Green Neighbour
  • Home
  • Activism
  • Green Living
    • Going Solar
    • Challenge
    • Links
  • YouTube
  • Podcast
  • Social Media
  • Climate Dashboard

There is no Planet B: Why Ontarians need to make an informed decision in the upcoming provincial election

5/26/2018

1 Comment

 
Art Lightstone
Picture
As the saying goes, there is no Planet B. This is something that Ontarians have to think long and hard about when deciding how to cast their ballots in the Ontario provincial election on June 7th. 

Indeed, Ontarians have some very weighty decisions to make in this particular election, as they will be forced to decide between a government that has been actively committed to reducing carbon emissions (Ontario's Climate Change Action Plan, 2016) and a party that would dismantle Ontario's climate action plan (McKitrick, 2018).

Climate change is not a myth, and it's not some weird conspiracy created by hippies and solar panel manufacturers. Climate change is real, and it's having a very real impact on the planet (Consequences of Climate Change, NASA). ​Carbon dioxide alone accounts for a 30 percent increase in radiative forcing since 1990 (Climate Change Indicators, US EPA) 

I understand that voters are upset by Ontario's growing public debt, and I have already made my own feelings about escalating public debt very clear (see: Understanding Canada's Federal Debt, 2015). While I certainly do not like public debt... at all, I fear that just one term of a conservative government in Ontario would not only pull us off an important carbon emissions track, it could potentially pull our province so far off our emission-reduction targets that we might never recover.

The fact of the matter is carbon pricing is working in Ontario (Grinspun, 2018), and green energy now creates more jobs in the world than oil. Sadly, Canada, one of the most progressive countries in the world, has been missing out on the green energy revolution (Tencer, 2016). 

​As a case in point, when it comes specifically to the electric power generation workforce, renewable energy now employs far more people in the United States than oil, gas, and coal combined. 
Picture
Figure 12: Electric Power Generation Employment by Technology, Q2 2015 - Q1 2016, from page 30 of the 2017 US Energy and Jobs Report.
The 2017 Energy and Employment Report produced by the US Department of Energy states that, "Solar technologies, both photovoltaic and concentrating, employ almost 374,000 workers, or 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation workforce. This is followed by fossil fuel generation employment, which accounts for 22 percent of total Electric Power Generation employment and supports 187,117 workers across coal, oil, and natural gas generation technologies" (see: US Energy and Jobs).    
Moreover, renewable energy isn't restricted to just those areas of the world that have oil or gas reserves: everyone can take part in this new boon to the world economy (Renewable Energy and Jobs, 2018). In fact, Ontario's educated work force and highly developed manufacturing and transportation infrastructure place it in a prime position to participate in and benefit from the growing renewable energy sector (Getting FIT, 2016).

Given the issues on the table, voting in this election will not only impact today's generations, but many generations to come. If you are going to vote on June 7th, please be sure you make an informed decision.
References

Climate Change Indicators: Climate Forcing. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-climate-forcing

The consequences of climate change, NASA. Retrieved from https://climate.nasa.gov/effects​

Grinspun, D. (2018, April 26). Carbon pricing is working in Ontario, so hands off. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/04/26/carbon-pricing-is-working-in-ontario-so-hands-off.html

Lightstone, A. (2015, January 30). Understanding Canada's Federal Debt, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwUeivsG2M8&feature=youtu.be

Mckittrick, R. (2016, March 28). Doug Ford is about to change climate change policy for the whole country — and it's about time. Retrieved from https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/doug-ford-is-about-to-change-climate-change-policy-for-the-whole-country-and-its-about-time

​Ontario’s Five Year Climate Change Action Plan, 2015-2020. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.applications.ene.gov.on.ca/ccap/products/CCAP_ENGLISH.pdf

Tencer, D. (2016, June 13). Renewables Now Employ More People Than Oil, But Canada Is Missing In Action. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/13/canada-oil-renewables-energy_n_10441636.html
1 Comment

Why Catherine McKenna scares the heck out of me... and why she should scare you, too!

3/19/2018

0 Comments

 
Art Lightstone
Recently, Michael Enright, the host of CBC Radio's The Sunday Edition, politely struggled through an interview with Catherine McKenna on the contradiction at the heart of Canada's current energy policy. This contradiction, as Enright points out, is that Canada is committed to reducing our carbon emissions under the Paris Agreement, while we are at the same time expanding Alberta's oil production. Not only that, but we are actually building new pipelines to get that oil to markets in the Pacific. 

Here's an excerpt from Enright's introduction to the topic ahead of his interview:
There does seem to be broad consensus in this country that climate change is real, that it's a problem, and that governments should do something about it.

And the federal government has made commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate change to reduce its carbon emissions by 30 per cent below its 2005 levels by 2030. 

The government insists it will meet its commitments, in large part through the introduction of a carbon tax. 

At the same time, Justin Trudeau's Liberal government is committed to seeing the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion from Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C. go ahead — over the fierce objections of British Columbia.


​That pipeline would enable further expansion of the oil sands industry — at a time when the oil and gas sector is already the biggest source of carbon emissions in Canada, and the oil sands are the fastest-growing source of emissions. 
If you're like me, then you are wondering how on Earth the federal government intends to reconcile reducing carbon emissions while expanding its single largest source of these emissions. Naturally, I listened with great interest to Enright's interview with our Environment Minister. I was listening for some sort of technical explanation. Even a cheap, silly explanation may have sufficed. I partly expected McKenna to say something like, "Well... we're just exporting the oil... we won't be the one's actually burning it, so, in the end, at least Canada will meet our targets."  To her credit, McKenna did not stoop that low.

However, McKenna's responses to the inherent contradictions within Canada's current actions on climate change still scare the heck out of me, and they should scare the heck out of you, too. Here's why. 

McKenna basically had an open mic on our national broadcaster for just over 30 minutes. She had plenty of time to explain the apparent contradictions within the Liberal government's actions on climate change. But, alas... she did not.

Instead, our Minister of the Environment and Climate Change dodged, redirected, pontificated, name-dropped, told stories, passed the buck, and threw around banal platitudes and tired clichés like they were cigarette butts at a Las Vegas smoker's convention. 

I was so incensed... so outraged at McKenna's sly and slippery responses to the increasingly direct and pointed questions put to her by Michael Enright that I decided to produce a Malarkey Matrix to analyze McKenna's responses. I categorized the Minister's statements into one of two rows, each under one of two columns. The rows were labelled as either Pro-Oil or Pro-Environment. The columns were classified as either Fact or Malarkey.

It is important to understand that "malarkey" does not mean lies. The standard definition of malarkey is something to the effect of "meaningless talk" or "nonsense." That, my fellow Canadians, is exactly what I feel Catherine McKenna treated CBC listeners to for just over half an hour on the CBC's March 18, 2018 issue of The Sunday Edition. 

To help make my point, I have presented the results of my malarkey analysis below.
Malarkey Matrix

​
Fact
​(not necessarily truth, but meaningful statements that address an issue.)
Malarkey
(not necessarily lies, but meaningless talk or nonsense that does not address an issue)
Pro-Oil
​We are twinning one pipeline.
 
People are still using fossil fuels. 
 
Pro-Environment
Our target is a 2030 target.
 
We’re bringing in a cleaner fuel standard.
 
In Ottawa, we’re building the second phase of light rail transit: that will be the largest reduction in greenhouse gas emmisions in Ottawa's history. 
 
The problem is the bottom line is going to mean that we're going to have to spend more on reacting to impacts of climate change. And countries are going to leapfrog us. 

​Coal is not coming back, it’s cheaper to go to natural gas, it’s cheaper to go with renewables.



I have three kids.
 

I come from Hamilton... the Hammer!

People need jobs.

People need to feel part of this transition.

We need to make sure that we're bringing people together. 

I try to keep the rhetoric down. 
​
It’s a transition. Transitions don’t happen overnight. 
 
Hard things are hard. 

We’re all in this together. We need to figure this out.
 
So we have a number of other measures that we haven't been able to quantify. So we know that planting trees, for example, are carbon sinks.

The big piece is on the innovation side. So I was at the Globe Conference here in Vancouver, that brings together folks from around the world who are coming up with new solutions, like, big game-changing solutions that will make a huge difference. 
 
I’m a realistic optimist. 

We are going to continue working hard.
 
Everyone is stepping up to do their part, and, of course, we have to be more ambitious.
 
We’ve been working hard over two years to figure out how to do a better job on major projects.
  
We have two NDP governments in Alberta and BC who are absolutely committed to combating climate change. 
 
We care greatly about climate change.
 
Every country is trying to figure this out. Every country has their own challenges in a transition.
 
Canadians should be very proud that we’re leading the way on powering past coal internationally.
 
We are working directly with the United Kingdom... They’re also committed to getting off coal.
 
It is very cost competitive to go to renewables, there's a huge economic opportunity, but they need some support to do that. 

We're trying to figure this out, and it's hard.
 
Ah, but, it makes no sense, so I would just put that out to Canadians: how many Canadians drove in a car that wasn’t an electric vehicle or a hybrid today?
 
But you can’t do this one day to the next.
 
You have to recognize that people need jobs.
 
We can figure this out together.
 
So we spent a whole year negotiating a climate plan with provinces and territories and Indigenous peoples, and everyone understood that you have to have a credible plan. A lot of focus is on what is the federal government doing, but it's actually what the provinces are doing.
  
You had four Ontario leadership candidates who didn't believe in taking action on climate change.


This is hard.
 
You need a variety of different tools.

I speak a lot to conservatives that support putting a price on pollution, because it doesn't tell you how to do it...

I was with George Schultz… so you might remember George Shultz: he was the Secretary of State under a number of American Presidents, including Reagan, and I was with him in the states, and he's got a bipartisan caucus in the US, a climate caucus, and they're all about putting a price on pollution, and there are a number of conservatives in Canada that have been pushing this, and saying "give the revenues back to people." It just makes sense. It's the cheapest way of doing that.
   
I talk to governor Brown, we’re working very closely with California, they’re all-in on climate change.
 
For provinces we've said, "Do your own system. You figure out what you think is right."

And in British Columbia, they've been giving the revenues back... all the revenues back. In Quebec and in Ontario, they're in a cap and trade system with California, so it's great to see markets linked, and they've decided, you know, money should go back to the most vulnerable, but also they're going to invest in energy efficiency... they're going to invest in electric vehicles. 

So, I mean, in this context, we're talking about the twinning of one pipeline. We're talking about the Kinder Morgan pipeline, and people, as I say, are still using fossil fuels, and we're working with Alberta, and I'm very concerned right now that we're at risk of losing our climate plan. That you have two progressive, NDP governments, in Alberta and BC, who are absolutely committed to climate action, but in one province they're trying to figure out the transition, and we might lose this climate plan, weirdly, because progressives are fighting. 
That's not a good place to be because on the other side, I have folks, and you can go visit my trolls on Twitter, other folks who are attacking us for doing anything on climate change.
​
The Chinese are all-in on climate action. They have an air quality problem, so they need to take action.
 
The problem I was really scared about when I was growing up ...  the hole in the ozone layer... yeah I was worried that everyone was going to get cancer, and was there going to be leadership? Where are the politicians at? I was young, I didn't know anything about politics, but I said, "Are these folks who say they care, were they going to do anything about it? And who was it? It was Brian Mulroney: a conservative. I talk to Brian Mulroney, actually a lot, to get advice, and I ask him, how do you deal with an administration that isn't committed to the same things you are, especially on critical environmental issues? And he said, "You keep on talking to them, and he said with Ronald Reagan, it took a long time.  Just keep talking to people."

So, whether or not it comes to our pipeline, see, people are still using fossil fuels. I know I'm repeating the transition piece, but we need to fund this transition. 

We make decisions based on science and evidence.

But Canada standing alone and saying, okay, we're going to take this stance: this pipeline that was approved isn't gonna go ahead, that's not going to change the world. What's going to change the world is if we get Canadians on board, they understand that we need to put a price on pollution, that there's a huge economic opportunity, and that we're going to take advantage of that, and that takes time, and I worry that we're going to lose the opportunity if we're not focused and we just put all our attention on one project. 

No. We've got to change the world, and the world is changing: who would have thought that we'd be talking about the end of the internal combustion engine?

Everyone's part of this, and I think we just have to make sure everyone feels a part of this.
 
I know a lot of people say, "Oh you just say gender and you don't mean it."

Women are leading the way.

I like to say, "They're kickin' it on climate."
The statements presented within the above matrix are all direct quotes from Enright's interview with McKenna. Invariably, the choice of quotes and the placement of these quotes within the four quadrants of the matrix are subjective in nature. However, I think I have presented a fair and balanced summary, and I think the summary does a sufficient job of highlighting a profound lack of substance behind the Minister's defence of the federal government's current actions on climate change. It is precisely this lack of substance that should give all Canadians, and, indeed, all citizens of the world, great pause regarding Canada's current course of action on climate change. 

My general assessment of McKenna's position on climate change would be that she is attempting to drive a car by looking in the rearview mirror. She is making decisions based on where we have been, as opposed to where we need to go. She points out that most Canadians still drive gas cars, therefore we need to expand our production of oil and gas... expand it! 

McKenna points out that transitions make people uncomfortable, but, in truth, it's not the transition that makes me uncomfortable: it's the lack of transition. Specifically, it's the current federal government's clear and unapologetic investment in a carbon-based future. McKenna talks gleefully about a new light rail transit system in Ottawa while glossing over the fact that we are making huge investments to expand Alberta's oil sands operations: Canada's largest and fastest growing contribution to greenhouse gases. I hate to quote Bill Cosby at this particular time in history, but I can't help but think of his famous quote: "
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody."

It seems to me that the federal Liberals are trying to please all the stakeholders in Canada's current oil economy, while at the same time engaging concerned Canadians with a lot of shallow talk about the environment and climate change. The problem with all this, however, is that climate change is real: climate change is not some political shell game that can be exploited for political gain, corporate profits, or photo opps. Climate change is happening. Climate change will not wait.  


I have said it before, and I'll say it again. The world cannot wait for governments, NGOs, or private enterprise to address climate change. We must all, as individuals, take decisive and meaningful action on climate change, and we must take this action now. Yes, it would be especially helpful if governments would join the fight, but if they're not willing to, then the people will just have to go this one alone. 

People everywhere, please take this to heart: you have more power than any government, organization, or corporation on Earth. Never forget that.

It is the people of the world who depend of this planet, and it is the people of the world who can shape the future of this planet.

So... know this:

Corporations can produce all the oil they want, and governments can even help them do it... but nobody, absolutely nobody, can MAKE US BUY IT!
0 Comments

Four reasons why only an outright ban on oil will fight climate change

6/10/2016

1 Comment

 
Art Lightstone
​​Shop around the notion of climate change strategies, and you will quickly come across a lot of people who put a great deal of faith in carbon taxes. However, just as inflation has failed to quell the world's thirst for oil, carbon taxes won't either. 

Carbon taxes, or taxes on fossil fuel, are a Pigovian tax (otherwise known as an effluent fee) meant to force producers and consumers to internalize the external costs that arise from the private transactions between these two parties.

Generally, when someone buys gas from a gas station, the surrounding society pays a third-party "price" associated with pollution and climate change. A Pigovian tax, however, would make the purchaser of the gas pay an added fee, which, ideally, would force the purchaser to internalize what would have otherwise been the external cost incurred by society. From the seller's point of view, such a tax will raise prices and hurt sales. Moreover, the tax itself must be passed on to the government, which essentially acts as an increased cost of production - further hurting the seller's bottom line. The idea here is that that both consumers and producers will make different consumption and production decisions if they have to bear what otherwise would have been the external costs arising from their private transactions. Consumers would buy less, and producers would sell less. Simple enough. Or is it?   

In theory, a carbon tax should work. However, there are four critical reasons why carbon pricing does not tend to alter consumption or production patterns to any degree that would effectively combat climate change. These reasons can be summed up as herd behaviour, political backlash, climate change skepticism, and the Green Paradox.

Herd Behaviour

One would certainly think that a carbon tax would dampen consumer thirst for oil. Sadly, the data just does not support such a conclusion. In actual fact, higher prices for oil and gas have not historically had much effect on the consumption of oil and gas (Gasoline prices, 2014). If we plot a correlation between the relative price of gas (for example, the price of gas compared to average incomes) then we find that consumption of oil and gas has actually increased with price. We must, of course, bear in mind a few variables while considering this trend, not the least of which is the increased demand associated with both greater populations and greater economic output. However, another variable occurring at the same time also includes greater energy efficiency. Thus, even though vehicles, furnaces, and energy-consuming electronics have all become more efficient over the years, the world is still consuming more oil and gas, even as the price goes up.
(More on that issue under Green Paradox below.) Just a quick glance at the cars on the road today will confirm the fact that consumers have not responded in a typical fashion to higher gas prices. We have actually seen far more vans, SUVs, and trucks sold in the last decade than we have ever seen before (Why are SUVs so popular?, 2014), and yet, relative to household income, gas is at a percentage that we have not seen since the 1980s (U.S. household expenditures for gasoline, 2013).
​
When it comes to fuel prices - and climate change in general - the world's population has tended to behave much like the allegorical frog that has been placed in a pot of tepid water. As the allegory goes, if the temperature of the pot is turned up slowly, the frog will not jump out... it will just stay in the pot until the pot is eventually boiling. It's actually hard to say if people are truly acting like the frog in the pot. This is because gas prices have not tended to increase at a constant rate. Prices tend to go up a little, then down a little, then up a lot, then down a little, etc., etc... thus, memories of gas prices from yesteryear fade, and the long-term trend becomes obscured. If gas prices did tend to increase in a linear fashion, then perhaps more people may indeed have opted long ago to take public transit, car pool, or ditch their old gas car for a shiny new electric car. Sadly, whenever oil companies perceive a growing animosity amongst the oil-consuming public, they tend to open up supply and cut prices drastically. (More on that issue under Green Paradox below.) Thus, the public seems to be somewhat oblivious to the increased percentage of household income now directed toward fossil fuel, with that percentage doubling from 2% to 4% from 1999 to 2013 ("U.S. household expenditures for gasoline, 2013). Not so many years ago, we would have viewed $1.00 per litre of gas as being more than reason enough to kick our gas-burning cars to the curb. Today, we see it as a bargain.

The bottom line is this: humans, by nature, operate on two principles that are highly resistant to change: i) we tend to do what the herd is doing, and ii) we tend to do what we have always done. If people are given the option to do the wrong thing, then many of us are more than happy to do it... just as long as enough other people are doing it, too. 

Political Backlash

The fact is, a good deal of the price that we pay for gas in Canada is in fact tax. From the year 2000 to 2012, taxes on gasoline in the United States comprised between 30% to 12% of the price paid at the pump (What Makes Up the Cost, 2013). "In 2012, taxes in Canada represented on average 39.3 cents per litre, which is approximately 31% of the pump price" (Gasoline taxes Across Canada, 2013). However, if you take a good close look at the percentages over time, you can see two clear trends: i) gas taxes have not really altered consumption patterns, and ii) gas taxes have declined as market price of gas has increased. 

The problem with taxes is that they are more than just a revenue tool: they are also a political tool. Governments will happily institute a tax halfway through a mandate, but come time for re-election, they either lose heart, or they lose an election to the party that promised to lower taxes.

Climate Change Skepticism

The other issue that impacts the effectiveness of carbon taxing is skepticism. Despite the overwhelming evidence, many people are still skeptical about the existence of global warming and the influence that human activity has on it (One in Four, 2014). In fact, a 2015 report from the National Surveys on Energy and Environment found that, currently, there are barely a majority of Republicans - just 56% - who now "believe that there is solid evidence of global warming" (Energy and Environmental Policy, 2015). Even more interesting to note from this report is the fact that people's alleged "scientific" beliefs seem to be highly influenced by their "political" ideology.

Thus, there are still many people in the world who can both afford gas and who are not the least bit afraid of using it. From a policy-making standpoint, it would seem altogether unacceptable to allow individuals to carry out harmful behaviour just because they do not believe their actions will cause harm. To be sure, we would certainly not allow a person to jump off a building just because he believed he could fly. In the case of climate change, however, we are dealing with actions that are poised to have a catastrophic impact on the entire planet - not just the individuals who are carrying out the harmful actions. Climate change is, after all, the most profound and destructive example of a negative externality the world has ever known.

The Green Paradox

The "Green Paradox" refers to a number of unintended, somewhat paradoxical effects wherein efforts to reduce the consumption of a .given resource will actually encourage greater consumption of that very resource. In economic terms, the Green Paradox is comprised mostly of Jevons Paradox, otherwise known as the "Rebound Effect."

Jevons Paradox gets its name from English economist William Stanley Jevons, who, in 1865 wrote a book entitled The Coal Question. Jevons studied England's consumption of coal in the 1800s, and he observed that the country's consumption of coal actually soared after James Watt introduced the Watt steam engine. The Watt engine greatly improved the efficiency of the traditional coal-fired steam engine that had been used up to that point in time. Watt's innovation, however, made coal far more cost effective, which, naturally, lead to the increased use of steam engines. As one might expect, this increased the overall market demand for coal. 

Therefore, efficiency improvements (generally prompted from either a naturally occurring innovation in the private sector or a government imposed policy - such as carbon taxes and other types of Pigovian taxes) do not tend to actually reduce consumption of a given resource because higher efficiencies inspired by these phenomenon will lead to gains in affordability, and those gains will in turn increase both demand and consumption. 

Beyond the primary impact of Jevons Paradox, there is a secondary impact of something we might call the "Growth Effect," wherein cheaper energy will lead to faster economic growth. Thus, "improvements in energy efficiency eventually lead to higher energy depletion rates and usage" (Efficiency, 2011). Sadly, we can see blatant evidence of the Green Paradox in the world's energy consumption patterns since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, wherein CO2 emissions "accelerated from 1.3% per year in the 1990s to a staggering 3.3% per year from 2000 to 2006" (Fölster et al., 2010).

Beyond the rather predictable impact of effects such as Jevon's Paradox, there is the complex issue of how the fossil fuel sector will respond when governments and private industry attempt to nudge fossil fuels out of the market. The fossil fuel industry is probably the world's largest and oldest multi-billion dollar industry, and it will not go quietly. Evidence of this can be seen in 2014, when electric and hybrid cars started to pose a genuine and affordable alternative to gas-powered automobiles. What did the oil producing countries do in response? "In late 2014, OPEC started a price war, and prices have fallen drastically since then, putting short-term prices very near 1972 lows and below 1947 and 1931 lows" (Inflation Adjusted Gasoline Prices). The resulting lower prices not only dampened sales in electric vehicles, but actually enticed EV buyers back into the gas engine market. In fact, Edmunds observed that "about 22 percent of people who traded in their hybrids and EVs in 2015 bought a new SUV" (Hybrid and Electric Vehicles Struggle).

Sadly, Jevons Paradox (aka the Rebound Effect) and the Growth Effect show us that efforts made by governments, or even some individuals, to decrease consumption of a given resource will often encourage the majority to increase their consumption of that very resource. The net effect leaves us absolutely nowhere.

In Summary

At this critical juncture, there are absolutely no technical barriers preventing us from driving electric vehicles or relying on 100% renewable energy in our homes. The only barriers to this reality are psychological, attitudinal, and economic. Once the world makes a commitment to go electric, it will not likely be going back to oil, and the oil companies know this very well. That is why the world can expect stiff competition from an existing fossil fuel industry that now finds itself backed into a corner. This is precisely why the world needs true leadership from our governments on climate change, and that means instituting an outright ban on the production, sale, transportation, and refinement of oil. Once this is done, the green energy sector - which already employs more people than oil in countries such as the US and China (Renewable Energy and Jobs, 2016) - will take off... virtually overnight.

However, until oil and gas become banned substances, then any potential headway that might be made from carbon taxes will simply be undermined by basic human lethargy, climate change skepticism, a number of paradoxical economic effects, and stiff competition from an oil industry that has absolutely nothing left to lose. 




​
References:

Bauer, Diana; Papp, Kathryn (March 18, 2009). "Book Review Perspectives: The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements". Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 5 (1). Retrieved 29 May 2015.

"EFFICIENCY: The Energy Question | Le Mauricien." 2011. 31 May. 2016 <http://www.lemauricien.com/article/efficiency-energy-question>

"Energy and Environmental Policy - closup - University of Michigan." 2015. 31 May. 2016 <http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2015-fall-climate-belief.pdf>

Fölster, Stefan, and Johan Nyström. "Climate policy to defeat the green paradox." Ambio 39.3 (2010): 223-235.

"Gasoline prices tend to have little effect on demand for car travel ..." 2014. 25 May. 2016 <http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19191>

"Gasoline taxes Across Canada - Petro-Canada." 2013. 31 May. 2016 <http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fuelsavings/2139.aspx>

​"Hybrid and Electric Vehicles Struggle to Maintain Owner Loyalty ..." 2015. 2 Jun. 2016 <http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/hybrid-and-electric-vehicles-struggle-to-maintain-owner-loyalty-reports-edmundscom.html>

"Inflation Adjusted Gasoline Prices - InflationData.com." 2015. 25 May. 2016 <http://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices/inflation-adjusted-gasoline-prices/>

Jensen, Svenn et al. "An introduction to the Green Paradox: The unintended consequences of climate policies." Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 9.2 (2015): 246-265.

"One in Four in US Are Solidly Skeptical of Global Warming - Gallup." 2014. 25 May. 2016 <http://www.gallup.com/poll/168620/one-four-solidly-skeptical-global-warming.aspx>

"Proposal to increase gas tax sparks backlash - Washington Times." 2011. 31 May. 2016 <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/10/proposal-to-increase-gas-tax-sparks-backlash/>

"Renewable Energy and Jobs - Annual Review 2016 - International ..." 2016. 31 May. 2016 <http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_RE_Jobs_Annual_Review_2016.pdf>

"U.S. household expenditures for gasoline account for nearly 4% of ..." 2013. 31 May. 2016 <http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9831>

Walsh, Brian (Sept. 30, 2010). "Energy: Will Efficiency Lead to More Consumption? - Science - Time." 30 May, 2016 <http://science.time.com/2010/09/30/energy-will-efficiency-lead-to-more-consumption/>

"Why are SUVs so popular? It has nothing to do with gas prices - Fortune." 2014. 25 May. 2016 <http://fortune.com/2014/12/10/why-are-suvs-so-popular-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-gas-prices/>

"What Makes Up the Cost of a Gallon of Gasoline? - Energy Trends ..." 2013. 26 May. 2016 <http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2012/03/21/what-makes-up-the-cost-of-a-gallon-of-gasoline/>
1 Comment

    Green Neighbour

    When it comes to the environment, we are all neighbours.

    Archives

    November 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    January 2021
    October 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    August 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    January 2017
    June 2016
    May 2016

    Categories

    All
    Activism
    Carbon Tax
    Climate Change
    Climate Denial
    Electric Vehicles
    Plastic
    Politics
    Pollution
    Tesla
    Vegan Lifestyle

    RSS Feed

When it comes to the environment, we are all neighbours.
  • Home
  • Activism
  • Green Living
    • Going Solar
    • Challenge
    • Links
  • YouTube
  • Podcast
  • Social Media
  • Climate Dashboard