Iget a great deal of satisfaction out of watching "The Debate". Steve Paiken's "Agenda" on TVO is always thought-provoking and informative. The program on Climate Change, June 9th, was an outstanding example, starting with an interview with Geoffrey Simpson based on his book, "Hot Air" (2007). Simpson continued as one of 4 panelists debating opinions from Washington and Torontobased environmental specialists.

Hot Air can be summed up in the 7 national plans dating first from the Mulroney era in 1990, followed by 3 proposed by Chretian , one by Martin and 2 by Stephen Harper. All have proven to be spectacular failures in terms of actual environmental change. Simpson emphasized two major points. Voluntary action plans accompanied by subsidies have been colossal wastes of time and money. Without enforcement of emission controls nothing will change. Secondly any equation excluding nuclear development is pie in the sky. Conservation measures plus development of alternative energy sources will have beneficial effects, but are doomed to be ineffectual as long as populations increase. Lower per capita use of energy is trumped by ever increasing numbers of people dependent on that energy supply.

Being an eternal optimist I can't completely agree with this picture, especially considering the potential of existing alternative technologies. We haven't even scratched the surface yet. I agree wholeheartedly that government must provide leadership in terms of laws and regulations (including mandatory compliance), in conjunction with industry innovation and society's growing will at the grass roots level. There are far too many examples of positive change around the world for me to be completely pessimistic. The program noted wind power development in Denmark where a target of 25% of national energy needs is well on the way to fruition. Solar 'farms' are expanding exponentially in Germany. Australia is banning production of incandescent light bulbs. Development of high oil content nut producing trees continues throughout the tropics. Biomass energy for cogeneration in Finland based on peat and waste wood.

From a Canadian perspective, the latter could be an exciting development. We have long struggled with the weak infrastructure of single industry towns in the north. Canada is a forest nation dominated by industries producing paper and 2 x 4s. Forest operations have evolved profitably by automation and mechanization, clearing the forest to feed the 'dinosaurs', massive wood eating mills. Waste piles of sawdust, and slabs and edgings, litter the north. This coupled with selective use of species suited only for production of specific products, leaves valuable underutilized biomass in the forest. Canadian organic chemical industries are pioneering production of cellulosic biofuels. Unlike ethanol production from farm crops, utilization of 'waste' wood does not impact on food supplies. Development of alternative energy supplies could well be a major break-through in northern economic development while augmenting the needs of an energy strapped southern manufacturing economy.

The north also has considerable potential for hydroelectrical generation. Unfortunately, Ontario Hydro was instrumental in closing down numerous small hydro dams many years ago. Expansion of energy production in the resource rich north could be instrumental in revitalizing a northern economy. The potential for implementing Finnish style co-generation for northern communities should not be discounted, hence freeing the north from dependence on the national grid.

I received a clipping from the Sault Star in Sault Ste. Marie by a long time logger decrying the massive destruction of forests by clear cutting with heavy equipment. He was able to point to a policy of selective cutting whereby much of the existing residual forest remained to be revisited on a short rotation basis instead of once every 100 years. Better harvesting techniques ensures continuity of forest cover and sustainable resource management.

No single technology will solve our energy crisis. However a wide range of alternative initiatives, including conservation efforts, could well meet our needs. The key element in the equation is honest leadership by government and industry. The question is: Will status quo thinking by established lobby groups permit changes to take place? The jury remains out while the debate goes on and inaction carries the day.