A ‘just transition’ is defined as ‘a vision-led, unifying and place-based set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy’ by the Climate Justice Alliance. Just transitions take a holistic view of where we are going, as well as how we get there. When thinking of a just transition towards green energy, one of the groups that will be disproportionately affected is Indigenous communities. This is a direct result of a disproportionate dependency on fossil fuels to fuel both energy needs and daily life requirements. Additionally, these communities are also likely to experience the effects of climate change much more than others due to these changes impacting many aspects of their lives. Some of these changes can include loss of land and resources, extreme weather events impacting agriculture, future supply chain issues, and more. As a result of this, it is of paramount importance that for these indigenous communities, we ensure the transition to green energy is a just one.

This is where Melina Laboucan-Massimo saw an opportunity to make a difference. Laboucan-Massimo is Lubicon Cree, from the community of Little Buffalo, located in Alberta, Canada. Little Buffalo is an oil sands region, and as a result, Laboucan-Massimo grew up witnessing firsthand the negative impacts that oil sand development has had on the environment, as well as the development of her Indigenous community. To put into perspective how little the oil sands have done for Indigenous communities, Laboucan-Massimo states in this article with the Nobel Women’s Initiative that since 1978 over $14 billion had been made off of her family’s traditional territory, yet they still don’t have running water. She goes on to say that the more than 2600 oil wells on the land make it impossible to live sustainably, to make matters worse, almost 70% of Lubicon territory has been leased for future development without the consent of the Lubicon people, directly violating their charter rights.

Laboucan-Massimo has been attending protests about this matter since 1988, at the tender age of 7 years old. This first protest was in her Lubicron Cree community of Little Buffalo which held a 6-day protest against oil and gas drilling on their land. While her parents and grandparents were part of the blockade, Laboucan-Massimo watched from the safety of their car, with this experience having a profound impact on her. This protest in 1988 was a whole 34 years ago, yet oil and gas drilling continues on this land, much to its detriment. If the community of Little Buffalo sounds familiar, then you were probably paying attention to the news in 2011. This is because in 2011 the Rainbow Pipeline spill occurred on this land, causing a total of 28,000 barrels of oil to be spilled – the largest oil spill in Alberta in three decades. This spill is still impacting the community to this day, and those responsible for it, Plains Midstream, were only fined a measly $1.3 million two years after the spill. Were those funds used to clean up the area or were they enough to cover the costs of those cleanup efforts? No and no. After this spill, Laboucan-Massimo felt even more inspired to take action, saying in an interview with Mongabay, “Wow, I need to really start building: What does transition technology look like? What does a just transition look like in our communities? That’s why I founded Sacred Earth Solar, which began with my Master’s thesis…”

The creation and inspiration behind Sacred Earth Solar are why I find Laboucan-Massimo to be so inspiring personally. Sacred Earth Solar was born out of their Master’s degree thesis in Indigenous Governance, with a focus on energy which was completed at the University of Victoria. As part of her thesis, Laboucan-Massimo proposed building a solar-powered center in her hometown of Little Buffalo, in order to ensure just transition to green energy. This proposal was not without resistance, with Laboucan-Massimo recalling in an interview with Fashion Magazine, “One of my professors actually tried to dissuade me from doing it—he said ‘It’s too big of an undertaking, you’re not going to finish in time.’” Despite these concerns, Laboucan-Massimo decided to go ahead with the project due to her determination of creating a just transition for her community, as well as wanting to inspire others to do so. This was completed in 2015 and since then, the project has provided power to the community’s health center. This project, now known as the Piitapan Solar Project, involved the installation of 80 solar panels resulting in a 20.8kW renewable energy project – not only does this provide green energy, but also creates jobs in the community, and provides a template for other communities to follow. How inspiring is that? Despite even professors voicing their concerns, and having no experience directly in that field, Laboucan-Massimo followed through on her mission of creating a more sustainable future for her community.

After the establishment of this solar project, Laboucan-Massimo created the aforementioned Sacred Earth Solar. Sacred Earth Solar has now branched out to create projects outside of the Piitapan Solar Project in Little Buffalo. In all of its work, Sacred Earth Solar ensures that a just transition, as defined earlier in this article, can take place. According to their website, Sacred Earth Solar currently assists Indigenous communities in exploring renewable energy within the broader context of antiracist climate work, ensuring that these communities are given priority in keeping their communities safe and healthy. A just transition is one that Laboucan-Massimo is very passionate about, and in addition to setting up Sacred Earth Solar, also sits as the Senior Director of Just Transition at Indigenous Climate Action, an organization that aims to integrate Indigenous rights and knowledge into developing solutions for the climate crisis. Other initiatives by Sacred Earth Solar, and as a result Laboucan-Massimo, include the solarization of the art studio at Nimkii Aazhibikong with Onaman Collective in partnership with Indigenous Climate Action, which will serve as a centre for the language revitalization, transmission of indigenous knowledge, and communal space for Anishinaabek and surrounding Indigenous communities to have a communal space to share teachings. Another initiative included sending several sets of solar panels to Indigenous youth who were protesting at Ada’itsx/Fairy Creek. These solar panels were used to power the kitchen and charge devices so that they could have communication, but also record the police brutality that was on display. Laboucan-Massimo in addition to sending these panels also joined Indigenous leaders, environmental activists, and other celebrities in the condemnation of the logging at Ada’itsx/Fairy Creek. Sacred Earth Solar has continued to provide green energy for those fighting for climate justice by solarizing three homes at the Gidimt’en checkpoint in Wet’suwet’en Territory. This was done so that families could have access to their territory as the Gidimt’en checkpoint is directly in the path of the proposed Coastal Gas Link pipeline. Additionally, Sacred Earth Solar has been creating tiny homes that run off of solar energy to assist those protesting the Trans Mountain pipeline. These tiny homes are set up directly in the path of the pipeline, acting as both an act of resistance, but also a symbol of how green energy can be used for a just transition.

As you can see, Laboucan-Massimo’s Master’s thesis has grown a movement towards a just transition outside of her home community of Little Buffalo. Sacred Earth Solar may, in my opinion, be one of her most notable initiatives, however, Laboucan-Massimo has done much more than this. In addition to being the Director of Just Transition at Indigenous Climate Action, she was appointed as the first Indigenous research fellow at the David Suzuki Foundation where she has continued her research on Climate Change, Indigenous Knowledge, and Renewable Energy. In order to disseminate the message around green energy in Indigenous communities, Laboucan-Massimo created the Power to the People series. This series takes a look at the renewable energy revolution in Indigenous communities around Canada and the world, showcasing how a just transition may occur. This series found many different projects from wind farms, to solar plants, to tidal electric projects, and serves as a showcase for how other communities may become self-sufficient. Laboucan-Massimo has also worked alongside icons such as Jane Fonda, David Suzuki, and Naomi Klein to help build a better future for not only Indigenous people but the planet. She has also given many speeches which have inspired many, some of these including US Congress, the Harvard Law Forum, in British Parliament, and numerous international organizations like Amnesty International, allowing for her message of equitable climate justice to be heard around the world.

If you did a thesis, I implore you to think back to it. I can remember the thesis I completed in my undergraduate degree very well. Now, prior to this, have you thought about your thesis since completing it? Furthermore, has your thesis been of use? For some of you I’m sure that answer is yes, but for others like myself, not so much. It is of such great inspiration that Laboucan-Massimo took an issue that was so dear to her, and despite resistance from even her own professors, turned this thesis into a project that has since spiraled outwards, creating a movement. It is a great message of being the change you want to see, no matter how big the mountain you must climb is. Laboucan-Massimo could have stopped there, feeling that by improving her community she has done enough, but instead she has since campaigned to create a just transition to green energy for Indigenous people and communities around the world, and also acts as an example of how the entire world must act. It is for these reasons that Melina Laboucan-Massimo is an Every Day Eco-Hero.

The post Every Day Eco-Heroes: Melina Laboucan-Massimo appeared first on A\J.

Artwork by Margarita Krasutskaya

On the theme of eco-anxiety, we partnered with Earth Day Canada to create our ‘Every Day Eco-Heroes’ series. The aim of this series was to shine a spotlight on Canadian environmental activists who make every day, Earth Day. This series can be found here:

1. Autumn Peltier 
2. Shefaza Esmail
3. Melina Laboucan-Massimo

Additionally we created a few off series posts, centred around ideas of sustainability and the feelings of eco-anxiety! These articles can be found here:

1. Sowing a Better Future
2. Our Environmental Origin Stories
3. Addressing Eco-Anxiety
4. Touch the Earth

Thank you so much for joining us for this collaboration, and a very special thanks to Earth Day Canada for making this possible. We hope you have had a great Earth Day so far, and hope that these articles can inspire you in some form or fashion to make every day Earth Day.

The post Earth Day 2022 appeared first on A\J.

The Nature Force is of extreme importance as according to the Insurance Institute of Canada’s (IIC) 2020 report, the average cost of claims associated with extreme weather is expected to rise by 138% annually, growing up to $5 billion. As you can see, this is an issue that must be addressed now, and that’s what The Nature Force intends to do. As mentioned, this will be done through increasing natural infrastructure through the conservation and restoration of the wetlands that help attenuate flood risk.

Source: The Nature Force

I was provided the opportunity to speak to Mark Gloutney, national director of science for Ducks Unlimited Canada about this project and had a great conversation about it. When asked how this initiative was started, Mark said that this industry-first initiative came about as a result of Ducks Unlimited Canada realising the opportunities that a partnership between themselves and insurance companies would bring. They recognised that there should be a linkage between the insurance industry and the work they do due to the flood attenuating impacts of Ducks Unlimited and because the risk of flood loss and damage is only going to increase in the years to come. This resulted in conversations between Ducks Unlimited Canada, and Tina Osen, President of HUB Canada. Mark stated that Tina was extremely instrumental in the success of planning and organising this project. Tina realised that this project could be catalytic in its nature, and set out on gathering other insurance industry players. They realised that this is a way to do something that would help demonstrate how natural solutions and infrastructure can be part of the solution to climate change, and as a result, 15 insurance companies are now partnered with The Nature Force. Mark said that what’s especially great about this is that Ducks Unlimited Canada will be forming an advisory, or oversight committee with key representatives from HUB to ensure that the vision of The Nature Force stays on track and that there’s good dialogue, traction, messaging and vision between the insurance sector and Ducks Unlimited Canada.

Moving on, I had a few questions for Mark surrounding the planning and execution of this project. Mark went on to elaborate that they would be setting up three pilot projects. One in Ontario, one in Quebec, and one in the Fraser Delta in British Columbia. These projects will demonstrate that natural infrastructure is part of the solution, and allow them to build models which will help understand what features in a particular watershed will have the most consequence for flood attenuation and climate resilience. The plan is that once these are identified, Ducks Unlimited Canada will come in and complete restoration work on these sites. Once completed, they can take the results to the government, policymakers, and municipal planners so that this knowledge can be integrated into future land use planning decisions. This information can then also be shared with other conservation authorities to demonstrate how natural infrastructure can be integrated. Importantly he noted, once this is done it won’t be solely on the insurance industry to pay for the investment, but society as a whole, as all levels of society will recognise this as a solution, over time increasing investments and increasing climate resiliency across the Canadian landscape.

Now that I understood how the project would work, I was curious about any case studies, or examples that were worked on while preparing. Mark explained that Ducks Unlimited Canada had done a lot of modeling in Ontario that looked at the capacity of wetlands in terms of their ability to store water and function on the landscape like a sponge. He then goes on to outline that they had done quite a bit of work with Dr. Blair Feltmate, Head of the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation. With Dr. Feltmate’s, help they modeled the Credit river in Toronto, observing what would happen in two different storm events with differing instances of wetland environments, and seeing how the flood level changed with these variables. Dr. Feltmate and the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation have access to economic consequence information, and with their help, it was possible to show the economic consequences of these differing flood events. This was formative in their research because it was clear that as you modelled the loss of the wetlands on that watershed you saw property value loss increasing dramatically for both storm events. This was completed about three years ago and the team in Ontario has been working with these results to create The Nature Force. 

The Nature Force begins its planning stage this April 2022, as such, I asked Mark if there are any timelines in place for this project. He stated that the initial stages starting in April will be a period of planning where watersheds to be modelled will be chosen, conservation and planning partners will be assembled, and then a model will be built that states the four or five restoration solutions that will have the biggest impact in reducing the floods. This will take a little while and it is expected that they will be doing restoration in Ontario and Quebec by around next spring. He goes on to say that the Fraser Delta may take a little longer due to the complexity of the landscape it is situated on. This complexity is due both to land interest, as well as the topography of the land and proximity to the ocean of the delta, which results in differing conditions to those found in Ontario or Quebec. 

Understanding how the project was planned to take place, I was curious about any challenges that The Nature Force has faced, or anticipate in the future, and how they planned on dealing with these. Mark outlined that one of the main issues anticipated is surrounding land ownership. In an ideal scenario, you can find a watershed with the right assembly of partners to make conservation easy, however, this is often not the case. Instances of conservation efforts on agricultural land require models to show what is gained and lost for society through this conservation. Private land ownership is always tricky as well as this is of course, on private property – in these cases the landowners are negotiated with to try to suit the needs of the landowner, as well as the needs of society by attenuating flood risk. Another challenge is associated with the regulatory environment which is always rather uncertain, and there are always elements that cannot be anticipated. Another challenge that was of interest was whether or not species at risk are situated in these areas. Due to the regulatory environment, these species are protected on an individual basis, rather than looking at the population. This means that while a project may be beneficial to the species in the long term if an individual, or individuals in the area are impacted by the project, it may need to be adjusted to suit this regulatory environment. 

As evidenced through the resources provided on The Nature Force website, as well as the conversation with Mark Gloutney, it is clear that this project is of extreme importance, and also being set up well for success. Hopefully, this project will indeed be catalytic in its nature and spark more conversations and projects around climate change mitigation and adaptation, especially through the use of natural infrastructure and wetland conservation. With the planning stage under-way as of this April, I look forward to seeing the projects begin next spring and share the same excitement as Mark and The Nature Force in seeing the results from these projects turned into positive, climate change mitigating action over the coming years.

The post The Nature Force appeared first on A\J.

We all feel anxious at times so I’m sure you’re wondering what symptoms are associated with eco-anxiety other than this fear of the destruction of our environment. According to Healthline, one of the main feelings associated with eco-anxiety is that of hopelessness about the future. I’m sure every single one of you reading this has felt that feeling at some point, I think it might be a requirement to become an environmentalist. Other symptoms they’ve listed include frustration, especially towards climate deniers, existential dread, guilt surrounding your own carbon footprint, and obsessive thoughts about the climate. Physical symptoms observed have included sleep problems, appetite changes and difficulty concentrating. 

You may be wondering why eco-anxiety seems to be on such a sharp rise in recent years. There are a variety of reasons for this. Firstly, no matter how much you try, it is pretty impossible to ignore the fact that without the earth we would not be able to exist. Even the starkest climate deniers can agree that we need earth, and as such, it is only natural to feel a sense of loss and to grieve for the earth as we become more aware of the rapidly accelerating changes taking place. The second reason is through lived experiences – while hearing about climate change is one thing, living through it is another. For people who have had to experience increased instances of extreme weather events such as hurricanes or drought, the realities of climate change are quite apparent. As someone from the Caribbean, I can attest that this lived experience makes it near impossible to not feel eco-anxiety at times. Gradual changes can also impact people of course, and rising temperatures can also lead to adverse effects. Another reason for the increased instance of eco-anxiety in the population is due to increased media coverage. I’m sure you’ve all felt like you can’t escape the news, and like it is a constant stream of negativity. Reporting on climate change and disasters, while incredibly important, also results in people feeling as though they can’t escape, causing them to feel demotivated. Constant news coverage also results in doomscrolling on social media, leading to people feeling trapped under a constant barrage of doom and gloom. The final reason for an increase in eco-anxiety is due to regret for one’s own individual actions. We now know the extent of our impacts on the climate, and it is hard to not feel guilty about these actions. For example, feeling guilty about using your air conditioner too much, or for all the flights you have taken over your life, or even for just not recycling that piece of paper yesterday. These feelings of guilt can also lead to feeling powerless due to being just one individual. 

When looking at eco-anxiety it is clear that this is an issue that will be felt around the world, however, there are groups of people who face a higher chance of climate-related stress due to, in part, their greater vulnerability to climate change. Groups who are higher at risk include Indigenous communities, people living in coastal or island regions, children and older adults, and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. There are many complex factors that play into this increased instance of risk. Inuit communities face the loss of sea ice which plays a crucial role in not only their way of life but also their culture and identity. Indigenous and other communities that rely on hunting, fishing and farming as their way of life are also at risk due to decreasing availability of fish and other wild animals, as well as increased instances of drought causing crops to be unable to grow. Communities that rely on tourism are also at risk. Travel destinations often rely on the beauty of their natural environment to attract visitors, however, the destruction of natural environments due to climate change will result in fewer tourists and as a result, less income for these communities

Now that you know what eco-anxiety is, why it is on the rise, and who is most at risk, I would like to share my own experience with it. I have studied environmental science since my undergraduate degree, following that with a Masters of Environment and Sustainability. Due to this, I have been surrounded by environmental news, and what sometimes feels like a constant downpour of new climate crises. As a result, in my third year of university to be completely honest, I was rather depressed. Going to class every day was a constant reminder that we, and I, were not doing enough to combat climate change and that even if I did change, I felt it was too late. This resulted in me feeling hopeless and apathetic about the future, often wondering to myself what the point of it all was. This was also at a time when it was quite apparent that the reefs back in my home of Barbados were dying, and we were also experiencing one of our worst droughts ever. I say this all to let you know that if you ever feel this way, you really aren’t alone. I spent the first semester of that year pessimistic and apathetic. If you asked me what I thought of the future, I would’ve probably (annoyingly) said ‘What future?’, if you asked me what we could do I would have replied with a quick ‘nothing.’ Now, do I still feel eco-anxiety? Of course! I honestly think that if you are in tune with the environment it is impossible to avoid. However, apathy doesn’t lead to change, and change is something that we desperately need. I was privileged to be able to go to therapy during this time which helped me understand what I was feeling and identify ways to better cope with these feelings. This coupled with changes in my life, such as becoming vegetarian, spending more time in nature, and living an all-around more eco-friendly lifestyle have helped me deal with my own feelings greatly.

At this point, I’m sure you’re wondering how to address eco-anxiety. MedicalNewsToday has some great tips, as well as a few of my own. The first, and one I can say from personal experience helped me greatly, is by taking action. Action can be taken by volunteering with environmental groups, spreading environmental awareness, and making greener choices in your lifestyle, such as by reducing your meat intake. For me, taking action was done in the form of going vegetarian, attending more rallies, and volunteering – all of which helped relieve a sense of hopelessness about my future. Another way to help alleviate eco-anxiety is by spending time in nature and fostering a better personal connection with the environment. Some professionals recommend keeping a rock, dried flower, or other natural objects to look at or touch as a grounding technique when feeling overwhelmed. Refusing to be in denial is another important, but difficult way to deal with these feelings. Despite wanting to push these feelings away or bury your head in the sand, dealing with them and acknowledging them is incredibly important. Allow yourself to understand why you are feeling this way, and if you feel guilt, forgive yourself for your past actions and commit to doing better moving forward. That is not to say however that you need to be engaged in climate change discourse at all times. It is important to know when to disengage and allow yourself to rest, and also important to ensure that the information causing you this anxiety is accurate and trustworthy. Finally, if possible, speaking to a professional can always help with any feelings of anxiety, and eco-anxiety is no different. If you don’t want to, or can’t speak to a professional, try speaking to someone you trust about these feelings, and always remember, you really aren’t alone. Eco-anxiety is something that we will all probably feel at some point, however, I hope that these feelings can be turned into ones of action and will help us to create a better, less stressful future.

The post Addressing Eco-Anxiety appeared first on A\J.

We were determined to see academics, journalists, and popular publishers expose the enormous externalized costs of the metals extracted in this country to workers, indigenous peoples, the ecosystem and communities – to see that this is an industry that makes its profits from terrible and often permanent loss.

Mining Country is an exciting fulfilment of this hope. The book is a large-format, popularly-written history full of stunning archival photos and well-researched, clear examples of mining conflicts and impacts. The story it tells shows the costs.

The book opens with a description of the Indigenous mining in Canada which preceded colonialism, followed by the march of colonial extraction across the country, including stories of coal and iron deposits in the Maritimes. We hear vivid descriptions of the Marmora/Hastings County, Fraser-Cariboo, and Klondike gold rushes, their impacts on the First Nations they dispossessed and impoverished, and of the miserable (and often short) lives of the miners. 

Throughout the book, the authors tie the history of Canadian mining to global trends and events: massive industrialization from 1880 onwards, the Second World War, the post-war construction boom, and neo-liberal globalization. It ends with reflections on the new “green infrastructure” demands for more metals.

The astonishing growth of mining towns like Sudbury, Noranda, Trail, and Cobalt are explained, including the huge price paid by the miners who were maimed and often killed in large numbers. The contaminants spewed by the smelters poisoned land for miles around. The communities where the miners lived were badly planned, poorly constructed, and unhealthy, sometimes leading to typhoid epidemics. 

Unions were fought for and eventually won, and some of these struggles are told in detail.

Stories about Yellowknife’s Giant mine, the Westray disaster of 1992, the Asbestos strike of 1949, and the Pine Point mine draw us into seeing the consequences of an unimaginable lack of government oversight coupled with enormous government subsidy. The history of uranium mines in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories is compelling. 

The book ends with a discussion of the long-term, often perpetual, impacts of mining on the environment and on all of us, and a call to decide if “the endless growth of mineral extraction can be maintained into the future.”

As someone who has spent most of my life living in Sudbury and studying the Canadian mining industry, I found I was a bit jealous of the resources that Keeling and Sandlos have at their disposal – many skilled and enthusiastic graduate students, and sizeable research grants. At the same time, these student researchers are barely acknowledged in the book. 

We have no idea who dug up the information that the authors put forward. For example, Mick Lowe wrote a very thorough book on the discovery of Voisey’s Bay which is not even mentioned in the text, although it is in the bibliography. The publisher and the authors appear to have decided to limit the use of references and of a useful index in order to make the book more accessible to the public. For those of us who would like to know where the information came from or to follow up on the stories, this can be frustrating.

This is also a book written by men about men. The endless hours of labour that Indigenous women, miners’ wives, and female community organizers put in to deal with the social, economic, environmental, and health impacts of mining are not even mentioned. The only woman who gets any real attention in the book is the infamous Peggy Witte (now calling herself Margaret Kent), the last owner of the Giant mine. A women’s history of mining in Canada remains to be written, but a good place to start would be Meg Luxton’s excellent study, More Than a Labour of Love, written in 1980. 

The book similarly pays little attention approach to the endless work – both paid and unpaid – done by Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to strategize and protect their communities and ecosystems from the mining industry in this country.

In the same vein, I also have to confess to really wincing at the number of times the authors talk about the regreening of 3450 hectares in Sudbury, but fail to mention that the area is considerably smaller than the growing and toxic tailings impoundments that loom over the region and will require care in perpetuity.

Despite these limitations, this is an important and very readable book. It is well-researched and reliable. The photos are stunning. Its excellent labour history will appeal to miners and their communities. The devastating impacts on indigenous people is a story that needed to be told. It does indeed “provide a mining history for all Canadians.”

The post Book Review: Mining Country: A History of Canada’s Mines and Miners appeared first on A\J.

Above is an excerpt from an article called “A Being in Nature” that I wrote for A\J about a year ago when I was working as a full-time co-op student. I so clearly remember the day I wrote it. It was a busy work day, online and remote, and I was feeling overwhelmed with stress, screen-fatigue, winter blues, and eco-anxiety. When I ventured outside and heard the call of the mourning dove in my backyard, all the negatives of the day melted away, and it was just me and the bird. 

Birds have a special relationship with us. Graeme Gibson knew that and taught many of us about this bond through his life’s work of writing about birds and dedicating his time to bird conservation. Margaret Atwood, partner to Graeme, has, of course, been very active in both circles of Canadian literature and bird conservation as well. Together, they are the perfect, poetic pair of bird-loving writers and conservationists. 

As Grant Munroe wrote for The Walrus, “Other famous literary couples have shared pastimes—Vladimir Nabokov collected butterflies to the delight of his wife, Vera; Sylvia Plath took up beekeeping with Ted Hughes—but few have been as well-paired for the activism that often attends birdwatching: Atwood’s interest, which seems cooler and slightly ironic, tempers Gibson’s gregarious fanaticism. Rather than rail against cat owners, as some do, they have adopted a balanced collaborative angle: driven yet compassionate, cut with humour, grounded in science, effected through appeals to emotion and intellect.” 

Atwood and Gibson achieved huge bird conservation wins in their life together. The pair played an important role in founding the Pelee Island Bird Observatory in 2003, and consistently worked to support and bring attention to the organization whenever possible. In 2005, Gibson released his now most famous novel, The Bedside Book of Birds: An Avian Miscellany, all about bird life and behaviour, history and mythology, photographs, art, and stories. Graeme and Margaret were also co-presidents of BirdLife International’s Rare Bird Club.

As you may have already guessed, Graeme’s impact was far-reaching as he was known as a champion of birds across several environmental organizations. It seems as though wherever there were bird conservation campaigns happening in Ontario, the names Gibson and Atwood were involved. Nature Canada is one such organization that has put forward several bird conservation campaigns, including the Save Bird Lives campaign, which Graeme and Margaret were driving forces behind and that helped to inspire Atwood’s graphic novel series Angel Catbird. 

Another Nature Canada bird campaign that has gained a lot of support and traction is the Bird Friendly City Certification Program. This program gives municipalities the opportunity to reduce bird threats in their cities, restore and enhance bird habitats, and provide public outreach and education through citizen engagement. In 2021, Nature Canada certified the following 4 Canadian cities in Ontario: London, ON; Toronto, ON; Vancouver, BC; and Calgary, AB. The vision of this program is that certified “bird-friendly” areas will grow and the Canada’s cities and towns will provide the necessary habitats for birds to not only find refuge during migration periods but also thrive.

“In the last 50 years, we’ve lost three billion birds in North America — 25% of the population — gone. Beloved species that live in or pass through our towns and cities, our fields and forests, have been pushed to the brink. At Nature Canada, we’re organising the effort to bring them back with organised, science-backed action.” – Ted Cheskey, Naturalist Director of Nature Canada

To learn more about this program and the work Nature Canada is doing to protect bird species in urban and suburban spaces, explore here.

Graeme and Margaret were supportive and involved in the work Nature Canada has done over the past several decades, and now, in 2022, Nature Canada’s highest honour – the Douglas H. Pimlott Award – is being awarded to both Margaret Atwood and Graeme Gibson.

Douglas H. Pimlott, sometimes known as the founder of the Canadian environmental movement, was a key environmental leader in conservation, wildlife biology, and ecology work. He paved the way for Canadian environmental protection and made huge contributions to environmentalism in his lifetime. His award suitably honours individuals who have made similarly outstanding achievements and contributions to conservation in Canada. 

On March 2, 2022, at Nature Canada’s Pimlott Award Celebration Margaret Atwood and the late Graeme Gibson will be honoured and recognized as champions for birds and nature. The event will feature Graeme and Margaret’s literary and bird conservation achievements, and their legacy that will live on to inspire the next generations to follow in their footsteps. There will be featured guests and speakers, and registration is free of charge, although there are limited spots. Will you choose to be a part of this story? A story of hope – for the world that future generations are inheriting, for the natural world, for the birds.

Graeme had a compassionate soul, showing kindness to the people he worked with and the birds he worked for. He will be missed and remembered by many. Now, it’s our job to take his wisdom, inspiration, and passion for birds, nature conservation, and literature and move forward into 2022 and beyond. It’s our job to listen for our mourning dove call and let it move us.

***

“By stepping outside, not only are you getting a good dose of fresh oxygen, serotonin, vitamin D, and maybe a pretty sunset out of it – you’re reconnecting with the earth. The ground you’re walking on. The plants and animals that you coexist with. The little delights that live and thrive and breathe and walk and live all around you. And if we keep connecting with these things, I hope we will feel a little bit more grounded in our own backyards, realizing that we’re part of nature and we can take care of it in the footsteps of people who have done so for many generations. We can get to know the names of the species around us, the bird calls, the texture of the grass outside, the smell of the soil in our gardens. These details are important – they are vital to upholding the connection we have to the Earth. And we will be able to fight for this planet and remedy our eco-anxiety if we keep tending to the relationship we have with nature.”

Stay tuned for next week’s FOR THE LOVE OF NATURE article on Gibson and Atwood’s love – for birds, for nature, and for each other.

For a more comprehensive list of Graeme’s achievements and Margaret’s tribute to him, follow the links below:

• The Pelee Island Bird Observatory – In Memoriam
• Remembering Graeme

The post Seeding the Spotlight 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.

In the race to remove the trillion tons of excess carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, the treatments we choose for this problem ought to at least be slightly better than the problem itself. We have proposed solutions on the table, but the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) landscape is complex, risky, and fairly untested. From the financial sector, experts say that the commercial viability of CDR calls for more exploration and more capital. In geopolitical spheres, only fairly modest steps have been taken toward taxing carbon emissions. At least for now, CDR is still beset by questions of implementation, cost, and scale – questions that might be at odds with the kind of nimble decision-making that the climate crisis seems to call for. 

Within the general CDR category is a range of solutions called negative emissions technologies. Many of these known technologies remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere naturally through photosynthesis. Afforestation (planting of trees) is one of the most straightforward.

The costliest of the negative emissions technologies (and one that does not use photosynthesis) is direct air capture (DAC), according to MIT senior research engineer, Howard J. Herzog, who has been studying the field of CDR for 30 years. DAC, an energy-intensive process of removing carbon from the atmosphere through various filtration methods, is having a bit of a star turn. Originally invented to filter out exhaled CO2 aboard spacecraft 20 years ago, DAC separates carbon dioxide directly from ambient air. The carbon dioxide is then either stored underground or used in a complementary process. Critics of DAC say it requires large-scale systems that will take the geoengineering of vast amounts of land to accommodate its pipelines. Another criticism is that DAC will funnel funding away from other climate solutions, in particular renewable energy. Moreover, investment analysts have suggested that making DAC cheaper won’t drive the wide adoption of this technology. 

In recent months, nevertheless, the fossil fuel sector has made some major public moves on DAC. Two traditional energy companies, White Energy and Occidental announced a joint carbon capture project. The largest private investments thus far are from Occidental Petroleum and Chevron (US $68mil) to Carbon Engineering Ltd. Carbon Engineering Ltd. has also accepted funding from an Australian mining company BHP (US$6 million) and is working with Occidental Petroleum’s subsidiary, Oxy Low Carbon Ventures, to build the world’s largest DAC facility in the Permian Basin in New Mexico.

This summer, ExxonMobil announced a partnership with the California-based Global Thermostat to look at the scalability and viability of its DAC facilities. Global Thermostat’s Chief Technology Officer Peter Eisenberger directed Exxon’s Physical Sciences lab through most of the 1980s. Though no ExxonMobil funding is in the offing, at least publicly, Global Thermostat has raised funds from other sources.

The timing of all this activity suggests that carbon capture legislation may be an incentive. According to researcher S. Julio Friedman at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, policy incentives are critical for the growth of CDR investments.

To that end, Carbon Engineering Ltd. is going after a subsidy available from a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Program in California.

Among the first of tax credits to unlock a flow of capital for carbon removal is the 45Q tax policy, which offers credit for the capture and geologic storage. The 45Q credit is expected to benefit power plants, factories, and ethanol producers. Meanwhile in the U.S. Senate, a carbon capture bill (S. 383) is building off the success of last year’s changes to the 45Q tax credit. S.383 supports carbon dioxide utilization and DAC research to facilitate the permitting and development of carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration projects along with carbon dioxide pipelines.

Sasha Mackler, who directs the energy project at the Bipartisan Policy Centre in Washington, says legislation is the lever that controls how fast and how far CDR can go. “The size of the market will depend on the ambition of our climate policy,” he says.

Mackler’s hunch is that recent oil company investments are probably motivated by the market opportunities they now present. “We haven’t done our analysis on this yet, but when we look at the initial conditions, what we see are commercially practical decisions . . . that will position these companies well for the future,” says Mackler. “I think that’s part of their calculus.”

“In terms of improving the energy market, these traditional companies can be great partners for resources and connections,” says Tito Jankowski, a carbon capture entrepreneur who uses the carbon dioxide capture process to fabricate consumer products. “Traditional fossil fuel companies are not necessarily an enemy here.”

Jankowski founded AirMiners.org, an index of CDR developers that includes Global Thermostat and a long list of others still in experimentation phases. One startup is building an efficient marine microalgae farm; another is working on a zero-emissions cookstove with plans to capture the carbon dioxide in a lime solution.

With its history of handling enormous amount of capital and moving gasses and fluids around at high volume, the fossil fuel sector may indeed have the skills base needed to help build a carbon dioxide removal infrastructure. And when you need all hands on deck, who has time for enemies?

Specifically, however, ExxonMobil seems a questionable ally in this tragedy of the commons. First ExxonMobil faced allegations that it knew the risks of climate change and defrauded its investors by misrepresenting the risks. Now the Attorney General of New York plans to set a legal precedent that would make ExxonMobil accountable for part of the cost of transitioning to a 100% renewable energy economy. If the prosecution is successful, the company’s future influence may be diminished.

Though the burgeoning carbon removal sector may look like a trillion dollar opportunity, the real quest is to discover which solutions can scale up quickly enough to reduce carbon dioxide levels before 2050. Incentives may drive down the high cost of DAC in the near future, but as all consumers know, cheaper can be the enemy of the best. No single solution has yet emerged as the catalyst from which all carbon removal standards will commence.

This article is a preview of the kind of content you’ll find in Alternatives Journals’ Invest in Change issue (slated to be released in October)

The post Direct Air Capture appeared first on A\J.

Now Wallace-Wells has released a book of the same title, and it has also caused a splash and achieved something unusual for a science-based take on climate change: it has become a New York Times bestseller.

The Uninhabitable Earth makes three main points. First, climate change is a bigger threat than most of us think in terms of speed, scope and scale.  Second, solutions to climate change already exist. And finally, these solutions will only be implemented we embrace – rather than flee from – our collective responsibility to act.

From its first sentence – “It is worse, much worse, than you think” – the book chillingly describes the vastness of the threat we face.  

Through short chapters on heat, hunger, floods, wildfires, disasters, fresh water, air quality, plagues, economic collapse and conflict, Wallace-Wells paints a frightening picture of life in 2100 based on various possible trajectories of planetary warming.

For example, at three to four degrees warming in this century, towards which we are headed barring a change in course, we will see “suffering beyond anything that has ever occurred”: equatorial regions will be unlivable; southern Europe, Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa will experience multi-year – or even permanent – drought; wildfires in the U.S. will expand ten-fold; Miami, Dhaka, Shanghai and a hundred other cities will be flooded; between 140 million and 1 billion people will be displaced from their homes; and the world’s economy will face a hit of about $600 trillion dollars (twice the world’s current wealth).

A number of climate scientists pointed out specific errors in Wallace-Wells’ original article, and some reviewers have criticized his book for focusing on worst-case scenarios for global warming and their impacts. As a result, some have argued that the book unnecessarily breeds resignation and despair.

Personally I found Wallace-Wells’ articulation of worst case scenarios to be motivating rather than paralyzing.  Indeed, Wallace-Wells repeatedly emphasizes the importance of human agency. “The question of how bad things will get,” he writes, “is not actually a test of the science; it is a bet on human activity. How much will we do to stall disaster, and how quickly.”

Wallace-Wells, like many others, believes that solutions to the climate crisis already exist.

He writes: “Half of the Great Barrier Reef has already died, methane is leaking from Arctic permafrost that may never freeze again, and the high-end estimates for what warming will mean for cereal crops suggest that just four degrees warming could reduce yields by 50 percent.  If this strikes you as tragic, which it should, consider that we have all the tools we need, today, to stop it all: a carbon tax and the political apparatus to aggressively phase out dirty energy; a new approach to agricultural practices and a shift away from beef and dairy in the global diet; and public investment in green energy and carbon capture.”

All of this begs the question (which Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg has so poignantly raised):  Why, in face of a such a clear and dramatic threat, to which solutions exist, do most of us – and our governments – continue life as usual?  And what does our collective failure to act tell us about how to move forward?

Wallace-Wells, like many others, recognizes the inherent human desire to turn away from a problem that feels so large, complex, all-encompassing and threatening to life as we know it.

He (rightly) points to the sordid role of fossil fuel companies in preventing action by hiding their knowledge of climate change and funding misinformation campaigns.  But Wallace-Wells refuses to lay ultimate responsibility for the inaction at the feet of fossil fuel executives or the capitalist class more generally. He states: “[M]any on the Left point to the all-encompassing  system, saying that industrial capitalism is to blame. It is. But saying so does not name an antagonist; it names a toxic investment vehicle with most of the world as stakeholders, many of whom have eagerly bought in. And who in fact quite enjoy their present way of life. That includes, almost certainly, you and me and everyone else buying escapism with our Netflix subscription.”

While Wallace-Wells clearly recognizes the importance of emission reduction by conspicuous emitters (if the top 10% of emitters reduced their emissions to those of the average citizen, global emissions would fall 35% within a few years), he says that we “won’t get there through dietary choices of individuals, but through policy changes.”

At a deeper level, Wallace-Wells believes that the prevailing mythology of the inevitability of human progress has most hindered our acceptance of, and active response to, the climate crisis.  He writes: “The possibility that our grandchildren could be living forever among the ruins of a much wealthier and more peaceful world seems almost inconceivable from the vantage of the present day, so much do we still live within the propaganda of human progress and generational improvement.”

Wallace-Wells doesn’t prescribe a singular action plan to address climate change (he sees himself as a “storyteller” and “truthteller” rather than “advocate”).  Rather, he believes that change must come from different directions: we will need those who rage against fossil capitalists, those who lament consumer excess, those who launch lawsuits, those who push for aggressive legislation, and those who block new pipelines.  

The bottom line, according to Wallace-Wells, is that each of us must accept our responsibility to act: “The path we are on as a planet should terrify anyone living on it, but, thinking like one people, all the relative inputs are in our control, and there is no mysticism required to interpret or command the fate of the earth. Only an acceptance of responsibility.”

In the end, despite all its horrors, Wallace-Wells sees climate change as an “invigorating picture,” because it “calls the world as one, to action.”

May we respond to that call.

Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming, David Wallace-Wells, New York: Tim Duggan Books, 2019, 320

The post Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming 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.