Howie Chong

Here’s an interesting fact:  according to Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (who’s responsible for connecting all users and producers of power in Canada’s largest province), the demand for electricity shot up significantly during the Canada-US Gold Medal hockey game of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics.

The IESO measured an increase of 300MW right before the game began – more than enough to power a city of 150,000 people.  Electricity demand dropped significantly very shortly after Sidney Crosby’s overtime goal at approximately 5:40pm Eastern Time.

The IESO also measured power demand spikes during commercials, when, one supposes, millions of Canadians simultaneously opened up their fridges to grab a beer and strained municipal water pumping stations by unknowingly flushing toilets in concert with their fellow countrymen.  The total demand spike of 300 MW would equate to about 180 tonnes of greenhouse emissions throughout the two and a half hour Olympic final.

Changes in Behaviour Count

It’s estimated that 80 percent of Canadians watched the Gold Medal game on February 28th, making it the most watched televised event in Canadian history.

“Consumer behaviour has a significant impact on the demand for electricity,” said Mark Wilson, a Manager at the IESO. “The patterns we saw yesterday are very different from the demand profile for a typical Sunday in late February.”

I guess that goes to show that behaviour changes can really make a difference.

(via Treehugger, Clean Break, IESO)

Starting next week, over 20,000 people will be meeting in Copenhagen to discuss how the world should tackle climate change.

Officially called the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the two week-long meeting will (hopefully) culminate with a global road map on how humanity will tackle global warming.

Here are five reasons why you should follow the talks in Copenhagen.

(more…)

Environmental consulting company Trucost has released a report detailing the carbon footprints of major US Mutual Fund companies.  It analyzes the carbon footprint ‘owned’ by 91 funds representing a combined value of 1.5 quadrillion dollars.

The key take-home message is this:

Companies that rely heavily on carbon-intensive operations and supply chains relative to sector peers could be most exposed to carbon liabilities.  High emitters which find it difficult to fully pass these liabilities on in higher prices without losing market share could see profi ts fall, unless they profoundly change the goods they produce or how they produce them. Companies that are more carbon-effi cient for their sectors, with limited exposure to direct carbon costs or indirect costs passed on in input prices, stand to gain competitive advantage. Carbon pricing could present opportunities for low-emission companies in carbon-intensive sectors.

(more…)