2014 was the hottest year on record, and other subversive claims

Just in case you don't trust the global warming statistics of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (that hotbed of dissent, radicalism and revolution), a report just out from the US's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has confirmed, in the latest edition of their annual State of the Climate report, that 2014 was the Earth's warmest year on record.
Based on contributions from 413 (probably subversive) scientists from 58 countries around the world, and produced in partnership with that other bunch of extremist agitators the American Meteorological Society, the Report covers many different trends and indicators of the global climate system, including: various types of greenhouse gases; temperatures throughout the atmosphere, ocean, and land; cloud cover; sea level; ocean salinity; sea ice extent; and snow cover. The latest Report is the 25th annual, and so provides a good basis for comparison.
Among other findings the Report concludes that:

• 2014 was the warmest year on record, based on four independent global datasets of temperatures near the Earth's surface;
• concentrations of the major greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, reached historic high values and continued to rise during 2014 (CO2 reached a global average of 397.2 ppm in 2014, compared with a global average of 354.0 in 1990);
• the globally averaged sea surface temperature was also the highest on record (i.e. the highest in 135 years), and was particularly notably high in the North Pacific Ocean;
• likewise, the upper ocean heat content reached a record high (oceans absorb over 90% of Earth’s excess heat from greenhouse gas forcing);
• global average sea level rose to a record high in 2014, some 66 mm above the 1993 average level, continuing the 3.2 ± 0.4 mm per year trend in sea level increase observed over the past two decades;
• the number of tropical cyclones in 2014 was well above the average (91, compared to the 1981-2010 average of 82 storms per year), and the 22 named storms in the Eastern/Central Pacific were the most to occur there since 1992.

On almost the same day as this Report was published, I notice that The Libertarian Republic website reported a study from the University of Alabama which purports to prove that "the Earth will be entering its 22nd year without statistically warming trend", based on satellite data from a particular group of Remote Sensing Systems.
Well, I think I know which source I would rather trust...

Canada owning the podium in the Whatsitcalled Games

Well, the 2015 Pan American Games are well underway here in sunny Toronto, although you might be forgiven for not knowing.
There has been much huffing and puffing about the Games here locally for months, nay years. The Mayor in particular has been singing their praises at every opportunity, even though he was somewhat unimpressed with the news that Kanye West (who is booked to be the head star among other stars in the Closing Ceremony) is actually American and not Canadian, as he had previously thought. It does seem rather a strange decision, I must admit - Canada is not short of high-profile musical talent.
Among the hoi polio, however, opinions are rather more mixed. There is a certain amount of national pride and excitement around the Games, and most (but by no means all) of the events are adequately attended, if not sold out, after a very slow initial roll-out.
Most people in the street, though, are probably more likely to equate the Pan Am Games with traffic queues, and the under-utilized and much-berated high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes that have been introduced on some local highways for the period of the Games. Personally, I would like to see the HOV lanes continued indefinitely - they are supposed to be lightly-used, that is the point of them, so that public transit and multi-person car travel is expedited.
But, other than some sporadic viewing on television, the Games have not exactly blown me away. As one letter to the paper put it recently: "When was the last time you interrupted your summer to watch the Pan Am Games?" My American sister-in-law, herself a reasonably sporty person, had never even heard of them.
Although apparently the third largest international multi-sport games (after the Olympics and the Asian Games), they definitely do not have the cachet of the Olympics. And that is perhaps best exemplified by the teams fielded by many of the 41 countries involved. Many of the top names are notably absent. Indeed, home country Canada is one of the few countries sporting its "A" team, although even here there are several athletes who have chosen to "save themselves" for the IAAF World Championships (which clearly have higher prestige in the minds of some competitors). Some top athletes are also quoted as having had to choose between attending the Pan Am Games or an Olympic qualifier meet in their sport, and so of course they chose the Olympics.
That said, Canada are doing exceptionally well, and are, at the time of writing, easily top of the rankings in terms of gold medals, and only barely below the United States (which has ten times the population) in overall medal numbers. In the rather embarrassing and un-Canadian language of recent Olympics, Canada is indeed "owning the podium". Whether this is an objective and representative test of international athletic prowess, though, is another question entirely.

Government of Canada (predictably) unimpressed with Iran deal

In what may be a legacy-defining move, Barack Obama (technically, the P5+1 group of UN Security Council members United States, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany) has finally struck a controversial deal with Iran. Under the terms of the deal, which are spelled out in great detail, Iran essentially agrees to curb its nuclear program and ambitions, and the West agrees to lift the punitive economic sanctions that have been crippling the country for decades now.
The deal may not be perfect, and the underlying motives (of both sides) may not be wholly transparent. This is amply demonstrated by one of the provisions, that if Iran is seen to be compromising its terms at any point, the sanctions will be slapped right back on. The agreement may or may not stop the spread of nuclear weapons in the region, as Mr. Obama earnestly claims, but this nevertheless seems to be a major step forward for international relations and a victory for the power of negotiation. Current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is demonstrably not the hawkish and unstable Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the oppressed people of Iran deserve this chance at redemption.
Reactions have been mixed, though, to say the least. Predictably, the loudest outcry has come from Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, who called the agreement a "stunning historic mistake" which "will enable it [Iran] to continue to pursue its aggression and terror", a prime case of the (nuclear) pot calling the (would-be nuclear) kettle black. He has repeated his vow to unilaterally attack Iran in order to keep it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Sunni Islamic countries, principally Saudi Arabia, have raised their objections to anything that might give a break to Shia Muslim Iran, an equally predictable sectarian knee-jerk reaction. Shia regimes like Syria and Iraq, on the other hand, have welcomed a stronger Iran in the hopes that it will be able to give more support to their own internal factional struggles. Traditionally pro-American Arab states like Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan have voiced their approval of the deal, although they are clearly worried about how it might alter the balance of power in the region. The less theocratic and more plutocratic countries in the area, like Turkey, UAE, Qatar, Oman and Kuwait, also see economic advantages from the accord, and remain tight-lipped on the political implications.
In North America, the US Republicans, of course, have object vociferously to anything the Democratic government does, griping unconvincingly that the deal undermines American national security, and bandying around emotive phrases like "appeasement" and "death sentence" with gay abandon, and vowing to repeal the accord as soon as they possibly can.
And, guess what, Canada's Stephen Harper - perhaps the world's staunchest apologist for Israel these days - is more than willing to go out on a limb to take the Israeli point of view, even at the cost of opposing all his other allies. Canada is therefore doggedly sticking to its own paltry sanctions against Iran, flying in the face of international public opinion, and repeating the tired mantra that Canada "will continue to judge Iran by its actions not its words". Conservative Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson did mention, however, that he was appreciative of the P5+1's "efforts" to negotiate an agreement. Thanks, Rob.
It's getting to the stage where it's just plain embarrassing to admit to being Canadian...

Ontario's Green Energy Act - 6 years later

Six years after Ontario's groundbreaking Green Energy Act (GEA) was introduced in 2009, it remains one of the most contentious and polarizing pieces of legislation ever brought in by the current Liberal administration. But a cool, objective analysis reveals that it was a bold and insightful law, forward-thinking and essential for the province's situation at the time (and even today).
The GEA was designed to smooth Ontario's transition from traditional manufacturing (mainly in the automotive industry), which had been largely decimated by the early 21st Century, to the future of manufacturing, the green energy industry. It did this by subsidizing wind, solar and other clean technologies, and by forcing the industry to use a significant element of local components and services.
Much has happened in the intervening years, and green energy and clean tech in general has established itself as a major and growing force in the world economy. The GEA rules requiring green energy developers to buy local no longer apply, after complaints from Japan and the European Union led to a World Trade Organization ruling in 2012 that the rules were against international trade law.
But the Act did indeed kick-start a local clean manufacturing sector, as several of the companies profiled in a recent Globe and Mail article attest, and the buy-local aspect (even if short-lived) was key to that. Even if many of the companies are actually foreign-owned, they are at least employing local labour and building local expertise. In the process, Ontario has positioned itself reasonably well within the new paradigm, again largely thanks to the provisions of the GEA, and is now exporting significant quantities to the United States, which (unlike Canada) is actively encouraging renewable energy.
But the Act also has its share of detractors and critics, and its effects have not been wholly beneficial (very little legislation can boast that). The main criticism levelled at the GEA is that it has single-handedly caused a large increase in electricity prices in the province, to the extent that the policy has actually driven manufacturing out of the province. A little perspective and objectivity is needed here. Electricity prices have indeed increased significantly in recent years, but in actual fact very little of this is directly attributable to the GEA. A much greater impact on electricity prices has arisen from the independent decision to close down Ontario's coal-fired power stations (surely a good decision in itself), continued reinvestment in expensive nuclear and gas plants (not such an unalloyed good), and necessary investments in the reliability, upgrading and transmission of electricity production.
Only time will tell if the green industry the GEA has encouraged in Ontario will survive in an increasingly competitive global economy. But, even without the local content rules, many companies are still flourishing, largely feeding off the huge demand from south of the border. However, Canada's market share of the world's clean tech market amounts to only about $12 billion out of an estimated $1 trillion worldwide, and it is gradually losing even that market share as countries such as the USA, China and Europe ramp up their production capabilities.
It would be a real shame if Ontario and Canada fritter away what advantages they have in the field based on the statistical cherry-picking of a few partisan economists (the right-wing think-tank The Fraser Institute and the provincial Progressive Conservatives being among the most strident, along with the University of Guelph academic Ross McKitrick, who also just happens to be a member of The Fraser Institute). The Ontario Conservatives have even vowed to repeal the Act if they ever achieve power, although thankfully the chances of that remain slim.
Even if the cost of clean electricity is higher than that of dirty electricity, it is still the right path to follow (although, in the absence of artificial subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power, and with continued investment and economies of scale in clean tech, that is not necessarily the case anyway). What is important is the "real" or "full" cost of the power we consume, complete with environmental externalities and taking into account all future liabilities involved. And, if we don't like the cost of something, then common sense dictates that we should use less of it.

Looking on the sunny side - solar news

I recently came across a bunch of interesting articles on solar panel applications that I wanted to share.
A Dutch entry in the annual World Solar Challenge in Australia took my fancy  It may look wacky and science fiction-ey, but it is at least a more practical machine than most of the entrants into the race, which tend to be low-slung, ultra-streamlined, single occupant affairs, totally impractical for day today use.
The University of Eindhoven's entry, however, fits four passengers, and even has a trunk. It has a respectable top speed of 125 km/h, and can run for over 1,000 km on a fully-charged battery pack. What's more, the car is "energy positive", meaning that it generates more power than it uses, and can upload its excess energy into the grid. Pretty neat!
Also in the Netherlands, in the small town of Krommenie just outside Amsterdam, a bike path made of glass-coated solar panels is producing even more electricity than initially anticipated. In its first six months, the 70 metre bike path has generated about 3,000 kWh, enough to power a small household for a year.
The bike path is made of many small solar panels sandwiched between glass, silicone rubber and concrete (with a laminated coating to provide traction), and is strong enough to support 12-ton trucks without damage, and to last for a estimated 20 years. Each individual panel is connected separately to the grid (or directly to street lighting) in order to prevent unnecessary outages, and the panels around the faulty one are able to pinpoint the problem for quick repair.
In theory, the technology could be extended to regular roads. A California start-up called Solar Roadways wants to see just that happen in the USA, claiming that, if all of America's roads were paved with solar panels, it would produce more energy than the country consumes. Plus, the panels' internal heat prevents ice and snow build-up, and built-in LED lights can even be used to show traffic messages. Is the future really here?
Next, an American start-up company called Ubiquitous Energy has plans to bring to market a technology for producing completely transparent solar panels that was first demonstrated experimentally about a year ago.
Previous "transparent" solar panels have only been partially transparent, and also tended to cast a rather strange colourful shadow. By shrinking the components and changing the way the cells absorb light, though, this new design is transparent and unobtrusive enough to be used in everyday windows. Effectively, the cell selectively harvests that part of the solar spectrum that we humans cannot see with our eyes, while letting regular visible light pass through.
Although currently still quite inefficient in terms of energy produced per square metre, it is hoped that efficiency should increase with commercial production, and also that it will be possible to produce cost-efficient window panels all the way from large industrial applications right down to small consumer models, potentially allowing huge areas to be brought into action. Various spin-off ideas are also being investigated.
And finally, the Netherlands again: decorative, multi-coloured solar panels to be used in practical applications like highway sound barriers, bus stops, even park benches. "Luminescent solar collectors" or LSCs are a cheap type of solar panel that allows for bright colours to be used, and a professor at Eindhoven University has begun a test installation of the collectors as noise-cancelling barriers on the main A2 highway near Den Bosch.
The panels are substantially cheaper than standard silicon-based solar panels, and arguably more attractive. They are essentially sheets of plastic that, depending on the particular dye used, capture a certain wavelength of sunlight, which is then funnelled toward solar cells on the panel’s edges. They are less efficient than traditional solar panels (by about a fact of 2), but they may have wider applications, and the professor envisages their use on bus stops, park benches, outdoor concert stages, and potentially many other sites. Why not?

UNESCO weighs in on the Canadian oil sands

In yet another black eye for Canada's international environmental reputation, the respected United Nations environmental agency UNESCO has publicly warned against development of the Alberta oil sands.
In particular, they point to possible contamination of nearby Wood Buffalo National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage site which straddles the Alberta-NWT border. Following up on a petition filed by the Mikisew Cree First Nation, UNESCO has requested that Canada “not take any decision related to any of the development projects that would be difficult to reverse”, and requested that it submit environmental assessments to the world heritage centre.
UNESCO has not yet withdrawn Wood Buffalo's world heritage status, or even designated it as "in danger", but the threat is certainly there. Such a move would of course be highly embarrassing for Canada, and the Harper government has been quick to agree to work with UNESCO on an assessment.
It is embarrassing enough that a Canadian First Nations band has to resort to an international agency like UNESCO to get some action on environmental matters of this magnitude.

Greece opts for the outside track

Well, let's mark the occasion: Greece has resoundingly voted "No" to the terms of an EC bailout program that would involve more austerity measures.
In the worldview of the smiling new Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, this represents the victory of democracy over EC tyranny and economic blackmail. To everyone else, it looks like the victory of bullheadedness over common sense, and the prelude to a spectacular economic implosion of a once-proud nation (and possibly even the beginning of the end of the grand European experiment, if the predicted snowball effect takes hold).
I do wonder whether the Greek voters fully understood the referendum question. I must admit, when I read it, I found it far from easily comprehensible. It reads:

Should the agreement plan submitted by the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund to the Eurogroup of 25 June 2015, and comprised of two parts which make up their joint proposal, be accepted? The first document is titled "Reforms For The Completion Of The Current Program And Beyond" and the second "Preliminary Debt Sustainability Analysis."

Say what?
Anyway, enough virtual ink has already been spilled on the matter, and I don't intend to add my own analysis into the mix, other than to mention that - far from the Greek Finance Minister's claim that  “Today’s No is a big yes to democratic Europe, and it strengthens the protection that Greece offers its people” - I can't see the decision in anything other than a negative light, and it seems to me that Greece's path to prosperity just got that bit harder. Greece's many creditors are unlikely to look very favourably on new proposals with no concomitant austerity measures, and their patience has all but run out.
Yes, the Greek people have been through some tough times recently, but I've a suspicion that they ain't seen nothing yet. They are out of cash, out of options, and now they are out of friends.

UPDATE
Just a few days later, Tsipras managed to get the Greek parliament to vote for a bailout package of tax increases and spending cuts which shows a marked resemblance to the very package the referendum voted against so recently (and of which Tsipras himself was so hawkish in his rejection).
Some might argue that the referendum debacle was necessary for Greece to salvage at least a modicum of its national pride. But such a climb-down so soon after the vote perhaps indicates that Tsipras himself was never under any illusions that Greece would be able to proceed on its own, and that the whole referendum process was purely an exercise in political brinkmanship.
Of course, it is still by no means certain that Germany and the EC will accept the revised package, and there are still many in Europe who would willingly part with an albatross like Greece, whatever the implications. The drama is by no mean over yet.

Saudi Prince gives $32 billion to charity

According to the BBC, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is to give away essentially his entire personal fortune of $32 billion to charity. This extraordinary gesture puts to shame the philanthropic contributions of people like Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet, whose donations amount to a paltry $2 billion so a year.
Ranked 34th in the Forbes List of the World's Richest People, the Prince claims to have been inspired by the Gates Foundation. Although closely related to the ruling Saudi royal family, Prince Alwaleed is considered highly Westernized and quite progressive in his views, particularly on women's rights (most of his staff are women). He sees philanthropy as a personal responsibility and an intrinsic part of his Islamic faith - a rare positive reference for Islam.
The money is to be distributed over a period of several years through his charitable organisation, Alwaleed Philanthropies, and is to "help build bridges to foster cultural understanding, develop communities, empower women, enable youth, provide vital disaster relief and create a more tolerant and accepting world".
Fine words indeed.