Attacking hysteria

I get it, we are all looking for the magic bullet, the one-stop solution. Paris was going to get it right, was going to be the be-all-and-end-all solution - it was to be a memorable point in our short temporal history. Was there a solution? No, but everyone has agreed on the path forward.

The hype and hysteria surrounding Paris has been immense, similar in proportions to the amount of CO and CO2 expended in getting the largest contingent of officials sent to Paris outside of France itself. 

So, what is the solution to our environmental problems? 

We are frankly grasping at straws, with some wild opinions from academics as to how we solve the problem.

Charge for carbon

Well, we did that in BC, and where are we now? Off target. We led the world for our carbon pricing, but after several years have yet to prove that we were able to make any gains at all.

Charge the rich countries to help the poor countries

I love this proposal. It is like saying ‘just pay more for green energy’. It is the simplest answer in the world. 

So my power bill goes up from $6,000 per year to $12,000 per year, and I am green. Well, not exactly, Einstein. 

The bit missed is, what do we have to do to make an additional $6,000 per year? Go get another job? Drive another 50 km per day? Work in a factory or office contributing to the environmental mess so that we can sleep at night because we pay more for our green power? That’s downloading the problem, not the solution.

I started thinking about this topic when several friends posted an article about a small town in the U.S. that opposed a solar panel farm because of the fear of what could happen to the ground if you remove the heat. Interesting thought. 

Apparently my online friends did not find it interesting at all, because every one of them branded the community as stupid. But are they stupid? Do we know what happens to the ground if we steal the heat? 

I know a little about it because I used to own a geothermal utility, and trust me, it is easier to freeze the ground than you may think. Geothermal is one of the most efficient sources of green energy available, but without recharge, we are not moving and replacing heat, we are stealing it. 

So, the town’s concerns may be legitimate. Online commentators, however, are not going to think about it for even ten seconds, because we have no time on social media for thinking. Someone on the Internet says the town is a stupid town, so we should join in and say it too.

In point of fact, a large solar panel farm in California has been nicknamed the ‘Death Ray’ because of the number of birds instantly incinerated when they fly above. Now, imagine if the town hosting that farm had initially rejected it on the basis of birds possibly combusting spontaneously, would we call them stupid?

Wind farms have been shown to increase rain and temperatures as part of their downstream effect. This is something I questioned in the late 1980’s when chairing a large southern Alberta economic development group. Yet even today it is hard to find people who question the downstream effects with this green technology. 

Take wind out of the system (which we do with wind farms), and there will be an effect. The same is true with wave farms, solar farms, and, to a certain extent, inner city geothermal systems in high-rise buildings. 

Am I against seeking ways to solve the climate changes we are seeing? No I am not. 

Am I convinced that all climate changes are man made, or that we can even come close to a total solution? Certainly not, and especially not if it involves sending two 747’s full of delegates across the Atlantic. In that instance, I think we lost the plot. 

We aren’t thinking about the repercussions of this new technology because it is the shiny new bullet. The magic answer we have all been seeking. 

This veil of hope comes over us, blinding us to the negative effects of the technology. And one day, it could be too late.

It reminds me of my time on Canmore Town Council, where the proposal came forward to create wildlife corridors through the middle of town. I was a very lonely voice suggesting that to reduce conflict with wildlife, we should, in fact, keep the wildlife out of town. There were a lot of deaf ears, so over the months I continued to suggest that creating wildlife corridors through town was bad business.

Ultimately, my closing argument was simply that encouraging herbivores into town onto golf courses presenting some of the best ‘salad bars’ in the valley was a bad idea, and that pets, and perhaps even children, would be lured into contact with carnivores who recognize the opportunity for a lazy meal in the middle of town. Bring in the herbivores, and the carnivores will follow. I was told I was just a stupid developer, what could I know about such things?

If there was social media at the time, I would have been called stupid online rather than to my face. The Town of Canmore now struggles with the loss of pets, and even people, because of the challenges with wildlife/human interaction, but it is now too late.

So slow down on the reactions. Rather than thinking only about the solution, think about the repercussions. 

Maybe the little town in the U.S. is not so stupid after all. Perhaps they just did their research.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.