Apple Podcasts– Top 10

As I was working in my garden today, I was thinking that, while I still enjoy it, I am starting to wonder how much longer I will be able to care for a house and a yard. Like many my age, I have been thinking about the condominium option here in Winnipeg.

I am a mother and a grandmother and I am also very concerned about climate change and the need to recognize that our emissions from coal, oil, and gas are warming the Earth. As a climate activist, I do not want to pollute. Yet as a condo purchaser, I would have no control over how the building is insulated, heated and cooled or how much energy it would take to do so.

When I moved to Winnipeg four years ago, I intended to buy a house and install a heat pump, which heats and cools a home using electricity only.

Before that purchase, I phoned Manitoba Hydro and was advised to buy a home built after 1985, when national standards were upgraded to require better insulation. That was no trouble for me, given I had already moved from a 1960s house into a new house in 1989 and even though the new home was larger, our gas bill was cut in half because of the added insulation.

If I were Pierre Poilievre, I wouldn’t be just thinking about becoming the next prime minister. I’d be thinking about legacy in larger terms — meaning how would I ultimately want to be remembered.

In support of real engineering

Jerry Storie’s op-ed Take advantage of hydroelectric potential and Laura Cameron’s op-ed Lasting legacy or pining for a pipe dream, both in the Free Press Aug. 17, provide quite different perspectives on what should be done to provide reliable power to Manitoba residents in the future.

Mr. Storie advocates construction of more hydroelectric projects rather than new natural gas generated capacity to offset looming power shortages. He argues that these hydroelectric projects will benefit Manitoba for the next century, and observes there will be significant increases in the demand for electricity in upcoming years. He is not wrong in any of these observations. However, hydroelectric developments are very capital intensive and have long lead development periods. Natural gas generation can be brought on line far more quickly with less investment. And perhaps Mr. Storie’s minimization of the environmental impacts of these developments deserves more scrutiny. Any First Nations impacted by development deserve to be consulted and participate in any benefits. Having said this, Mr. Storie is a former minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, and thus has a fairly deep understanding of the issues at hand.

Laura Cameron advocates against construction of the LNG pipeline and terminal at Churchill, citing “the technical challenges of building a pipeline over thawing permafrost; the prohibitive cost of ice-breaking tankers that move LNG through the Arctic; and a forecasted global oversupply of LNG and uncertain long-term export markets.” These would all be persuasive arguments if Ms Cameron possessed any credentials indicating an expertise in engineering or economics. She does not. The balance of Ms Cameron’s op-ed focuses on ways for Manitoba to reduce its carbon footprint while taking a few shots at the proposed LNG pipeline to B.C. Her opposition to the pipeline to Churchill is almost a Trojan horse.