Almost every sector of the economy would benefit from oil sand development. But through all the positive economic growth Canada would receive, it is necessary to look at the impact on the environment it will have.

The refined oil will be transported through pipelines. Any released bitumen through a spill, leak, or rupture can contaminate the surrounding land or water. Tailing ponds to store the liquid to retrieve the oil can be shown to leak chemicals into the surrounding water supply like the Athabasca River and the Mackenzie River. Additionally, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) conducted in the area shows that the overall quantity of chemicals (PAH) is lower than that which naturally occurs in recovering petrol. A change in formula can have health risks to the surrounding population.

These chemicals can cause upper respiratory issues on site. Moreover, the chemicals that are released through a spill, leak, or rupture, that do not work directly on-site will soon have more complicated issues like headache, nausea, skin rashes, and respiratory symptoms which coincide with exposure to crude oil.

Working on the oil sands can have an increased health risk, and during the current COVID-19 pandemic it will make it much worse. According to unnamed contractors, workers did not have inadequate distancing, testing, or sanitization Those that currently work at CNRL Horizon in the Alberta Oil sands have stated, “We don’t feel safe here, but we keep working because everybody wants to work,” one contractor at Horizon said.

It is difficult for these workers to bring complaints about these safety issues to those higher on the corporate ladder,  due to fear of losing their job. The liability does not fall on the oil sand operators anymore regarding the environment or the health and safety of the workers.

“We’re all feeling like, head down, blinders on. Don’t even look around you and just try to get through your shift without getting sick.”

It is frivolous to think that mining for crude oil will disappear in the next 10 years. But companies should have federal and provincial policies in place to protect the health of their workers – and the general public – from irreversible harm. “Personally, with experience in seeing all sides of corporate and environmental relationships, I know products must exist for now. But it is difficult for me to understand why an unexplored market could be so scary to a company when investments are made all the time for new products. 

Do you think you could help me understand?

The post The liability falls where in Alberta? appeared first on A\J.

Yearly, Canadians produce 3.3.million tonnes of plastic waste while 2.8 million tonnes (the weight of 24 CN towers) of it ends up in the landfill, according to statistics from Oceana Canada. Approximately only 9% of this waste is recycled. Environment and Climate Change Canada shows that 47% (one-third) of Canada’s plastic waste comes from single-use sources such as packaging. Therefore, focusing on cutting down the production and use of single-use plastics should be prioritized amongst other areas of concern with plastic. The Government aims to ban the use of plastics by 2021 by implementing the Canada-wide Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste (more on this in volume 4 of the Plastic Free July series). For the month of July, I will help raise awareness of the plastic problem we face, contribute to and suggest ways that individuals and governments can help through a five-part Plastic Free July series.

Ideas for going plastic-free at work

Source: Road Runner

The Plastic Free July campaign originally started in 2011 in Western Australia by founder of the Plastic Free Foundation, Rebecca Prince-Ruiz. This has had a global rippling effect of raising environmental awareness and bringing about changes in the reduction of plastic waste not only in the month of July. Join us in raising awareness and doing your part. This campaign has been ongoing but how can we make greater strides to eliminate plastic use? As of 2020, 86% of Canadians would like to see single-use plastics be banned by 2021, according to Oceana. This 5% increase in support from the 2019 statistics of 81% shows that individuals are becoming more mindful, alarmed and interested in making changes.

Plastics broken down into microplastics, eaten by our food sources and then consumed by us

Source: 4Ocean

Our oceans and land are impacted by the anthropogenic-induced plastic crisis. Harming flora, fauna and resulting in the environmental karma humans face when plastics affect us in the water we drink, the food we eat and the air that we breathe. While we may say, what’s one plastic straw going to do? Unknowingly, too many say that without thinking about the collective impact. We need to wake up and recognize that plastic waste from one country is also another country’s concern as wind and ocean currents (e.g. Great Pacific Garbage Patch) help transport plastic waste with ease. We are all in this together and the onus is on every person on this planet.

Plastic straws are sucking the life out of the planet

Source: iBanPlastic

Plastics are found in polyester fibres in our clothing, helium balloons that land in oceans, disposable coffee cups and cutlery, tea bags, produce stickers, glitter (cosmetic and craft)- they’re everywhere! However, we must do our best to use plastic-free alternatives (more on this in volume 2 of the Plastic Free July series).

Ashley Wallis, Plastics Program Manager at Environmental Defence Canada raises concerns that the plastic waste statistics will only increase with time as plastics are constantly being produced and used as a foundational material in different industries. For this reason, they are also pushing for the government to ensure that the ban on single-use plastics moves forward and for them to make manufacturers more responsible for their plastic products and resultant waste. Wallis believes that manufacturers have unfairly shifted the burden onto consumers to properly sort and dispose of plastic materials. Taxpayers are paying for recycling systems in Canada and therefore paying for the infrastructure to handle all of the manufacturer’s complicated material that the recycling process wasn’t originally designed to handle. Thus, it should be the manufacturer’s responsibility to make products and packaging out of simpler plastic alternatives or products with a circular economy approach where items can be easily broken down and used to create other goods rather than being sent straight to the landfill.

COVID-19 seemed to have allowed some people to reverse their plastic-free and reusable product lifestyles. From the onset of the pandemic, there has been an increase in the use of single-use plastics by 250-300%, according to the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA). That alarming increase would lead to even further environmental disruption that is being caused by plastics in the air, water and terrestrial ecosystems if proper recycling measures are not put into place. While Wallis states the banning of single-use plastics in personal protective equipment (e.g. masks) for medical and pharmaceutical use is not on their agenda as it is justified and understood for medical purposes, she encourages the public to have reusable options.

Washed up on shore in 2016, plastics from our past are haunting our present and future

Source: Anything

However, Wallis notes that this increase in single-use plastic since the onset of COVID-19 was also due to an increase in plastic bag use and disposable cups as places have temporarily stopped taking reusable cups and containers. She believes that the plastic industry also seems to be pushing a narrative that plastic is more sterile or hygienic during the pandemic misleading the understandably nervous and fearful public, due to the pandemic, to, unfortunately, overlook plastic alternatives under this false assumption.

While single-use plastic is the most dominant type of plastic that is focused on in the Plastic Free July initiative, Environmental Defense places emphasis on promoting the elimination of all plastic as much as possible in your daily lives. Governmental action through policies and individual action will create a holistic approach in dealing with the plastic crisis we’ve created and indulged in.

So what can we do? Take a look at the items you use daily and ask yourself, where can I find an environmentally sustainable alternative?

 Ideas to make your July plastic-free

Source: Medium

Stay tuned for volume two of our Plastic Free July series to learn more on how we can reduce our impact of plastic waste on our oceans, land and air.

COVID or not, we should attempt to reduce the amount of plastics we purchase and use plastic alternatives in the best and safest way we can for both our health and that of the environment, presently and in the future.

***

In the meantime, read about the impact of microplastics in the ocean as 1.9 million pieces of microplastics can settle in just 1m² of the ocean’s seafloor, while unsettling sea life. That’s about two million too many, if you ask me.

Similarly, see Plastic Free July in a nutshell how it’s in our food. 

For more on the Plastic Free July Series see:

• Volume 1: Strong and Plastic-Free
• Volume 2: Breaking Up With Plastics
• Volume 3: A Guide to a Plastic Free Beach Day
• Volume 4: Revolve, Reduce, Reuse
• Volume 5: We ACT Upon It For Our Children

The post Strong and Plastic-Free appeared first on A\J.

This year Earth Overshoot Day was the earliest ever, falling on July 29 as the day humanity collectively used nature’s resource budget for the entire year. Scientists, environmentalists, activists, and the world’s youth have made loud and clear demands for radical and progressive policies to curb humanity’s environmental footprint. The environmental crisis is a collective action problem that requires a response from a coalition of united actors including governments, NGOs, corporations, scientists, economists, and the like. Everyone has a role to play – but what that role entails is important to define.

We are responding to an argument made by our colleagues that businesses remain an unlikely ally in the climate movement. First and foremost, our article is an intellectual exercise that addresses the claims made and encourages thoughtful and evidence-based debate. Secondly, our response is a deep emotional reaction to the idea that corporations – bodies that have systematically shifted the risk, blame and responsibility for climate change from themselves onto the general public – could actually be considered allies. This argument incessantly perpetuates allegiance to market logic as the preferred (only) means for society to relate to each other and the environment; a perspective predicated on the belief that a free market is the most optimal and efficient way for humans to meet their needs. (Hint: only those with the privilege of financial means to exercise market demand may do so). As ecological economists, we recognize the need to reframe sustainability policy debates in a way that directly challenges the inevitability of the market, and reinstate the economy as a sphere of public and political life with inherently social and ecological dimensions. We need alternative economic approaches that unfailingly place the well-being of our environmental and social systems at its centre. Such a system grows out of policy guidance and community action – not from corporations that have long benefited from the outdated and destructive post-war industrial economies.

Standard economics and its corporate worshippers do not understand the relationship between exponential growth and the finite properties of our planet. Limits are seen as a hurdle for technology and innovation to surpass. Ecological Economists recognize the irreducible material and energetic dimensions of the global economy by acknowledging the finite properties of environmental resources as both sources (i.e., forests, water, minerals) and sinks (i.e., the ocean or atmosphere’s capacity to absorb carbon dioxide). We know our economy is demanding too much from the environment  (i.e., Overshoot Day), prompting many sustainability scholars and environmental activists to demand an intentional contraction, or degrowth, of the global economy. This politically-charged movement responds to environmental limits by maximizing happiness through cooperative (rather than competitive) and non-consumptive options. These options include working less, sharing more, and spending more time on cultural, familial, and community-based activities. The result would be meaningful, long-term increases in human and environmental well-being.

Doesn’t sound so bad, does it? What this means for the economy is a shift away from productivity goals that encourage competition and alienate individuals, and towards an economy that is founded on cooperation, well-being as a measurement for success, and deep, meaningful community orientation and belonging. In this alternative kind of economy, humans and the environment thrive rather than corporations because ‘profit’ no longer functions as a determinant of success.

There is growing evidence and agreement that states are the only actors with both the capacity and legitimacy to organize and fund a large-scale sustainability transition. While this might be true, it is seen as problematic across the political spectrum. Grassroots, bottom-up activists on the left are uncomfortable with this assertion, as it calls for top-down solutions that can undermine democratic and community-oriented decision-making approaches. However research shows that while many proposals for an equitable degrowth emphasize localized, bottom-up and grassroots action, current literature on this work predominantly identifies governments as a crucial driver of change.

Right-leaning institutions like corporations are also uncomfortable with the assertion of state-led action on climate because environmental regulation has long been framed and viewed as a restriction on business practice and market behaviour. But as the climate crisis has made clear, business as usual is no longer an option, and is in fact the leading cause of environmental devastation. A multidisciplinary research unit in Finland published a report exploring the kinds of economic and political shifts required in the face of the climate crisis, again underscoring the critical role of proactive state-level governance. They argued further that should business as usual continue, current modes of economy will be directly undermined by resource shortages and climate change. The scale at which governments operate remain unrivaled – and unlike corporate counterparts, governments operate, at their core, in the defence and provision of public good(s).

Markets, in contrast, do not – and cannot – exist without political regulation and intervention. Let’s quickly recall the nearly $8 trillion committed to rescuing the financial system from the 2008/9 crash. The economic policies celebrated by the neoclassical model that liberalized the market and expanded public debt and private credit were the very policies behind the worst financial crisis in global history. These same policies of ‘deregulation’ (read: regulation in favour of corporate interests) privileged in today’s neoliberal economic regime prescribe a strict diet of internalizing profits and externalizing “costs”. These costs are continually downloaded on to local citizens, local ecosystems, and the future of a stable climate.

Voluntary approaches such as industry-self regulation are viewed as promising alternatives to government inaction, situating corporations as a pivotal mobilizer for bringing about the shifts in investment we require to tackle climate change. It’s a typical approach from a business-oriented school of thought. The sentiment is that, left to their own devices, the face of climate risk combined with the promise of new market opportunities will drive corporations to ‘do the right thing’. But the demands of a destabilizing climate on our biotic, political, and personal well-being call for immediate action at time/space scales that markets are inherently incapable of facilitating. A recent report assessing voluntary policy-making approaches in the UK and EU found that voluntary schemes have extremely limited impact due to their inability to attract widespread participation and compliance, making them insufficient for tackling large-scale environmental and social issues. The report concluded that it would be inappropriate for voluntary approaches to take the place of regulatory or fiscal measures related to public policy, and further that self-regulation is not an evidence-based approach and “risks compromising the effectiveness and efficiency of public policymaking”.

Free markets don’t lead to socially and environmentally desirable outcomes on their own. Financially, corporate business models cannot afford to internalize costs of the various devastating environmental and social impacts left in their wake. A study conducted in 2013 by Trucost monetized the value of natural capital (i.e., water, biodiversity) consumed by primary production (e.g., forestry, mining) and processing (e.g., steel, petrochemicals) industries. The analysis found that, for over 1,000 global primary production and processing region-sectors, the total unpriced natural capital consumed was estimated at $7.3 trillion USD, or 13% of global GDP in 2009. The report concluded that none of the high-impact region-sectors are generating enough profit to adequately cover their environmental impacts, causing them to impose these costs on to their customers – as we bear witness today. That’s right – none of the world’s top industries would be profitable if they paid for their environmental impacts.

Legally, corporations are potentially restricted from considering environmental or social factors for fear of sacrificing a competitive rate of return. A 2015 report by Principles for Responsible Investment and others conducted an analysis of investment practices and fiduciary duty in eight countries including Canada. Canadian asset managers emphasized the importance of fiduciary duty as a defining principle of responsible investment practices – particularly by focusing on short-term financial interests – and thus remain conflicted as to whether fiduciary duty even allows for the consideration of non-financial factors in investment decision-making. This sentiment was identified as a significant challenge to integrating environmental and social issues into investment processes among the majority of the countries analyzed, including Australia, Japan, and the U.S. Expert economists have emphasized the role of the global investment industry in obstructing progressive climate policy and systemic change, highlighting various performance incentives that directly undermine long-term value creation and actively encourage the externalization of social and environmental costs.

If we want to achieve efficient markets, equitable societies and sustainable economies, functional markets require active political guidance, intervention, and regulation to restrict corporate power. Power is of particular interest here, as it is this very power that we argue limits government regulation and intervention by financial or political means. Oh where oh where can my government be? The corporations took it away from me. Let’s consider the fact that Canada is the largest provider of fiscal support to oil and gas production per unit of GDP among G7 countries, a sector that relentlessly lobbies the Canadian government to minimize “red tape” (i.e., environmental regulations) in favour of financial interests. Last year, every household in Canada contributed $234.51 of their tax dollars towards subsidies and tax breaks to the oil and gas sector. Everyday Canadians are paying for the continual development of an industry that has spent decades actively misinforming the public about the risks of climate change. The science is clear – there is no room for the expansion of Canada’s oil industry if our nation wishes to reach the goals of the Paris Accord. In fact, the evidence shows that existing infrastructure around the globe may need to be retired early to limit catastrophic warming.

The fossil fuel industry, among many others, carry distinctive responsibilities in shifting energy and material use, changing labour practices, and altering governance structures in the face of climate change. It will certainly be impossible to curb our emissions without the participation of corporations, but will the kind of progress we need to see in the next decade come about without active encouragement? A gold star for every reasonable environmental decision made is a very inefficient approach. Corporations don’t need our empowerment, they need a reality check. The best way to make them wake up and smell the fumes? Massive state regulations on market behaviour to curb emissions and begin the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The most important thing to stress here is magnitude. It is not a question of whether our societies and economies can adapt to a destabilizing climate, but whether we will choose to do so voluntarily. Minimizing the impact of climate breakdown “requires a whole-scale transition of the economy away from fossil-fuels”. If businesses (of all shapes and sizes) wish to have a role in the next economy, fundamental shifts in the architecture of the corporate sector must take place – and, as researchers argue, the severity of the issue must be taken at face value. This would mean corporations communicating, unequivocally, to the public, to shareholders and to policymakers, the risks of runaway climate change and the contributions of their products and activities to the environmental crisis. It would require corporations to encourage restrictions on emissions consistent with international climate targets, publicly reject claims from lobbying groups about climate change skepticism, and accelerate investment and training in the production of low-carbon energy. While all of these options are certainly possible, none of them are probable without a comprehensive vision and strong political governance.

The very nature of corporate capitalism stands in the way of Canada taking its place as a leader towards a post-capitalist and decolonized future. We must empower each other and our communities to stay politically engaged and normalize this conversation. Canada has a Federal election coming up, and if we vote business we are not going to see the kinds of aggressive environmental measures our climate emergency desperately needs. We will continue to see the systematic erosion of our environmental and social foundations in the name of a growing economy. We’re dreaming of a better future. A future where our success isn’t defined by comparing our wealth and success to our neighbours. Rather, it is a future teeming with meaningful work, civic participation, and community-driven change where we strive to see a better local and global world for ourselves, our children and our planet.

Image Credit: Adweek

It’s understandable if you’re not convinced that voting in a Federal election will result in sufficient change, or that you may be having doubts about the democratic process at large. The changes we hope to see in our economy certainly require responses in the organization of government structures and democratic processes as well. In the meantime, there are actions you can take to design and support the kind of future you want to see. While these actions are all approaches beginning with the individual, we should never let corporations and businesses off the hook; shifting the blame and burden of change onto individuals is very convenient for corporations. We know just 100 companies are responsible for 70% of the world’s emissions. Plus, years of campaigns to get households to recycle, compost and buy organic haven’t made a dent in the climate emergency overall. The only thing that can realistically change our climate trajectory is massive transitions in our energy production and economic patterns. Voting for candidates that prioritize small scale economies and energy transitions are our best over-arching shot at this change. If that leader doesn’t exist, demand that your political representatives take this issue seriously. Individual action is about supporting the kinds of post-capitalist and decolonized institutions and systems we want to see on a larger scale in our communities. It’s about creating a more resilient future by supporting innovative alternatives and empowering our communities and each other. Some powerful individual actions you can do:

• Attend the Youth Climate Strike in your area 

• Quit the big banks and join your local credit union

• Frequent your local library – borrow books and tools, and attend their events

• Make, reuse, or repair something either on your own, at a local makerspace, or at a repair cafe in your town or city

• Help build and populate a community garden – particularly one with fresh foods.

• Shop at a local craft fair for gifts and home goods that you need. You’ll pay more, but you’ll get higher quality and more meaningful goods

• Find durable products that don’t follow the ploy of planned obsolescence

• Try out a ‘stay-cation’ instead of vacationing abroad 

• Visit your local conservation area to learn more about your local biosphere. Learn about the kinds of plants or small animal houses you could add to your property or rental space to help out Earth’s smallest creatures

• Call your city and see about planting trees in areas that are treeless

• Eat a few meals per week that don’t contain meat – it’s healthier and cheaper!

• Learn more about and support decolonization efforts in your area

• Go car free as often as possible – try active transportation (bike, walk) or support your local transit system

• Talk to your neighbours, friends, family, and community about climate change and share your concerns with each other and your political representatives

• Educate yourself! Find out more about the problem and solutions

Book & Journal References

Cosme, I., Santos, R., O’Neill, D. W. (2017). Assessing the degrowth discourse: A review and analysis of academic degrowth policy proposals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 321–334

Frumhoff, P.C., Heede, R. and Oreskes, N. (2015). The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers. Climate Change 132: 157-71.

Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1975). Energy and Economic Myths. Southern Economic Journal 41 (3): 347-81.

Harvey, D. (2014). Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism. London, UK: Profile Books.

Jackson, T. (2017). Prosperity without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow, Second Edition. Abington, OX: Routledge

Kallis, G., Kostakis, V., Lange, S., et al. (2018). Research on Degrowth. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 43: 4.1-4.26..

Qiang Zhang, D.T., Zheng, Y., Caldeira, K. et al. (2019). Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C climate target. Nature 572: 373-77.

Victor, P. (2018). Managing without Growth: Slower by Design, not Disaster. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

The post Business, Interrupted: A Rebuttal appeared first on A\J.

Almost all environmental concerns lead back to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. I mean, of course it all leads back to the climate crisis. Most people can agree that it is primarily caused by human activities such as resource extraction and use and agriculture. 

By 2017, Canada became the 10th largest CO₂ emitting country. The oil and gas sector and the transportation sector were the largest GHG emitting sectors in Canada. These two sectors combined account for almost 52% of Canada’s total emissions. Of that, the oil and gas sector accounts for 27% of total emissions and the transportation sector accounts for 24% of emissions. According to Natural Resources Canada, between 1990 and 2017, oil and gas sector emissions increased by 84% and transport emissions increased by 43%. 

This past semester, I took a course called Energy and Sustainability and part of our first assignment was to simulate and compare energy models, policies and statistics for three countries. Using this knowledge and experience, I decided to take a different approach in this article and propose suitable energy policies that could reduce GHG emissions from these two sectors, if applied. With current measures in place, it would fluctuate between 745 to 775 from now to the year 2050. 

Energy Policy Solutions, the energy simulator applied to this research, was developed by Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology and the Pembina Institute. According to Energy Innovation, it was developed to assist policy makers in identifying and implementing cost effective policies towards a low carbon future. As they say on their website, “Well-designed energy policies can reduce pollution, cut consumer costs and minimize dependence on foreign energy suppliers. Done wrong, they can do the reverse and increase pollution, lock in carbon intensive  technologies and waste money”.

In 2017, Canada’s total GHG emissions were 716 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCo₂eq).

One policy that could be applied to the transport sector is passenger transport and demand management (TDM). This policy is made up of a set of regulations that work towards reducing demand for passenger travel in private vehicles. Some of these policies include improving public transit systems, creating more walking and bike paths, zoning for high density transit, road and congested parking pricing and increased parking fees. These are already effective in municipalities across Canada and more should be encouraged. 

The city of Waterloo, for instance. In an attempt to meet a 2020 emissions reduction target, the city created a local car share system, a region-wide anti-idling bylaw, a regional electric vehicle charging network, an ION light rail transit service and much more. After applying this policy on a national level, CO₂ emissions in Canada for 2050 project to 739 mmtCO₂ from 752mmtCO₂ on the policy simulator.

Another policy that could be applied in the transport industry is an electric vehicle subsidy of passenger light duty vehicles (LDVs). According to Policy Solutions, this policy would make the government pay for a percentage of the purchase price of new electric passenger light duty vehicles. After applying a 50% electric vehicle subsidy, CO₂ emissions would be reduced from 752 mmt/yr to 728 mmt/yr.

For the oil and gas sector, one policy that could work is methane capture. This policy “reduces methane emissions for the industry sector by increasing the capture of methane currently being released into the atmosphere”. Methane is a type of GHG emitted during coal, natural gas and oil production, agriculture processed and the decay of organic waste.

If 97% of the methane capture potential is achieved, CO₂ emissions can fall from 752 mmt/yr to 682 mmt/yr. According to Policy Solutions, if 100% of the methane capture potential was achieved, process emissions in 2050 would be reduced by 81% in natural gas and petroleum, 8% for mining and 86% from the waste management sector.

Lastly, another possible policy for the oil and gas industry is cogeneration and waste heat recovery. As described by Energy Innovation, “this policy contributes to reducing fuel consumption in the industry sector by increasing the use of cogeneration, also known as, “combined heat and power” and “recovery of waste heat to perform useful work”. Simply put, it refers to a process where waste heat from coal fired power stations is used for space or water heating in our residential or commercial buildings. If this policy reaches its full potential, fuel use can be reduced by almost 8% across all industries in 2050. After applying this policy, CO₂ emissions will reduce from 752 mmt/yr to 734 mmt/yr by 2050. 

Only four policies have been selected for two of the GHG emitting sectors in Canada. What impact do they all have together? After applying these policies, passenger transport demand management, methane capture, light passenger electric vehicle subsidy and cogeneration and waste heat recovery, CO₂ emissions in Canada will reduce from 752 mmt/yr to 635 mmt/yr.

This research only answers the questions on “What effective measures can we take?” and not the “How do we do it?” part. Seeing how much impact four policies have means that the results would be outstanding if not only were more policies were applied but other CO₂ emitting sectors were analysed too.

***

The simulator is available to the public, so you can also try out how policies on different sectors can affect emissions in Canada, Alberta,  Mexico, Poland, Indonesia, India, China and the USA via this link: https://policysolutions.pembina.org

The post Energy Policy Options for Canada appeared first on A\J.

A disturbing mix of flood hazards are present in the capital city of Ghana, Accra. The city has annual floods that result in a disturbing loss of lives and livelihoods. These perennial floods come with the onset of the rainy season in June each year and can be traced back to a core failure of city planning processes, waste management efficiency and civic recalcitrance towards responsible waste management.

Background Information

A disturbing mix of flood hazards are present in the capital city of Ghana, Accra. The city has annual floods that result in a disturbing loss of lives and livelihoods. These perennial floods come with the onset of the rainy season in June each year and can be traced back to a core failure of city planning processes, waste management efficiency and civic recalcitrance towards responsible waste management.

Photo: Flood cause-effect: Drainage blocked at Kwame Nkrumah Circle. Accra, Ghana. Image Credit: News Ghana

The Kwame Nkrumah Circle in Accra, commonly known just as “Circle” by locals, is a sprawling transportation hub where thousands of commuters connect with mass transit buses, taxis and passenger buses to go about their daily movement.

Photo: Kwame Nkrumah Interchange (Circle). Accra, Ghana. Image Credit: Douglas Anane-Frimpong

A consequence of this heavy human traffic is the accumulation of waste produced by people in the form of rubber bags, food waste from vendors, disposable packaging and all forms of undesirables. These undesirables end up clogging gutters and blocking run-off water routes, particularly the Odaw River located at the Kwame Nkrumah Interchange; a major water route, which when clogged, contributes to significant flooding. 

Photo: De-silting of Odaw River, Kwame Nkrumah Interchange (Circle). Accra, Ghana. Image Credit: Citi Newsroom

One particularly devastating flood disaster occurred on June 3rd 2015 in Accra, Ghana at the Kwame Nkrumah Interchange. Flooding from continuous rainfall triggered an explosion at a fuel station that led to over 150 deaths. 

Photo: Rains and Living Hell Fire at GOIL filling station – Kwame Nkrumah Circle during flood on 3rd June 2015. Accra, Ghana. Image Credit: Walter Adamah, Twitter

On this fateful day, June 3rd 2015, people finding shelter from torrential rain at a fuel station were instantly vaporized when a massive fire engulfed the area; the fire’s cause was attributed to flood effects. 

Photo: Burnt out shell of GOIL filling station, Kwame Nkrumah Circle, following June 3rd 2015 fire. Accra, Ghana. Image Credit: Christian Thompson/AP

The wider conversation around environmental management in the form of efficient city planning and urban zoning coupled with responsible waste management with respect to impact analysis continues. In a country racked by wanton corruption and irresponsible and self-seeking decision making by administrative officials, one can identify this undesirable perennial flooding situation as metaphorical ‘Tears of a Nation’. 

Photo: Sanitation, euphemism for corruption in Ghana? Image Credit: MyJoyOnline TV – Ghana

The post Les Larmes D’Une Nation appeared first on A\J.

How can I consider myself a “real environmentalist” if I’m not keeping up with the issues and solutions being discussed in the world around me? For me, Twitter and Instagram are often the first place where I find out about current and trending topics in the news. Recently, while browsing Twitter, I noticed that the hashtag #Billc69 was trending and saw a lot of comments about this bill, which proposes a new environmental impact assessment system. Being an Environmental Assessment student, these familiar words enticed me to dig in and find out why so many people had so much to say about it.

Bill C-69 was adopted on June 20th by the Canadian federal government. According to the Parliament of Canada, it is “an Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, an Act to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts”. Essentially, this bill will introduce new laws governing environmental assessments, replace the National Energy Board with a new Canadian Energy Regulation and amend the Navigation Protection Act.

The federal government says this bill will rebuild public trust around decision-making by increasing public engagement, creating stronger rules for environmental protection, increasing engagement with Indigenous peoples, and requiring both early planning phases and shorter review timelines. The new impact assessment act is also seen as a way for the government to assess larger projects like pipelines and railways and their effects on human health, the economy, and the environment.

The Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, has naturally been one of the major voices promoting the bill through the media. In a promotional video, she says with Bill C-69 and the new impact assessment system, project decisions will be more closely based on scientific evidence and Indigenous traditional knowledge. The new system would allow for more opportunities for Canadians to participate in the decision-making process through the creation of simple summaries available to the public and by recognizing the rights of Indigenous people and their roles in decision-making.

But the bill has been facing a lot of criticism online, and unsurprisingly, most of the concerns are related to its impacts on the oil and gas sector. Conservative Party Senator for British Columbia, Richard Neufeld, called Bill C-69 “one of the most toxic, polarizing and divisible bills” he has ever encountered in his 10 years as a senator. In an official video, the Premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney, called Bill C-69 “a no-more-pipelines law” and said the bill is “attacking a major export of only one province, Alberta” and “is a prejudicial discriminatory attack” with “no defensible rationale”. Alberta’s Energy Minister, Sonya Savage said the bill “strikes at the heart of national unity”, suggesting it shows a disregard for jobs and the economy. But Alberta is not the only provincial government against it. Newfoundland and Labrador Senator David Wells says, in a guest column for St. John’s Telegram, that Bill C-69 “kneecaps the well managed and responsible petroleum sector supposedly in the name of the environment”.

Despite the loud criticisms, however, the bill also saw positive traction and feedback online. According to the National Post, Bill C-69 has been supported by industries such as the Mining Association of Canada. Many environmental organizations support the bill, while pointing out that it could have gone further in protecting sensitive ecological regions and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions. Several Northern Alberta Indigenous leaders have also supported the legislation. “Our intent with Bill C-69 is to ensure that it is robust enough to allow First Nations across Canada to have their rights considered without having to resort to courts,” said Chief Archie Waquan of Mikisew Cree First Nation tribe of Alberta, to the Canadian Press for Global News. West Coast Environmental Law, a non-profit group of environmental lawyers and strategists, have shown support for Bill C-69 as well. They hosted workshops around Canada on Impact Assessment, participated in expert review and debunked myths about C-69. They described the passing of this bill as “a huge step forward for environmental decision making in Canada.”           

So, what does this all mean? From the time it was proposed to after it was passed, Bill C-69 has been viewed as a threat to the economy by the oil and gas sector and  conservative commentators because of its tighter environmental regulations. Their pushback is understandable. With more serious action on the climate crisis being demanded in the last few years, people whose livelihoods depend on the oil industry are worried about how they will be affected every time an environmental bill is proposed. But the new impact assessment systems and regulatory bodies are not even up and running yet. We should at least give it an opportunity to work. After all, it only seeks to put more efficient regulations towards protecting the environment, as the Ministry of Environment is expected to do. 

The post Bill C-69: Assessing the impacts appeared first on A\J.

The Green New Deal (GND) has gotten a lot of attention since legislation was proposed in the U.S. Congress in February. The term derives from Roosevelt’s New Deal policies during the Great Depression. The Green New Deal, however, addresses today’s two most urgent problems simultaneously: climate change and rising inequality. This approach may lessen the current appeal of climate denying populism for some. Canadian jurisdictions should consider a similar approach.

The inequality gap between the rich and everyone else has increased continuously since the late 1970s. Since 1978, controlling for inflation, most wages in America have only increased by 6% while executive’s incomes have gone up 937%. The upper 1% now make twice what the bottom half of the population do. Canada is slightly less unequal, but our CEOs earn 300 times the minimum wage — not enough, of course, to keep some of them from objecting to a $15 minimum hourly wage.

 The polar opposite of simultaneous progress are the policies of Trump and Ford who do all they can to increase fossil fuel consumption and the wealth gap.”

Climate change has been underway for at least 40 years. Yet global carbon emissions are still rising despite the efforts of some nations. In Europe and elsewhere, a few have achieved year over year reductions, but Canada and most others have not. The world as a whole has not even started on reducing emissions.

The GND urges rapid progress on both problems, an ambition that is wonderfully out of step with North American politics-as-usual. The norm on this continent as a whole is decades of delay (though B.C. and California have stepped up as did Ontario until recently). The polar opposite of simultaneous progress are the policies of Trump and Ford who do all they can to increase fossil fuel consumption and the wealth gap.

GND policies are labelled as radical merely because they assume that governments should, and can successfully, address both. Addressing the two jointly may actually be easier than taking them on separately. As Van Jones argued a decade ago, more good jobs are created addressing climate than are produced in continuing with a carbon intensive economy. Both America and Canada would gain more jobs building a post-carbon economy than would be lost in completely phasing out all fossil fuels. As a bonus, the jobs would be distributed geographically much more widely than fossil energy jobs. Renewable energy is also owned more broadly – often by homeowners, farmers, communities, utilities, non-energy businesses, coops and landowners.

America’s GND proposal includes an equality-building job guarantee, increased energy efficiency, regenerative soil management, energy storage research, and comprehensive retraining opportunities for those in vulnerable jobs. It even advocates a guaranteed annual income in response to the looming age of artificial intelligence and self-driving vehicles. Indeed, GND House of Representatives legislative sponsor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said ‘no one should have to fear automation, but all should instead welcome it’.

A key political strength of the GND is that it explicitly opposes blaming job losses on scapegoats (immigrants or other nations). It understands that there is more than enough worthwhile work to do on better health care and education, healthier food, improved infrastructure, new technologies and, above all, on transforming our energy systems. Underfunding these needs are, in effect, needed jobs that never happen.

We will also need to deal with carbon removal from the atmosphere and protecting biodiversity and habitat. Crucially, everything mentioned above is only affordable before we are overwhelmed by the high cost of serious climate impacts.

Finally, the most important political argument for a Green New Deal is this: it can be adopted at any level of governance – globally, nationally, provincially, municipally or regionally. This is crucial because the progress we need only rarely has all governments on side simultaneously and continuously. To succeed globally many cities and nations must relentlessly demonstrate that positive change is possible.

Those who would deny the possibility of reversing inequality and the need to stop climate change must be proven wrong continuously. With most of the world moving forward on both fronts we can decisively reject political claims of harm to the economy or the non-importance of climate change. 

The post The Green New Deal: Our Best Chance on Climate appeared first on A\J.

The Toronto MPP and former Greenpeace head introduced Bill 21 Monday at Queen’s Park, legislation that would  pave the way for individuals, governments and businesses to sue fossil fuel companies for property damage or loss, the higher cost of insurance or infrastructure expenses to protect against future harm.

“The world’s largest fossil fuel corporations have to start paying their fair share of the damages that are going to be inflicted by climate change,” Tabuns said. “And they also have to pay for steps necessary to protect people from those climate damages.”

Peter Tabuns, Ontario MPP, Toronto-Danforth (NDP)

Working with legal guidance from Greenpeace and West Coast Environmental Law, Tabuns’ bill assumes “strict liability on the part of producers” so that companies cannot argue their innocence or ignorance. It starts from a belief, as the preamble to Tabuns’ legislation makes clear, that climate change is real and caused by human activities. “You made a product and it is generally known that your product causes damage,” Tabuns said. “The fossil fuel majors knew exactly what they were doing and what the consequences would be.”

It’s part of a growing wave of climate litigation taking place across the world. Kristin Casper, litigation counsel for Greenpeace Canada, told reporters that Ontario has the opportunity to take the lead in making it simpler for people who are being harmed by climate change to hold big polluters accountable.

Casper pointed to one Peruvian farmer who is currently asking a German court to help him hold a coal plant near his community accountable for a nearby melting glacier that threatens his home and livelihood. In the Philippines, communities have successfully petitioned the country’s human rights commission to investigate the role of numerous fossil fuel companies in possible human rights abuses. Supercharged typhoons and other climate-driven natural disasters, they believe, are negatively affecting the country and its residents.

“I work with lawyers and communities around the world who are seeking justice for climate impacts like stronger storms and sea level rise,” Casper said. These impacts “are already being felt and are only going to get worse.”

Closer to home, New York City became the latest government to announce it was suing five major oil producers for billions to cover the infrastructure costs associated with preparing the city for a warmer future. Mayor Bill de Blasio also indicated his city’s pension fund would divest itself of $5 billion in fossil fuel holdings. And in British Columbia, the City of Victoria and other communities are sending letters to more than a dozen fossil fuel companies asking them to pay for repairing climate change-related damages.

In Ontario, Tabuns admits the costs of climate change have not yet been calculated. But the extreme flooding in the Greater Toronto Area in July 2013 and the ice storm that December cost Ontarians more than $1 billion. New York, meanwhile, is forecasting that $20 billion is needed to protect the city against a warming future.

Asked whether the cost of lengthy litigation processes would be worth taxpayer dollars, Tabuns said any legal bills would be dwarfed by the costs of climate damage. “This is going to cost us in the many billions of dollars,” he said. “We are going to have a huge burden put on us dealing with damage and infrastructure costs that will far exceed any legal costs.”

Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist at Greenpeace Canada, told reporters that scientists have gotten much better at determining the causal links between fossil fuel burning from specific companies and its impacts on individual extreme weather events. Investigative journalism, meanwhile, has exposed decades of shady behaviour from fossil fuel companies like Exxon Mobil, who claimed the science was too uncertain to warrant government action on climate change, all while incorporating the same data they publicly discredited into their internal operations to protect their investments,  

“Oil and coal companies have hid what they knew about the science to delay policy actions that would reduce the market for their product,” Stewart said. They didn’t just create this problem, but their attempts at cover-ups and financing disinformation campaigns have actively made the problem worse.

Renowned climatologist James Hansen, former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, joined the press conference via Skype. “Climate change is already underway,” he said, and it’s today’s young people and their children who are the most threatened by the irreversible effects of sea level rise and species extinction.

Intergovernmental accords like the Paris Agreement are “basically wishful thinking,” Hansen said. “The actual phase-out of carbon emissions and justice for young people will only occur when fossil fuel companies pay for the costs of climate change.”

The post Ontario MPP Peter Tabuns (NDP) tables climate damages legislation appeared first on A\J.

Alternatives Journal and the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation are hosting a celebration of the possible expansion of the Greenbelt into Waterloo Region and Wellington County. There’s just one problem: earlier this month, Waterloo Regional council voted for revisions to the greenbelt expansion before agreeing to join. In fact, if these revisions aren’t met, regional chair Ken Seiling says the Region is, “quite happy to be left out.” Sounds serious. Let’s take a closer look.

By now, most people in mid-Ontario know about the Greenbelt. Enacted in 2005, “Ontario’s Greenbelt is an area of permanently protected landscape of prime farmland and natural systems, as well as vibrant communities. It surrounds the Golden Horseshoe, and is vital to the quality of life in southern Ontario.”  (Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation) The Greenbelt Plan curbs urban sprawl and protects natural and rural lands from development in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area.

Preserving the rural and natural land within the Greenbelt positively influences so many intersecting aspects of society: recreation, health, air, water, food, transportation, and the economy to name a few. By curbing sprawl, urban centres must focus on doing more with less, and rather than build out, create vibrant cores with walk-able, transit-centric communities.

These priorities match with Waterloo Region’s, so what’s the problem with joining the Greenbelt? Well, let’s go back to 2004 when Ken Seiling, Waterloo Region’s regional chair and Kevin Thomason, a community advocate with Smart Growth Waterloo Region who wears many hats, travelled to Queen’s Park. They asked premier McGuinty to be included under the newly formed provincial Greenbelt legislation. At the time, the province decided to focus on the inner ring of the Greater Toronto Area for Greenbelt designation, and this excluded Waterloo Region. However, at the same time, Waterloo Region was targeted by the province for a population increase of 15 per cent in five years by in the Places to Grow act.

“Waterloo was left with the worst of both worlds,” says Thomason, “we were getting all of the growth, none of the protection.”

Waterloo Region is unique because it is almost entirely dependent on groundwater, and a population increase puts a lot of pressure on that usage. The Region realized stronger protection was needed for their land and water, and that they would have to do it unsupported by the Greenbelt Plan.

Luckily, because the Region of Waterloo depends so much on groundwater, they have a history of prioritizing the environment, and they were up for the challenge.

“We weren’t being included in the provincial greenbelt,” says Thomason, “so we decided to build our own here and in fact, we’ll even do it better than the province’s because we can learn from their mistakes.”

Over the next ten years, the Region created a set of policies to act as their own “home-grown greenbelt.”  Two policies stand out. The Protected Countryside designation and Countryside Line worked as two complimentary policies designed to protect the entire Waterloo moraine and impose strict boundaries on every urban centre in the region from small hamlets to larger cities. These were enacted in the Regional Official Plan in 2009, among other policies meant to protect the land and water. Developers fought the entire Plan in court after court until a settlement was reached in 2015.  

“Thank goodness the region spent millions of dollars defending [the ROP],” says Thomason, “but because of it, we now have this interesting situation coming full circle. Our local protection is so good that it might actually even be better than parts of the Greenbelt…we need to make sure the strongest of either [policies] prevail and that the Greenbelt doesn’t erode or degrade our local protections that we’ve spent millions of dollars in the last 15 years working on.”

This is why Ken Seiling and the regional council voted for revisions. But what kind of revisions are they looking for exactly?

In the Region’s February 28 report sent to the province in response to the Growing the Greenbelt proposal, they are asking for the following:

• Stronger language to give municipalities the option to enforce policy beyond the minimum outlined in the Greenbelt Plan.
• Allowance for the policies with the highest protection to prevail
• Better protection for the groundwater Waterloo Region depends upon
• Revision of the current policy restricting municipalities regarding aggregate extraction
• Commitment from the province to more consultation with municipalities
• Commitment from the province to use the best technical information and municipal land-use planning information
• Allowance for municipalities’ ongoing planning projects to be completed and respected before the final mapping for the greenbelt expansion is completed.

The full report can be read on the Planning and Works committee meeting agenda on pages 39 to 49 here.

How likely is the province to meet the Region’s requests? The provincial minister of municipal affairs Bill Mauro sent a letter to Waterloo Regional Council saying, “If we were to move forward with a Greenbelt expansion, we would work with the Region of Waterloo to ensure that a new Greenbelt boundary does not result in a reduction of existing local protections. That may include potential changes to the Greenbelt Plan if they are needed.”

You can view the whole letter here.

Interpretations of the letter differ. Kevin Thomason is optimistic. He says, “you’re not going to be getting a clearer message, and it’s highly, highly unusual for a minister to send a letter to ever single Councillor saying that I’ve heard your concerns and we’ll work with you on them. We’re very lucky to have exactly what we need to have happening which is the province is offering to work with the region to make sure the right things happen.”

Ken Seiling on the other hand feels the letter was too vague. “I don’t know what that means at this point in time, or where they’re prepared to go. So I really can’t comment because I don’t know what they intend to do.”

While all of Waterloo’s townships and cities have agreed to the Region’s legislation over the past ten years, Thomason feels the missing piece in the Region’s current protection is the province. “This opportunity for Greenbelt expansion is bringing the province to the table and in fact frankly, all of these local protections we developed always anticipated eventual Greenbelt expansion for reinforcement. We need a strong second layer of protection. We need the permanence that only the provincial government can bring.”

Seiling doesn’t feel that way. He feels local legislation is stronger than provincial because citizens are quite active on the local level, while provincial legislation is not conducive to citizen participation, and decisions can be made with little or no citizen input.

Ultimately the best of both protections is what needs to happen in the Region of Waterloo. Both parties have the same goal – to curb urban sprawl and protect our green spaces and water.

While the deadline for this round of citizen feedback on the Growing the Greenbelt proposal has passed, it’s still up to us to keep the momentum on this proposal going.

“The most important thing is that these large-scale, land-use planning decisions only happen once or twice in a generation.” says Thomason. “There’s a lot of money at stake – a lot of developers, a lot of people out there who are speaking with chequebooks and you know wallets and that sort of thing. That’s where we need to make sure that the public has an equally strong voice and is part of the process, and that every citizen is speaking up for the future that they want to see. If not, there’s plenty of others who will speak up for an alternative future.” 

Tell your local MPP you care about the greenbelt, and that implementing it should not undermine current Regional protections.

Follow progress at greenbelt.ca and Ontario.ca/greenbelt

Other Resources:

Ontario’s original Places to Grow document.

Waterloo Region’s Regional Official Plan.

The post The Greenbelt is Growing appeared first on A\J.