I was away camping so just caught wind of this encouraging column in the National Post, which was published on Thursday. Jonathan Kay, a managing editor at Canada’s conservative/libertarian paper, takes a shot at “impressionable conservatives” who cling to every bit of “fringe opinion” or “any stray piece of junk science” that comes from the extremes of climate-change denialism. Kay warns that this is hurting the conservative movement by painting conservatives (which Kay most certainly is himself) as conspiricists and cranks who are unwilling to accept what 97 per cent of climate scientists believe: that the planet is warming and we’re partly responsible. Why are many conservatives inclined to behave this way? “Too many of us treat science as subjective — something we customize to reduce cognitive dissonance between what we think and how we live,” writes Kay. “In the case of global warming, this dissonance is especially traumatic for many conservatives, because they have based their whole worldview on the idea that unfettered capitalism — and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture it has spawned — is synonymous with both personal fulfillment and human advancement. The global-warming hypothesis challenges that fundamental dogma, perhaps fatally.”

He goes on to write that “rants and slogans” help some conservatives deal with this cognitive dissonance. It’s an impulse that must be fought, he adds, “if conservatism is to prosper in a century when environmental issues will assume an ever greater profile on this increasingly hot, parched, crowded planet.” Kay, it should be pointed out, is also critical of fellow Post columnists (without naming them) for their “fine-sounding” but ultimately “nonesense” rhetoric. He refers to one conservative columnist, a woman, who became a skeptic by listening to testimonials from author Michael Crichton. I wonder who that might be?

Really, you should just read Kay’s commentary in full. He does a commendable job, and I applaud him for getting this view in a paper that has gathered favour in climate-denier/skeptic circles. It’s refreshing.

UPDATE: On another note, Neil Reynolds over at the Globe and Mail just wrote one of the most ludicrous columns I’ve ever read on the topic, based on the theoretical bumblings of Stanford U physicist Robert Laughlin. He seems to equate the earth’s ability to handle climate change with the ability of humanity to cope. Yes Mr. Laughlin, the earth will be just fine with what we throw at it. Humans, on the other hand, won’t do so well.

My Clean Break column today revisits Toronto-based Regen Energy, which I first wrote about a couple of years ago. The company has developed a wireless device that uses “swarm logic” to manage the operation of large energy-consuming appliances. Some energy management systems are based on a central control model that tells individual devices when to turn on and off. Swarm logic, on the other hand, relies on these individual devices to work it out themselves. This collective negotiation process achieves a superior outcome, and much cheaper than using a complex command-control system. Hell, it works for bees, right?

Regen has since realized that its devices could be ideal as a way to manage the charging of electric cars. The fear utilities have is that a number of people in a neighbourhood will plug in their cars at the same time and overwhelm a transformer, causing a community to brown out. Affluent communities in California, where homeowners are most likely to adopt the first generation of electric cars, are particularly vulnerable. Regen is in talks with one California utility and several engineering colleges to test out its swarm logic devices as part of a pilot project, to see how good the devices are at managing EV charging. I look forward to seeing the results.

I was in Vancouver last week, where the weather was perfect, so I dodged most of the hot, humid heatwave stuff that kept air conditioners blasting in the northeast. But I was watching Ontario’s power demand from afar and was happy to see that the electricity system handled the hot weather quite well. It was, in fact, the first time we got a sense of how well Ontario’s demand-response programs work. Last summer just wasn’t hot enough to give it a proper test run, but we found out last week that demand-response has an important role to play in the province. According to figures from the Independent Electricity System Operator, DR programs were able to reduce electricity use during the four-day heat wave by 3,000 megawatt-hours. Since we’re talking roughly 100 hours, that averages out to about 30 megawatts of capacity spared during the entire period. That’s a misleading figure, however, because the programs would only kick in during peak times. For example, at the height of the heat wave last Tuesday as much as 350 megawatts of load were reduced – the equivalent of a small coal-fired power plant. About 150 megawatts of that came from our Peaksaver program, which allows utilities to slightly reduce air conditioning load from participating customers. Another 200 megawatts came from the DR 3 program, which consists of industrial/commercial electricity users and aggregators that have agreed to reduce load when asked.

The cleanest megawatt is the one not used, and not using it is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying a natural gas peaker plant for peak supply.

I’m in Vancouver today, off to L.A. tomorrow as part of the research effort for my upcoming book on clean energy innovation. Sorry I haven’t posted for a while, but will get back on track when I return to Toronto later this week. I did, however, want to draw attention to my latest Clean Break column in the Toronto Star that calls for serious carbon tax talks in Canada. Yes, yes, I know — controversial, taboo, don’t go there. But we must. I’m not convinced cap-and-trade is the way to go, given the enormous potential and likelihood of abuse. Besides, we’re not anywhere close to implementing a comprehensive cap-and-trade regime in North America. A carbon tax is simpler, more transparent, sends the right signals to consumers and is easier to implement. Most of the folks in industry, government, the financial sector and academia that I talk to privately tell me they favour a carbon tax, but few seem willing to stand up and champion the issue. That’s a shame, because I’m convinced that without this price on carbon — and a meaningful one, I might add — Canada will become less productive over time and will suffer from an innovation deficit. Ultimately, this will harm our global competitiveness while doing nothing to play our part in reducing global CO2 emissions.

And what of the Alberta problem? The feeling from our western cousins is that a federal carbon tax would be a transfer of wealth in disguise, flowing from west to east. But I don’t see why a federally set carbon tax need impose a transfer of wealth. The provinces, charged with collecting this tax, could also be permitted to spend it as they see fit within their own borders. Under the condition, of course, that it be spent on serious carbon-reduction initiatives, and hopefully not just carbon capture and storage. Because such initiatives would be in-province, this would add to economic growth and diversity — it would benefit, not harm Alberta, though I’m under no illusions there will be some transitionary pains and lots of complaining. In any event, it’s doable if we’re willing to talk about it and get creative with how to implement it.

I’m happy for Tesla Motors. The company’s initial public offering Tuesday was, despite the many doubters out there, a stunning success. The company closed its first day of trading at $23.89, which is roughly 40 per cent higher than its offering price. The doubters, quite understandably, point to the fact that Tesla is not profitable and has a long road ahead before it stops bleeding red ink. But there’s a sense of excitement around Tesla that bodes well for the clean technology sector generally. Yes, Virginia, there is a venture capital exit strategy for cleantech companies — even electric car companies. I have no doubt we’ll see Tesla’s stock fall below its $17 offering price, and that will likely happen in the next week or two. Still, I think there’s a solid group of investors out there that want to see Tesla succeed, believe it will succeed, and are patient enough to wait for that day. Personally, I think it will end up being scooped up by a major automotive OEM when the stock dips to bargain levels. Whatever the outcome, Tesla has a strong brand backed by strong engineering and ballsy vision, and while investors will likely be in the back seat for years asking, “Are we there yet?”, this company deserves a pat on the back and an “A” for effort and inspiration.