friendly stuff.
One problem is that most mainstream news is delivered in a context of commercialism. Every story is steeped in commercials for stuff we don’t need and the solution for climate change is presented in products. Buy a more expensive car to reduce emissions. Replace lightbulbs, shop local, buy organic. The market has consumed environmentalism as an opportunity to sell more stuff and that has made everybody cynical.
CBC radio had a story on today about some people who say that Canada should reconsider its commitment to introduce a carbon tax.
Wrong! A carbon tax is precisely the kind of tool we need!
The BC example has been good for the economy while reducing greenhouse gases. It provides incentives for communities to take climate action which takes the pressure off the individual consumer who is already wracked with guilt for buying a new…anything.
What will happen if the US stops taking action on climate change? Will Canada’s economy suffer?
Can I answer that question with a question? Can we stop thinking about the profits of large corporations as if their well-being is more important than anything else for a second?
The Natural Resources minister under Stephen Harper, Joe Oliver was on the radio programme I was listening to. He was so full of misinformation I was yelling at the radio.
One thing he said was that the best way to fight climate change is to push forward in science and technology so that cheaper and better ways to solve the problem come into the market.
Sound reasonable? It’s hogwash. What makes me angry is that he is in a position to know better. All the best information was at his fingertips, but he continues to soothe the shopping public with the message that we can keep doing what we’re doing until technology fixes everything.
One of the biggest lessons we have learned as we work to make our home as energy-efficient as possible is that technology is not the issue.
The technology and techniques have been around a long time and they are so simple that most people can understand easily:
Insulate your house
Insulate your house some more
Insulate your house to the point where people look at what you’re doing and say, “holy crap that’s a lot of insulation”
seal your house (doors, windows, chimneys, vents…)
ventilate your house (you need fresh air now that you sealed it so well) with a Heat-Recovery Ventilator
Now that you have done all that you should not need very much heat in the winter nor cooling in the summer. Now you can decide how you want to provide that little bit of heating and cooling. (Hint: try not to use fossil fuels, including Natural Gas)
Here are a few fun options for heating your house without emitting GHGs: an air-source heat pump, a ground-source heat pump or a sun-pump.
SPOILER ALERT: Leanne and I have decided to deliver heat in the house with water pipes under the floors (and radiators on the top floor) and heat that water with electricity. We’re eschewing a heat pump for the time being but we may be able to partially heat the water with solar panels.
Yes, there are best-practices and some gadgets which help with all this, but the technology is available.
The problem is that not enough people are doing it.
Why are solar panels expensive?
Not enough people are buying them.
Why is it so hard to find a contractor who knows how to retrofit a house?
Not enough people are doing it.
Why does it take so long to retrofit a house?
Not enough people are doing it.
Does this cycle right back to blaming the public for not taking action? No. How can we expect the 99% of people who are not rich to spend a year and a lot of money retrofitting their house when the return on investment will be at least a decade away?
So, let’s not blame the media for ringing the climate bell without offering solutions. The solutions have to come from the people we elected to manage our future. Unfortunately, I don’t think Donald Trump has any solutions and I pray that Canada stays strong and doesn’t get sucked into the past.
Lately I have been hearing Leanne say some lines that really echo human-caused Climate Change.
She is playing Titania, The Faerie Queen, in the Bard on the Bandstand production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.
I am playing Oberon, the Faerie King.
The King and Queen are not getting along and it’s causing all kinds of problems.
Titania describes it like this:
Therefore the moon, the governess of floods,
Pale in her anger, washes all the air,
That rheumatic diseases do abound:
And thorough this distemperature we see
The seasons alter: hoary-headed frosts
Far in the fresh lap of the crimson rose,
And on old Hiems‘ thin and icy crown
An odorous chaplet of sweet summer buds
Is, as in mockery, set: the spring, the summer,
The childing autumn, angry winter, change
Their wonted liveries, and the mazed world,
By their increase, now knows not which is which:
And this same progeny of evils comes
From our debate, from our dissension;
We are their parents and original.
Oberon responds with:
Do you amend it then; it lies in you:
Why should Titania cross her Oberon?
Which is a pretty typical response to the global threat of Climate Change, isn’t it? If we’re not denying it’s happening, we’re expecting someone else to do something about it.
The Quarrel of Oberon and Titania by Sir Joseph Noel Paton
Back in December, we made a couple of new political contacts.
John Horgan, James, Leanne, and George Heyman in The Little Yellow House
They were John Horgan, MLA for Juan de Fuca, Leader of the Provincial NDP and Leader of the Opposition in Victoria as well as George Heyman, the MLA for Vancouver-Fairview and the Opposition Spokesperson for the Environment, Green Economy and Technology.
Mr. Horgan’s office contacted me in November about visiting Hammond Forever House and talking about energy efficiency retrofits. They battled traffic from Vancouver and made it out just after sunset. The house was in darkness and still hovering above the ground on 6 Nickel Bros. legs with a skirt of newly poured foundation wall around it, so we couldn’t go inside.
The house as it was when the NDP came to visit.
We stood in the street in front of the house and talked for a while and then went next door to the Little Yellow House to warm up.
Now, I don’t know what your political views are, but I welcome any public official who wants to learn more about our project. I have met both the MLAs from Maple Ridge now. I met our former MP and our new MP, Dan Ruimy.
Chatting in the Little Yellow Kitchen
Mr. Horgan and Mr. Heyman were, by far, the visitors best informed about climate change and the challenge of getting off fossil fuels. Like you, I was curious about their political agenda (there is always a political aspect to these things) and it soon became apparent.
Have you heard about the $8.8 Billion Site C Dam project? I posted about it a while back. It’s the hydro-electric dam project that BC Hydro and the current Liberal BC government is pushing for. If it is built, it will generate a lot of electricity.
The NDP is opposed to the Site C Dam project and in December, when they visited, they were working on an energy strategy. It makes sense that if you’re going to oppose something, you should have something to propose as an alternative. It was a great conversation and I was able to list a number of barriers to regular folk retrofitting their homes.
I don’t like to take a strong position on something like the Site C Dam project that I haven’t had time to research properly. If only we had people whose job it was to research this stuff.
But wait, we do!
It was mere weeks ago that 250 of scientists and academics–those professional truth-seekers–wrote a letter of concern about Site C. Here is a link to the story in The Globe and Mail. And here is a link to the letter itself on the Royal Society of Canada’s website.
You know the Royal Society doesn’t normally weigh in on this political stuff, so it’s either they are crazy and/or on the payroll of the tiny clean energy lobby, or the issue is important enough that they felt a duty to speak up. Given how much academics like to stay out of the spotlight, I tend to believe the latter.
Personally, I would like us to first reduce our energy needs drastically. Contrary to a gut reaction most of us have–doing that doesn’t require going back to the Bronze Age. Secondly, I think we should spread more of our power generation out with solar and wind generation closer to where people actually live.
Scientists and academics are recommending this stuff, but we’re not really listening, are we?
I have heard critics of the project say that this push to build Site C is really about generating a massive amount of power for the Liquified Natural Gas industry. Is that true? I don’t know if that’s true, but I’m pretty sure that forcing more fossil fuels out of the ground by Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) is a terrible justification for such a project.
So thank you very much John and George for taking the time to come out to Maple Ridge and learn about what we’re doing at Hammond Forever House. Now, can you help to regulate the home renovation industry so that homeowners never get put in the position we are in with our former contractor?
So I went in to chat with our new Member of Parliament last month. March 3rd.
I won’t lie, it was because it was Federal budget time and I wanted to put retrofitting homes for energy efficiency in the back of his head. It’s one of those things, like funding the arts, that people say we can’t afford but which are actually a great return for the investment.
As you may know, we elected a new government last year. Justin Trudeau is our Prime Minister now and, surprise of surprises, our local Liberal candidate, Dan Ruimy, is part of Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal majority government in the House of Commons.
Is this photo upside down? Then you’re on a mobile device.
Is this photo upside down? Then you are NOT on a mobile device. Weird.
I say it was a surprise because Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows (and formerly including Mission) has been a polarized Reform/Conservative vs. the NDP riding for a loooooong time. In 2015 I supported the very strong NDP candidate, Bob D’Eith, because I felt that if we sat back and pondered who to support, Stephen Harper would win.
Dan told me he doesn’t want to waste time. He wants to make a difference.
I made an appointment to see Dan in his brand new office before its official opening. I told him about the Maple Ridge Net Zero Home Energy Retrofit Project now waiting on the shelf for someone to dust it off and set it going.
I told him about Solar Colwood which released its final report last year.
And I told him about the Design Charrette we held in 2013 to move the Retrofit Project to the next step: a project manager and project design.
Unfortunately, I have been too busy with our own retrofit and renovation of Hammond Forever House, which I hope will be the test case for the larger project, to have a clear proposal ready for Dan (and Justin, for that matter).
Among other things, we chatted about Dan’s apartment which he said is so badly insulated that there is no point wasting the energy to leave the heat on when he is not home. What a common problem! Tenants and homeowners alike suffer with high energy bills while the climate changes. Our best information estimates that Climate Change will cost Canada $5 billion per year by 2020 and there is very little being done to address the problem of inefficient existing buildings in a meaningful way.
The new Liberal Government, Dan said, is looking for innovative and unique programs they can support. Heritage, Energy, Climate Change, reducing home-heating costs for families–all these things are easy to support. Neither of us had a clear idea for the next steps in the Maple Ridge Retrofit program but Dan suggested we keep talking about it. Then he pointed to the large conference table in the next room and told me what it was for.
I left our meeting thinking it may be time to renew my conversation about the community project with our excellent City Staff to see if they have some new ideas on the subject. After all, I’m not the only one around here with ideas. (I haven’t had time to make that call, yet.)
It seems that since that first meeting with Dan, he spoke to a few other people because last week Leanne and I both found ourselves in that next room sitting around that big table with a bunch of other like-minded people. Leanne was there representing Ridge Meadows Recycling and I was there representing, well, this blog I suppose. Others from local environmental organizations were there, too.
Dan’s idea was to start some sort of ongoing advisory panel on the environment.
There was a kind of stunned optimism in the room as a result of being invited. Many in the room remarked how much of a change the approach was to the previous government. If you remember, I had some professional criticism for our previous MP.
I also remember appealing to our former Prime Minister to attend a climate meeting while he was in New York in 2014. No luck.
It struck me afterwards that many Canadians may prefer the government to make decisions on their behalf without them having to lift a finger. I can understand that and it would be fine if our MPs were infallible gods and/or if everyone agreed with them. Other people, like myself, believe that building consensus is key and that means citizen engagement.
Dan admits that he doesn’t know everything and is willing to collaborate and learn how he can help.
I think I can safely say that everyone in that room will be there next month with bells on. We have a lot of catching up to do!
We’re entering a new phase in the renovation and retrofit of Hammond Forever House.
If you would like to visit and learn more, send me an e-mail at [email protected] and we’ll try to arrange a time for me to show you around. There is lots of work still to be done and if you are willing to pitch in, we will not say no!
The tent.
This past week was a difficult one. To make it possible to build the addition and upstairs dormer in the middle of winter, our contractor erected a huge plastic tent over the house. Smart, right?
Unfortunately, it leaks. Leanne and I have been mopping up the floor and setting containers under drips so that not too much water gets through. It’s not too much of a problem if water gets through to the new construction which will all dry out, but we have been noticing signs of water damage on the ceiling of the living and dining rooms which makes it hard to sleep on these rainy nights.
This photo might be upside down on mobile devices–sorry!
On Thursday evening, January 27th, Leanne and I contributed to a panel discussion after the screening of a film about environmental activism. The film was called “Disruption” and it was screened in Maple Ridge Council Chambers by Cinema Politica http://www.cinemapolitica.org/ridgemeadows.
Here’s what the movie synopsis says:
Disruption takes an unflinching look at the devastating consequences of our inaction. It lays bare the terrifying science, the shattered political process, the unrelenting industry special interests and the civic stasis that have brought us to this social, moral and ecological crossroads. We are living through an age of tipping points and rapid social and planetary change. We’re the first generation to feel the impacts of climate disruption, and the last generation that can do something about it. The film enlarges the issue beyond climate impacts and makes a compelling call for bold action that is strong enough to tip the balance to build a clean energy future. We still have much to do.
The film echoes my own belief that climate change is a crisis that demands immediate and radical action from all of us. The normal processes for changing the systems in our societies to respond to a threat are too slow and so mass protest is appropriate and reasonable to accelerate government response. It pointed out that many people are looking for a “silver bullet” to “solve” climate change, but that the problem is not so simple.
Just as we look to find a single solution, I think we also search for a single cause–a single group we can blame. However, consumers, governments and industries are all part of the system that needs to change. Our problem is the status quo. Our problem is inertia. One wheel can’t turn the car around, we have to work together.
It’s not going to be easy, but it could be exciting.
I did my best to share what we’re doing with Hammond Forever House but we’re in the middle of perhaps the most challenging part of the whole process, so it was hard for me to say how wonderful it is and how everyone should do it because I don’t know how it’s going to turn out.
Certainly I don’t want to simplify the challenge of reducing home energy use to something like, “homeowners should buy more insulation” because, as I’ve said before, homeowners are stretched in time and money. Only the rich among us can really “afford” to perform deep retrofits on their homes, but they are also able to afford paying high gas bills to heat their large houses, so few retrofits actually happen. People like Leanne and I with limited budgets and inefficient homes could make a big difference, but we don’t have the cash.
Do you see the opportunity there, Mr. Trudeau?
I say we don’t have the cash, which is true, but, as you know, Leanne and I are doing it anyway. This is my personal form of protest. It’s only impossible until we do it, right?
I rambled a bit in the discussion, but that’s understandable. Leanne and I were both exhausted because the night before (Wednesday night) the plastic that was supposed to be covering the rear half of the house pretty much blew off, exposing it to the rain. For two hours we clambered all over the house in the middle of the night trying to secure the rain cover in a rain storm.
It’s hard to describe what happened, but Leanne did take a little video. In it you can see the top floor as it was last Tuesday and then what happened the following Wednesday night in the storm.
The next day we found some more plastic and secured another layer over the top. Now that the dormer and addition have been framed and the roof has its plywood sheathing, the rain cover can sit right on the roof instead of above it like a tent. The wind can’t get under it so easily now and, so far, it looks like the insides are drying out.
Soon we’ll have a new roof put on and then we’ll sleep a little better.
A lot of people are like me and don’t like to discuss their vote.
In 2011 I was blithely convinced by my Facebook feed that everyone agreed with me and there was no way Stephen Harper was going to win. Then, with the support of 24% of eligible voters, he won a majority. Have you seen this video?
I don’t want that to happen again.
So this time I’m not being so shy.
You can vote for whomever you like, but here in Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge, I’m supporting Bob D’Eith and the New Democratic Party.
In a nutshell, I think he has a great balance of advocacy experience, understanding of local Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge issues and 25 years of law. I also have a lot of respect for a man who raises 5 kids. When you meet Bob, you can tell immediately that he is in this for the right reasons. He is going to bring our community to Ottawa and not the other way round.
But don’t take my word for it, listen to what he had to say at the first all candidates event at the Maple Ridge Senior’s Centre on September 27th, 2015 (hosted by the City of Maple Ridge in a really positive initiative–thank you!). It’s about 7 minutes long and includes his introduction, answers to a few questions, and his closing remarks. I apologise I wasn’t able to provide the wording of the questions, but I think he puts his answers into context very well.
A lot of people are concerned about vote-splitting. In 2011, a majority of Canadians voted for someone besides the Conservative Party, but the result was a Conservative majority in Parliament. It’s a real concern with 4 parties and one independent in the race. In fact, if I were passionately supportive of the Green, Liberal or Independent candidate, I would be pretty annoyed that my vote would probably be wasted. Look at the 2011 results for this riding:
If you live in Maple Ridge or Pitt Meadows and you want to vote Green, Liberal or Independent, you will most likely be handing Stephen Harper another MP to vote his regressive policies into law with.
The good news is, as I said in my last political post, there is every sign that the Liberals, Greens and NDP are all willing to work together.
The other good news is that Bob D’Eith is a very, very strong candidate and the NDP is a strong, reasonable party.
Now, I recognize that some people have concerns about the NDP which are rooted in the past. The fear of the Red Menace was something I experienced in my own house growing up. However, everything I’ve heard from them has been reasonable and well-thought out. I think the goal of balancing the budget right away may be too ambitious, but I’m looking forward to seeing them try. The economists tell us that, in a recession, it is normal to run a deficit and stimulate the economy, so if they do, it won’t kill anybody.
Strategic Voting
If you feel that voting for Bob would be a strategic vote and you just can’t put your heart into it, may I suggest teaming up with another voter in another riding? There are ridings in Canada where the party with the best chance of beating the Harper candidate is Liberal or Green. What if an NDP supporter in one of those ridings agreed to vote for your party in return for you voting for Bob here? You wouldn’t have to “hold your nose when you vote”!
One of the organizations that can help you do this is Vote Together. It works by e-mail. You pledge to vote on someone else’s behalf in return for your vote doing the most good somewhere else. Simple idea, right? It worked well for Elizabeth May in 2011. If you wanted to vote Green, you could send your vote to her riding and get her elected!
On the other hand, you can go the easy route and vote for Bob D’Eith. He and Tom Mulcair are easy to support.
If you have read any of our story, you will know that I’m all about investing now to save in the future. Don’t waste all the energy and materials of an existing home by knocking it down and building a new one–retrofit it! The NDP address this point in their “Building Affordable and Efficient Housing” plan. In part, it says:
The NDP recognizes that access to affordable housing – and the ability to afford to heat and maintain your home – is essential for all Canadians. Our plan will invest in green and affordable housing by:
Introducing a green home energy program to help retrofit at least 50,000 homes and apartment buildings.
Through an initial investment of $200 million over four years, this initiative will help make homes and apartment buildings more efficient, which will lower energy bills, create thousands of jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This is music to my ears, of course, but it’s only common sense. Similar ideas are expressed by the Liberal Party (albeit a little vaguely) and the Green Party who get more specific:
We will create additional sustainable jobs by re-introducing and expanding the home renovation tax credit, to create incentives for individuals and companies to make their homes and businesses more efficient and accessible by installing high-efficiency insulation, solar heating and electricity, energy-efficient appliances, and accessibility upgrades. And we will unleash an army of carpenters, electricians and contractors to take outdated and leaky public buildings – schools, universities and hospitals – and plug the leaks that increase greenhouse gases and costs. These changes alone will reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent nationwide.
Can’t afford it? It seems to me this is called working together for the long-term prosperity of our country and if taxes have to rise on large corporations and the wealthiest Canadians and we have to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, that is a price that these groups should be willing to pay for a healthy, resilient economy. (There is little evidence to support, for example, the idea that low corporate taxes create jobs.)
Stephen Harper seems to have a carrot and stick approach to winning votes which has something to do with bribing us with minor tax cuts and scaring us with xenophobic fear-mongering. We all know that my $10 doesn’t buy very much, but if I get 100 of my friends together we’ve got $1000. That’s the whole point of taxes! As for the other thing, I thought Canada was a free country, wear whatever the heck you want!
And another thing–the NDP are proposing a national childcare strategy. Great idea! Our kids are in school now, but before they were 5 years old, we had to find childcare in order to work. It made more sense for one of us to stay home with the kids because the cost of childcare was so high. It was nerve-wracking finding a good local childcare centre. Costs varied and so did quality. I’m still working part-time which means I can pick the kids up from school at 2:20 every day. I’m okay with that, but I also feel I don’t have enough good options. The NDP plan will allow parents to get back to work much more easily.
I could go on, but you can read the whole platform here. And if you don’t like certain elements of it, remember that the key in government is collaboration. An experienced, positive MP like Bob D’Eith will be able to bring your concerns to the table and help to build a consensus among the whole of Parliament. For example, don’t reject him just because the NDP promised to balance the budget and you think that is unrealistic.
Finally, I have one more video for you from the all-candidates event. This time it includes all five candidates in Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge. The public were invited to submit questions via facebook beforehand and mine was chosen (yay me!). In this clip you can hear each candidate’s 1-minute answer. My question was, “In your opinion, how important is science and research in government? Will you work to restore access of the media and the Canadian public to government-funded research?”
The candidates are, from left to right: Dan Ruimy, Liberal Party, Peter Tam, Green Party, Bob D’Eith, New Democratic Party, Mike Murray, Conservative Party, Steve Ranta, Independent.
What really struck me, watching this, was how closed off Mike Murray, the Conservative candidate was to the problem, and how prepared he was with a very Harper-esque dismissal. The curtailing of government scientists’ access to the public began in 2006 but it was Bill C-38 in 2013 that had scientists in lab coats marching in Ottawa (scientists don’t typically march in protest). The intervening time has allowed Harper’s candidates to roll their eyes and act as if the problem were so yesterday or, in this case, “a tired old narrative.”
Murray then says, essentially, that since the scientists are still creating a whole lot of reports and stuff and the government is spending a lot of money on science that means that all of those marching scientists and journalists don’t know what they are talking about.
Following Murray, as if it was planned, was Steve Ranta, who is not constrained by a national platform or party to represent and simply tells his truth. It’s a beautiful moment. Muzzle that, Harper!
Tom Mulcair in Maple Ridge!
New Democratic Party leader Tom Mulcair visited Bob’s campaign office on Monday, October 12, 2015. There was no vetting; I walked right in and found a place on one side. As the room filled up, they had to make more room. I found a good spot but ended up holding the camera above my head for 20 minutes, which was a little painful (that’s why there are a couple of breaks in the video). In this video you can see the room fill up, Bob introduce Tom, Tom give his stump speech and then take questions in English and French from National media. Warning, it’s 17 minutes long!
Please Vote
So there it is, folks! If I made it a little easier to vote in this election, please let me know. This is a very important election and if you need help getting to the polls or more information, please let me know that, too.
Most importantly, of course, please vote! I did the first chance I got.
I was one of the first at the polling place on Friday
Hammond Community Centre–vote here til Monday!
If you are not registered or haven’t received a voter card, go to the Elections Canada website and check. Remember that you can vote by simply turning up at the polling place with the right identification, but it is easier if you are registered. I’ve heard that if you live on a First Nation Reserve, the Elections Canada website may not recognize your postal code. I hope that just deepens your resolve to vote!
I don’t want to spoil it for you but it’s about how smart people are sexy and how NASA can do amazing things with math like land people on Mars and get them off again.
Wait, it’s just a movie. They can’t do that stuff, yet.
Well,they can land a robot on Mars. We know because, you know, they did that.
Everybody loves that NASA and that amazing stuff they do. “Yay NASA! Someday I hope my kid will be an astronaut and yadda yadda…”
So why is it that when NASA says that the earth’s average temperature is increasing because we have been burning so much fossil fuel and this is causing major changes in the climate, some of us, including my own government, seem to think there is some wiggle room there.
“The science isn’t in yet.”
Someone on a political Facebook group I’m a part of wrote, “if the evidence were overwhelming I would accept it.” Of course, I took that as a challenge.
Before I share the conversation, please know that I’m not meaning to ridicule this point of view. This person is not stupid. This is the power of a firmly held belief. It takes more than facts and science to change someone’s heart, but where else can we start? Unfortunately, most of us vote from our hearts, or guts, but not from our heads.
Maybe telling a story of the retrofit of a 1923 house will help. Yeah, maybe.
The exchange went like this (I didn’t change a word, I promise, even though I think I could improve on my comments):
If the evidence were overwhelming I would accept it.
“If the evidence were overwhelming I would accept it” John Bobson [not a real name] August 13, 2015. No offence John, but I want to hold you to that because the evidence is overwhelming and we’re only missing the acceptance part.
Show me!
Showing you all the overwhelming evidence would be, well, overwhelming. But let’s start with, say, the UN. You could go to the Pope if you like or any climate scientist…how much do you want? Just don’t come back with a blog or an oil industry funded publication, okay? http://www.un.org/climatechange/
How about the U.S. Environmental Protection agency? Quote: “Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2013, CO2 accounted for about 82% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth’s carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle—both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. [1]” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
Meanwhile, here’s another for you and John. How about NASA, John? NASA’s Climate site is pretty overwhelming. Here is a page called “facts”. Please accept the science. It is not theory, it is consensus. I would like my government to quit wasting time and money managing its scientists and instead listen to them.http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
James Rowley the UN Pope and NASA are not any more unbiased than oil producers, who funds matters but the science matters more. Also I like Lawrence Solomon on climate change a famed “denier” but ardent ecologist.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/…/global-cooling_b_4413833…
And many others.
From time immemorial humans have sort ways to control the climate for our benefit this latest attempt is not different it more belief system than empirical. Yes of course human activity affects climate but are not the great driving force behind whatever changes are happening. Of course we should mitigate our activities to minimize deleterious affects, but not the the point of giving up the enormous advances we have made over the past few centuries. The climate had huge swings in the Middle Ages not caused by industrial activity most believe the sun was the cause why could that not be true now, we simply don’t know. I’m not a catastrophist. Actually I don’t believe when it comes to the crunch people will actually give up stuff for climate threats, and governments will be thwarted by common sense. But that’s me ever the optimist.
I. I got nothin…
Alright, so showing you the overwhelming evidence didn’t work (and I don’t believe you actually spent any time at the NASA Climate Change site, the Environmental Protection Agency site, or the UN Climate Change site). Will deconstructing Lawrence Solomon? Global cooling? 14 of the 15 warmest years have occurred since 2000. And it’s 2015. What is remarkable is that thousands of scientists working with the UN Panel on Climate Change do not sway you but one “ardent ecologist” has you completely in his spell. You are not alone in this, unfortunately, which is why Wikipedia notes that there is no debate among scientists, but there is in the popular media. That just means that many people haven’t accepted the science, not that the science is wrong.
I expect my government to accept the science and get on with building a consensus on what to do about it.
No debate amongst scientists really James Rowley that is what they do. No debate no science my point.
At some point we accept that the earth is not flat.
James Rowley I don’t dispute the facts, it’s the unsupported catastrophic forecasts based on theories that don’t come close to predicting what is happening that concern me since we may be barking up the wrong tree. Human contributions importance is unclear to say the least. The Greeks knew the earth is round so flat earth is not a good analogy. What about the universe was created in 6 days?
Where are you getting your information? Is this the passage you’re missing? “Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[79][215] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made.[216] In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 American scientists working in academia, government, and industry. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century and 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring, only 5% disagreeing that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[217][218] National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions. [219]” From Wikipedia on Climate Change.
The bit that killed me was that, according to this person, there is no difference in bias between the UN, the Pope, and NASA on the one hand and oil producers on the other. Which of these groups stands to lose billions of dollars if the true costs of climate change are figured into national budgets and their subsidies are reduced or ended? Now, which of these groups seeks out the opinions of thousands of independent climate scientists from all over the world before forming recommendations? Which of these groups hire individual researchers specifically to do studies that muddy the waters? We’ve already been through this with tabacco companies denying that cigarettes are bad for you.
I think there is a credibility gap there.
Currently, we have a Federal Government who doesn’t want to hear from all these researchers either. Aside from cutting funding to science that might find things they don’t want found and ending the National Roundtable on the Environment and The Economy and muzzling the government scientists they do still employ, Stephen Harper closed the Office of the National Science Adviser (ONSA) in 2008 after first moving it from the Privy Council Office to Industry Canada in 2006.
I know that the repetition of these criticisms may strike some supporters of Harper’s government as tiresome because they happened years ago, but the lack of reliable information available to our government is frightening. How can you govern like that?
To use another movie analogy, Canada is in that moment near the beginning of The Matrix.
If we take the Blue Pill and vote Stephen Harper in for another 4 years, we are committing ourselves to living in a warped version of reality where scientific data is questionable and decisions are based on Conservative Party ideology and polling, not facts.
If we take the Red Pill and elect ANY other party, even as a minority government, we can slowly begin reversing the damage and restore robust information gathering and sharing.
Let’s take the Red Pill because, although it may be bitter, it’s better to face the truth head on.
[UPDATE MARCH 2016: since this post was written, Leanne and I have entered into a contract dispute with Ridgewater Homes. For more details, click here.]
We can’t do this alone.
There has to be people who know how to take an existing home and make it energy efficient without tearing it down and wasting all that energy and resources. It’s not rocket science.
“Frankly, we need an army of carpenters, electricians and contractors going out to plug leaky buildings,” federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May said during the August 6 leaders debate. “Thirty per cent of carbon pollution comes from the energy we waste and the money we waste heating the outdoors in the winter and cooling it in the summer.”
and she is 100% right except that we needed it 30 years ago.
However, if you take a few years to work up to your renovation and you connect with people like Lorraine Gauthier of the Now House Project and Monte Paulsen of City Green Energy Solutions, you start to not only meet people who know how to do this, but a few who are willing to help you do it.
Lorraine
James
Monte
I told you about our relationship with the BCIT Building Sciences Centre of Excellence who put sensors in the house for a year to analyze the indoor air quality. One student wrote a report using three months of the data which you can read in a series of Hammond Forever House posts here.
I also told you about the design charrette we held in Maple Ridge to hash out a plan for a community home energy retrofit project (hey, if our government won’t do it, I guess we have to). With insufficient support, the project has been shelved pending the completion of our own retrofit which I hope will set an example.
With UBC involved, BCIT has agreed to help with the post-retrofit air quality analysis so that students will be able to study the practical effect of the water and energy saving measures we are able to implement. I love this idea because, although the techniques are not new, we need more people out there who know them and we need to get the word out about what is possible for ordinary homes.
Here is the synopsis that Light House put together. They are taking the lead.
Project Concept:
Retrofit a 1923 Part 9 residential building, Hammond Forever House, with heritage designation in Maple Ridge, BC to near net zero or carbon neutral. Conduct pre and post-retrofit analysis, which will include on-site testing & insulation installation:
• Energy consumption
• Water consumption
• Airtightness
• Temperature
• Humidity
• CO2 concentrations
Compile a case study describing Hammond Forever House’s pre and post-retrofit conditions, regulatory, financial and logistical barriers to carbon neutral retrofits, successful project outcomes and resources for other homeowners wishing to retrofit their homes. Case study appendices should include construction photographs and copies of all reports and associated analysis. The final case study will be provided to the homeowner, published on the Light House website and distributed via a webinar and at conferences, as opportunities arise.
Project Background:
In BC, residential buildings represent 40% of total greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs); in Vancouver, the figure is 55%1. In response to climate impacts, federal and provincial governments have identified GHG emission reduction targets for BC building stock, including the following:
• Energy Efficiency Act: 17% reduction in GHGs below 2005 levels by 2020.
• BC Climate Action Plan: 33% GHG reduction below 2007 levels by 202 and 80% by 2050.
• BC Energy Efficient Building Strategy: Average 20% energy demand reduction per home by 2020.
• BC Climate Action Charter: Carbon neutral corporate operations by 2012.
In August 2015 Light House released the results of a multi-year, multi-stakeholder engagement process with industry, government and utilities titled: Towards Carbon Neutral & Near Net Zero Energy Residential Buildings, a Roadmap for British Columbia. Our Roadmap identifies major actions which can move existing residential buildings towards retrofits which result in carbon neutrality. We recognize the significant impact of carbon neutral pilot projects across a wide range of home sizes, ages and regions, and are therefore pleased to partner with this homeowner to deliver a carbon neutral pilot project in Maple Ridge, BC.
One of the key things that interests me is the inclusion of “regulatory, financial and logistical barriers to carbon neutral retrofits” in the study. This speaks to the fact that we have the technology and expertise necessary to drastically reduce the carbon footprint of our existing buildings, we just have to work together and do it. It was Now House who helped me understand that it is not a technical problem, it is a social engineering problem. [For more details on their involvement in Maple Ridge, check out the news page on the Now House website.]
It is my hope that by telling our story, warts and all, we can be part of the shift of our economy from doomed to renewable by getting the word out.
And that’s why I’m very happy with the snazzy new sign outside celebrating our key partners.
It turns out that our contractor, Ridgewater Homes, is very talented at making signs. As part of our heritage agreement, we are required to post a sign explaining that this is a Heritage Site and the fine for any vandalism, etc. Ridgewater was able to add the logos of some of our supporters and even leave room for a few more, if any suppliers would like to sponsor the project and attach their name to it.
Sticking it to the man by saying no to fossil fuels!
Are you sick of paying taxes? Are you going to stick it to the man by voting “no” in the Provincial Transit Plebiscite that’s just begun?
Well, I think you should reconsider who the man is and how you can stick it to him.
Leanne and I just got our ballots in the mail today. Are we having trouble making up our minds? No, we’re voting “YES”.
The oil tank lurks in the basement under the fireplace…
On March 6, 2013 we bought 1100.7 litres of furnace oil at $1.2490/litre for a total $1443.51. That was over two years ago. Average that out over 24 months to about $60 per month for heating alone.
Oh, but we should note that we haven’t turned the furnace on since June, 2014. That means that our average monthly fuel bill for the last 10 months has been…$0.
We will never buy fuel oil again. If all goes well, we will never buy fossil fuels of any kind (including natural gas) to heat our home. It feels fantastic.
That’s our way of sticking it to The Man. Score 1 for us!
To me, The Man is not my government. As a Canadian citizen, I like to think I have some part in my government and so it is partly me. The Man right now is fossil fuels. That is due to how certain we are that they are the main cause of the planet warming and the climate changing with dangerous (and expensive) rapidity. By burning oil and gas we are pulling carbon out of the earth that has been locked there for millions of years and pumping it into the atmosphere.
An extension of The Man is all those in the industry who are pushing for irresponsible extraction and using tactics a la Big “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” Tobacco to convince the public everything is fine. Unfortunately, Canada subsidizes the multi-national corporations that make up the oil industry with hundreds of millions of dollars directly and, as reported on The Tyee, “The International Monetary Fund estimates that energy subsidies in Canada top an incredible $34 billion each year in direct support to producers and uncollected tax on externalized costs.”
The batteries are under my butt.
So, I also stick it to the man by riding an electric scooter to work or, if I’m too wimpy to face the weather, I stick it to the man by taking the infrequent C44 shuttle bus. I’m working up to cycling but I’m not there yet. If I may, I’d like to take another point for not driving much. That gives me 2.
I would be able to stick it to The Man more effectively if those community shuttles were more frequent. (See where I’m going with this?)
Let’s check in on our scoreboard:
James: 2 The Man: 0
We’re not paying for oil anymore, but we did bump up our electricity bill a bit. We use an air conditioner (with a heating function set to 20 degrees) in the kitchen and a space heater in the kids’ bedroom at night. I feel fine about that because BC’s electricity comes mostly from sustainable hydro-electric power. I believe that’s another point for me.
Yes, we consume electricity and wood, but no gas and no oil
James: 3 The Man: 0
What is more, BC Hydro is a publicly owned corporation, so really I am using my own service instead of a private, multi-national corporation such as an oil or gas company. I don’t think that’s a point, that just speaks to who The Man is in this scenario and who he isn’t.
Unfortunately however, efficient as it is, the insert has still been polluting the neighourhood with particulate-heavy smoke.
James: 4 The Man: 0 Neighbours with respiratory illness -1
Hmmm, burning wood also releases greenhouse gasses–You can argue that those gasses would only have been trapped in the wood for a few decades anyway and that it’s better than burning fossil fuels but still I say
James: 4 The Man: 0 Neighbours with asthma -1 The Environment -1
Finally, in my last post I showed you the mountains of ash that we’re producing–several times the trash we normally produce. Take another point off the Environment which leaves us with
James: 4 The Man: 0 Neighbours with asthma -1 The Environment -2
If we just look at The Man and I, I seem to be doing OK. However, since I live in the environment and so will my kids for decades to come (not to mention all the costs of climate change) and since I care about my neighbours and help to pay for their healthcare, I think I should include their score with mine. If we take those three points away from my score we get
James: 1 The Man: 0
Great, we’re barely breaking even! How frustrating! Makes me want to vote “no” to something!
Leanne and I are about to embark on our renovation which I hope will win back those lost points. Our house will no longer burn anything. We will shift to using much less power by dramatically improving the building envelope and what little power we use will be electric (hopefully–if we can pay for the heat pump we want!).
That is how we will stick it to The Man and we are applying for a $150K credit line to do it! I would rather pay up front now than pay The (oil) Man for decades to come.
The Man is not the Provincial government who collects the PST. It’s not the Mayors or Translink either. The government is us and we are the government. When we pay taxes we chip in to a fund because we can’t buy this stuff as individuals. It’s buying bulk. It’s working together. It’s being adults.
How many decades have our governments listened to statistics and research telling them the value of public transit, how it is good for the economy; how it is good for the environment; how it gives people more time with their families, increases health while reducing health costs and makes people happier?
How many decades have we debated how to fund transit in British Columbia?
Of course it is the Provincial Government’s job to decide how much tax to collect and what to do with it and they should have simply made this decision themselves, but remember the Harmonized Sales Tax?
After that adventure, can we blame the BC Liberal Party for passing the buck to the Mayors’ Council? “It’s their plan, not ours!” Well, I can, but as much as I would like them to simply get on with governing, I can see that making the Mayors ask the question makes political sense.
Bundling the federal sales tax (GST) and the provincial sales tax (PST) into one sales tax (Harmonized Sales Tax) is a good idea. How much money do we waste on redundant administration of two separate taxes? Unfortunately, the BC Liberals kinda sorta specifically promised not to do that. People don’t like it when you say one thing and do another. There was a referendum and many people voted against the HST not because they hated (or knew much about) the tax, but because they felt tricked into it.
They wanted to make a point. The Anti-HST campaign managed to convince them that the government was The Man and they wanted to stick it to The Man so now we are stuck with an outdated, inefficient tax system and less in the public purse for things like, oh, say, transportation infrastructure.
This is how smart people end up voting against their own interest.
It’s interesting to me that the point of voting down the HST was to send a message to the BC Liberals but in the subsequent Provincial election we voted them back into power. Did we feel like we had punished them enough by killing the HST? I think we had it backwards: we should have kept the HST and reduced the number of Liberals in the Legislature.
“But James,” you say, “I feel taxed to death. I feel stretched to the breaking point. Why would I vote for higher taxes?”
I hear you, but it’s not taxes that are squeezing us. It is the way our taxes are being used. Now we have a chance to be heard. Buying transit infrastructure in bulk is a great idea and it will relax the squeeze on everyone in the region. It will even save you money–in gas and in time (because time is money).
It will also stick it to The Man.
In our system, when oil and gas companies ship more fossil fuels and when car manufacturers sell more cars it adds to our GDP. In simplistic terms, we like a nice big GDP, even though we know those things will cost us dearly in the long run.
To borrow from thestoryofstuff.org if we measured the economy in terms of “better” and not simply “more” things would be different. In that case, our economy would be more like the happiest countries on Earth: Denmark, Norway, etc. We would pay more taxes (and corporations and wealthy people would, too) and we would use that public money for smart things like better healthcare, better education and better ways to move people around, not just cars.
The right wing groups The Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (based in Saskatchewan) are telling us to vote “no” against our best interest. They clearly represent regressive policy and the oil and gas industry. Of course these groups don’t want more transit! They are standing up for their narrow short-term, self-interest. That’s their job. Future generations be-damned.
Let’s look at this plebiscite for a second.
The 0.5 percent increase in the Provincial Sales Tax only applies to goods and services that are already taxed under the PST.
It will go directly to the Mayor’s plan which is clearly laid out and based on decades of study.
0.5% means 50 cents for every $100 spent on PST taxable stuff.
It amounts to an average of 35 cents per family per day.
If you want to reduce that amount, you can buy less. Buying less means less waste anyway.
If you live in Maple Ridge like I do, you have the option of avoiding the tax by spending $5 in gasoline to drive to Mission to buy stuff. But make sure you plan to spend more than $1000 in Mission because otherwise your $5 in gas will cancel out your $5 in savings on the Transit tax. ($5 is 0.5% of $1000)
If you are planning to buy a brand new car for $20 000, you could save a whopping $100 by driving to Mission or further, but wait, no, they closed that loophole. You pay the tax based on where you register the car, not where it is purchased (sorry Mission car dealers!).
What other major purchases are you willing to drive out of town to buy so you can avoid paying that 0.5% extra? Jewelry? Appliances? Furniture? Well, if it makes you feel better, go ahead. Do please remember that we are already subsidizing the oil and gas industry and driving more is hardly sticking it to them is it? I would rather shop locally and pay a tax dedicated to improving congestion, health and the environment than spend more money on gas and make those things worse.
As I see it, the only way a reasonable person can be convinced to vote against funding transit infrastructure is if we believe Translink is corrupt and/or the government is corrupt. Few on the no side are using that word, but that is the implication when every mistake, delay, or bad decision Translink has ever made is trotted out with the catch phrase, “throwing good money after bad.” It’s an easy story to sell and a psychologically attractive one, too –especially when we’re looking for a Man to stick it to.
But this is not Egypt, Syria or North Korea. Our government is not corrupt. Translink is a publicly accountable body and information on its operations, budgets, successes and failures are freely available.
Someone commented on Facebook that comparing us to other cities in North America isn’t saying much and that systems in Europe are much better. Well, those systems are in countries with higher taxes. I would like to get me some of that so I am voting yes.
I’ve heard people say they will vote no because the service sucks in their area (in Maple Ridge it’s not great) but that’s an argument for proper funding not against it. Vote yes.
So just who are we sticking it to if we vote no to the Mayor’s plan? Ummmm…
-people who commute on congested roads
-people who need transit because they don’t drive (like kids and seniors and lower income citizens)
-parents who will have less time to spend at home with their families
-businesses whose customers will stay home instead of fighting traffic
-future generations who will have to deal with the costs of climate change and air pollution
-municipal governments who will struggle with growing populations and inadequate transportation infrastructure
-provincial governments who will have to pay for the health affects of smog and stress as well as try to improve congestion without dedicated cash to do it
-federal governments who will have to increase transfer payments to provinces to deal with these costs on top of their own responsibility for disaster relief due to increasing extreme weather events
-and people like me who want to take transit to reduce my carbon footprint.
Who else can you think of?
Are we sticking it to the Provincial government? No, they will be unaffected.
Are we sticking it to Translink? No, Translink will not be affected, either.
Voting no is cutting off our noses to spite our face.
At this stage in our renovation and retrofit we’re just trying to finish enough of the house so that the building inspector will let us occupy it and we can get homeowner’s insurance again.
Dan’s idea was to start some sort of ongoing advisory panel on the environment.
Dan admits that he doesn’t know everything and is willing to collaborate and learn how he can help.
