Yesterday, I watched an episode of the TV show Up With Chris Hayes that I believe many of you would find interesting.
The host of the show, Chris Hayes, is one of the few political pundits on television who regularly talks about climate change. And yesterday, (Saturday, December 8th) the entire show was dedicated to the energy situation in the USA.
The show went through a long list of issues including the contest between coal and natural gas, the regulations surrounding hydraulic fracturing, the current energy production boom in the US and how it may affect politics in the States, the problem with the USA’s relatively low energy prices, carbon pricing, renewable energy sources, energy subsidies and green energy in the American military. (Keep in mind that Up With Chris Hayes is a two hour program). Carbon emissions and climate change also came up throughout.
Midway through the show, Mr. Hayes did a short monologue titled “Saudi America” during which he described the USA’s current fossil fuel boom. I found that his analysis of the risks associated with that extraction boom very much applies to our current situation here in Canada. And I think it is worth sharing that analysis with you:
Delighting in our carbon extraction boom is staggeringly, almost psychopathically perverse because, well, it is exactly that carbon extraction that is hurling the world toward a distopic future, a possible 4 degrees Celsius global temperature rise, droughts, floods, storms, disease, death, crop failures, and on and on. In other words, you cannot separate energy policy form climate policy. They are one and the same. And based on calculations by Bill McKibben and the rest of the folks at 350.org, only one fifth of the current proven fossil fuel reserves, that includes oil, gas, everything, can be taken out of the ground and used without our planet passing the critical 2 degree increase threshold. In other words, 80% of the fossil fuels that we at this very moment know we can take out have to stay in the ground. But, there’s another related threat posed by the ramping up of our fossil fuel extraction. And that is, as America begins to ape Saudi Arabia’s productive capacity, it also begins to more closely resemble its politics. Economists have long talked about the “Resource Curse” and the fact that countries with massive, lucrative natural resources bounties tend to be developmental and governance basket cases. Ruled over by a feckless, ruthless, entrenched set of extraction oligarchs. And if you think that sounds foreign, go take a look at the politics in places like West Texas and West Virginia. The promise of energy independence is a kind of liberation. But it is a false promise. If history or a look across the globe tells us anything, it’s that the extremely lucrative industry of extracting and selling carbon fuel offers all the actual freedom of the devil’s handshake. How we escape it after this.
I’d argue that Canada is suffering from that “Resource Curse”.
If you’d like to watch the show, simply click here, or head over to the Up With Chris Hayes website and look for the videos for December 8, 2012
An Irresponsible Energy Strategy
The Conservatives in Canada’s federal government, as well as those in Alberta’s provincial governmental, are eager to expand the production oil in Alberta’s Tar Sands. But, in order for that to happen, pipelines must be built to get the bitumen into the hands of new customers. There is the Keystone XL pipeline to Texas. The Northern Gateway pipeline to the Pacific Coast of British Columbia. And now, the latest addition to the collection of Tar Sands pipeline that will (I hope) never get built is a proposed pipeline that would go from Alberta, through Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec to end up at refineries in Atlantic Canada. The distance between those two end points, in a straight line, is beyond 3,000 km (or 2,000 miles for those who do not use the metric system).
Alberta to the Maritimes, according to Google Earth.
Obviously, the real length of this pipeline will be much greater.
Politicians here in Atlantic Canada (most notably the premiers of PEI and Nova Scotia) seem very excited about the idea. They make the usual arguments that this pipeline will create “economic growth” and “jobs” while “reducing energy prices”. All of which is highly debatable. But now, there is a new argument: that of a “national energy strategy”. At their annual meeting last weekend, Canada’s premiers made us believe that this Alberta-to-the-Maritimes pipeline will be the first step in a Canadian energy strategy – one that is founded on the exploitation of non-conventional fossil fuel sources such as the Tar Sands and shale gas.
I couldn’t help myself… I decided to write to my local paper (although I don’t believe they’ve printed my letter. But that’s OK because I also e-mailed it to various politicians). Here is what I had to say (limited to only 350 words):
An Irresponsible Energy Strategy
During their annual meeting last weekend, Canada’s premiers discussed the possibility of a national energy strategy revolving around a proposed pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to the Maritimes. Such a pipeline is terrible idea for a variety of reasons. However the strongest argument against it happens to be the one that nobody talks about: climate change.
The math on climate change is simple. The proven reserves of fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) around the world add up 2,795 billion tonnes of carbon. In order to limit warming of the planet to 2 degrees Celsius (which, according to climatologists, is the point at which dangerous climate change becomes catastrophic climate change) we can only burn the equivalent of 565 billion tonnes. In other words, we need to leave 80% of the world’s reserves in the ground in order to avoid catastrophic climate change. Not only that, but we need to get off of fossil fuels very quickly: at our current pace we will burn through that 565 billion tonnes in 16 years!
The International Energy Agency (IEA) supports these numbers. They are the facts we have to work with.
That makes a pipeline from the Tar Sands to Atlantic Canada completely irresponsible because it will encourage the burning of fossil fuels and delay investments into renewable sources of energy. And that is the complete opposite of what we must do. Canada does need a national energy policy. However, that policy needs to based on the fact that we must aggressively tackle the threat of climate change. To do so, our energy policy needs to revolve around energy conservation, energy efficiency and the development of renewable sources of energy.
We have to adapt our policies to the reality of climate change. Let us start by stopping this irresponsible pipeline.
I hope somebody reads it…
Yes, it’s the annual UN Climate negotiations, which means that it’s time for Canada to start receiving its Fossil awards. This comes as no surprise to any Canadians who pay attention to what our current federal government is up to in Ottawa these days. It’s clear that they are dinosaurs in every sense of the word except DNA, and are intent on dragging our once proud and progressive nation back into the 20th Century.
Climate Action Network reports that Canada was singled out on climate finance in Doha with a first place Fossil Of The Day:
Canada was awarded the first place fossil of the day today in Qatar for Environment Minister Peter Kent’s dismissive approach to supporting climate action in poorer countries.
In media interviews yesterday, Minister Kent confirmed Canada’s intention not to contribute new funding in Doha to help poorer countries tackle climate change, saying that Doha “isn’t…
View original post 163 more words
As world leaders began the latest United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) talks in Doha, Qatar (a city with the highest carbon footprint per capita in the world!), the weekly magazine New Scientist has put out a dedicated issue to scaring the be-jeezus out of everybody.
New Scientist cover. Image: Climate Progress.
Inside the issue are seven stories that address seven reasons why climate change is worse than scientists had predicted only a few years ago. (You must pay to have access to the magazine and its articles. So below are the links to the New Scientist articles as well as links to posts on the same subject from Climate Progress.)
1. The thick sea ice in the Arctic Ocean was not expected to melt until the end of the century. If current trends continue, summer ice could be gone in a decade or two. Read more on the New Scientist website (or see “Death Spiral Watch: Experts Warn ‘Near Ice-Free Arctic In Summer’ In A Decade If Volume Trends Continue“ on Climate Progress).
Arctic sea ice minimum in 2012. Image: National Geographic.
2. We knew global warming was going to make the weather more extreme. But it’s becoming even more extreme than anyone predicted. Read more(or see “NOAA Bombshell: Warming-Driven Arctic Ice Loss Is Boosting Chance of Extreme U.S. Weather“).
Hurricane Sandy.
3. Global warming was expected to boost food production. Instead, food prices are soaring as the effects of extreme weather kick in. Read more (or see “Oxfam Warns Climate Change And Extreme Weather Will Cause Food Prices To Soar”).
Drought conditions in the US.
4. Greenland’s rapid loss of ice mean we’re in for a rise of at least 1 metre by 2100, and possibly much more. Read more (or see “Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Nearing Critical ‘Tipping Point’”).
97% of Greenland melting in 2012. Image: CBC.
5. The planet currently absorbs half our CO2emissions. All the signs are it won’t for much longer. Read more (or see “Carbon Feedback From Thawing Permafrost Will Likely Add 0.4°F – 1.5°F To Total Global Warming By 2100” and “Drying Peatlands and Intensifying Wildfires Boost Carbon Release Ninefold“).
Vegetation loss in the Amazon (2011).
6. If we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, we might be able to avoid climate disaster. In fact we are still increasing emissions. Read more (or see “The IEA And Others Warn Of Some 11°F Warming by 2100 on current emissions path”)
Image: MIT.
7. If the worst climate predictions are realised, vast swathes of the globe could become too hot for humans to survive. Read more (or see “An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts“)
I didn’t know what other image could represent #7…
In the magazine’s editorial, a simple conclusion is given by the New Scientist editor:
What’s needed is very clear: emissions cuts, and soon. The best way to do that is to change our economic systems to reflect the true long-term cost of fossil fuels. That means ending the $1 trillion of annual subsidies for fossil fuels and imposing carbon taxes instead.
I hope the world leaders in Qatar have a subscription to the magazine!
Climate Enemies
I need your help. Or, rather, your opinion. I have been motivated by a variety of factors (including Bill McKibben’s current “Do the Math” tour) to do something that may be stupid. I am thinking of going around and posting the following:
Climate Enemies – Shell
Climate Enemies – Irving
1. Is this stupid?
2. Could I get in trouble?
3. If your answer to questions 1 and 2 is “No”, how can I improve the text in small print (I don’t like it…)?
I’d truly like some feedback.
Thanks.
This past week seemed all about climate change at work (by the way, I’m a teacher). Motivated by my presentation last Thursday, the grade 11 French teacher created a project revolving around lowering the school’s carbon footprint. Each group within the class had to write an affirmation, stating a change they wanted to bring to the school, making that change a reality and then writing an argumentative text. I got to help out on Monday and Friday as an “adviser”.
They came up with some great ideas. Encouraging students and teachers to turn off the lights when they aren’t necessary. Having one school day where no technology (computers, digital projectors, cell phones) is turned on. One lunch day a week without microwaves. One lunch day a week without any waste that isn’t recyclable or compostable. Banning disposable water bottles from the school. And more. All I really did was answer their questions, encourage them to focus on education in their “plan of attack”, and to think long term: to try and change the mentality, not just having this “one day event” and moving on. The ideas themselves where theirs.
I’ll let you know how it goes.
At the same time, in my grade 7 science class, we are talking about the carbon cycle, the greenhouse effect and climate change (I swear it’s in the curriculum! I’m not just trying to indoctrinate my students!). We came up with this summary of the problem:
And after explaining to them the “symptoms” of climate change, they all agreed that it was in everyone’s best interest to address it. (I avoided the talk about 4 degrees Celsius and the bad that it brings. I don’t see the point at their age.)
Then, I challenged them to find solutions to the problem. We discussed how you can address climate change at various levels (for example, dealing directly with the warming, or directly with the excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). However, we all agreed that the most effective solution would be one that goes straight at the source of the problem: the use of fossil fuels.
What they came up with ranged from the ridiculous (“feeding the Earth a massive Popsicle” or “sending Brad Pitt to the Moon ’cause he’s so hot”) to exactly what is being attempted right now around the world. And just so we are clear, none of the following solutions to climate change came from me. I hadn’t had the chance to talk about solutions with them yet.
So, here are the solutions to climate change according to my grade 7 students, organized by the problem they address (with my comment in brackets):
1. Problem: Warming of the planet.
- Build a big ice-making machine
- Cause an Ice Age
- Everyone leaves their fridge open
- Build huge air-conditionners
- Move the Sun back (one of my personal favourites!)
- Block the Sun (Geo-engineering anyone?!?)
2. Problem: Too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
- When you cut down a tree, plant one (or many) in its place
- Plant a lot of trees
- Invent “vacuum cleaner” that cleans up carbon dioxide (that sounds like Carbon Capture and Sequestration)
- Develop an artificial photosynthesis (that’s actually being worked on by a few scientists)
3. Problem: Use of fossil fuels
- Kill all the cows (I know it doesn’t address the use of fossil fuels, but we talked about methane production in class!)
- Burn less fossil fuels (simple, but effective)
- Build less factories
- Use alternatives to fossil fuels such as wind turbines and solar panels
- Walk, take the bike, or take the bus
- Pass a law that mandates the use of electric cars (that kid’s not gonna be a Conservative!)
- Develop new methods of transportation that do not depend on fossil fuels (that’s already being worked on as well)
- For companies that produce a lot of carbon dioxide, impose a limit to how much they can emit and fine them if they go over the limit (Cap and Trade, out of the mouth of a grade seven student!)
- Develop a technology that uses salt water to make energy
- Build more bike lanes
- Develop roads that produce electricity (sweet!)
That’s right. “My” kids understand the carbon cycle, the greenhouse effect, climate change and can come up with practical solutions to the problem. That makes them smarter than many-a-world leader.
Two Great Images I Want To Share
This will be brief…
As I wandered the internets, I landed on Mind, Nature and Society where I saw two images that I wish to share with you.
The first image represent perfectly how I feel about progress:
I also think that progress should mean lowering of the retirement age. Having a longer life span should mean having more years to enjoy your retirement. But that’s another conversation for another time.
The second image is so useful, I plan on having it printed and laminated. Then, I’m going to put it up at my school (which may get me in trouble for because its in English… but who cares, it’s worth it!):
(Click to enlarge)
Thanks Silke!
Talking to the Youth
If I could afford it, I would quite my job and spend my time doing what I was doing last Thursday at 11 am. That is, speak to today’s youth about the realities of climate change.
Last Thursday, at 11 am, I was in a small auditorium in front about 100 students (grades 9-12) and teachers, giving a presentation about climate change. The presentation was an adaptation of the talk I have given on a few occasions to the general public. I explain what the greenhouse effect is, what the carbon cycle is, how human activity has affected that cycle, and how that is affecting our climate. And I’m fairly brutal about it. I mention Bill McKibben’s global warming math (how much carbon the fossil fuel industry has access to and our “carbon budget” to limit warming to 2 degrees C), the fact that “business-as-usual” means a warming of somewhere near 6 degrees and how 4 degrees is “hell on Earth”.
My presentation also addresses what needs to be done about our warming planet: adaptation and mitigation. And I include the advantages of those actions. For example, getting off of fossil fuels would eliminate the pollution that comes from our “modern” extraction methods such as hydraulic fracturing, off-shore drilling and whatever it is that they are doing in the Tar Sands mines of Alberta. Stopping the combustion of coal, gas and oil would also save the lives of the 1.3 million people around the world that die every year from outdoor air pollution (according to the World Health Organization) – and that includes 21,000 Canadians.
I also discuss the careers that they should consider in the new “green economy”, from installing wind turbines and solar panels to designing efficient, modern buildings. And I mention the work done in countries like Germany (a separate post on that in the near future) and Denmark and how Canada has even more potential for renewables that those countries.
However, I hope that the most important message they keep from my presentation is that they can do something about this. Climate change is a problem created by the previous generations, however it is they and their children that will bear the brunt of our mistakes and our inaction. But, I tell them that they have more power than they realize. Although most of the kids I spoke to cannot yet vote, by the next federal and provincial elections, they will. And they can use that leverage when talking to the media or when talking to politicians. Imagine a generation of new voters, voting on climate change policy. That would be amazing!
Until now, response has been very good. Students and teachers have been positive in their feedback. One student in particular seemed genuinely moved and would like to aim his career in order to address the challenge. And the grade 11 students, as part of their French class (!), are actually working on concrete actions that could be taken to reduce the school’s carbon footprint. Some of the ideas include getting classes to turn off their lights when they aren’t necessary, banning plastic water bottles in our school and having one day a month where no computers are turned on. SWEET!
I am very motivated by this, and I want to do more of it! That is why I’ve begun to contact other schools on PEI to see if they would allow me to present to their students. Luckily, I have a supportive principal that will allow me to take time off (at my expense) in order to go talk to other schools. I am also working with my department at the University of Prince Edward Island, which gives me so added credibility when contacting school principals.
Like Bill McKibben has said, there is nothing more important that I could be doing right now.
Like so many of our environmental problems, feeding the world’s population (without destroying the planet) would be made much easier by improving efficiency since we waste a whole heck of a lot of food!
The following video is another (amazing) TED talk. This time, the subject is food waste and the presenter is Tristram Stuart. (Try saying that ten times, real fast!) Mr. Stuart is an activist who “works with a range of NGOs, governments, and private enterprises to tackle the global food waste scandal”. He is also an author, having published in 2009 the book Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal.
(Thank you to Silke for having originally posted this video on her blog, Mind, Nature and Society, which you should all go and visit!)
Sorry About That…
I just saw this on Climate Progress and thought it was worth sharing!
The Green Word 