I'm running out of time, as tonight is my first night back at my 10 hour night shifts and I need to get ready soon. I appreciate the insult-less discussion with you, however, (sometimes rare on these boards) and wanted to briefly respond.
If only the $850 million were the end of it, but that was only the federal money. My own Provincial Government has sunk another $2 billion into this questionable technology.
And I mentioned my fondness for the FITs, as set up in Ontario. I learned today at Calgary's Alternative Energy Meetup Group that Gary Holden, the CEO of Enmax Power, believes that solar could compete very nicely if we simply had time-of-day pricing, passing on to consumers the higher daytime costs that utilities themselves must pay for power. This would shift some power loads to the much cheaper nighttime when, conveniently, the sun doesn't shine.
Have a good night.

Hi Balabu,

You may have noticed that the survey asked the question about subsidies in reference to the previous subsidies already made to fossil fuels; it hasn't ever been a level playing field.

And it still isn't. The 2009 Budget for Canada's Economic Action Plan gives $351 million to Canada's nuclear industry and $850 million to carbon capture and storage, but the 360 page document never once mentions the word "renewable". Take a look. http://www.budget.gc.ca/2009/pdf/budget-planbuget...

But personally, I prefer the feed in tariff, or FIT. Parliamentarian Hermann Scheer says the surcharge on the average German consumer's power bill has been 24 euros (about $38) a year. "It is the most successful new-job creation program we've ever had, and the most cost-effective job creation program," he said. "The most effective climate-protection program - it is cheaper than any emission-trading concept."

Hi Balabu,

You and I are not alone in wanting that "little bit of nudging from the government by way of taxation." I think British Columbia nailed it with a small revenue-neutral carbon tax, with scheduled increases over a few years. Citizens and businesses can all plan for the future and adapt when the economics are predictable.
Back here in Alberta, Ipsos Reid Public Affairs released a survey in March '09 which asked the question, "In the past, the Alberta Government has provided companies with subsidies for oil and gas development that helped created industry and jobs. Would you prefer that the Alberta Government provide subsidies to oil and gas, or would you prefer that the Alberta Government provide subsidies for the development of renewable and clean energy options?”
11% wanted money going to oil and gas, but support for the renewables was at 78%.

Hi Balabu,

I suspect you and I may share an intense dislike of the cap and trade system, as favored by Mr. Harper and Mr. Prentice, which would make a lot of money for their friends on Bay Street and Wall Street.

Annie Leonard, star of The Story of Stuff, in The Story of Cap and Trade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA6FSy6EKrM&fe...

And here's a husband and wife team of lawyers, with over 4 decades combined experience at the EPA, warning Americans about the cap and trade: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSNQzSjb38g

Hi Smok,

Keep the insults for the grade school playground.

I believe you're referring to the hacked emails; the furor over which forgets to mention consilience, which climate science is full of; the same conclusions are arrived at by multiple studies done by different people and in varying disciplines. While the jury may still be out in terms of 100% certainty on AGW, there is ample evidence that timely action now is CHEAP insurance against calamity later.

One doesn’t need tree rings to make a hockey stick; bore holes, corals, stalagmites for caves. Data from NASA, NOAH, and the Japan Meteorological Association reach similar conclusions. Consilience.
2006 National Academy of Science affirmed the hockey stick as “essentially accurate.” “Academy affirms hockey-stick graph”. Google it.

I'll bet you liked the quote, "it's a travesty that we can’t... " but you may not have read along a little farther where he said, “the observing system we have is inadequate for tracking energy flow through the climate system,” Dr. Kevin Trenberth

The Economist Magazine wrote: “To take this as evidence that Dr. Trenberth questions global warming seems foolish. He does not mean that a comparitive lack of warming over the past decade shows greenhouse warming has stopped. He knows the climate has natural ups and downs imposed on such trends, and that cold snaps happen. He is expressing frustration that the monitoring needed to understand how these variations work is not as good as it could be.”

Consilience. see my reply to Smok-n-Fatty.

Yesterday wasn't bad actually; not lower than -12, I would say.

Ignoring that there are long term costs to fossil fuels is, in fact, wilful blindness on the part of society and a neglect of leadership on the part of government.

The tools that ENABLED us to lead a prosperous existence.

Have you noticed that we now number almost 7 billion? Have you noticed that what was for most of the millenia of our human history a ridiculous and laughable idea is now actually happening, that we are changing the planet? Have you noticed that every natural life-giving system is in decline?

The rest of the world is, increasingly, no longer willing to allow us to do business in their countries, using their resources and cheap labour while sucking out all the profits.

Sorry, hoser, the world is changing and so must we.

Low in cost... interesting. What makes you say that? I'd say it was simply a matter of forward-thinking individuals and corporations making choices and seeing the results.

Why haven't more companies and consumers made the change? Habit. Unwillingness to change daily practices. Inability to cough up capital costs for dramatically more efficient pumps, or delivery trucks, or refrigerators. These choices become a whole lot easier once we put a price on carbon. There is a right way and a wrong way to do that, however.

You may have noticed that both our PM and Environment Minister have repeatedly and publicly stated they will join Canada into a North American cap and trade scheme. And this is the wrong way.