In the United Kingdom, grand plans for “feed-in tariffs,” to reward renewable-conscious Brits as of April 2010, have not been particularly well received. While a host of new and promising renewable energy installation and provisions companies have taken over our television screens and energy providers throughout the country are proclaiming their excitement at the arrival of the scheme, much of the British public and press appear far from convinced.
The basic premise for the incentives, due to apply to installations planned from April within specific sizes, states that members of the British public who install small scale domestic solar panels, wind turbines and other renewable facilities in their homes can receive fixed rates on the electricity produced by the installations and thus, hack off a chunk of our energy bills.
One example from the UK Department for energy and Climate Change (DECC), says that installing photovoltaic panels could earn homeowners £900 per annum; a saving of £140 per annum.
According to the government, this scheme could see one in 10 homeowners installing such facilities during 2010 – a key move in Britain’s efforts towards meeting its 2020 energy targets which require a 30 per cent rise from its current 5.5 per cent renewable grid portion.

Promises of cheaper energy bills swirled amidst our current climate of fear for climbing energy prices following our cold spell in early 2010. Yes, even by British standards there’s been a chilly snap in the air and our central heating systems have been turned up.

While admittedly we can be a little lacking in realizing renewable power education compared with some of our European counterparts, I wonder if rousing raucous interest in installing solar panels during our Siberian snow storms was a bit of a tall order from the beginning?

It appears that the main bone of contention raised by critics is the moderate gains we are set to make under these new incentives. Critics of the scheme claim that the energy bill reductions touted are too mild and far from generous enough to truly interest the general public. Add to that the fact that those who do not install renewable facilities face another estimated £11 per year on their bill, and it appears that the feed-in tariff incentive has its underlying downsides.

According to the Solar Trade Association, these incentives offer roughly half of that offered by some similar schemes.

The British Hydropower Organisation, whilst welcoming the arrival of these new incentives, points out that certain details within the structure of the feed-in tariff will directly affect overall hydropower development.
In the time leading up to the feed-in tariff announcement, some hydro companies signed up to the previous Renewable Obligation (RO) and those companies which did so before April 2008 will not be able to apply for the feed-in tariff nor complete the original RO scheme. Unlike the RO, under the feed-in tariff there is no allowance for refurbishment of hydro facilities. When you consider that enabling refurbishment can promise up to 100 years of operation from a hydro plant, for example, this flaw appears critical in the part this renewable source can play.

It appears that this latest incentive might be another UK policy dressed up as a ‘one size fits all’ solution for our renewable energy response, again littered with small print and difficult commercially realistic details. It all comes down to education: Educating the public, the policy-makers and the unified response of renewable industry groups.

Policy shaped after announcement is part and parcel of progress. However it’s a still a shame when the same problems are brought to the table. A good step in the right direction, yes, but there’s plenty to shape and re-hash before the feed-in incentives hit the spot.

IRJ reported this Tuesday that the Canadian Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice sent a stern message to energy companies in Alberta’s oilsands – telling the big wigs that they need to shape up environmental efforts and communicate those initiatives with the global community.

Oilsands companies in Canada’s west have always come under the microscope due to an a apparent lack of environmental conscientiousness. However, most operators in the oilsands will tell you that they are doing business in one of the most environmentally-friendly oilsands areas in the world.

We’d like to hear from you – is the media frenzy around the oilsands just a result of poor communication? Or is the Canadian oilsands industry ignoring its responsibilities?

It’s another blog post and another sombre outcome as news breaks that the Russia-Belarus oil talks have taken place to no avail.

The countries have spent the last couple of days in discussion over disagreements about the price of export duty which Belarus ought to pay to Russia for oil.

Just yesterday on January 7, 2010, Russia’s Energy Minister, Sergei Shmatko told press that the Moscow and Minsk governments were nearing a solution to this dispute. However today it transpires that in less than 24 hours the tide has turned and the potential threat of oil supply disruption within the European Union remains.

This is by no means a brand new story and follows a brief spell in which Russia cut oil supplies to Belarusian refineries earlier this month as a direct action against the failure to agree on terms.

Later on today a Belarusian government official announced that a delegation lead by Vladimir Semashko, First Deputy Prime Minister of Belarus, will fly back to Russia tomorrow to resume talks and battle on for a conclusion to the disagreements.

At this stage it looks like the severity of the implications this could have on EU oil supplies are anyone’s guess. Perhaps the most surprising twist in the reporting of events over the last few days is the way in which a sunny outlook from yesterday can be upturned so quickly overnight.

2010 had barely begun when on Saturday January 2, reports surfaced of an oil leak in a pipeline operated by the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).

The leak reportedly began on the previous Wednesday, December 30, as a result of a construction accident. Initial reports claimed that it had polluted a 20-mile stretch beginning at the Chishui tributary of the Wei River in the Shaanxi province, northern China.

A 700-strong team swooped in to clean up the spillage, which, according to China’s Xinhua News Agency, now totals 150,000 litres. But this team was not only brought in to rectify the damage done, but to prevent the water pollution from reaching the Yellow River.

The team has used floating damns and solidifying agents in this race against the clock to minimize the damage. It has been reported that the unusually cold weather the region is experiencing has also aided the clean-up operation. However today on January 4, it appears that the tireless efforts to save the Yellow River have not been enough. The state news agency reports that traces of the oil have been recovered from within the river itself. The latest updates say that traces of pollution have been detected at the water monitoring facilities of the Sanmenxia reservoir on the Yellow River since Sunday, January 3.

Three counties surrounding the Shaanxi province have been warned against using the river for water supplies and to use the underground water supplies already in place for these people instead.

The other underlying thread in this story has to be the background information which has resurfaced about the state of China’s waters. The past 30-plus years of surging economic growth and development has taken quite a toll on the nation. The Beijing AFP (Associated Foreign Press) news agency arm reports that most of China’s rivers and lakes are heavily polluted, and, according to government, over 200 million Chinese nationals do not have access to safe drinking water.

“The work on managing the pollution has shifted downstream and the frontline of this battle has been extended. The situation remains serious,” Jiang Jiemin, CNPC’s President and Spokesman told press today on his way to the site of the accident.

A gloomy first blog post, perhaps. But this is a critical news item which looks set to develop as reports of further pollution continue to trickle in.

There is an Italian proverb which says, “when the ship has sunk, everyone knows how she might have been saved.” It’s fair to say that this one can be well-attributed to our global outlook in light of COP15, first nicknamed “Hopenhagen,” now “Brokenhagen,” but before you throw up your hands in despair at another blog post which slams the lack of progress and concrete decision-making here, worry not, I’ll keep this brief and light.

“After the Copenhagen climate conference failed to stop global warming, the next big question for climate change is who is going to save the planet now?” British broadsheet The Telegraph pondered on December 21.

“The Copenhagen summit witnessed for the first time that the U.S was represented at a presidential level during the climate conference, and its decision to lower emissions by 17 per cent from the 2005 levels demonstrates a major success of the meeting,” Dr Batilda Salha Burian, the Tanzanian State Minister of Environment told Tanzanian press on December 22.

“Twelve days, 192 countries represented, 100 heads of state, 5,000 journalists, upward of 30,000 non-governmental representatives, more than 1000 arrested,” The Examiner writes on December 22.

“How successful the COP15 climate summit at Copenhagen was all depends on where your expectations lay. If you had high hopes … you were envisioning Christmas miracles… But if you kept your expectations low, they were probably met, and even slightly exceeded.”

I’m inclined to side with The Examiner. Accuse me of fence-sitting if you will, but attempting to conjure a common world-encompassing approach or toying with the idea that this seemingly insurmountable issue can be rectified in under two weeks days seems a touch absurd, however idyllic.

I don’t mean to besmirch or disagree with the opinions of disappointed commentators today, but perhaps instead of wasting our energy on conference-concluding declarations, we should be looking at the individual factors, positive and negative, which have blossomed in the COP15 aftermath.

First we have the growing number of Least Developing Countries (LDC’s) now expressing their dismay at the failures of COP15. Then there is the astonishing US$10 billion by 2020 announcement from U.S.A. President Barack Obama, albeit with some interesting and complex stipulations attached. Let us not forget the highly topical U.S. pledge to make further proposals when, and only when, China lines up. And considering the highly debated agreement signed by China, India, South Africa, Brazil, United States and many more individual stories besides, I think it is important to ask yourself two questions.

The first, is whether you really, truly believed that world climate change would and could be rectified through this one conference? Can you envisage this coming Christmas in a world no longer blighted by this paramount issue?

The second, is whether you favour straight talking now, or wild and impressive declarations which do not play out as promised later? Would you prefer to enjoy endless positive promises today which never come to fruition tomorrow, or to look back on COP15 and what it has really managed to achieve?

No, it is not perfect, but at the risk of echoing the message of many before, it is time to get real about climate change and stop wishing for unattainable goals to be realized. The COP15 conference is one thing, but the ship has far from sunk on the wider world issue.

Ah yes, it is back-to-school time. You may have read the Globe and Mail’s editorial in its Report on Business section about how Canadian innovation starts in the classroom.

I couldn’t have agreed more with both contributors-senior vice-president and chief economist of Bank of Nova Scotia, Warren Jestin, and vice-president of research and innovation at York University,  Stan Shapson-who argue that “fresh thinking about our ‘innovation ecosystem’ is needed for adapting to a rapidly evolving global economy.”

According to Jestin and Shapson, innovation means it’s time for governments, community leaders, schools and families to go back to the drawing board and come up with new ideas on how to integrate our K-12 sector, those  young, bright minds, into our innovation agenda. Even though governments have invested in skills training and post-secondary education, there is a pink elephant in the playground. In other words, if we really want Canada to be a leader in new economy, there needs to be collaboration across all sectors, chambers of commerce as well as schools, universities, colleges and families to foster an integrative educational platform for children-our future leaders, entrepreneurs and bright minds.

But I can’t help but wonder what all levels of governments are doing to reinforce their committed support especially when it comes to improving our educational infrastructure. I know there have been so-called improvements. I have friends who are teachers, young, experienced and even retirees, who say the curriculum is continually being reviewed and modified as the ministry sees fit. Almost to the point, in fact, that has become a nuisance, say many young teachers. Interestingly, during a dinner party with several teachers on the verge of retirement, I discovered their frustration with “keeping up with technology” and modifying their seasoned teaching styles to accommodate technologically-advanced students who live and breathe in a hyperactive, social networking-obsessed environment.

And yet, I find it ironic that there are literally thousands of grads fresh out of school that are highly-qualified, if not more technologically-savvy than the close-to-retirement teachers who are desperate to get back in the classroom. But too many are forced to work on-call, as supply teachers, for years before seeing a permanent posting. Meanwhile, retired teachers reap the rewards by calls to supply, depriving the newbies of gaining valuable experience.  If seasoned teachers are truly tired of the ‘system’ and ready to leave the classroom, why don’t they embrace this new stage in the careers?

Is the teacher’s pension not enough of an enticement for these retirees to give the younger generation a break? It’s the Gen-Y’s turn to rule the block.