In discussions about the merits of a Carbon Tax as a policy response to the threat of climate Change, one frequently hears the comment that this tax, or one similar to it, is basically a “stick”.
This summer was very hot and dry. My friend asked me to watch his property since he spent the summer out of province.
Bumped into an old acquaintance the other day. As we chatted, it emerged that he is building a new house. What precipitated this project was a number of factors coming together.
Who remembers the Montreal Protocol these days? Who remembers the concern over the hole in the ozone layer?
Regular readers of this blog will know that I am a promoter of cycling. I have contended that travelling by bike between any two points in Steinbach is not a hardship for any healthy person.
In previous articles, I described our experience with several energy-conserving and energy-generating features in our new home. I described their return on investment (ROI) and total energy saved or generated.
The costs of various house construction features are easily estimated and widely used in planning a house. The quantification of savings available from energy conservation features is uncommon or rare.
In planning our new house, my aim was to make economically and environmentally prudent choices. I had no ambition of achieving a net zero energy home.
In 2017 we visited a show home with solar panels and this provided me with information and contacts for a pilot project in which Manitoba Hydro provided a rebate of $1 per watt and accepted a bi-directional electricity meter for a solar system on a new house.
A condo in Florida has collapsed killing approximately 150 people. This must cause others living in high rise buildings to wonder about the safety of their residence. But what else should this event teach us about our lifestyle choices?
