Energy Nowhere

Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
  - Bertrand Russell

TransCanada Pipelines cancelled the Energy East pipeline project this week and the environmentalists cheered at what they considered a great victory to their cause.  But I don’t understand why they would do that.  Why would they cheer the demise of the safest and most reliable way of moving crude oil?  What did they expect would happen next?

They surely wouldn’t think that this would stop the use of oil based products any time soon.  Although there are solutions that show promise of making oil burning machinery, primarily automobiles, more efficient they won’t stop the use of gasoline or diesel fuel.  The utopia of a world with only electric cars is still a long way off. And you still have to generate the electricity. There are still things that will not be rendered oil fuel free for a long time.  There is, for example, no realistic means being considered to make electric-only driven ships.  Aircraft engines will still require some form of fossil fuel for a long time.  Heating oil, oil based lubricants and synthetic fabrics are all products of crude oil. 

 

So as long as there is going to be a need for oil there is going to be a need to move it since oil has the nasty habit of not being where you want to use it.  So, without pipelines, how do we do that?  The next best bulk carriers are ships. They are fine as long as you are moving the stuff from one port to another, and of course a great deal of the world’s oil is moved by ship.  But as we have seen, ships have accidents.  Do we remember the Exxon Valdez? Crude oil for the one major refinery in Atlantic Canada is shipped in from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.  And, of course, ships burn fuel to propel them along.  But our problem in Canada is to move oil from one part of the country to another.  Water transport is a practical impossibility for most of Canada.  So the next choices are rail or road.  Rail is the more efficient of the two, but again trains derail, crash and find other ways of self-destructing usually resulting in large spills or worse.  Who can forget Lac Megantic?   Trucks are even worse.  It takes a great deal of them to move even a train’s worth.  And they are, undoubtedly the worst when it comes to accidents.  Read the stories of truck accidents on Highway 401. So, not one other mode of transport is as efficient and safe as pipelines.  Every other mode of transport uses significant amounts of fuel to get oil from place to place.  Properly built and maintained pipelines using modern technology for monitoring must be considered the safest, most efficient and most environmentally friendly means of transporting crude oil.

So think about it.  Are the environmentalists right or wrong in fighting against pipelines?  You make up your mind, but remember the alternatives.

The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth.
  - Edith Sitwell

Two Spoiled Brats

Example 1:  For all intents he is a hereditary monarch having been handed the crown when his father died, just as his father inherited it when the grandfather died.  He has never known anything but power and privilege.  There is no opposition to his rule, at least none that are still alive.  Now 33 years old, he was literally given the keys to the kingdom when he was 27. He consolidated his power by having people killed, probably including his older brother. He has at his command one of the largest militaries in the world including missiles and nuclear weapons.  His sole aim is the stay in power.

Example 2: He is much older, but is nonetheless the product of a privileged upbringing.  He started life rich and built on that as a speculator and developer.  He knew “the art of the deal”. He made himself a media star by firing people.  He has ego and now has power.  He manipulates the truth to his advantage.  And now he has under his control the most powerful military in the world including the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.  His sole aim is?

Now these two men are arguing like children.  Each thinks he can bully the other as they have bullied so many in the past. Like most bullies, neither man wants to talk to the other to find a way out of the disagreement. And neither one cares what the rest of us might think or that we could be those harmed.  With both ego and power, neither seems likely to back down.  It leaves us in an oh so dangerous situation.  You see, if, or when, one of them decides to take more overt action, like using some of those nuclear weapons, the two of them will not be killed, but millions of others will be.

So what is behind this disagreement?  Well it started when one of them started doing missile tests.  The fact that the other side fires missiles of every type almost every day did not seem to matter.  And then the first side tested nuclear weapons a thing the second side did for over twenty years, even to destroying a group of islands in the Pacific Ocean.  But it didn’t matter, the second side took umbrage.  And so we have come to this impasse.

Perhaps a few observations are in order.  North Korea has fired a handful of long range missiles, some of which have failed.  How many can they make and how fast they can make them has never been answered?  Given the complexity of such weapons, they may only have a very few in their arsenal.  The same goes for nuclear weapons.  None so far has been proven to be a hydrogen bomb: enhanced atomic maybe.  Again, how many do they actually have that are deployable and how fast can they make them?  The recent picture of Kim Jong Un standing beside what was purported to be a hydrogen bomb was most certainly nothing more than a hollow sample which may or may not be able to house one of their weapons.  But if it was an actual nuclear weapon, he would certainly not be standing so close to it for fear of nuclear radiation.  This is not to say that North Korea could not raise havoc, particularly in South Korea and Japan, and perhaps, just perhaps, in North America.  But it would most certainly destroy North Korea and Kim’s dreams.  In the process, millions of innocent people would lose their lives.  And for what?

Two spoiled brats threatening each other with their toys.  How schoolyard-ish.

But I do have something to say

“Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he read made him mad.”
  - George Bernard Shaw

For those who actually read and enjoy this blog, I apologize for the delay in writing anything new.  First of all, I must blame a bad summer.  My wife and I spent two months nursing our very sick dog, Only.  In the end we lost her.  After that there were a couple of weeks of emotional release while we mourned her. After a short get-away, we returned home to get on with life.  At that point I wanted to start new blogs.  I had ideas, but something kept stopping me from getting started on any of them.  I kept thinking that I had nothing worthwhile to say.

As I thought about this, it suddenly dawned on me that what was stopping me was a form of self-censorship.  I was afraid to write things because they may be sensitive or contradict someone else.  Those of us, the majority I would think, who occupy the middle ground in thought and beliefs have been cowed by the writers of the far left and right.  Writing has become a polarizing effort.  But I do have something, actually many things, to say.  In many cases they seem to be things that nobody wants to come right out and say for fear of incurring the wrath of one fringe group or another.  Why is this?

“If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind.”
  - John Stuart Mill

It is this way because the middle thinking group have let this happen.  We are afraid to express ourselves and our beliefs because we have become afraid of the response from the far left or right.  The fringe groups have set the agendas.  They are the ones who have chosen the subjects that we are supposed to be concerned about and have raised those subjects to a level of hysteria where no moderate response is tolerated.  They have polarized any subject with a ‘with us or against’ attitude. 

Ask about the plight of the indigenous people in this country and you are called a racist or are made to feel guilty because you didn’t do anything about residential schools.  Most of us were not even around when the residential school system was going on.

Ask about religion and you’re considered a religious fanatic. Say that you are a Christian and you’re labeled as anti-Muslim.  Speak out in support of Muslims and you’re your accused of wanting to destroy our “culture”. 

Ask about free speech and you’re seen as a supporter of hate speech.  Speak about limiting free speech and you’re (rightly) accused of impinging on people’s rights.  The only place where it seems to be okay to limit free speech is in universities.  Bring in a controversial speaker and you will be howled down and accused of ruining young minds.  And yet universities are the one place where different ideas should be welcomed and discussed, even controversial ones.  George Orwell in his book 1984 introduced the idea of thought police as a warning to future generations, but today too many people and groups think that that is their role in society. 

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
  - George Orwell

 Try and have a discussion on almost any subject these days and someone will take exception to your point of view.  Honest discourse should be encouraged and welcomed.  But too often you will be shouted down and accused of something heinous. It is no wonder that we have let the loudest shouters usurp the conversation.  Hence the state of intercourse in this country that is now so polarized and poisonous.  We are being yelled into submission.  But it has to end.  Those of us who believe that we should listen thoughtfully to opposing views, that compromise is possible and that ideas are precious and must be nurtured must start to speak up and bring some sense to so many conversations whether written or spoken.  Don’t let our entire society become so polarized that we are not allowed to think any more.  Speak up!  Express your views on this or any other topic.  Don't become self-censored.

“There's a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.”

  - P. J. O'Rourke

It is so Hard, but . . .

They say one of the biggest challenges of writing something is to figure out what to write about.  That is often the case for a casual blogger like me.  Something will cross your mind, but by the time you get to your computer, the idea has passed.  In other cases, many things will come to mind but you just cannot pick one to concentrate on.  If you try and be timely with a story, you find that things move so quickly that you cannot keep up. I am somewhat in that situation right now.  Oh the trials of the semi-imaginative writer!

For this post, let’s look at a few things somewhat at random.

A good place to start is with President Trump as it frequently the case.  He is on his first foreign trip this week to visit Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Rome, and to attend two meeting, one at NATO and the other the G7 in Sicily.  An interesting sidelight came up with his trip to Saudi Arabia over the issue of head covering for women.  Some years ago, he criticized Michelle Obama for not covering her head when on a similar visit, but there he was with his wife and daughter at his side, both uncovered.  A few days later, he visited the Pope where a picture shows him with his wife and daughter both of whom were solemnly wearing head coverings. 

While at NATO headquarters, Mr. Trump gave a speech to the other member heads of government accusing them of not spending enough on defence.  He stated that this was not fair to the American people.  Whether this would be fair to other nations’ people was of no interest to him.  This was, like all of his speeches and pronouncements aimed squarely and solely at his American base.  The fact that the US spends more of its GDP and tax dollars on defence (which of course includes offensive weapons) is an internal US decision since they consider that they have a responsibility for the entire world.  No wonder they do not have a decent health care system for their citizens.  Should Canada spend more on defence?  Probably.  But that decision should be made by the citizens of this country, not by Mr. Trump.

In Canada the Conservative Part is about to choose its new leader.  The only person who has shown any promise to me is the lady, Rona Ambrose, who was unable to run.  She has done a lot to re-establish some credibility in the party during the time when she has been interim leader.  I don’t think that any one of the people currently in the leadership race would have a chance of winning my vote in a general election nor could win the next federal election.

On a totally different note, on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen Driving section today (Friday, May 26) was an article extolling the virtues of a new sports car, the Lamborghini Huracan.  The story boasts about the 600 plus horsepower and the 2.9 second 0 to 100 kph acceleration.  Really?  Who needs over 600 horsepower in a car?  Who needs to go 0 to 100 kph acceleration?  In western countries where we have speed limits and traffic laws, who needs this performance?  On out roads full of ruts and potholes, who can use this performance?  We are, I thought, becoming more conscious or the environment and the burning of fossil fuel.  Extolling these kinds of cars and their outrageous performance is hardly responsible in these circumstances.  Don’t get me wrong.  I am a car lover and have been all my life.  But I have always respected efficiency in cars over brute power.  Let’s see more responsible reporting in newspapers and car magazines.

The Orphan Monument

I was going to submit the following letter as a lament on things not done.  Although a copy of it was published in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, the press in Upper Canada has chosen not to publish it, so I thought it needed to be circulated by other means.

There is a monument, commonly called the Bonaventure Anchor, which is found at the tip of Point Pleasant Park in Halifax, Nova Scotia where it can be seen by ships entering and leaving that great port.  This monument is different.  Unlike the hundreds if not thousands of war memorials across Canada which are dedicated to those who died in wartime, with the possible exception of the Peacekeeping Memorial in Ottawa, this one is dedicated to military members who died on duty in peacetime.  Whereas most of the war memorials are maintained by the local Legion branch or the town, or some other level of government, this monument is an orphan.  Nobody will accept responsibility for this monument that is important to many veterans of the Cold War and beyond.  Among other things, it is the only monument open to the public that records the names of the nine men who died aboard HMCS Kootenay in 1969 in the Canadian Navy’s worst peacetime disaster.  In fact, survivors of that event and their families gather each year for a memorial service on the anniversary date, October 23^rd.  But there are others who are so honoured, although there are still many names that need to be added.

So why do we have to talk about this monument now?  Unfortunately, the monument needs work.  It needs work to protect it.  It needs work to refurbish it.  And it needs the names added of many other victims of peacetime service.  A survey has been carried out that outlines the essential work that has to be done.  There appears to be sources of money available to undertake some of the work.  Among the most critical items is the need to protect the monument from shoreline erosion which threatens the stability of the base.  As the owners of Point Pleasant Park, this should likely be in the purview of the Municipality of Halifax/Dartmouth.  But work cannot be undertaken on the monument itself without someone acknowledging ownership and authorizing such work.  This is the problem with orphanhood.

When the monument was dedicated in 1973 by Rear Admiral Robert Timbrell RCN, then the Maritime Commander Atlantic, he promised that the Navy would look after the monument with the work being done by the ships of the Atlantic Command.  Obviously, this promise has long been forgotten.  But should the burden fall solely to the Navy when many of those that are and should be honoured were members of Maritime Air Command of the Royal Canadian Air Force?  

A small group of volunteers, several who are survivors of the Kootenay disaster, have been trying for the past couple of years to find some organization or agency who will take some responsibility for this monument.  They have so far approached various levels of government, as well as the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Legion and the Naval Association of Canada, looking for some help in this quest.  So far there has been no positive response from anyone.  Some agencies have not even bothered to reply to requests.  So these volunteers soldier on looking for some answers and hopefully some recognition about the fate of this monument.  And so in this vast country with its many hundreds of war memorials, there stands a rather imposing monument that remains an orphan.

But I have just found out today that some group has agreed to do something about the monument. I am told that the military, among others, has agreed to form a committee to take charge of the restoration work that needs to be done.  A lot of credit must be given to a couple of people, both Kootenay survivors, who have pursued this issue.  Chief among them is a gentleman named Allan “Dinger” Bell who has been investigating and pushing this issue for over ten years.  He has been assisted by John Montague, another survivor.  This is truly a very happy outcome for this quest.  But we cannot let down on continuing to ensure that the committee carries out their mandate and the necessary work in fact gets done.