On Birds and Turbines

A few days ago I reported that Ed Stelmach arbitrarily stated “wind turbines kill 30,000 birds per year,” however there is a reference for this: (Emma Marris & Daemon Fairless “Wind farms’ deadly reputation hard to shift” Nature vol. 447 no. 7141 p. 126.).  I said that his numbers were a lie, however that was wrong, the point I was making however, remains.

It state’s that it takes “30 wind turbines to kill a bird per year” (the correction notes that this figure is only for raptors, the total birds/turbine total per year is 4.27).

It’s conclusion is however:

In the final analysis, though, whichever way you slice it, or them, America’s birds seem to die in turbine blades at a rate no higher than 40,000 a year. Deaths due to domestic cats, on the other  and, are put at “hundreds of millions”. It is possible, the panel noted, that the turbines are rather worse for bats; recent studies have turned up more of their carcasses than expected.  But the numbers are still small.

And this little gem comes at the end of the article:

But Rick Koebbe, president of PowerWorks, a California firm that owns turbines in Altamont, argues that this should be put into context. “I heard that over 1,000 birds a year run into the Washington Monument. Should we tear that down? We’re out here trying to do a job to save the Earth. We even save birds, since they are twice as vulnerable to pollution as humans.”

The point is, Mr. Stelmach, that measures are being taken to prevent unnessary bird deaths (sonar, etc.), and these will prevent future tradgedies in tar ponds and turbine towers.  However, in the Syncrude example, they failed to meet the regulations, and many birds died.  The deaths themselves exemplify the horrendous safety record and atrocious environmental damage that the tar sands are taken on our environment, and that is why it is media worthy.

Lying to cover his tracks

If you haven’t heard, 500 ducks landed and subsequently died in an oil sands tailing pond in Alberta.  Premier Ed Stelmach has now rebutted:

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach downplayed the deaths, saying that wind turbines kill 30,000 birds annually.

Quickly you have to think: “Where the hell did he get those numbers from?”  And if you did you should know:

That number seems a little overblown, says the president of Calgary-based Alberta Wind Energy Corporation, which focuses on building wind turbines in southern Alberta.

“Studies have indicated that (each of the province’s) turbines kill 1.3 birds annually. I don’t think there are 30,000 wind turbines in the world,” said Stewart Duncan.

In fact wind turbines are one of the least effective means of killing ducks and birds.  That is, after power lines, cars and trucks, tall buildings, homes, lighted commercial towers, pesticides, and house cats.  That’s right CATS kill more birds than turbines Ed!  This really seems like Ed hating the environment even more.  His government has told other lies recently too.

The issue here is not that 500 birds died, its that 500 birds were allowed to die.  The birds emphasize the rampant over-raping of the environment that’s going on in this province and needs to stop.

Canada promotes debt of its young

I find it a bit odd that I’m currently being inundated by ads for Canada Student Loans.  I don’t think our government should be encouraging debt on its younger portions of society, although higher education is definitely a positive.  I can see a bank marketing its loan programmes, but the government?

My final beef with the ads is that many of the images of students show how happy they are - I guess the thought of over 300,000 young adults being in debt is something to smile about.

The money spent on these ads could have easily been spent on an extra couple scholarships or put into post-secondary institutions so tuition could be a tad bit lower.

Calgary gives middle finger to Earth Hour

Saturday evening was Earth Hour (I’ll admit now that I knew it was coming but didn’t realize until Sunday when it was), and saw many people across Earth turning off their lights from 8-9pm local time.  Many Canadian cities saw drops of up to 9% consumption, and some smaller towns went completely dark!

However, in the heart of fossil-fuel burning Alberta, Calgary saw an increase in power consumption:

Calgary is the only known city in Canada where energy consumption actually went up during Earth Hour, a trend organizers pinned on colder weather and a late start locally in promoting the global event.

The “late start” I think refers to people not being organized in Calgary, unless people only started turning off around 8:30 or 8:45 and had only a little time.  One other reason given is that there was a Flames vs. Oilers game (Oilers won 2-1) that evening as well.

This is the province in which I live, it’s pretty sad.

A tale of two cities

This past Sunday (Easter), I was riding the Red Arrow from Red Deer to Edmonton, and got a chance to pick up the Calgary Herald.  On the Editoral Page I was surprised (not really in retrospect) to see these articles:

“Cherish freedom of the season“

People who view the state as more important than its people write totalitarian constitutions. Think of Communist parties, for instance, or Louis XIV, who notoriously declared, “L’etat, c’est moi.”

On the other hand, somebody who believes the individual is important because God accepts each one of us on the basis of a personal decision about the resurrection — not because they belong to some favoured class or race — is much more likely to see the state as an instrument of individual empowerment.

and “New breed of atheist treads too much on glib ground“

Besides, the worst atrocities of the last century came not from faith-inspired conflicts, but from Marxism and fascism — atheist replacement creeds for Christianity.

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Pol Pot — atheists all — went on ideological killing sprees which made the religious wars of the distant past look like an afternoon tea party tete-a-tete between bluebloods.

…

In a world absent of God, the most critical condemnation one can offer is that the meanness between humans is unpleasant, akin to watching other animals tear at each other, and that it offends our esthetic sensibilities.

Moral condemnation implies some absolute standard outside of nature which atheism denies by definition.

Now both of these articles (2 of the 3 published that day) mischaracterize and ostrasize the non-religious population, and Calgary, being a city of over a million, is likely to have more than a few atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists.

The first article intends to claim that without belief in God we cannot have democracy, whereas the second denies morals to atheists (while at the same time contradicting itself by saying there are some moral atheists).

Outraged by this blatantly offensive editorial staff, I paid for the Edmonton Journal (usually I can get a free copy on campus) and found no such articles in it’s opinion pages.  In fact, the journal recently featured my group in an article online!

Now both papers are owned by CanWest media, but it’s clear they have entirely different staffs.  I intend to write a couple response letters to the Herald, and shall posts responses here later.

I should also mention that one of the letters to the editor published ended as “anywhere that funds abortion doesn’t fund fertility treatments,” in reference to a previous article about the need to boost Canada’s birth rate.

Numbers that make me sick

PC - 73

Liberal - 8

NDP - 2

These aren’t all confirmed as many polls have to come in, but it’s statistically impossible for the PCs to not get a big majority again. I don’t look forward to the continued dynasty of this regime.

*Note* I updated the numbers to reflect the final seat total.

I hope my vote matters

This election was somewhat frustrating.  I say this because it’s obvious Albertans want change, but it seems like many don’t want to take a risk.  I voted Liberal today, not because I feel that Kevin Taft and his redcoats best represent by views, but because I believed that Aman Gill of my riding has a better chance than NDP candidate Stephen Anderson of unseating the incumbent PC.  Every NDP sign I saw on the way to the polls (since I live at the edge of the Edmonton - Mill Creek riding I don’t get to see the signs all the time) counted for one less vote for Aman to win.  I say that it was more likely for Aman to win based mainly on the 2004 results (which put Aman 2500 votes ahead of the NDP candidate then, and a mere 800 behind the PC candidate).

What would be better?

Some form of ranked voting or proportional representation natrually.  If I could have voted:

1. Stephen Anderson (NDP)
2. Aman Gill (Liberal)
3. Naomi Rankin (Communist)
4. Glen Argan (Green)
5. None of the above (if listed)
6. Gene Zwozdesky (PC)

Unfortunately, such a system isn’t in place here, so I voted strategically instead of personally (although I do support the majority of the Liberal platform, I’m just a bit more left than that).

So it will be interesting (I hope) tonight to see if anything changes, but by all opinions in the news right now, the PCs will have a slightly weaker majority for another 4-5 years. (I’ll likely comment on the results tomorrow, or later tonight).

Edmonton Riverview Candidates Forum

I attended the second UofA Alberta Provincial election tonight (instead of writing a lab report that’s due tomorrow, and am now writing this instead) featuring the candidates from Edmonton-Riverview. Last week I wrote on the candidates for Edmonton-Strathcona.

Today’s candidates were:

• Wildrose Alliance - Kyle Van Hauwaert
• NDP - Erica Bullwinkle
• Liberal - Kevin Taft
• Progressive Conservative - Wendy Andrews
• Green Party - Cam Wakefield

It was definitely awesome to see candidates from all the parties this time, and tonight they definitely separated out their views from one another on several issues. So here’s my play-by-play and commentary (I’m going to label people by their parties for the interest of my typing less).

• NDP opened with opened with discussion of priorities:
  • Affordability: rent controls, affordable housing, post-secondary education (PSE) fees frozen to 1999 levels, $100 million to affordable student housing
  • Royalties: to be reassessed and distributed fairly to all involved parties
  • Most important to her was the environment: pacing development, and bringing about a green energy plan.
  • Banning corporate and union donations to political parties
• My opinion on NDP was that she was very well spoken, and discussed her ideas and the issues first and foremost. She was unfortunately not the most charismatic there, but definitely got her ideas and party’s platforms out.
• A protester in a sheep’s costume was present at the start of the debate and was “baaah”ing until it started. On the costume was written “I’m a Tory sheep” in black sharpie. Just before the Tory candidate started a few more baah’s came out, to which the sheep was asked to be quiet, which was met with protest, and was then removed by campus 5-0 while saying something about free speech (note: we did have an open mic question period, which is the only way free speech here could have been moderated fairly)
• PC began by waving the metaphorical Ed Stelmach flag, and stating there are plans for the future
  • A focus on high quality PSE, and balanced research and operational funding
  • an increase in technical professionals
  • The candidate also spoke slowly through the intro and closing remarks, and seemed to lack the substance brought by the other candidates. I would say PC was the weakest link at this table (but I liked her more than TJ Keil from last time).
• Taft (Liberal leader and incumbent) decried the need for a “change of government.”
  • We should live up to the potential of Alberta
  • Wants a “second-to-none PSE” system
  • promised 30% of royalties to be set aside for an endowment for PSE in the future (with no cap on its growth)
  • Also has policies to address access, quality, and housing for students
  • And asked people to “dream with the Alberta Liberals”
  • I unfortunately missed the leaders debate last week, but from tonight I could see he was definitely up to the role of premier
• Greens talked about belief in “common-sense governing”
  • the “triple bottom line” of environment, fiscal responsibility, and social justice
  • and we should vote Green because someday they’ll get an MP or MLA
• Alliance looked at the big revenues our province is taking in and accused the others of attempting to “buy votes”
  • He claims the NDP “ruined” the oil industry in Saskatchewan
  • Claimed the need for fiscal responsibility and accountability
  • on health care (HC) was appalled that we only have 1 college to graduate LPNs, and we also need more general practitioners - the focus should come from beefed up med and nursing programs at the university level
  • On the environment (a big topic tonight): future thinking, and utilizing free market principles
  • And was cut off before he could mention affordable housing
• The first moderator question was on what provincial issues are important for Riverview
  • PC claimed to bring positive representation to the table, the environment (finding the fine balance between economic growth and environment), PSE, culture and the arts, quality of life
  • Liberals: PSE - tuition down by $1000 (2001 levels) and $300 for books and tools, quality he promised over 500 more profs to alberta
  • Greens talked about affluence of the district and needing to broaden our industrial and energy bases. We have an out-of-control economy and we need to fix the labour shortage which would help the housing market
  • Alliance talked about education (better facilities and more profs), HC, environment (no caps and free market again), getting a parking lot for the Cross Cancer Institute, and lowering property taxes for fixed income seniors
  • He also claimed that rent caps decrease the overall available properties since owners choose instead then to sell, so subsidies or more building would then be necessary. Liberal responded by saying there’s no evidence, and the Lougheed government had them, and the caps would only apply to existing housing.
  • The NDP talked about rent increases, underfunded schools (class sizes), PSE, the environment (and that she doesn’t need the Green party’s presence to emphasize it’s importance) and HC
• The second question was how to create a different Alberta in 2012
  • Liberals talked about a plan for Oil Sands (Stelmach won’t take “his foot off the gas”), creating the PSE endowment, training HC pro’s at “wartime levels,” and to hold the gov’t accountable as things like the current Access to the Future endowment hasn’t been topped up as promised
  • Greens talked about how we must be forward thinkers and need to invest in green technologies and that we aren’t currently the world leaders the PCs are talking about, more of the “black sheep.” We need long term slow down and sale of our reserves.
  • Alliance says they would rather encourage green movements through tax deductions etc, rather than cap emissions, and that we have the funds to do this. He says we Kyoto can be done faster and better with incentives. And that we need less government.
  • NDP emphasized mechanisms to move to renewable energy, a two prong approach featuring an Alberta Renewable Energy Corporation and capping and trading carbon credits to lower overall emissions. Also claimed the NDP is the only party with “the guts to follow through” on these plans.
  • PC claimed we are a renewable energy source leader, that they would continue the endowments for PSE, further commercialize technology developed at our PSEs, and focus on health and wellness over acute care
• The next question was whether the government should provide regulations during boom and bust
  • Greens pressed they are “forward, not left or right” and would rather see fair competition over regulation. The EUB should also be restored in strength (against Bill 46).
  • Alliance says the government is already involved more than it should be - we need less for the future, and that the tax exemption level hasn’t changed in years and it should be raised to at least the poverty line of $20,000
  • NDP says a clear role when necessary. Such as in utilities (net metering, and subsidies and grants for alternative energies), also rebutted that they prompted the long-term care review and discovered the PCs failed their “vulnerable people”
  • PCs wanted to promote a balanced free market, wants societies “vulnerable” takn care of (since that’s how we’re judged), and that education is a role for regulations
  • Liberals want to let market prevail when can, but will step in in places like HC, re-regulating electricity, rent control, education and many other services
• The next question was whether the oil sands need regulations
  • Alliance said the environment needs to watch out for the expected 20% increase in oil demand (which should not affect the tar sands? - I was a bit fuzzy on what he was getting at here), emphasized we should think before getting gov’t involved, and that we should hold companies responsible if they mess up the environment
  • NDP says its currently not good - we need better royalties, an emission cap, paced development, and then maybe it will self regulate. The current system is “ridiculous” and the “government has to go” - we need to “stand up to companies”
  • PCs wanted to manage growth and emphasized that many studies have been done. The’ll look at caps, balancing environment and economy, they held the royalty review and had talks and discussions, and really Eddie’s got a plan (at least that’s what she implied but failed to specify what it is)
  • Liberals say a huge role is necessary since there is no plan. Companies expect a constructive role and we can secure a future with the oil sands development
  • Greens claimed it was out of control, the cost of living was going up and the environment was suffering
• The final moderator question was on what bold ideas they had for PSE (which they all agreed that we should want the best)
  • NDPs mentioned freezing fees and covering the costs to the universities. We should train more doctors and nurses and subsidize their differential fees, and also that we can’t fund universities and lower taxes
  • PCs mentioned having access, balancing operations and research, training more technical professionals, put more into the liberal arts, involve students, and that she would champion full funding to the Access to the future fund
  • Liberals said good societies have a good education. Royalties would be used to fund an endowment, we should attract Nobel prize winners, claimed PSE was the strongest part of his platform, and to start a new endowment for the Arts to match current ones for Eng, Med and Science
  • Greens said tuition is out of control and needs to be reduced. We should pay fees for HC pro’s who stay in AB for 7 years (has been done in New Brunswick and Nunavut), and also that Gran Mac and NAIT are important
  • Alliance liked all the ideas he’d heard across the table, we need more doctors and nurses, and to give out more Grant Mac degrees and to expand the UofA
• The No New Approvals people were here again, with the Greens and NDP signing it (NDP had actually signed online earlier). Liberal kind of agreed in idea, but opted to “make our own policies.” The Alliance emphasized that people affected downstream should sue oil companies (I doubt a group of farmers would have a good chance against Big Oil, but an interesting idea)
• The liberals brought up that they would institute a 10% cap on rent increases, and that residences should stop paying property taxes
• On Seniors benefits
  • Alliance claims are currently unfair - need to eliminate property tax for fixed income, adjust their incomes to match inflation, and to bring in more doctors and nurses
  • NDP agreed on the property taxes and emphasized long term care and a prescription drug plan
  • PCs want to re-look at vision for adequate resources (not sure what that meant) and to look at regulations and that changes were made to long term care, and may need to adjust in-home care
  • Liberals want to offset taxes, lower electricity costs by re-regulating, extend benefits, and create a seniors advocate at arms length from the legislature
  • The Greens wanted to bring more funding to local activity centres that currently receive none
• When asked what part of their platform they didn’t agree with and how they would address it:
  • NDP had been VP development in the party so she couldn’t really dislike any of it
  • PC mentioned that everyone in the party had degrees of interest, she hoped for a bit more emphasis on the environment, and would bring the ideas to the gov’t when elected
  • Liberal leader couldn’t really answer since it was “pretty damn good” - admitted some people don’t fit in with the Liberals (mentioned Kyle of Alliance), but encourages debate within his party
  • Greens are essentially a party of debate which is a strength. Hoped the economic arguments to limiting over development had been addressed more.
  • Alliance doesn’t like “colours of jerseys” or emphasizing party lines, he wants to listen more to constituent issues and to institute recalls, online voting (for lesser issues), and to have a greater open door policy for government
• When asked if they had personally read any IPCC literature and would agree human actions are to blame for climate change:
  • Liberal had read some, but also talked to many scientists (and he’s not sure how they sleep at night with their horror stories), and agreed
  • Green had read some of it on Kyoto and Rio conferences and agreed, also stated he hasn’t driven for years and was appalled when people did after Kyoto reports were released
  • Alliance says as a science student he thinks it should be objective, agrees it’s a big issue, and the implications are probably severe, and emphasized he could fix the climate faster than Kyoto
  • NDP had read some but read more of the Pembina Institute’s and agreed
  • PC hadn’t read any (but may soon) but had read the 2008 document by the AB government (which is an update to the 2002 document). Also said it’s not just human activity but some natural trend too.
• On whether Alberta should move to a single secular school board
  • NDP said to stick with tradition and tolerance, but they would remove funding to private schools (which include some exclusive relgious ones) as opposed to PCs who have endorsed more money to charter schools
  • PCs would continue the same, emphasizing choice
  • Liberal tied the Catholic and Public approximately together since both are open to all (although I disagree that non-Catholics are “welcome” in a Catholic school, despite the policies), and put them in contrast to private schools with public funding, but advocated for no change to the status quo
  • Greens talked about having Muslim, Jewish, and more public faith schools for greater choice (would he include Scientology or Nazi schools? Really, where is the line)
  • And the Alliance said No flat out, and emphasized the options and choices available (essentially what I’d received in email from his leader via email)
• On how to fix the democracy deficit in this province
  • NDP would cut corporate and union donations to parties, cap donations, and move to change the current voting system
  • PCs would encourage greater involvement (no words how)
  • Taft pitched his book “Democracy Derailed” as the long answer, but basically we need steps to give people a stronger voice, fixed election dates (so no more door knocking in the snow which is a supposed deliberate Tory choice), clean up internal waste and complete a total overhaul of the system
  • Greens run candidates to help, can’t understand Alberta’s single party dynasties, and we should change more frequently and wanted to get corporate funding out
  • Alliance mentioned that the Tories and Liberals were too similar, wanted MLA recall, vote histories of candidates, fixed election dates, and that he would make his own voting public online
• Closing remarks (and the main line bolded if I saw one)
  • Alliance: government reform, keep them in check, the open door policies, HC crisis (staff shortages), wants a new choice and work on environmental issues
  • Greens: shakeup of the province, too much is under the radar and we all need to go out and vote
  • Liberals: in “103 years we’ve had 3 changes of government … make 2008 another year of change,” the current government currently spends the most and gets the least, wants to bring about change and the Liberals are the only real chance
  • PCs saw Riverview as being too much “us vs. the government” so essentially said if you want a voice in the government you should vote for the government (which sounded very cocky like “you aren’t going to beat us so you might as well join us if you want us to listen to you”)
  • NDP is on the side of families, emphasized the affordability issues, raising royalties (NDP only to defend the Royalty review), and the environment would be the top issue for any candidate elected

Overall I have to say this was a great debate. I was especially impressed by the Wildrose Alliance (who brought a decent fan club) and the Greens, who each presented a real alternative to the current parties (neither are for me). I will say that before seeing their party debate I was a bit sceptical of a righter-than-Tory party, but after tonight I definitely respect them. Also, the Greens showed that they are committed to no being a left-wing party, in reality they’re the Wildrose Alliancewith a bit more pro-environment stance. The Green candidate did seem the least experienced person at the table, but I would definitely say he held his own against the other. The NDP kept the focus on the issues, and what needs to change.

I would have to say I enjoyed Kevin Taft the most though, he definitely had charm and strength in his answers, he knew what he was talking about and how to bring it up.

The PCs were disappointing again, especially since I don’t really remember her rebutting anyone else’s argument, merely sitting in the position that her party already had another majority and she was the only candidate who could give a voice to people typically in the opposition.

So my ranking for how well they did would be:

1. Kevin Taft
2. Erica Bullwinkle
3. Kyle Van Hauwaert
4. Cam Wakefield
5. Wendy Andrews

Although 2, 3 and 4 are very close, and I think they would all represent their constituents very well.

Your vote doesn’t matter

Did you think Alberta was democratic (considering we have a provincial election coming up)?  You’re probably wrong though.

It turns out over half of the returning officers (the people who break ties, administrate the votes, and count the votes) admit to ties to the conservative party!  And not just ties like they would vote PC in a normal election, ties like people who run campaign offices, have ran in previous elections (as PCs), or similar.  This is the kind of election that used to happen in Iraq.

And what’s worse?  The current response seems to be “so what?”  So what if the ballots are stacked.  So what if the PCs put their buddies in spots to intimidate other parties from demanding recounts.  So what if the recounts can be biased.  So what if the PCs can essentially STEAL an election.

Dammit Alberta, it’s been 37 years, the government is corrupt, and has essentially turned this province against democracy.  Committees are done behind doors, often without public consultation.  The Energy Utility Board spies on citizens.  And there’s likely countless other examples we don’t get to hear about.

If you at all hold any value on the democracy that took so long to achieve you will vote against Ed Stelmach and the PC Tyranny that has been established.  Vote Liberal, NDP, Alliance, Communist, Social Credit, Independent, or whatever, just in this election vote for a change.

Campaigning in the 21st Century

Although a bit cheesy, I do appreciate the fact that the NDP candidate for my riding, Stephen Anderson, has taken the time to make a couple YouTube videos outlining his platform.  I think this is a medium all candidates could make better use of.

In fact, Green Party leader, George Read promises to upload his videos as fast as he can to YouTube during the leadership debate tonight.