Because after this story, which reveals that the PM's house used $57,000 worth of heat and electricity in 2006, a few Blogging Tory types are already suggesting it. I guess we should be demanding that Harper run a "carbon neutral" campaign if he drops the writ this Spring.
Personally, I think carbon neutral campaigns and "carbon offsets" and so forth are mostly gimmicks, although it certainly looks like they are becoming part of the political landscape. For an insight into what's wrong with them, take a look at this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou would think that extra layer would manifest itself in lower heat costs.
ReplyDeleteBut but but...Al Gore!!!
ReplyDeleteAnother reason Dion will never live there.
ReplyDeleteI think it is stupid that we are even discussing it. I don't think either home should be the basis for the criticism of the leader residing there. The building is managed by the government, not the resident. We are not talking about their private homes here.
ReplyDeleteBesides, Harper's house is in Calgary.
ReplyDeleteThe residence of the Prime Minister of Canada, located on Sussex Driver in Ottawa, to which this news refers, is owned by the National Capital Commission.
I'm trying to remember which liberal PM said that 24 sussex was very drafty...was it martin or chretien?
ReplyDeleteI do remember that there was discussion right after the election about how the residence needed major renovations and there was quite the uproar about more taxpayer money being spend on such renovations (not cosmetic but renos that would make the house more energy efficient).
does that mean if these renos happen, we will not hear any wailing from you guys?
BigCityLib, thank you for putting this article on your web and making it available to others. I have been reading Monbiot in his book Heat, and flying is one of the conveniences and pleasures to go. That is, until there is a way to fly without creating CO2.
ReplyDeleteWhen I heard Al Gore want to do this huge climate change music thing, and that it would be offset by buying credits elsewhere, I thought, here we go again.
My overall concern, is that we will be kidding ourselves into a false sense of well-being, as we continue to do in the environment, to all our peril.
I do remember that there was discussion right after the election about how the residence needed major renovations and there was quite the uproar about more taxpayer money being spend on such renovations...
ReplyDeleteAh, yes. I remember that deeply bitter and divisive contretemps well. What was it dubbed in the media? RenoGate?
Lighten up, connies. Save all that dyspepsia and humourlessness for when Harper loses the next election.
I think I shall have to do a longer post on carbon offsets when I reread the stuff I'm recommending here . But here is the short version of my complaint.
ReplyDeleteOne legitmate criticism of some of the Kyoto mechanisms is that, unless you lower your standards of what constitutes a third-world green investment, its actually difficult to find a place where you can put the money you're willing to pay to offset your emissions. There are not really that many legitimate projects out there at this moment in time.
The same thing happens on the personal level. You might pay a hundred bucks to a company specializing in carbon offsetting, and they might not really have a legit project to spend it on (planting a bunch of trees somewhere doesn't necessarily constitue a real solution). Nevertheless, they now have your money.
So, what is the pattern of energy use by previous occupants? Otherwise that number is somewhat meaningless. What consumes that power?
ReplyDelete