Good work, Sam. Keep it up!

Good work, Sam. Keep it up! We need you!

Good to see some teenagers

Good to see some teenagers who can think logically, instead of following the "conservative" dream of brainwash with video games etc. addiction taking their minds off the real issues.

Ed Deak.

See Change Coming

I'm going to ask my teen aged grand daughters to read this and watch the video if they have not done so already.
Refreshing read compared to my usual early morning news!

Hope lives

Didn't someone famous say---way back when-"And a child shall lead them"
Good on you Sam.THANKYOU!

Ditto to frank2

This 80 year old wishes there were thousands of similar kids.

Who?

This kid's alright!

Thanks Sam, Thanks Tyee

People and stories like this really do help me balance the optimism/pessimism equation in my life. I read or listen to Sam and I feel more optimistic about the future. Sam seems far more advanced in his thinking than most of the cabinet ministers in Ottawa. Thanks Sam. Cheers

Sorry Sam!!!

Sorry Sam, the Drug Dealers are in Charged and they are stoned out on Greed.

The largest cause of polution know to mankind is man himself. There are too many of us. I did my best, I had one child then got fixed.

You talk of your kids and more grandkids.
I fear for my child, I am leaving her and you with a toilet of a planet.

Our Doped out leader Harper, thinks his money will protect his own children, but I'm affaid he does not think.

There will be little benifit from Oil, todays oil price is $97.00 Oil Sand oil is $50.00 because we only have one customer the USA, shipping oil to China will not make the price raise, China owns the oil company and will if anything force the price down for its own country's consuption.
Price of a gallon of gas today in Venezuela,
six cent per gallon. We can't even care about our own people.

The Drug Is Greed!!!!

Ed, I again I have to

Ed, I again I have to disagree with you. Both of my kids are in their mid-twenties and they and all of their friends are very knowledgeable on what's going on in this world. Probably more so than older adults. Know what? They're all downright pissed-off. Some vote, some don't, and the ones who don't have perfectly good reasons why, in which at times I have to agree with them.

What do your parents do?

"They're political science professors, studying environmental policy."

Oh, right.

Have you read Paul R. Ehrlich? He went to Stanford too.

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate ..."

I wouldn't listen to the American above, Sam

Most of his countrymen disagree with him:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/obama-climate-change-poll_n_2677747.html

Van Isle

Sorry-gotta disagree with you.Pretty sure Ed was talking about kids--as in 16ish,like Sam.You are talking about yours,mid 20's young adults actually."All very knowledgeable on what's going on in the world"---some downright pissed off---really?-maybe they may want to get off their video games(and asses) and VOTE.Being pissed off in itself does nothing.

Do your parents know what you do?

Modesty,

Following your usual pattern, you are attacking the character of the person, not the message.

You are becoming a master of ad hominem. In this particular case, that person is unlikely to be reading, never mind responding, to your comments.

Readers can each decide what that says about your very own character.

A Perspective.

February 14, 2012 - Unlike previous coal export booms in the United States, highlighted by a record 102 million short tons exported in 1992, US coal is entering a more stable international market instead of the customary wild swings.

A more diversified mix of metallurgical and thermal coal – as opposed to the singular focus on met coal in previous years – along with burgeoning industries in China, Japan India, which is buying more as the rupee continues to appreciate, and South America are propelling the US from a swing supplier to a strategic partner with world markets.

Capacity along the east coast is strained as US coal exports to Europe increased 92% in 2011 over 2010 totals.

Indonesia has overtaken Australia as world’s largest coal exporter. It exported over 300Mt of coal in 2011.

Australia is remains the world's largest supplier of coking coal, accounting for roughly 50% of world exports.

Coal has many important uses worldwide. The most significant uses are in electricity generation, steel production, cement manufacturing and as a liquid fuel. Around 6.6 billion tonnes of hard coal were used worldwide last year and 1 billion tonnes of brown coal. Since 2000, global coal consumption has grown faster than any other fuel. The five largest coal users - China, USA, India, Russia and Japan - account for 76% of total global coal use.

In 2011, Australia’s thermal coal exports grew by four %, relative to 2010, to total 148 million tonnes. Projections for 2012 see an increase of 10% in 2012 to 162 million tonnes, then growing at an average annual rate of 11 % between 2013 and 2017, to total 271 million tonnes by the end of the period.

Australia’s exports of metallurgical coal are forecast to increase at an average annual rate of eight %, reaching 218 million tonnes in 2017, with total earnings forecast at $40 billion in current Australian dollars.

Quote:

"Late last year a proposal was put forward to expand coal exports out of Vancouver by 14 million tonnes. "

With world coal usage at over 8 billion tons, that 14 million represents around 0.2%.

Horrifying!

OK,shut it all down. No more oil exports, no LNG gas exports, no more coal exports. We'll save the planet and invest government funds into renewable energy ideas. With the loss of revenue from exports and the expense of new technologies, where shall start cutting on spending? Health-care? Education? Infrastructure? Firemen? Police? Social Services? With all the new unemployed from the resource industries should we also cut unemployment benefits?

Let's have a reporter ask Glen Clark, the ex-NDP BC Premier. He's the President of Westshore Terminal, North America's busiest coal export terminal.

@Modesty

Much better. Thank you.

Although I might not agree with the projected effects of his numbers, or yours for that matter, I can certainly agree with his spirit and attitude:

"We are the ones who are inheriting the risk of our current decisions. They owe it to us to make these decisions with our future in mind."

He is very likely to live through the long term effects - after you (and I) are long gone. I think we owe it to him to at least listen. If his concerns are overdone, the obligation is on us to prove it.

So, what is the proper balance between financial import/export numbers, and the long term livability of our planet? At what point do we say *stop*, we can't "afford" .2% more?
Whatever point we come up with, we better back them with unequivocal proof that that is a number that will allow him to live just as healthy a life, with just as many opportunities, as you and I have had. And not just him, but his whole generation and beyond.

He deserves to be heard. And with the scope and potential impact of the topic, *we* had better get it right - at any cost.

A Youngblood.

Neither you, he or *we* can do anything about the facts, except impoverish ourselves by vainly and symbolically gesturing. We are but a moment's sunlight. A mere drop in the bucket. You might just as well go down to the seashore, build a fire and boil off seawater in a vain attempt to stop the sea level rising.

JAKARTA | Thu Feb 14, 2013

Feb 14 (Reuters) - Indonesia expects coal production this year to remain unchanged at 370-375 million tonnes, with low prices expected to continue to hurt output from the world's top exporter of thermal coal, an industry association told Reuters on Thursday.

"It depends on the price situation," Indonesian Coal Mining Association Executive Director Supriatna Suhala said. "If the demand is there and prices are good, we can push our production to 400 (million tonnes)."

Indonesia's top customers are China and India. "

The combined population of India, China and Indonesia is around 2.85 billion. Or, approximately equivalent to 88 times the entire population of Canada. Or, the population of just those three countries together is around 1,000 times, the entire population of British Columbia. And you tell me that *we* have to tell them what to do because *we* know what's best for them. Dream on with your superior colonial attitude sunshine.

"C'mon people now,
Smile on your brother
Ev'rybody get together
Try and love one another right now
Right now
Right now!"

The Youngbloods.

The Green playbook is awfully empty

While it's nice to see some kids with a social conscience out doing their bit for the future, they are avoiding the same quagmire as every other environmentalist and environmental group that I've ever ran across. While they put in an adequate effort in identifying the problem and complaining loudly about it, they do absolutely nothing in proposing solutions that will not ruin hundreds of millions of people's lives.

So let's cut off the supply of coal tomorrow and do the same for the oil sands and conventional oil. Then where are we going to be? Just what will we use for energy on a mass scale? Millions of people will be unemployed, the economy will collapse, there will be no more money for health care or other social services, and we will have to revert to some kind of primitive lifestyle to survive. The Third World will be hardest hit.

Maybe we can be like the United States and become an armed camp and go hunt for dear and moose to feed ourselves. But then if there are several million other people out there doing the same thing, how long will the deer and moose population last?

Put forward some rational, reasoned, comprehensive solutions and those in power might listen to you.

The Green Playbook

Even though wind and solar power only contribute 0.1% to the total power supply, that's where they want your money to go. To develop more. Just a few hundred billion dollars taken away from social programs and salaries for social science academics, like their moms and pops, and we can save the world.

They've already managed to siphon off a huge chunk of the corn crop so that we can all put ethanol in our fuel tanks. How's that working out? Well, the price of maize has consequently doubled in the past five years because of the success of ethanol fuel. Too bloody bad for those families in Latin America that use corn as a staple in their diet. They are paying more for their basic food but tell them they are saving the planet. Gracias muchachos!

The silence is deafening

I thought my comments above might get at least some greens jumping up and down and saying that I had totally misunderstood the environmental movement and that they really did have rational, reasoned and comprehensive solutions to our environmental problems.

Does your silence mean that you really don't have any such solutions??

Or do all of you deep ecologists out there really think that the population of the earth should be reduced to 100 million people and we should live a bare subsistence life as dirt farmers, as some deep ecologists have proposed?

But then, you wouldn't be caught saying that in public as you do want the public to perceive that you have their interests at heart.

Extreme denial

@Modesty and @x4est

Some of do have other things taking our time now and then.

The issue is real. The question is what to do about it. Sticking your head in the sand while moaning about how extreme solutions will destroy the economy is no more productive than advocating for the total shutdown of all energy sources. Both attitudes are simply mirrors at the extreme ends of the gamut of choices. Neither are realistic.

The first part of finding a realistic solution is admitting there is a problem.

In addition to all the ideas and research your are denigrating, there are many other possibilities.

Hydro generated electricity has it's eco issues, but they are localized. And if you think about it, they can be managed and even undone, much easier than global CO2 increases.

Fusion research was a big thing in the 70's. But funding died off because of the magic word "nuclear". For that I can thank the uneducated extremists in the "eco movements". Still, progress has been made. How about big tax incentives in that direction, instead of for CO2 generating industries?

Given a choice, I'd even take multiple small fission generators over CO2 generation. Big fission plants have big problems. Multiple small ones are much more manageable. "Pocket nukes". A quick google search shows this result among many:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Energy/2008/1229/backyard-reactors-firms-shrink-the-nukes

I find it curious that some of these were proposed for the oil sands projects, but they preferred to burn gas to generate the required power.

Then we get looking into things like this:

http://www.diginfo.tv/v/12-0223-r-en.php

Which I'm surprised hasn't been jumped on, invested in, and scaled up, by the industries.

The list can go on, and on, but I only have 3000 characters. If you are looking for a single "big" answer, you won't find it. Lots and lots of little answers is the only way to go. 1% here, and 1% there will add up. The nice thing about a plethora of little solutions, is if one of them has issues, it isn't devastating to replace it.

The question is how do we get "there" from "here"? We certainly won't get there if we continue to coddle the industries supporting the root of the problem.

Modesty is a cynical

Modesty is a cynical corporate tool who says nothing positive we can use to make things better. There's plenty of money to change the energy path we're on. In the US we used to have a maximum corporate tax of 91 % in 1960. Today we have an effective corporate tax rate of 12.1 %. The big lie is we don't have any money to invest in alternative energy. The middle class subsidize the profits of the corporations through transportation, military, communications, education, healthcare, police, fire, ... The list goes on and on. And we subsidize corporations from around the world who pay no taxes here in the US as they are based outside the US, through our military, communications, etc. The corporations have externalized most of their infrastructure costs onto the backs of the middle class with the willing assistance of conservatives and blue dog liberals. There's lots of money. Unfortunately we're being robbed.

ken-

No. Not a corporate anything, actually. I don't like pollution and around twenty five years ago I made an industrial facility shut down and change a filthy boiler that was burning bunker-C and spewing clouds of toxic smoke in the air. I did it through the environmental department of the municipality. It worked.

The answer is that like France we must have nuclear power. It's GHG free. Just try it though.

France gets around three quarters of its power from nuclear energy, while Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and Ukraine get one third or more. Japan and Finland normally get more than a quarter of their power from nuclear energy, while in the USA one fifth is from nuclear. Among countries which do not host nuclear power plants, Italy gets about 10% of its power from nuclear, and Denmark about 8%.

Today, the world produces as much electricity from nuclear energy as it did from all sources combined in 1960. Civil nuclear power can now boast over 14,800 reactor years of experience and supplies almost 13.5% of global electricity needs, from reactors in 31 countries.

Oil will continue for transportation for some time. Think aircraft. Think thousands of aircraft. Ships can and do run on nuclear. More could and will.

Solar and wind are a joke. Solar is OK for bits of juice in houses but not for serious power.

There are over 300 anti-wind groups in the UK and another couple of hundred in Denmark. People are fed up with the constant hum rumble and are becoming sick.

Charge higher corporate taxes and the absolute certain promise is that the companies will cut costs by either laying off employees or lowering quality or moving off shore. Or they'll just factor the tax charge into the total cost and raise retail prices. The end user will pay. Either a company is viable or not. If it's making too much money the market will correct that with a lower cost competitor.

Crucible and Haikun:

I agree that Hydro and hydroelectric dams offer potential to generate electricity on a massive scale that could be used to lessen the effects of atmospheric carbon. However, given that the Suzukis of the world have jumped on the anti-Site C bandwagon, don't count on any further dam being built in the Peace River country without the usual environmental hysterics and theatrics.

I'm of two minds on nuclear power. It does offer the potential to generate a lot of electricity in a small space, but after the disaster at Fukushima and the other assorted nuclear disasters over the years I question whether the risk is worth it. Of course, anybody who would build a nuclear power plant right next to the ocean in an area prone to earthquakes and tsunamis should be put against a wall and you know what. If there was a way to make a relatively foolproof nuclear power plant, that might be another way to go.

But then, what do we do with all of that electricity when we get it? The best-selling electric car in the world is the Nissan Leaf, and out of the millions of automobiles sold last year Nissan sold 32,000 of those. Electric cars are plagued by high initial cost, relatively short battery life, and very high battery replacement costs. People just don't buy them. The same is true for hybrids, which make up 2% of automobile sales despite having been on the market for a good 10 years. People just don't want them. And where is the source of energy that will power transport trucks, freighters and trains in an efficient and cost-effective manner?

As for Haikun and the silly reference to Koch puppets, come back when you have some rational, reasoned and comprehensive ideas. You really shouldn't be just taking up space spouting the loony lefty party line. I gather your idea of a debate is where everybody sits down and agrees to agree. Pretty boring.

@x4estworker

"assorted nuclear disasters over the years"

Every one of those disasters were of the "big nuke" design. Dig a little into pocket nukes or even (leading edge) thorium reactors. And then there's fusion on the horizon, if we can ever get the right funding for research and development.

As Modesty states, solar/wind/ethanol/etc are "small scale" solutions. Not appropriate for any kind of industrial base. Lots of them will help, but they simply aren't enough to be the "answer". Use them where appropriate, but there are places they just won't do.

"Nuclear" covers a lot of technologies. They aren't all the same, or carry the same dangers. You pointed out that subs and ships have been using them for years, and that is old, ancient, technology.

The link Hakuin supplied is an example of a so called "pocket nuke" generator. Toshiba has been developing them for years.

Keep in mind that it is unlikely we will see a "single" solution. In fact that will probably get us in trouble down the road. We need a diversity of solutions, enough that if issues arise from one tech they can be supported/supplemented by a different one until they get corrected.

Battery tech is advancing quickly nowadays. But there aren't "refueling stations" capable of supporting them yet. Infrastructure.

Battery tech is still chemical based storage. Beyond batteries is capacitor technology, super cap technology. Look into super caps, and the possibilities when you combine with carbon nanotubes.

We need to look as far down the road, as when you look backwards at petrol based technology. Plan for the next 100 years, and put the right foundations in place now. We can't be sure what technologies will exist then, but we can diversify solutions. For sure we won't be basing our energy needs on CO2 producing sources.