Daily Archives: December 10, 2015

Preventing Ecocide, solutions, Politics, Activism, Fascism/Corporatism, democracy, Naomi Klein, genocide

The Climate Crisis Is a Once-in-a-Century Chance to Make Our World More Equitable

Leave a comment
CLIMATE CHANGE FLOODED WOMAN
A mother and child travel inside a plastic tub as flood waters inundated a new residential area in Bangkok on November 7, 2011. According to experts Thai capital, built on swampland, is slowly sinking and the floods currently besieging Bangkok could be merely a foretaste of a grim future as climate change makes its impact felt. AFP PHOTO/ SAEED KHAN (Photo credit should read SAEED KHAN/AFP/Getty Images) | SAEED KHAN via Getty Images

By Naomi Klein, reposted from the Huffington Post, Dec 10, 2015

These remarks are adapted from a speech by Naomi Klein on Monday at “Now is Not the Time For Small Steps: Solutions to the Climate Crisis and the Role of Trade Unions” at Salle Olympe de Gouges.

PARIS — Here is what we know about what to expect from the official climate negotiations.

The deal that will be unveiled in less than a week — likely to much fanfare and self-congratulation from politicians and an overly deferential press — will not be enough to keep us safe. In fact, it will be extraordinarily dangerous.

The targets that the major economies brought to Paris lead us to a future of 3-4 degrees warming — those are the Tyndall Centre’s numbers — not 2 degrees, as was pledged in Copenhagen. Two degrees is how our governments defined “dangerous warming” in the Copenhagen Accord.

And we also know from leading climate scientists like James Hansen that 2 degrees is too high. Indeed we know from lived experience that the amount we’ve already warmed the globe is too much. We are already living the era of dangerous warming. It is already costing many thousands of lives and livelihoods — from the Philippines to Bangladesh to Nigeria to New Orleans to the Marshall Islands.

Speaking about climate change as if “dangerous” is a place far off in the distance is nothing less than, as my friend Kumi Naidoo put it yesterday, “subliminal racism.” And it’s getting less and less subliminal every day.

 

The targets that the major economies brought to Paris lead us to a future of 3-4 degrees warming — not 2 degrees, as was pledged in Copenhagen.

So we know already that the deal will steamroll over scientific red lines. We also know, from the paltry levels of financing wealthy countries have put on the table, that it is going to steamroll over equity red lines. That wealthy countries will continue to fail to do our fair share of emission reductions, or to pay our fair share for the impacts of that failure. And we must pay — pay so that poorer countries that did little to create this crisis are compensated for loss and damage and so that they can leap frog over fossil fuels and go directly to a clean energy economy.

Which is why, on Dec. 12 at 12 o’clock — that’s 12, 12, 12 — many activists will be in the streets of Paris, peacefully demonstrating against the violation of these red lines. We will also be mourning the lives already lost to climate disruption, in solidarity with the lives lost to the tragic attacks here in Paris, and enlarging that circle of mourning.

By taking to the streets, we will be clearly and unequivocally rejecting the Hollande government’s draconian and opportunistic bans on marches, protests and demonstrations, the shameful pre-emptive arrests of climate activists and the unprecedented restrictions on the freedom of speech of civil society within the summit.

Liberté is not just a word and it does not just apply to Christmas markets and football matches. Indeed it means nothing if it does not apply to political dissent and the defense of life on earth.

 

Speaking about climate change as if ‘dangerous’ is a place far off in the distance is nothing less than, as my friend Kumi Naidoo put it, ‘subliminal racism.’

This disobedience does not make us insensitive. It does not make us hooligans. It is our sacred duty — to those suffering in the present day and to those who stand to lose so much more if we lose this race against time for climate justice. And yet as we join together to reject the dangerous world offering by the governments inside Le Bourget, as well as by the corporations who finance them, we must also do more than say “no.”

We must also say “yes” — yes to the world we want. We need to paint a picture of what life could be like inside those scientific red lines, life within the limits imposed on us by nature. And that life needs to be not just better than a future of climate catastrophe. It needs to be better than the present — a present of catastrophic levels of austerity, deepening inequality and rising racism.

That is our task. Jeremy Corbyn rightly describes the challenge we face as a crisis of imagination. We must imagine a world that is both radically different and radically better than the one we have right now.

So I want to spend some time sharing an experience we had in my home country, Canada, where a group of us — 60 organizers, leaders and theorists from movements representing labor, climate, migrant rights, anti-poverty, food justice, housing rights, women’s rights — came together to do something we do very rarely.

 

We must pay — pay so that poorer countries that did little to create this crisis are compensated for loss and damage and so that they can leap frog over fossil fuels and go directly to a clean energy economy.

And that is to dream together. To sketch out a future that would respect both natural limits and human rights and human needs. We came up with a document called The Leap manifesto that has now been signed by over 100 Canadian organizations, including many trade unions, and tens of thousands of Canadians, including Leonard Cohen and Ellen Page. It has inspired similar manifestos to be written from Nunuvut to Australia.

At its heart is the argument that if we take the imperative to rapidly build a post-carbon economy seriously, we have a once-in-a-century chance to transform our economy to make it far more equitable, so that it works for many more people. This would be a clean economy with many more good unionized jobs that pay a living wage. With better public services that are more equitably distributed.

But before I get into that optimistic stuff, I want to confess that I didn’t come to climate change by seeing the sunny side of disaster. Quite the opposite: I come to it by looking at the worst that humans are capable of in times of crisis — what I call “disaster capitalism.”

My climate change “wake up” came almost exactly 10 years ago, when Hurricane Katrina was devastating New Orleans. That experience showed me that there is this irreconcilable conflict between the reality of climate change and the so-called free market ideology that has ruled our world for four decades.

Because we must always remember that what happened in New Orleans was not just about the weather. It was the collision of heavy weather and the legacy of four decades of systematic dismantling of the public sphere, and layered on top of all of it was the reality of systemic racism at every level.

Once Katrina hit, residents confronted what Paul Krugman calls the “Can’t do state.” FEMA seemingly couldn’t find New Orleans for five days. People — overwhelmingly African American — were just abandoned, left on their own.

And then, after the shock… came “The Shock Doctrine.” For right-wing ideologues, the post-Katrina plan was simple: use the crisis to do away with the public sphere all together. Public housing. Public school. Public hospitals. The other thing that Republicans pushed for immediately after Katrina was to suspend labor standards in the area.

So the reconstruction of New Orleans became a hotbed of labor abuses, particularly for migrant workers. This is why the fights for labor rights and the fight against austerity cannot be separated from the fight for climate action. The public sphere that the international labor movement is working so hard to defend is our only defense against the storms, the floods, the health emergencies.

 

There is this irreconcilable conflict between the reality of climate change and the so-called free market ideology that has ruled our world for four decades.

And as we have just been reminded: Europe is not immune. The UK is not immune. In “This Changes Everything,” I have a passage on how the 2013 British floods revealed the incompatibility of austerity and climate crisis.

In 2012, The Guardian revealed that “nearly 300 flood defense schemes across England [had] been left un-built due to government budget cuts.” David Cameron had gutted the Environment Agency (EA), which is responsible for dealing with flooding. Since 2009, at least 1,150 jobs had been lost at the agency, with as many as 1,700 more on the chopping block, adding up to approximately a quarter of its total workforce. And Cameron knew he had been caught out. “Money is no object in this relief effort. Whatever money is needed for it will be spent.”

The problem with austerity is not just that it interferes with our ability to defend ourselves from the heavy weather we have already locked in. It’s also that public investments — in green energy, public transit and clean rail — are the only thing that will lower our emissions quickly enough to prevent catastrophic warming.

That’s why in The Leap manifesto we have these key demands: “We need to invest in our decaying public infrastructure so that it can withstand increasingly frequent extreme weather events.”

 

We must always remember that what happened in New Orleans was not just about the weather.

But we wanted to do more than call for “green jobs” in disaster response and putting up solar panels. We are also calling for a wave of new investment in the low-carbon workforce that is already out there. So another of our demands is this: “We must expand those sectors that are already low-carbon: caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest media.”

Environmentalists don’t usually mention it but teaching and caring for kids doesn’t burn much carbon. Nor does caring for the sick. When we care for each other, we care for the planet. So it makes no sense that these are the very sectors under relentless attack by cost-cutting politicians.

Which is why we felt that it was absolutely crucial to say something else in the Leap: That austerity is a manufactured crisis. That the money we need is out there — we just have to get at it. And we know exactly how to do it: An end to fossil fuel subsidies.
Financial transaction taxes. Increased royalties on fossil fuel extraction. Higher income taxes on corporations and wealthy people. A progressive carbon tax. Cuts to military spending.

This process is partly inspired by a terrific Climate Justice group in the Bay Area called Movement Generation. At an event we did together, one of their organizers, Quinton Sankofa, said something that should guide us: “Transition is inevitable. Justice is not.”

 

The fights for labor rights and the fight against austerity cannot be separated from the fight for climate action.

What that means is that if we want the response to climate change to be fair and equitable, then we are going to need to fight to make sure that it is. If we want climate jobs to be safe, unionized jobs that pay living wage, then we need to fight to make that happen.

And we know climate change is not the only crisis we face. We also face a crisis of joblessness. Of inequality. Of racial and gender injustice. Of social exclusion. We face a crisis in the abuse and mistreatment of workers, especially immigrant workers and workers of color, women most of all.

So when we talk about climate solutions in this context, it cannot just be about emission reduction targets. Neither can it be about saying: “Climate change is so big, and so urgent, and time is so short, that it should trump everything else.”

It has to be about designing and then fighting for integrated solutions, ones that radically bring down emissions, while simultaneously building more just economies and democracies based on true equality.

 

The 2013 British floods also revealed the incompatibility of austerity and climate crisis.


We even have some powerful examples that this can work:

Take Germany. Germany’s energy transition has created 400,000 jobs in a decade and not just cleaned up energy but made it fairer — so that energy systems are owned and controlled by hundreds and hundreds of municipalities and energy co-operatives.

Little known fact: one of the things that allowed this to happen is that Germans have reversed energy privatizations in hundreds of cities and towns. That’s why one of the key demands of The Leap manifesto is for Energy Democracy — that communities should own and control their own renewable energy projects.

But we have to go further than Energy Democracy. We need Energy Justice. Energy Reparations. Which is why The Leap states that: “Indigenous peoples and others on the frontlines of industrial activity should be first to receive public support for their own clean energy projects.”

As you can see, climate change offers a powerful argument against privatizations, against austerity — and the same goes for corporate trade deals. Germany has been challenged for its visionary energy transition under an investor-state clause. It isbeing sued for 4.7 billion euros by the Swedish energy giant Vantenfall. This is scandalous, and there are many trade challenges like it.

 

We must expand those sectors that are already low-carbon: caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest media.

Which is why this is another one of The Leap’s key demands: “We call for an end to all trade deals that interfere with our attempts to rebuild local economies, regulate corporations and stop damaging extractive projects.” We certainly shouldn’t be signing new ones like the TTIP and the TPP.

Another piece of common ground we found had to do with the rights of migrants and refugees. We know that climate change is a driver of conflict and migration already and that this is only going to get more severe.

So the manifesto calls for full rights for all workers, regardless of status, as well as to an opening of borders to many more migrants and refugees, acknowledging our role in the wars, trade deals and climate disasters that are collectively driving so many people from their lands.

Now I realize all this sounds like a lot to take on — but that is the whole point of the Leap project. It’s premised on the fact that we have gone so far off course, and time is so short, that we aren’t going to get to where we need to go with baby steps.

 

Communities should own and control their own renewable energy projects.

We have to go for it, on all fronts, and tell a coherent story about how all of our issues are connected by a different set of values about how we should treat one another and the natural world that is the source of all life.

Friends, time is not just short. We have run out of time. This is our historical moment.

Let us not disappoint. The stakes are simply too high.

Now is not the time for small steps.

Now is the time for boldness.

Now is the time to leap.

SOURCE

 

Preventing Ecocide, Politics, Activism, Sustainability, climate science

McKenna Under Fire for Dodging Energy East Questions in Paris Press Briefing

Leave a comment
Image: DeSmog Canada/Keri Coles

By Carol Linnitt, reposted from Desmog.ca, Dec 9, 2015

At a press briefing in Paris on Wednesday Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna was asked to describe how Canada’s support of a new goal to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius squares with the government’s apparent support for the Energy East pipeline.

McKenna told a gathering of reporters that she prefers not to speak to individual projects.

“I don’t like just looking at one particular development. We are looking at how we are going to make progress towards a low-carbon economy,” she said.

McKenna added Canada is currently reviewing the National Energy Board environmental assessment process.

“The Energy East pipeline is a part of that,” she said, although pipeline opponents were disappointed last month when Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr said reviews already in progress will continue on, rather than being restarted under a new and more robust regime.

McKenna added Canada is committed to doing its “fair share” alongside other nations to combat climate change.

The TransCanada Energy East pipeline is proposed to carry oilsands crude from Alberta to New Brunswick. With a capacity of 1.1 billion barrels of oil per day, the pipeline is larger than the recently scrapped Keystone XL pipeline and nearly twice the size of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

According to Environmental Defence, a Canadian environmental group, the pipeline is expected to ship 750,000 to one million barrels of unrefined oil out of Canada every day. The group also estimates the pipeline will increase Canada’s carbon emissions by 32 million tonnes a year, the equivalent of adding seven million new cars to the road.

Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager with Environmental Defence, said the Liberal government will need to consider the climate impacts of the pipeline when making a decision on the project.

“Energy East alone would push Alberta through its emissions cap,” Scott said from the Paris climate talks. “Collectively, proposed new fossil infrastructure projects would make it impossible for Canada to meets its climate commitments.”

Canada has come out in support of a proposed 1.5 degrees Celsius warming target based on new research that shows current efforts to limit temperature increases to below two degrees may not be enough to avoid a sea level rise that would be catastrophic for small island nations.

The Canadian Youth Delegation held an action in the hours after McKenna’s briefing to celebrate the end of the fossil fuel era.

Delegate Ben Donato-Woodger said the celebration was in light of Canada’s 1.5 target support.

Canada has effectively put an end to fossil fuels, he said.

“The only way Canada can do its fair share of the 1.5 degree maximum is by stopping the expansion of the tar sands, ensuring no new tar sands are built and beginning a justice-based transition to a low carbon economy,” Donato-Woodger said.

“We really hope they know they’ve just cancelled every pipeline in the country,” he said.

“We hope they let Kinder Morgan and TransMountain know that.”

Nimra Amjad of the Canadian Youth Delegation serves COP21 attendees wine at a fossil fuel ‘retirement party.’ Photo: Carol Linnitt

The Liberal government has yet to release a new national climate framework and has been criticized for bringing former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s climate goals to Paris.

McKenna said the Liberal government is keen to work with the provinces and territories to identify new climate commitments.

She added action taken by the provinces has been “very encouraging.”

In Paris this week Manitoba announced it will join Quebec and Ontario in a North American carbon trade market.

McKenna said the federal government will consider “a whole range of solutions” in the creation of an “ambitious pan-Canadian plan.”

Bronwen Tucker, member of the Canadian Youth Delegation, said by focusing on the broader national picture McKenna seemed to be dodging the Energy East issue.

“Talking about an ‘overall economy approach” is a cop-out for steering the climate conversation away from the massive fossil fuel infrastructure projects that are still slated to go forward,” Tucker said.

“The Energy East pipeline is bigger than Keystone XL and building it would allow enough expansion of the tar sands that staying in line with a goal of two degrees Celsius would be a challenge, let alone our new pledge for 1.5 degrees Celsius,” Tucker said.

“So sure, we need to look at the emissions in all parts of our economy, but if we’re going to do that, the government also needs to stop avoiding naming specifics.”

This article was updated to reflect the route of the Energy East pipeline.

SOURCE

Preventing Ecocide, Video, Politics, Activism, Fascism/Corporatism, democracy

 Naomi Klein: Sane Climate Policies Are Being Undermined by Corporate-Friendly Trade Deals

Leave a comment

Companies like Exxon and Shell are using these deals to create new markets for fossil fuels. See the problem?

By Naomi Klein, reposted from The Nation, Dec 10, 2015

The COP21 Paris Climate Summit has seen some very positive developments in the global effort to combat climate change. But a new wave of international trade deals—deals that are being pushed between the US and the EU, and between Canada and the EU—threaten to undermine the actual implementation of any smart and sane climate policies.

In this dispatch from Paris, Naomi Klein explains how companies like Exxon and Shell are pushing for these trade deals because they see them as ways to create new markets for fossil fuels—which is exactly what we cannot do if we are to save our planet.

SOURCE

Ecocide, Politics, Activism, Fascism/Corporatism, democracy

Activists to defy protest ban with giant civil disobedience at end of Paris climate talks

Leave a comment

Thousands expected for major action in Paris marking climate ‘red lines’ crossed by governments and big polluters

Activists sing and dance during a concert in a BNP Paribas bank they occupied in Paris on 9 Dec during the climate summit. Photograph: Christophe Ena/AP

By , reposted from TheGuardian, Dec 10, 2015

As negotiators try to finalize a UN climate pact being hailed as dangerously insufficient, a network of groups will express their outrage and pledge continuing action in the new year with massive civil disobedience at an iconic French site.

Organizers hope to send a message that leaders should not try to claim the agreement is a success - with industrialized countries refusing to commit to a fair share of emissions reductions, putting the world on a path toward a catastrophic 3 degrees of warming.

Backed by 350.org, Attac France and others, the action on Saturday will evoke “red lines” that are the minimal conditions for a just and livable planet and which activists say the world’s richest governments are trampling over.

Since the Paris attacks that killed 130 people on 13 November, the French government has maintained a state of emergency prohibiting any form of protest, drawing criticisms that they are curbing the right to dissent.

Despite the ban, hundreds of people have been turning out throughout the week for non-violent direct action training - including “speed-dating” to match people into teams - in a large cultural centre in the north end of Paris.

Organizers plan to evade the ban on demonstrations - which are defined as “more than two people sharing a political message” - by sending out thousands of groups of two on Saturday, before converging at a still undisclosed Paris landmark.

At that point, activists will unveil hundreds of red umbrellas and giant inflatable cobblestones that hearken to Paris’ revolutionary history. A 100-metre long red banner reading “Keep it in the ground” will identify the multinational corporations primarily responsible for climate change, according to plans seen by the Guardian.

Scores of actions under the theme of “Climate Games” have already happened through the city and Europe in the last weeks, tracked by an anonymous online platform - including blockades by British group Plane Stupid to protest new Heathrow runways, and the installation of 600 fake adverts across Paris criticizing corporate sponsorship of the UN negotiations.

Along the bank of the Seine river, graffiti has appeared criticizing the French government for using the security measures to eclipse other issues: “L’état d’urgences pour faire oublier les tas d’urgences.” (A state of emergency to ensure other emergencies are forgotten.)

Activists plan to lay 5,000 red flowers and funeral wreathes to draw attention to what they described as the “climate emergency,” commemorating past and future victims of climate change, while fog horns give off a deep mournful sound.

“We will widen the circle of grief from those murdered by terror to include those dying because of climate change,” says activist and artist John Jordan.

“It’s also a battle over who tells the story of the outcome. Will it be governments and corporations or social movements who get to have the last word? We cannot let them declare this agreement a triumph, when in fact it will consign millions of the poorest people to death.”

After the 13 November attacks, organizers cancelled their original plans to surround and blockade the summit conference center because they felt surprise actions, even with the commitment to non-violence, would have endangered activists with French police on high alert.

Organizers also did not want to draw police to the St Denis suburb close to the UN conference centre, which has a large Muslim population that has already beentargeted for violent police raids.

Activists paint a 100-metre ‘Keep it in the ground’ banner that will point at multinational corporations primarily responsible for climate change during the #D12 action planned for December 12, 2015 in Paris.

Juliette Rousseau, coordinator of the French coalition representing 150 organizations, including labour unions, green organizationsand faith groups, says the French government has been determined to make it difficult for people to mobilize.

“Even before the attacks of 13 November, the government was trying to close the borders to activists, trying to ensure the mobilizations would be as small as possible. The state of emergency has turned out to be a tool they could exploit to achieve this. They never wanted their agreement to be received with waves, never wanted their party to be ruined by civil society - which in its diversity is actually the best expression of society’s interests.”

Campaigning group 350.org released a statement for the action, signed by Bill McKibben, Vandana Shiva and others, that promised bold action in 2016.

“We know that our leaders have shown little respect – not for the rights of people on a planet torn by inequality and racism, nor for the red lines for a just and livable planet. Lines we should dare not violate. So we will stand with our bodies to draw red lines, committed to protect our common home from burning up,” it reads.

“This will be our demonstration of hope, power and strength that we will hold as we bring the fight back to the fossil fuel industry in 2016.”

Other groups such as student unions are said to be supportive of the planned civil disobedience but are worried that the government could, under its state of emergency powers, dissolve their organizations.

Charges for refusing to disperse from actions include up to one year in jail and a fine of €15,000 (£10,850).

As an alternative, the French government had offered civil society a sports stadium for an authorized protest on Saturday, but that has now been cancelled.

The exact location of the noon action will be revealed by email and in meetings on Friday.

A separate human chain action organized by other groups will convene later at the Eiffel tower on Saturday.

SOURCE

Uncategorized

What to make of the Liberal government’s 1.5-degree pledge?

Leave a comment
Photo: British High Commission, Ottawa/flickr

by Brent Patterson, reposted from Rabble.ca, Dec 9, 2015

What are we to make of the Liberal government backing the 1.5 degree Celsius limit for global warming?

The Canadian Press reports, “At a closed plenary session on the weekend at the COP21 climate negotiations, [environment minister Catherine] McKenna was quoted saying that on ‘the question for framing the temperature goal, we support reference to striving for 1.5 as other countries have said.’ In the partial transcript provided by her office to The Canadian Press, McKenna goes on to say: ‘If we want to achieve this temperature goal, everyone needs to be part of this. We need maximum participation where everyone puts their best efforts forward.’ …[Her spokesperson has added] ‘We support the Paris agreement having language that says we should aim and strive towards limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.'”

The Council of Canadians supports the 1.5 degree target, but there are some significant caveats to McKenna’s statement.

The National Observer notes, “[McKenna’s spokesperson says] ‘the most important thing is that each country should be legally required to submit a target. And to report on progress on that target on a regular basis.’ This is not the same as legally binding countries to reach their target, as many reports have noted. Countries’ targets will still be outside the agreement.”

And Maclean’s cautions, “But exactly what ‘voicing support’ [means] is unclear. McKenna told the other environment ministers that Canada supports including a ‘reference in the Paris Agreement to the recognition of the ‎need to [strive] to limit global warming to 1.5.’ That stops short of asserting the limit should be 1.5 degrees… Canada is not asking that the 1.5-degree target be binding or even firm. It simply calls for language in the Paris agreement to urge countries to do their best. [The current] pledges presented by each country add up to anywhere from 2.7 to 3.7 degrees of warming.”

The Globe and Mail’s lead line on this story was that, “Canada has endorsed a call from small island nations to hold global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, putting Ottawa out of step with the United States, which has maintained a 2 C target.” But by late yesterday, the Guardian had clarified, “In the final push to a climate agreement, the U.S., Canada, China and the European Union declared they were now on board with demands from African countries to adopt an even more ambitious goal to limit warming.”

While Equiterre, ForestEthics and Environmental Defence praised the Canadian government’s position, other groups, like Friends of the Earth U.S. and the Indigenous Environmental Network, were more critical.

The Guardian report adds, “Campaign groups meanwhile said the aspiration to 1.5 C was far-removed from reality. …Erich Pica, the director of Friends of the Earth U.S., accused the rich countries of backing vulnerable states on the 1.5 C goal to crowd out bigger developing countries. ‘There is a dangerous push that developed countries are using on this push to 1.5 C to blur the lines,’ he said. ‘The U.S. and European countries are adopting the idea of 1.5 C as a mitigation target but they are blurring of the lines on what has to happen to have a just and fair sharing of the 1.5 C equation.'”

And in a media release the Indigenous Environmental Network stated, “Indigenous peoples from Canada, U.S. and the world were initially elated to hear [support for 1.5 degrees Celsius]… ‘What remains to be seen is how Canada aims to achieve this goal without a commitment to stop the expansion of the Alberta tar sands and its associated pipelines and begin the rapid transition to a renewable economy. This would be the real news and commitment that we want from Canada to deeply commit to responding to the climate crisis,’ [says Tom Goldtooth].”

We agree.

We have highlighted in numerous blogs that British researchers at University College London have concluded that 85 per cent of the tar sands would have to be left in the ground to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. That study specified that no more than 7.5 billion barrels of oil from the tar sands can be produced over the next 35 years.

The proposed Energy East pipeline would move 1,100,000 barrels of oil a day. That means about 401,500,000 barrels per year. If the limit that can be drawn from the tar sands is 7,500,000,000 then that limit would be reached in about 19 years. That means Canada would hit its carbon budget within two decades with only the Energy East pipeline (no other pipelines, no other tar sands production). A 1.5-degree target would mean that deadline would come even sooner. And given the Liberals have also publicly supported an expansion of the tar sands and have not ruled out Energy East, their 1.5-degree promise lacks credibility.

Council of Canadians energy and climate justice campaigner Andrea Harden-Donahue says, “With ambitious targets must come ambitious actions. This means freezing tar sands expansion, rejecting both the Energy East and Kinder Morgan pipelines, and planning for a just transition towards a fossil free economy and society by 2050.” SOURCE

RELATED:

Ambitious climate targets not compatible with new pipelines

The Council of Canadians is encouraged by strengthened climate targets proposed at the Paris climate talks, but doesn’t see how Canada can achieve them with the Energy East and Trans Mountain pipelines still on the table.

Media Statement from The Council of Canadians

OTTAWA - The Council of Canadians is encouraged by strengthened climate targets proposed at the Paris climate talks, but doesn’t see how Canada can achieve them with the Energy East and Trans Mountain pipelines still on the table.

“If we are serious about achieving a 1.5 degree target, then we cannot approve new tar sands pipelines like TransCanada’s Energy East or Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain,” says Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy and Climate Campaigner with the Council of Canadians. “The Energy East pipeline alone could lead to a 40 per cent increase in tar sands production, which we will be locked into for 40 years. Ambitious targets require ambitious actions. This means freezing tar sands expansion and planning for a transition towards a fossil-free economy by 2050.”

“We welcome Minister McKenna’s revised goal,” adds Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians. “But goals without actions to back them up are just more hot air – I think Canadians have run out of patience for that. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that energy acquired from tar sands, fracking, and offshore drilling is devastating to the environment. We expect that the Canadian government will move forward with meaningful changes to current energy policies. Anything less is incompatible with the government’s stated goal of a 1.5 degree target.” SOURCE

 

Preventing Ecocide, solutions, Politics, conservation

Ontario to invest $20 million in stations to charge up electric cars

Leave a comment

Initiative announced Tuesday by Premier Kathleen Wynne at the Paris climate talks will encourage a shift to low-emission vehicles that she calls “vital to the fight against climate change.”

A Nissan Leaf gets a charge at a station similar to those which Ontario plans to install to encourage electric vehicle use in and between major communities.
A Nissan Leaf gets a charge at a station similar to those which Ontario plans to install to encourage electric vehicle use in and between major communities. EMILY ATKINS / FOR THE TORONTO STAR

By: Climate and Economy Reporter, reposted from TheStar, Dec 8, 2015

PARIS—Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said Tuesday that her government is investing $20 million toward hundreds of electric-vehicle charging stations to be installed within and between urban centres.

Environment Minister Glen Murray, who along with Wynne is participating in the Paris climate summit, said the investment will go toward two types of charging stations: Slower Level 2 chargers to be installed at workplaces where vehicles are parked for hours and much faster Level 3 chargers that can replenish most of a vehicle’s battery system within 30 minutes.

“The program will be application-based on a first-come, first-serve basis,” said Murray, pointing out that the $20 million will be spent within the fiscal year and is just a start. “The program will be elaborated on in the next budget year, so this is really a kick-start program.”

Wynne said the move is part of many initiatives that will come out of the province’s new climate plan, which focuses on reducing the greenhouse-gas emissions that come from transportation and building. The coal phase-out completed last year makes EVs that run on Ontario grid electricity that much cleaner.

“A shift to low-emission vehicles is vital to the fight against climate change,” the premier said. “Driving electric vehicles is a tangible way for people to make a difference.”

Consumers who purchase a plug-in hybrid or pure electric vehicle in Ontario can get rebates of $5,000 and up to $8,500. Currently, there are 5,400 electric vehicles registered to drive on provincial roads, and Wynne wants to boost that number.

“We know that in order for electric vehicles to take off in Ontario there has to be the infrastructure in place,” she said.

In Toronto, Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca noted there are currently 5,400 electric vehicles in Ontario, but expanding the places to charge them should boost those numbers.

“By investing in charging infrastructure that is fast, reliable and affordable we will encourage more Ontarians to purchase electric vehicles, reducing greenhouse gas pollution and keeping our air clean,” said Del Duca.

Economic Development and Infrastructure Minister Brad Duguid said the measure could be good for the automotive business, which is a key driver of the provincial economy.

“Promoting the use and development of electric vehicles is part of Ontario’s approach to align our economy with future consumer and industry trends,” said Duguid.

The lack of an extensive charging station network is as “a big psychological barrier” that deters consumers, says Cara Clairman, president and CEO of Plug’n Drive, which advocates electric car use.

“People want the opportunity to go on long trips — to Montreal, to Algonquin Park — my (Nissan Leaf) can get me to Cobourg or to Hamilton, but it doesn’t take me too much further,” Clairman said.

The absence of a dense and far-reaching provincial network — 2,700 charge stations are scattered across the country — means that 80 to 90 per cent of recharges occur at home, according a 2014 report by the Canadian Condominium Institute and Plug’n Drive. SOURCE

This article is part of a series produced in partnership by the Toronto Star and Tides Canada to address a range of pressing climate issues in Canada leading up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, December 2015. Tides Canada is supporting this partnership to increase public awareness and dialogue around the impacts of climate change on Canada’s economy and communities. The Toronto Star has full editorial control and responsibility to ensure stories are rigorously edited in order to meet its editorial standards.

With files from Robert Benzie

 

solutions, Sustainability, conservation, innovation

City of Vancouver advances toward goal of spurring development of zero-emission green buildings

Leave a comment
null
Vancouver green-building program manager Sean Pander admires how the city of Brussels encouraged zero-emission buildings.

by Charlie Smith, reposted from Straight, Dec 9, 2015

There’s a super-energy-efficient 85-unit apartment building being built the corner of Skeena and East Hastings streets. On its website, 8th Avenue Development Group describes the rental project as the “largest passive house building” in Canada.

The description is bound to confuse those who wonder how a multifamily complex could ever be characterized as a “house”.

In fact, the term passive house comes from the German word Passivhaus and does not refer exclusively to single-family homes.

It’s a voluntary standard for achieving outstanding energy efficiency in all buildings, including institutional and commercial structures. It has caught on in Europe and is undergoing serious scrutiny by officials in Vancouver.

Sean Pander, manager of the city’s green-building program, enthusiastically discussed the concept in an interview with the Georgia Straight at Vancouver City Hall.

“We are looking to encourage passive house,” Pander said. “We have been doing some research of best practices around the globe. We’re really quite interested in the approach that they took in Brussels.”

Buildings are a major source of greenhouse gases

The City of Vancouver has reported that a majority of greenhouse-gas emissions within its boundaries come from buildings, mostly through the use of natural gas and electricity. And Pander suggested that buildings constructed with the passive-house standard have 75 to 90 percent lower emissions than traditional bulidings.

Pander noted that in the Belgian capital, municipal officials didn’t demand a prescriptive approach. Instead, Brussels offered incentives.

According to Pander, tradespeople, builders, and architects there all told him the same story: once they understood the passive-house standard, they paid more attention to details, like insulating around areas to avoid heat loss.

“They took most of those lessons and just changed how they did things,” Pander said.

Across B.C., buildings account for 11 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions, according to a report by the provincial climate leadership team.

The document cited Brussels—which went “from amongst the worst in Europe to amongst the best over an eight-year period”—to suggest that B.C. could reduce emissions in this sector by 50 percent by 2030.

“Our recommendations would see increasing use of wood products and a rapid transition to buildings that are energy efficient enough to be able to meet most of their energy needs with on-site renewable energy (e.g., equivalent to net zero ready or Passive House standards),” the report noted.

The call for more wood construction was echoed by Pander, so long as it meets fire- and seismic-safety standards. “Wood is a great carbon-capture technology,” he said.

Passive house saves massive amounts of energy

The six-storey building at 388 Skeena Street has been designed with five storeys of wood, which reduces heat leakage. The structure’s design, building envelope, high-quality windows, and heat-recovery system also help achieve that objective.

This likely won’t be the last multifamily rental building developed to the passive-house standard.

Pander revealed that his staff are preparing a report for council early next year. It will outline how to achieve an audacious goal in the Greenest City Action Plan: requiring that all buildings constructed from 2020 onward be “carbon neutral in operations”.

Pander emphasized that “carbon neutral in operations” does not account for greenhouse-gas emissions in the production of building materials or the construction process. Those add up to 15 to 20 percent of overall emissions, with the remainder occurring during the operation of the building over its lifetime.

“That’s primarily the use of natural gas,” he said. “Electricity is largely renewable in B.C.”

BCUC rejects application from district-heating company

One way to reduce natural-gas consumption will be if the downtown Vancouver district-heating company Creative Energy follows through on its objective of switching its fuel stock from natural gas to a renewable source.

Creative Energy, which is controlled by developer Ian Gillespie, provides heat to more than 210 buildings, including B.C. Place Stadium and St. Paul’s Hospital.

On December 8 Creative Energy suffered a setback when the B.C. Utilities Commission denied its application for a neighbourhood energy agreement with the City of Vancouver. This arrangment would have given the company an exclusive franchise to supply district heating in Northeast False Creek and Chinatown.

The Pembina Institute’s Karen Tam Wu says that promoting green buildings yields economic dividends.

Pander said that it’s still possible to achieve carbon neutrality in operations of new buildings even if Creative Energy didn’t achieve its objective of switching to more sustainable fuel source. But he noted that ithis would likely change the economics and the time frame for this to occur.

He also acknowledged that not all new buildings will be zero-emission in 2020. As a result, the city will likely consider the use of carbon offsets as a bridging strategy. Ordinarily, that can involve planting trees or doing something else to capture or reduce carbon emissions.

“To continue to maximize the benefits, we’ll be looking at offsets within the city boundaries,” Pander said.

Greenest City Action Plan has financial implications

The action plan aims to reduce 2020 energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions in existing buildings to 20 percent below 2007 levels. One of the cochairs of Vancouver’s Greenest City Action Team, environmental lawyer David Boyd, included a chapter on green buildings in his recent book, The Optimistic Environmentalist: Progressing Towards a Greener Future.

He pointed out that the average Canadian home uses 170 kilowatt-hours of energy per square metre per year for heating and cooling. Boyd reported that a passive-house certified home can use a maximum of 15 kilowatt-hours of energy per square metre per year for these purposes.

“A 90 percent reduction in energy use takes a tremendous amount of pressure off the environment—reducing air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and harm to biodiversity, while maximizing the homeowner’s savings,” Boyd wrote.

Pander acknowledged that green initiatives might increase construction costs by two to five percent, but suggested that this is more than offset in operating savings over the building’s lifetime. “In the zero-emissions new building plan that we’re developing, we’re also going to start looking at financing tools.”

LEED tracks far more than energy consumption

Traditionally, the building industry has relied on the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system to assess building sustainability. Pander, however, said that LEED’s broad checklist isn’t as effective as passive house in promoting energy efficiency. That’s because LEED enables builders to collect points for such things as access to transit, indoor air quality, and proximity to a good cycling network.

“LEED was largely for air-conditioned climates, commercial buildings, office buildings, malls, and that sort of thing,” Pander said. “We don’t have an air-conditioning-dominated climate.”

Pander emphasized that passive house differs from “passive design”, which has no “controlled definition”. To clarify this point, Pander said that passive design involves applying principles such as maintaining effective insulation or orienting the building to make the best use of sunshine. Placing an awning over a window, for example, might enable a home to capture the winter sun while reflecting back heat in the summer when the sun is higher in the sky.

Another aspect of passive design is interrupting “thermal bridges” that enable heat to escape. According to Pander, concrete balconies on high-rises act like “big radiator fins” that pull heat out of a unit. Even metal studs can conduct heat, which can be addressed by adding insulation in the construction process.

“Passive house is actually an international standard for energy efficiency, whereas passive design is the approach,” Pander said. Mayor Gregor Robertson—in an interview before he left for the COP21 climate summit in Paris­—told the Straight that mayors want to promote an international standard for the transparent reporting of greenhouse-gas emissions. “We’re already close to 100 percent electricity—renewable electricity—from B.C. Hydro,” he said. “But we burn lots of natural gas to heat our homes.”

He pointed out that the city has direct tools, including its own building code, to reduce emissions from buildings. So will developers receive additional density for adding solar panels on the roof?

“We’re looking at streamlining the approvals and creating incentives for renewables, solar in particular,” the mayor responded. “We want to be supporting the entrepreneurial efforts to demonstrate new technology.”

Pembina Institute likes approach of City of Vancouver

The director of the Pembina Institute’s buildings and urban solutions program, Karen Tam Wu, told the Straight by phone that there are more than 10,000 green buildings in B.C. They range from century-old homes to the state-of-the-art Telus Garden office tower to a prison in the Okanagan.

Because Vancouver is a hub for commercial and institutional structures, it has a disproportionate number of green buildings. In part, that’s because it’s governed by the Vancouver Charter, which enables it to adopt a higher standard than other municipalities.

She added that the province can learn from Vancouver putting forth “aggressive measures” to achieve its vision of becoming the world’s greenest city by 2020.

Tam Wu said she is particularly impressed that the city is considering incorporating passive house for new buildings. In Brussels, she noted, 3,000 buildings have come online under this standard, and it’s been the catalyst for the rise of domestic producers of green-building products.

“As the marketplace is receiving signals about what the demand is—and if there are government incentives to encourage research and development—the manufacturing supply side will catch up,” Tam Wu predicted. SOURCE

RELATED:

From Brussels to British Columbia

An analysis of the proliferation of Passive House in Brussels

 

By Karen Tam Wu, reposted from the Pembina Institute, June 23, 2015

A home built to meet Passive House standards boasts extremely energy-efficient spaces that are able to maintain comfortable climates without relying on electrical heating or cooling systems.

B.C. has acknowledged through various initiatives that the built environment is an important area in which to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

These initiatives include the recently announced Climate Leadership Plan, commitments to “lead the way to net-zero” as a member of the Pacific Coast Collaborative, and setting targets in the Energy Efficient Building Strategy. In order for a net-zero target for buildings to contribute meaningfully toward achieving B.C.’s climate targets, an aggressive and ambitious pathway must be set — and B.C. has yet to define its path.

The example of the Brussels–Capital Region in Belgium may provide some inspiration for how B.C. can set a bold trajectory and successfully realize ultra-high efficiency for buildings as part of the climate solution.

Download (PDF, 476KB)

SOURCE