That Royal Baby

That royal baby is going to inherit a royal mess!

Rapid thawing of the Arctic could trigger a catastrophic "economic timebomb" which would cost trillions of dollars and undermine the global financial system, say a group of economists and polar scientists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/24/arctic-thawing-permafrost-climate-change

New research suggests that the Arctic summer sea ice loss is linked to extreme weather. Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis points to the phenomenon of "Arctic amplification", where....Extreme weather events over the last few years apparently driven by the accelerating Arctic melt process - including unprecedented heatwaves and droughts in the US and Russia, along with snowstorms and cold weather in northern Europe – have undermined harvests, dramatically impacting global food production and contributing to civil unrest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/02/white-house-arctic-ice-death-spiral

Climate scientists have linked the massive snowstorms and bitter spring weather now being experienced across Britain and large parts of Europe and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic-sea-ice-loss

We should all worry........

Amazing

2013 has been absolutely amazing: not the flooding or the thunderstorms or the heat waves.   Although those have been frightening - see the pic below of Toronto residents wading in flash flooding July 8, 2013. ( Picture from the Toronto Star.)  The results have been gruesome., to put it mildly.  Gruesome and traumatic for the folks affected.

Toronto flooded - with sewage as well as water.  

So when more than 90 millimetres of rainfall (more than 3.5 inches) pummeled the city in just two hours Monday, this divider was breached and a mixture of sewage and storm water overflowed onto Toronto’s streets and cascaded towards the harbour. 

http:www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/07/09/toronto_flooding_released_raw_sewage_in_a_sweep_to_lake_ontario.html

Ontario and Quebec had more severe thunderstorms today: one person was killed in Quebec. .  Calgary and High River and Canmore saw  really vicious flooding  in June -I'm sure you've seen the coverage.

What's amazing is that the media and governments have actually mentioned climate change in the same breath as the severe weather.

Many Canadian cities and towns are ill-prepared for the rising frequency of catastrophic weather events like the southern Alberta floods, and it’s a problem that taxpayers will ultimately end up paying for, climate change experts say. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/06/26/f-climate-change-flooding-weather-preparation.html

Oh, that's the CBC - they're pinkos . Oh yeah?   Ok - but the Calgary Herald`s not left wing.

Canada’s insurance lobby says Albertans are less likely to be worried about weather trends linked to climate change than others in the country, despite a recent six-fold increase in insured damages from severe storms, fires and flooding. But as property and casualty carriers respond by hiking premiums up to 25 per cent this year, the Insurance Bureau of Canada says the province and its municipalities need to get serious about mitigating losses in Alberta that have mounted to an average of $670 million annually in the past four years compared to an average of $100 million annually in the previous 15 years. http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/Alberta+urged+prepare+increasingly+severe+weather+insurance+losses+mount/8446756/story.html

Another piece from the Calgary Herald:

 To put this in another context, it's been four weeks since Calgarians woke up to the raging waters of the Bow and Elbow rivers. It is the worst natural disaster that has occurred in this country and Calgarians have yet to hear from all levels of government that they are looking at every possible mitigation strategy aimed at minimizing the impact of another flooding event.  http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Yedlin+Where+plan+prevent+future+floods/8681062/story.html

Maybe, just maybe the zeitgeist is shifting. Let`s hope so!

Advertising

What in hell is the federal government advertising? 

The latest annual report on advertising by the federal government has been posted here. In the fiscal year of 2011-2012, the Harper government spent $78.5 million on advertising, which is actually the lowest total since the Conservatives formed government. http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/government-advertising/
 

The tar sands , among other things.   Pardon me - responsible resource development.

Natural Resources Canada ran extensive focus groups last summer to fine tune an ad campaign designed to convince Canadians of the industrial benefits and environmental stewardship of the energy sector — particularly the oilsands. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, meanwhile, is running its own campaign called "Responsible Canadian Energy" that plumbs the same themes. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/natural-resources-minister-aligned-priorities-with-pipeline-lobby-documents-195632671.html?device=mobile

 

One of the key concerns for the federal government in a multimillion-dollar Natural Resources advertising campaign was the negative publicity around the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, according to internal government documents.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/03/25/pol-northern-gateway-federal-ads.html?cmp=rss

Jesus - I don't even need to comment.  Could the right Honorable Stephen Harper be any cozier with the fossil fuel industry? I shouldn't ask rhetorical questions....

Tailings ponds from oilsands production are leaking and contaminating Alberta’s  groundwater, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver was told in an internal memo obtained by Postmedia News. The memo, released through access to information legislation, said that federal government scientists, including Quebec City-based research geoscientist Martine Savard, had discovered evidence of the contamination in new research that rejected longstanding claims that toxins in the region of the Athabasca River were coming from natural sources. “The studies have, for the first time, detected potentially harmful, mining-related organic acid contaminants in the groundwater outside a long-established out-of-pit tailings pond,” said the memo from deputy minister Serge Dupont, dated June 19, 2012.  http://o.canada.com/2013/02/17/oilsands-tailings-leaking-into-groundwater-joe-oliver-told-in-memo/

 

They didn't advertise that, did they?

Update: Perhaps they could advertise the following - maybe for speed of cleanup or speed of notifcation.....

Officials from Suncor Energy Inc. and Alberta Environment are scrambling to test for contaminants after the discovery Monday that industrial waste water from the oil sands giant’s base plant was leaking from a ruptured pipe into a pond close to the Athabasca River....People living and working downstream of the plant, including First Nations communities, have been notified of the release, Ms. Seetal added. Water in the outflow pond is already treated. But she didn’t have specific details about the content of the untreated industrial waste water, which is used in Suncor’s extraction and upgrading processes. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/alberta-officials-test-for-contaminants-after-suncor-plant-leaks-waste-water/article10363390/

Discussion on The Restriction of Plastic Water Bottles

http://www.usernetsite.com/society/every-day-millions-of-plastic-water-bottles-are-being-discarded.php

There is always a tension between individual rights and collective rights.

We restrict all kinds of behaviour by law: even though I can make all kinds of money manufacturing and selling crystal meth, the law prohibits me from doing so.  Ditto the manufacture of child porn:   very few people question our laws on child porn .  (Except for Tom Flanagan!)   Slavery isn't legal either.  Here in Canada, we have restrictions on hate speech. Most people would agree with restrictions on       first three:  I'm guessing or hoping  most folks would frown on urging people to kill  LGBT people because their existence is an abomination. We also regularly send folks to a forensic psychiatric hospital in spite of said folks express wishes!

Once we admit that some actions and behaviours are not socially acceptable, and should be sanctioned, the discussion then becomes one of where the sanctions  should be drawn.   We may differ on where that line should be, but will agree that a line should be drawn somewhere that restricts  freedoms.

I think that the issues of environmental degradation/ destruction and climate change are of the same calibre as slavery and child abuse. Humans stand a very good chance of destroying our natural environments as the climate warms: once we do that, then it’s goodbye Charlie for humans.  ( Please watch the video in the immediately preceding post or read Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer for information on how bad things will get if we continue with business as ususal.) 

Even if one privileges humans over everything else, the choices we make, are causing the climate to change .  We are therefore are killing people right now with our choice of business as ususal : climate change is eroding land in Bangladesh; South Pacific islanders are buying land on larger continents so they’ll have somewhere above water to live; and people are dying of droughts in the Horn of Africa.  I think we have a moral responsibility to alter our choices and actions if our current ones are devastating other people.

So, although banning plastic bottles at the students request at TRU may seem like a small step that arbitrarily wipes out freedoms, I don’t think it is. Plastic bottles are manufactured with oil – are unnecessary for our  health as we have clean drinking water in Kamloops – and their ban would be small step on the road we have to take if we are to survive. If nothing else, the discussion on plastic bottles acts as consciousness raising and symbolizes our collective determination to cut down on affluenza.

Make the Impossible Possible

A succinct and frightening explanation ...

Your Right To A Healthy Environment

I just listened to a teleconference on the right to a healthy environment.

Do countries with the right to a healthy environment actually have healthier environments and people?   

In general, these countries have smaller ecological footprints, rank higher on comparisons of environmental performance and have done a better job of addressing issues such as air pollution and climate change than countries like Canada whose constitutions lack this right. If you look at the environmental records of countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which includes most of the world's wealthy industrialized nations, you find 14 of the top 15 nations have constitutional provisions mandating environmental protection. Six of the seven countries with the worst environmental records lack constitutional protection for the environment.  

  What is it going to take to convince our government to change the constitution?

 An amendment needs to gain the support of Parliament and seven out of 10 provinces in a three-year period. So while it will be a challenge to change the constitution, it's not impossible—especially since a recent poll found that nine out of 10 Canadians support protection of the right to a healthy environment.
It's also heartening to see how other countries have embraced such constitutional change. In France a few years ago, President Chirac demonstrated tremendous commitment in promoting a Charter for the Environment, and the people of France were overwhelmingly supportive. In Ecuador and Bolivia, Indigenous people played a key role in constitutional reforms that not only recognized the right to a healthy environment but also the rights of Nature.  http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/docs-talk/2012/10/a-healthy-environment-should-be-a-basic-human-right/
 

Dr David R Boyd is hoping a movement to enshrine this right in the Canadian constitution will gather momentum and become a non partisan issue in the next three years.  He wrote a book on this topic called  The Right to a Healthy Environment.  You can buy it at http://www.ubcpress.ca/search/title_book.asp?BookID=299173851  but it's $ 85.00 - let's hope local university libraries  have bought it!

Sign up for more information on this topic at Ecojustice at 
 http://ejcan.convio.net/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=1521


 

Crude Reality

Alberta's oilpatch is anxious to mine the tar sands and sell dilbit. It would be good for the economy, news media states.

Stymied by insufficient pipeline capacity, Alberta’s oil patch is facing problems in getting its product to market. The resulting glut has driven the price for Western Canadian Select oil more than $30 (U.S.) a barrel below that for West Texas Intermediate crude...However, a new report from RBC Economics says that oil patch investment will continue to provide a bright spot for the Canadian economy. It also argues that there is good reason to think that the spread between Western Canadian oil and West Texas crude will narrow in the years ahead.The report notes that swelling production from the oil patch has outpaced pipeline expansion, creating a bottleneck that will be tough to unplug without a direct southbound corridor (think Keystone XL) and an east-west pipeline (Saint John’s enormous oil refinery says hello). The good news is that the current $30-plus discount on every barrel of Canadian oil provides powerful motivation to build the needed pipelines. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/the-bright-side-of-canadas-weak-oil-prices/article8123055/

There's another crude reality out there, however.  It's discussed in Scientific American.

To avoid passing tipping points, such as initiation of the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, we need to limit the climate forcing severely. It's still possible to do that, if we phase down carbon emissions rapidly, but that means moving expeditiously to clean energies of the future," he explains. "Moving to tar sands, one of the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet, is a step in exactly the opposite direction, indicating either that governments don't understand the situation or that they just don't give a damn."  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming

The reality of climate change has sunk in: ome very surprising sources  and institutions are worrying about the effects of climate change.

With energy-related carbon dioxide (CO₂) representing the majority of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the fight against climate change has become a defining factor for energy policy-making – but the implications are daunting. Meeting the emission goals currently pledged by countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would still leave the world some 13.7 billion tonnes of CO₂ – or 60% – above the level needed to remain on track with the 2°C goal in 2035. Much additional investment will need to be directed towards lower- CO₂ technologies, on supply and end-use sides alike. The benefits that society would reap from these measures, beyond avoided climate impacts, would be of an equal if not larger magnitude than the cost to the energy sector. Meanwhile, energy policy-makers need to start thinking about the impact of committed climate change on the security of the energy sector . http://www.iea.org/topics/climatechange/

 The International Energy Association isn't exactly an environmental group!

A 4°C warmer world can, and must be, avoided – we need to hold warming below 2°C," said World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim. "Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today. Climate change is one of the single biggest challenges facing development, and we need to assume the moral responsibility to take action on behalf of future generations, especially the poorest.  http://climatechange.worldbank.org/

The World Bank hasn't had the environment on its mind either in the past.  Perhaps we should pay attention to climate scientists - and very conservative institutions such as the World Bank and the IEA.

The real crude reality is that either we quit burning fossil fuels or  kill off millions of people and ecosystems.