Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts

Monday, 30 November 2015

Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change

This from the NY Times:


"The issue can be overwhelming. The science is complicated. Predictions about the fate of the planet carry endless caveats and asterisks. 
We get it. 
And so, as the Paris climate talks get underway, we’ve provided quick answers to often-asked questions about climate change.


You can find the twelve questions and answers by clicking here.

-submitted by Gareth

Monday, 18 May 2015

Oh, Canada!

Canadians are supposed to be the good guys in the story. Well, not anymore.

Sojourners - May 2015
by Emilie Teresa Smith

DOÑA DIODORA STANDS on the side of the mountain, shivering. She’s tending to her skinny cows. A simple adobe hut stands here on the edge of her land in the Guatemalan highlands—“so I can stay and look after the animals,” she says. “But I don’t know what I am going to do about water. They’ve taken away the water.”

Tears drip down out of her good eye. She dries them on a thin sleeve. The other eye socket, shattered where the bullet went through, seeps with yellow pus. “Me siento un poco triste—a little sad,” she explains in her halting, quiet Spanish. It is cold on the mountain, achingly so. And, mysteriously, the water has gone: Old streams and wells are dusty. The cows look ill.


Photo Source:  Sojourners Magazine

Just down the crumbling mountain, the tailings pond from the Marlin mine glows a weird shade of neon green.
I first heard about the Marlin mine—operated by Vancouver’s Goldcorp—in 2005, before it opened. That year I was going to Guatemala with a youth group from my diocese, and we were warned: Don’t wear anything that identifies you as Canadians. What? Canadians? We’re supposed to be the good guys in the story. Well, not anymore.


The great global economic shift in the mid-1990s, a free-for-all (if you were already rich) of unbridled neo-liberal capitalism, unleashed an invigorated predatory wave of miners—from Canada—all around the planet to sniff out new places to dig. Canada is the place to raise venture mining capital—the heaps of cash needed to fund these monstrously expensive projects.

Canada has few laws or functioning regulations to control investments or protect human rights and the environment far from our shores. Thus it’s not surprising that 75 percent of international mining companies are registered in Canada and 60 percent are listed on Canadian stock exchanges. In Latin America alone there are around 1,500 mining projects, involving 230 Canadian companies.
Mining Watch, Canada’s top mining observer, has documented that 90 of these companies are involved in 200 conflicts. The main points of contention are water contamination and drastic depletion, land expropriation and devastation, and the lack of community consultation.
Local populations have massively rejected these exploitative practices. They have seen it all before: Promises of jobs, money, and progress, followed by the realities of shattered lives and never-cleaned-up toxic waste. Doña Diodora was shot by midnight strangers at her door, after she openly resisted the Marlin mine for more than five years, refusing to sell her land and refusing to shut up.
I have seen these often-deadly clashes in the flesh—in Guatemala, where I have lived off and on for many years, and then up and down the spine of Latin America. In 2012, I was elected co-president of a historic network of liberation theologians and practitioners that formed in the aftermath of the martyrdom of Archbishop Oscar Romero. In that capacity I have visited El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Argentina, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. In each country, as I stepped off the plane, community leaders came to me wanting to talk about the conflicts around Canadian mining in their country. Walls sprayed with graffiti presented me time and again with the unhappy message: “Mineras canadienses—OUT!”
Providing shelter for industry
Meanwhile, back in Canada, there have been numerous attempts to create control mechanisms for mining behavior. They have all met with obfuscation and obstruction. In 2009, a private members bill (Bill C 300, for Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining in Developing Countries) was brought to the Canadian parliament. Mining companies rushed to fund and organize some of the most intense lobbying ever seen in Ottawa. The bill was defeated.
The government of Canada, especially under the nine-year reign of ultraconservative Stephen Harper, has dedicated itself to the promotion of mining companies around the world. While community, environmental, and religious groups have rallied on every front, both in Canada and in the ravaged countries where the mines are going in, the Canadian government has showered resources—diplomatic, legal, and economic—to shelter industry.
The only government response to growing demands for mandatory controls on mining companies has been the creation of a toothless Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Counsellor. The office, set up “to assist stakeholders in the resolution of CSR issues pertaining to the activities of Canadian extractive sector companies abroad,” has seen four cases in the five years since its creation—and not a single conflict has been resolved, not even remotely. The complaint and review process is completely voluntary on the part of industry; in all of the cases brought forward, the company has simply refused to participate. The Counsellor office has operated as a screen to greenwash the hopelessly destructive practice of modern mining.
Canadian nongovernmental organizations pushing to hold mining companies accountable (such as the Catholic group Development and Peace and the ecumenical Kairos Canada) have had their government funding slashed. Other NGOs (such as World Vision-Canada and Plan Canada) have accepted more than $6.5 million—of Canadian taxpayers’ money—to in effect run the companies’ CSR programs and, in the process, help to pacify local resistance movements around the world.
Most Canadian citizens are blithely unaware of what is happening in our name. We have bought into the idea that what is wrong in the world is “underdevelopment,” not rampant greed on the part of an ever-decreasing minority. In the “mercantile cosmology,” where the whole world is for sale and nothing is worth anything if it isn’t marketable, international mining blasts a “win-win” rhetoric that carries the day.
A stroll around Toronto or Vancouver reveals the depth to which mining enterprises—while sabotaging mandatory regulations—have purchased the consent of the Canadian public. In British Columbia, for example, Goldcorp nestles its money and its name into the Vancouver Opera Society, the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, the Aquarium, the Tap Society, Science World, Bard-on-the-Beach, Arts Umbrella, Big Brothers, YMCA, the Nature Trust of British Columbia, the Special Olympics, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Goldcorp Mental Health Centre, every major Vancouver hospital, Simon Fraser University, and the University of British Columbia. Community, health, education, and arts institutions—in desperate straits due to drastic funding cutbacks—are anxious to take the money. Goldcorp acts as a “good corporate citizen,” and Canadians nod in agreement.
Another way citizens are enmeshed—often without knowing—in controversial international mining projects is through deep ties between industry and pension plans. The national government Canada Pension Plan, to which every working Canadian makes monthly contributions, is one of the largest group investors in Goldcorp. Trade union, teacher, and other public servant union pension plans are not far behind, holding heavy investments in numerous mining corporations. Even churches have their fingers in this sticky, money-making pie.
Resisting the onslaught
Around the world (see “Canada’s Shameful Exports,” previous page), open—and costly—resistance to massive mining projects has arisen since the beginning of the Canadian invasions. While industry appears to have every advantage on its side, determined individuals and groups have created strategic campaigns in defense of their territories.
In Guatemala, Mayan communities have launched dozens of public consultations, availing themselves of both traditional decision-making models and international agreements. They have vigorously applied Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization’s code on the rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. In more than 85 communities, upwards of 1 million Guatemalan citizens have studied, debated, and finally voted on whether or not to accept extractive industries in their territory. Their resounding answer: No.
There has been a rising tide of organized defense of territory by communities across Canada as well. About 200 miles from where I live, there is a sacred lake, known to the Tsilhqot’in people as Teztan Biny and to English speakers as Fish Lake. It is home to 85,000 rainbow trout. Vancouver-based Taseko Mines crafted a plan to use Teztan Biny as a tailings pond, to hold the dirty water from their proposed “Prosperity Mine.” The Tsilhqot’in people and their supporters were having none of it. They organized a years-long campaign of study and defense and, finally, in February 2014 the project was rejected by the federal minister of the environment.
The resistance of the Tsilhqot’in people was a prophetic act: Six months after the federal decision, the holding wall of the Mount Polley Mine tailings pond—only 82 miles from Teztan Biny—ruptured. In the biggest mine spill in Canadian history, waste water and toxic sludge burst out, destroying Hazeltine Creek and pouring into the deep, pristine Lake Quesnel.
It isn’t surprising that the struggle to protect the earth has been taken up by Indigenous communities and others who live close to the soil—and the cycle of creation, growth, and decay upon which it depends. Motivated by a deep love for the land, these communities have supplied a critical challenge to the dominant story that progress and right-living necessarily depend on the destruction of creation.
Theirs is a loud proclamation of a different truth: The Earth is not a thing to be bought, sold, used, and destroyed. Our eternal connection to the dust is that we are dust. We are not the Creator, but frail creatures, utterly dependent on the care of the Earth, her mountains, her water, streams, and deepness underground. As the psalmist reminds us, the Earth is not ours, but God’s; we live with tender mercy and grace upon her abundant belly. 
Emilie Teresa Smith, an Argentine-Canadian Anglican priest, is co-president of the Oscar Romero International Network in Solidarity with the Peoples of Latin America. She is working on a book about Canadian mining companies in Guatemala.
- Submitted by Gareth

Tuesday, 21 April 2015

Orientation on No Energy East Campaign by Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition



Join us and learn how you can stop the energy east pipeline and stop the tar sands.

This is an orientation session for people interested in joining or volunteering with MEJC.

This event is taking place in St Norbert because it is ground zero for the risks of ruptures in Winnipeg. 

Agenda will include:
History of the Group.
Pipeline 101
How to get involved in MEJC.

St. Norbert Community Centre, 3450 Pembina Hwy.
Sunday, April 26, 1-3 p.m.

For more information:



Sunday, 25 May 2014

Canada's $207,000 oil sands ad: Putting a price on deception

From the Globe and Mail

This business column by Eric Reguly appeared in the May 10, 2014  Globe and Mail "Report on Business".  As we pick up our Saturday Globe, we usually are rather quick to deposit the Report on Business on the recycling pile (not sure that's a good idea or not).  This time the headline of the column by Reguly caught Kathleen's attention.  In the print version of the May 10 Globe and Mail, the secondary headline (on the continuation of the article on pg. 6) was:  "If Canada were responsible, it wouldn't blow small fortunes on deceptive ads".  We both found it interesting to find an article with this editorial position in the business section of the Globe.  The article begins like this:

The ad in The New Yorker is pretty, if not quite arresting. The full-page photo on the inside back cover – prime real estate in the United States’ leading upmarket magazine – features a pristine river meandering through a lush mountain valley, untouched by humanity. It is not a tourism ad. It is designed to convince influential Americans that the Keystone XL pipeline is environmentally safe, even desirable.

What is clever about the ad is not the photo; it is the headline and the succinct lines of copy beneath it. They are slick pieces of propaganda – misleading without being outright lies. Of course, advertising is all about propaganda. But this ad is unconscionable because you, the Canadian taxpayer, paid for it. The rate for a full-page ad in that location, according to Condé Nast, publisher of The New Yorker, is $207,000 (U.S.).

You can read the entire article by clicking here.

- Submitted by Gareth and Kathleen

Saturday, 22 March 2014

The Earth needs a good lawyer

By Brian Loffler
New Internationalist Magazine
March 5, 2014

The earth from space [Related Image]
Image Source:  Creative Commons

Once in a lifetime a truly game-changing event reshapes global society. Think back to 1833 when the British Parliament finally bowed to public pressure and the Slavery Abolition Act was passed. Now, in our lifetime, Polly Higgins is campaigning tirelessly to do for Earth Rights what the abolitionists did for Human Rights. And the goal is in sight. I spoke to Polly Higgins this week for an update.

(I've chosen a number of excerpts from the interview with Polly Higgins.  You can read the entire interview by clicking here.)

Brian: We’re always fascinated to know what motivates people; what got you started on a lifetime of activism?
Polly: In my student days I met the Austrian artist and ecologist Hundertwasser. He was a big part of my life then. I went to Austria specifically to seek him out for an interview for my Master’s thesis. He was an ecological thinker so much ahead of his time. He talked about things such as: trees have rights; nature has no straight lines, so neither should our architecture.

....

Ten years ago you were a regular lawyer appearing in the British court system, but that’s all changed. Why is that?
In 2005 I was a barrister representing a man who had suffered a serious workplace injury. There was a moment of silence while we were waiting for the judges, and I looked out the window and thought: ‘The Earth has been badly injured and harmed too, and something needs to be done about that.’ My next thought actually changed my life: ‘The Earth needs a good lawyer, too.’ When I looked around for the tools that I could use to defend the Earth in court, I realized those tools didn’t actually exist. But what if the earth had rights like we as humans have rights? International laws that criminalize genocide are now accepted as a valuable tool. Why couldn’t we also criminalize ecocide?

...

During your research you found that the UN had been considering introducing a crime against nature for decades. What went wrong?
In the lead-up to the adoption of the Rome Statute which led to the establishment of the International Criminal Court, there were to be five core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes of aggression and ecocide. But last-minute lobbying – particularly by the US, Britain, Netherlands and France – saw ecocide dropped from the Statute.


  You can read the entire interview by clicking here.

- Submitted by Gareth

Once in a lifetime a truly game-changing event reshapes global society. Think back to 1833 when the British Parliament finally bowed to public pressure and the Slavery Abolition Act was passed. Now, in our lifetime, Polly Higgins is campaigning tirelessly to do for Earth Rights what the abolitionists did for Human Rights. And the goal is in sight. I spoke to Polly Higgins this week for an update.
Brian: We’re always fascinated to know what motivates people; what got you started on a lifetime of activism?
Polly: In my student days I met the Austrian artist and ecologist Hundertwasser. He was a big part of my life then. I went to Austria specifically to seek him out for an interview for my Master’s thesis. He was an ecological thinker so much ahead of his time. He talked about things such as: trees have rights; nature has no straight lines, so neither should our architecture.
- See more at: http://newint.org/blog/2014/03/05/polly-higgins-interview/#sthash.4n8BSs2L.dpuf

The #1 factor that has allowed me to live car-free easily and pleasurably for 10 years

I think maybe Nancy R. will be able to identify with Zachary Shahan, who authored this article for Treehugger.com.  And, I think the rest of us will find it interesting as well.  To read the whole article, please click here.

Image Source:  Treehugger.com


Treehugger.com
March 21, 2014

It's hard to believe that I've lived car-free for nearly 10 years straight now. However, it's also hard to believe I ever thought owning a car was a good idea. I'm reminded of this any time I visit someplace where I need to rent a car. It's fun having one for a short time, but before long I realize how much worse the quality of life is when you have to drive everywhere.

However, I will be the first to admit that there is one key factor has allowed me to enjoy a car-free life for 10 years in 5 or 6 different cities. I won't give it away right yet ... but will first quickly run down how I got around in each of the 5 to 6 places I've lived in the past 10 years, in chronological order.

Zachary Shahan goes on to describe 6 different cities in which he's lived, and concludes with "the #1 factor".  There's no need to give a spoiler alert here, since you'll have to click the link to discover the main factor in his ability to live car-free.  And, if I remember right, Nancy R has spoken in much the same way about how it's possible for her to function car-free.

-Submitted by Gareth

Trading water for fuel is fracking crazy

From the David Suzuki Foundation Blog
Feb 20, 2014
By David Suzuki with contributions from Ian Hanington, Senior Editor

Photo: Trading water for fuel is fracking crazy
Drought and fracking have already caused some small communities in Texas to run out of water altogether, and parts of California are headed for the same fate. (Image Credit: Merinda Brayfield)


It would be difficult to live without oil and gas. But it would be impossible to live without water. Yet, in our mad rush to extract and sell every drop of gas and oil as quickly as possible, we're trading precious water for fossil fuels.

A recent report, "Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress", shows the severity of the problem. Alberta and B.C. are among eight North American regions examined in the study by Ceres, a U.S.-based nonprofit advocating for sustainability leadership.

One of the most disturbing findings is that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is using enormous amounts of water in areas that can scarcely afford it. The report notes that close to half the oil and gas wells recently fracked in the U.S. "'are in regions with high or extremely high water stress' and more than 55 per cent are in areas experiencing drought. In Colorado and California, almost all wells — 97 and 96 per cent, respectively — are in regions with high or extremely high water stress, meaning more than 80 per cent of available surface and groundwater has already been allocated for municipalities, industry and agriculture. A quarter of Alberta wells are in areas with medium to high water stress.

Read the entire article by clicking here.

  - Submitted by Karla

Thursday, 20 March 2014

Which foods are the worst for the environment?

Although beef is always climatically costly, pork or chicken can be a better choice than broccoli, calorie for calorie.

From Toronto Star, March 20, 2014
Reprinted from the Washington Post, March 13, 2014
By Tamar Haspel

Any way you slice it, beef has the highest environmental cost of just about any food going, and the cow’s digestive system is to blame.
Any way you slice it, beef has the highest environmental cost of just about any food going, and the cow’s digestive system is to blame.  Image Source:  FREDERIC J. BROWN / AFP / GETTY IMAGES file photo

The argument that a vegetarian diet is more planet-friendly than a carnivorous one is straightforward: If we feed plants to animals, and then eat the animals, we use more resources and produce more greenhouse gases than if we simply eat the plants. As with most arguments about our food supply, though, it’s not that simple. Although beef is always climatically costly, pork or chicken can be a better choice than broccoli, calorie for calorie.

...

Comparing cows with pigs, and meat with plants, is often done using data from the Environmental Working Group, which produced a report in 2011 that detailed the environmental cost of meat. The report includes a chart that ranks various foods according to the amount of emissions generated in the course of production. Ruminants are the worst offenders, with lamb generating 39 kilograms of carbon dioxide (or its equivalent) for each kilogram of meat, and beef generating 27. Then come pork (12), turkey (11) and chicken (7). Plants are all lower, ranging from potatoes (3) to lentils (1).

But there’s another way to look at the same information. If you stop eating beef, you can’t replace a kilogram of it, which has 2,280 calories, with a kilogram of broccoli, at 340 calories. You have to replace it with 6.7 kilograms of broccoli. Calories are the great equalizer, and it makes sense to use them as the basis of the calculation.

When you reorder the chart to look at climate impact by calorie, the landscape looks different. The ruminants still top the chart, but the monogastrics look a whole lot better. Low-calorie crops like broccoli don’t do so well. Although beef still looks bad and beans still look good, pork and poultry are on a par with green vegetables. (Which means that a beef-and-leaf paleo diet is the worst choice going, environmentally speaking.)

...

The claim that vegetarianism is kinder to the planet also fails to consider a couple of kinds of meat that aren’t on the Environmental Working Group’s chart. Deer and Canada geese do active damage in the areas where they’re overpopulated, and wild pigs leave destruction in their path wherever they go. Eat one of those, and do the planet a favour.
Most people, though, are most likely to get their food from the farm, and it’s important to note that, although the chart attaches one number to each kind of food, farming styles vary widely and not all pork chops — or tomatoes, or eggs — are created equal. Unfortunately, it’s all but impossible for us consumers to figure out the climate impact of the particular specimens on our dinner table, whether they’re animal or vegetable.

---
 
There's a lot more in this article that serves as "food for thought" (I know, bad pun).  In some ways, I find it paralyzing, since it all becomes more complicated, and it's so much easier to simply conclude that if it's organic or local, or [even better] both, then I grab it.  Still, if knowledge is power (as some say), becoming informed about all the aspects to keep in mind, we'll all be empowered to make decisions that make sense (at least to ourselves).

You can read the entire article by clicking here. 

- Submitted by Gareth


How much is water worth to you?

Water is the most important natural resource on the planet. It sustains the land and the species that live there, including us. Yet each year there is less and less clean, fresh water available.

Here in Canada we are lucky. We have 20% of the earth’s surface fresh water and 9% of the country is covered in fresh water. That’s a lot of water! Which is why it is so important to ensure the protection of this vital resource.

This is where the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) comes in. Across the country, NCC is working to protect wetlands, shorelines, riparian areas and other important fresh water ecosystems.

Image Source:  Screen shot of Nature Conservancy video

In British Columbia, NCC is working to protect land in the important Columbia Valley, where one of North America’s mightiest rivers – the Columbia – begins. This is the only stretch of the Columbia River that has been left unaltered by dams, and is part of the longest uninterrupted wetland in western North America. Unlike many other areas in the world, this region still supports a full suite of large native mammals, such as bear and cougar, elk and deer. NCC’s Columbia Lake – Lot 48 conservation area protects both a key stretch of lakeshore as well as a high-traffic wildlife corridor for elk, caribou, moose and bear.

On the opposite side of the country, NCC is doing important conservation work on The Grassy Place, a virtually pristine habitat at the headwaters of Robinsons River in southwest Newfoundland. The Grassy Place is the second largest project NCC has ever undertaken in Atlantic Canada and contains the largest wetland of its type in the province.

From east to west NCC is working to protect fresh water, ensuring lands surrounding important fresh water habitats are protected for the future and monitoring the health of these land’s fresh water resources.

But we could not accomplish all this alone! It’s thanks to concerned Canadians like you that we can engage in this important conservation work. Thank you so much!

To find out more about NCC’s work and how you can help, visit www.natureconservancy.ca

See the video by clicking here.

-Submitted by Karla

Moose and beavers do not stand on the shore applauding

From Winnipeg Free Press, January 27, 2014

By Will Braun

An artist's rendering of the Keeyask dam on the Nelson River. The project will be an extension of the overall hydro system.
An artist's rendering of the Keeyask dam on the Nelson River. The project will be an extension of the overall hydro system.  Image Source:  Manitoba Hydro

The Clean Environment Commission [has] concluded three months of numbingly detailed and occasionally passion-sparked hearings into the proposed Keeyask Dam.

....

The standard clean-hydro script was presented by Hydro at the Keeyask hearings. It was also showcased by Premier Greg Selinger in Washington, D.C., last February. Speaking to an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Selinger portrayed Manitoba as a leader on climate and energy policy. He positioned Keeyask on this cutting edge, a benign source of energy to displace coal in the U.S.
He said the "legacy of bitterness" in the north has given way to a new era. New dams will be built in a way that not only reduces negative impacts, Selinger said, but uses them as "an opportunity to make environmental conditions better."

A remarkable claim.

What neither Selinger nor Hydro include in the official story, and what the CEC should include in its report, is this: A dam itself is no favour to the environment. Moose and beavers do not stand on the shore applauding as bulldozers roar and dynamite goes off.

Keeyask would involve pouring 870,000 tonnes of cement in the Nelson River. The work camps, roads, borrow pits and flooding would affect 14,000 hectares, not including the 1,400-kilometre Bipole III corridor.

...

Is Keeyask pushing the leading edge of energy and climate policy? Is it clean? Or is it a complex megaproject with potential benefits and serious consequences that need to be accurately described and thoughtfully weighed?

To echo a phrase from the closing argument of the Consumers Association of Canada at the hearing, hopefully the CEC report will "pierce the veil of Hydro branding."

Will Braun works for the Interchurch Council on Hydropower.

You can read Braun's op ed piece by clicking here.

- Submitted by Karla 

The Oilsands-Inspired Creation that Looms in Washington

Winnipegger Mia Feuer's art reflects the 'sculptural' transformation of Alberta's landscape.
From The Tyee, 23 Jan 2014
By Andrew Nikiforuk 

Mia Feuer sculpture
Image Source:  Kate Warren, The Tyee

Reviewers alternatively call the Washington, D.C. exhibit dystopian, eerily beautiful, or a "nightmarish manifestation" of environmental ruin.

In particular, many are attracted to the ominous black skating rink that occupies the rotunda. The plastic rink may or may not be a metaphor for oil's grip on Canadian politics.

Others are awed by a giant (40-feet by 40-ft. by 30-ft.) sculpture that hangs over the rink. Composed of a riot of suspended trees, oil field junk, tar paper and black birds, it resembles some strange, Harry Potter-like hallucination.

...

Winnipeg-born sculptor Mia Feuer [from Winnipeg's North End] calls her bitumen-inspired creation "An Unkindness," after a gathering of ravens. She says that artists have a duty to respond and reflect upon the times we live in.

"We just can't all be making beautiful things," Feuer says.

...

[Feuer toured some of the tarsands in Alberta in preparation for her exhibit.]   During her tour, Feuer got a glimpse of so-called reclaimed sites.

After digging up low-lying peat lands, fens and rivers to mine bitumen, industry replaces complex boreal landscapes with artificial, man-made hills made with layers of mining waste, including petroleum coke and salt-laden sands.

The process also includes dumping toxic mining waste into pits and then capping the pits with freshwater: an untested form of reclamation.

Because peatlands, which occupy 65 per cent of the mineable area, take 10,000 years to make, there is no requirement for industry to restore them. Nor is there any legal requirement to replace wetlands with wetlands, as most industrial nations now mandate, because of the high cost to industry -- up to $12 billion.

After building sandy uplands, industry then attempts to grow salt-tolerant plants on engineered soils. Scientists calculate that it may take 200 years to determine if the man-made sculptures can survive droughts, forest fires, erosion, insects, pathogens, or bitumen pollutants.

The reclamation sites gobsmacked Feuer. "I stood in a land that was once boreal forest, that was now a bunch of toxic wheat grown in toxic earth," she says.

The wheat, an attempt to build some vegetation cover, invited a mice plague. One company, in turn, sought to control the rodent epidemic by planting trees upside down, with their roots sticking in the air. The trees gave mice-hunting ravens a place to perch. (Since 1977, industry has blamed meadow voles and deer mice for slowing reclamation efforts.)
 
It all looked like some "twisted-demented nursery rhyme," says Feuer. And it inspired a huge sculpture that now greets visitors at [the exhibit in Washington DC].

You can read the entire article by clicking here.

-Submitted by Kathleen

Social inequity vs. the environment is a false choice

It's time we stop pretending that inequality and environmental decline are two separate problems 

From Salon.com, March 16, 2014
By Annie Leonard, originally published in Earth Island Journal


Note:  Annie Leonard is an American proponent of sustainability and critic of excessive consumerism. She is most known for her animated film The Story of Stuff about the life-cycle of material goods.

Note 2:  Leonard makes reference to Wilkinson and Pickett.  If you  haven't seen the 17 minute TED talk by Richard Wilkinson called:  "How economic inequality harms societies", I highly recommend it.  You can find it by clicking here.

In this article, Leonard proposes solutions to the challenges of addressing both economic inequality and environmental decline.  While it is a U.S.-based article, it has application to us in Canada as well.

story of solutions annie leonard
Image Source:  Treehugger.com


Excerpts from the article:

Excerpt 1:  On the one hand, inequality is a huge problem, with many people prevented from accessing the resources they need for dignified lives. Inequality is inherently unjust, and is the root of an array of environmental, health, and social ills. In Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, public health scientists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett show that high levels of inequality correlate with a stunning array of ills that reduce quality of life for all of society. 

Excerpt 2:  On the other hand, it’s undeniable that worldwide we’re using too many resources. We have only one planet, but globally humanity is using raw materials and generating waste at a rate that would take 1.5 Earths to sustain.

Excerpt 3:  I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But I do have some ideas of steps to get started.

Click here to read the entire article, including her ideas for "getting started".

- Submitted by Gareth
 

Wednesday, 15 January 2014

Silence of the Labs, Fifth Estate

http://350orbust.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/silence-of-the-labs.png%3Fw%3D600%26h%3D600

Cori drew a Fifth Estate documentary to our attention at the last meeting called Silence of the Labs.  It focuses on the underfunding and even suppression of science and scientific evidence by our current federal government.  As the result of her having raised this concern in the Just Living group, a sub-group (so far made up of Cori, Michele, Gareth, Kathleen) have agreed to find out more about the impact of these policies are having on the environment, and so much more.  If others, who could not attend the last meeting, are interested in joining this group inquiring into this issue, please let Cori know.

The documentary can by seen by clicking here.

Monday, 23 December 2013

The high price of cheap gas

This article has been reposted from Treehugger.com.  You can read a related article in the Atlantic.

A new study by Lucas Davis shows a wide variance in gas prices, depending on taxation or subsidies.

gas graph
(Copyright: Lucas Davis - Reposted from Treehugger.com)
The figure reveals an enormous amount of variation in gasoline prices. Gasoline prices average $5.26 per gallon, but range from $.09 per gallon in Venezuela to above $9.00 in Turkey and Norway. ... This wide variation in prices is somewhat surprising because crude oil and refi ned products are widely traded internationally, so the opportunity cost of fuels is similar everywhere. Although there are diff erences in transportation, refi ning, and distribution costs, they can explain only a small part of the observed variation in prices. Instead, the more important explanation for the wide variation in fuel prices is that taxes and subsidies diff er widely. Among OECD countries, gasoline taxes per gallon range from an average of $0.49 in the United States, to above $4.00 in Germany and the Netherlands.
Here it is shown another way, from a different study, where the relation of price to consumption is even more stark.


The federal gas tax in the United States has not been raised since 1993. It is supposed to provide the money for the Highway Trust Fund that maintains roads and bridges, but doesn't raise enough. So Congress funds $ 50 billion from general revenue to make up for the shortfall, essentially a giant subsidy that keeps the price of gas low.

- Submitted by Gareth


The campaign to fight action on climate change is backed by $1 billion a year in covert donations




Climate deniers may be a minority, but they’re organized — and they have a massive donor base backing them up.

The campaign to fight action on climate change is backed by $1 billion a year in covert donations
Photo Source: Hot Photo Pie/Shutterstock

That’s the conclusion reached by a report published Friday in the journal Climactic Change, which The Guardian calls the “first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort.” It found that the campaign to discredit climate change runs upward of $1 billion a year, largely funded by conservative billionaires who work through secretive funding networks:

"They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change. Such financial support has hardened conservative opposition to climate policy, ultimately dooming any chances of action from Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet, the study found.

…The vast majority of the 91 groups on [Drexel University sociologist Robert] Brulle’s list – 79% – were registered as charitable organisations and enjoyed considerable tax breaks. Those 91 groups included trade organisations, think tanks and campaign groups. The groups collectively received more than $7bn over the eight years of Brulle’s study – or about $900m a year from 2003 to 2010. Conservative think tanks and advocacy groups occupied the core of that effort."

You can  read the whole article by clicking here.

- submitted by Gareth

Friday, 20 December 2013

Joint Review Panel recommendation to support Northern Gateway pipeline ignores strong opposition of First Nations and citizens

Photo credit: Marco Guada via flickr.
 
Please send a message of support to the 130 First Nations that stand against the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline.  The Joint Review Panel has recommended approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline.  But this is far from over.  You can take action now to support First Nations, protect our coast, and move toward a carbon free future.

Let them know you stand with them in solidarity as part of an unbroken wall of opposition.

This message will also be sent to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet who now have the choice to side with Canadians or with Enbridge. The decision is in their hands. To move forward, they need First Nations cooperation and support from British Columbians, and they have neither.

The David Suzuki Foundation signed the Solidarity Accord for the Save the Fraser Declaration, agreeing with the Yinka Dene Alliance that we need to uphold indigenous laws and protect the health of British Columbia’s Fraser River watershed, including its headwaters.

And the vast majority agree. At community hearings across BC, the Joint Review Panel heard from 1,159 people who spoke against the pipeline. Only two spoke for it.
Remember, this isn’t the end of the discussion. Make your voice heard now.

You can link to the David Suzuki Foundation website to send a letter.

-submitted by Karla

Monday, 26 August 2013

Go ahead, ruin the planet, just don't ruin the view

Image source:  CBC.ca
The Winnipeg Free Press ran this column by Gwynne Dyer on Monday, August 26.  Dyer writes about the leadership Ecuador has shown in protecting their ecosystem, including being the first country to include the "rights of nature" in its new constitution.  He also shows how the rest of the world hasn't participated in Ecuador's creative approach that may "ultimately bear much fruit", but so far is "just too great an intellectual and political leap".

Dyer's column concludes by reporting the contrast between Ecuador's courageous attempts to protect the environment and the Conservatives in  Great Britain, who have expanded fracking across the country without any regulation regarding the minimum distance between fracking rigs and people's houses.  On the other hand, local people in Britain have a veto when wind turbines are being considered for their neighbourhood.  The contrast between Ecuador and Britain explains the column title:  "Go ahead, ruin the planet, just don't ruin the view".

The first paragraph of the print edition wasn't included in the online article.  It has been included in this post.

"The world has failed us," said Ecuador President Rafael Correa.  "I have signed the executive decree for the liquidation of the Yasuni-ITT trust fund and with this, ended the initiative."  What might have been a model for a system that helps poor countries avoid the need to ruin their environment in order to make ends meet has failed, because the rich countries would not support it. 
In 2007, oil drillers found a reservoir of an estimated 846 million barrels of heavy crude in Yasuni National Park, in Ecuador's part of the Amazon. But the park is home to two indigenous tribes that have so far succeeded in living in voluntary isolation -- and it is listed by UNESCO as a world biosphere reserve. A single hectare of Yasuni contains more species of trees than all of North America. Ecuador, which cannot access finance on international markets, desperately needs money, and the oil meant money: an estimated $7.2 billion over the next decade. Nevertheless, Ecuadorians were horrified by the pollution, deforestation, and cultural destruction the drilling would cause. A large majority of them opposed drilling in the park. And then Energy Minister Alberto Acosta had an idea.
What if Ecuador just left the oil in the ground? In return, Acosta hoped the rest of the world would come up with $3.6 billion (half of the forecast income from oil revenues) over the next decade, to be spent on non-polluting energy generation such as hydroelectric and solar-power schemes and on social programmes to help Ecuador's many poor.
The payoff for the foreign contributors to this fund would come mainly from the fact the oil under Yasuni would never be burned, thereby preventing more than 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from going into the atmosphere. Only a drop in the bucket, perhaps, but if the model worked it could be applied widely elsewhere, offering the poor countries an alternative to selling everything they can dig up or cut down.
The idea won the support of the United Nations Development Programme, which agreed to administer the Yasuni-ITT trust fund. It was set up in 2009, and the money started to come in. But it didn't flood in; it just trickled.        ...

To read the entire column, click here. 


- Submitted by Gareth

Thursday, 1 August 2013

Mourning for the Earth

To confront climate change, we may need to first deal with our grief.

 

Photo Credit: Erik Mark Sandberg (Sojouners)

WHY IS IT so hard for people to respond effectively to the reality of climate change?
Changing people’s minds—with facts, tables, and predictions—has proven extremely difficult. Even showing people the miraculous beauty of the planet alongside the predicted losses is not working. Guilt, anxiety, and anger can be motivating forces, but they have debilitating side effects: They are all soul-destroying.
So I wonder about our hearts. Have we ignored our emotional and spiritual connections to the planet? Could the noise swirling around climate change—science, politics, media blitzes, as well as the weather disasters themselves—drown out the voice of a loss so profound that it rests unnamed in our souls? Could our breaking hearts be part of the reason we are immobilized?

These are the questions Katharine M Preston speaks to in her Sojourners article "Mourning for the Earth" (August 2013).  She invites people of faith to understand that grief is a process, not a state of being, and that the well-known stages of grieving (made familiar by E. Kuebler-Ross) can equip us to move through the profound losses related to climate change.

Preston writes that many turn to faith communities in moments of grief.  She asks:  Could churches help us work through our grief so we can embrace the radical changes that must be made.

The article concludes with this quote from the Talmud (attributed):   Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work. But neither are you free to abandon it.

You can read the entire article here.

-submitted by Gareth

Wednesday, 15 May 2013

Time to rethink Ottawa’s self-defeating energy pitch

Stephen Harper and his ministers are alienating friends and critics with their self-righteous oilsands rhetoric 

(This is an excerpt from a Toronto Star Editorial, dated May 12, 2013)

Watching Canada’s descent from “energy superpower” to a stubborn peddler of environmentally damaging fossil fuel has been like witnessing a slow-motion train wreck. Yet the government refuses to recognize the damage it has done, much less change its strategy.
It has become clear to everyone — except the prime minister, apparently — that lecturing potential buyers while spewing increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere is not going to work.
What Canada needs to do is provide wary buyers proof that it has a credible plan to clean up the oilsands, that it is working with scientists and environmentalists to extract the oil without using vast amounts of water and gas and that it respects its trading partners’ desire for sustainable forms of energy.
The makings of such a policy already exist. Oilsands producers have made modest progress in reducing the intensity of their emissions. Alberta has just levied a serious tax on carbon production. And an increasing number of eastern Canadians who once regarded the oilsands as a blight on the ecosystem are open to developing them if it can be done responsibly.
But the Harper government’s refusal to ratchet down its rhetoric has overshadowed these promising developments.

Read this Toronto Star editorial in its entirety by clicking here.