David Suzuki's Blog, page 24

Trump, climate and us: A letter to those who won't give up

Like me, you likely woke up before sunrise this morning, opening your eyes in the dark to confirmation that the nightmare is real.

 

Like you, last night I felt sick to my stomach. I felt a strong sense of anxiety for my sleeping children, who also went to bed anxious. What future will we be leaving them?

I'm writing to you today because I need you to know that this new obstacle will not stop us. I need you to hear the truth -- that we are millions, that we will not abandon our values of justice and inclusion, or ever stop working to protect all life on Earth.

 

Let me be clear: The election of Donald Trump and a Congress controlled entirely by the Republican party and the fossil fuel industry is devastating to the fight against climate change. We can expect this new president to quickly approve Keystone XL, get rid of regulations on coal that were central to Obama's climate plan, and slow down or eliminate investments in renewable energy. We can also expect that he will withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as he can. This will likely prevent the United States from reaching its emissions reduction target of 26 to 28 per cent by 2025. It will also put attaining the larger Paris objectives into serious question.

But Trump can't stop an energy transition that has become inevitable. The most he can do is slow it down. Here's why:

Investments in renewable energy have surpassed investments in fossil fuels every year since 2010, and the gap continues to grow. Two times more money was invested in green energy than in fossil fuels in 2015. This transformation is happening because green energy is finally more competitive than fossil fuels in many markets -- even without measures to fight climate change.

 

From California to New York, American states and cities are putting a price on carbon, investing in renewable energy and in transit. This trend will only continue. China is making similar efforts, recently announcing its intention to lower emissions per unit of GDP by 18 per cent by 2020.

 

In the transportation sector, studies show electric vehicles will achieve price parity with gas vehicles in five years, by 2022. EV sales have already increased six-fold since 2014. Analysts say this exponential increase could cause a collapse in gas sales early in the next decade.

 

The global movement against climate change is not going to stop. Citizen actions, including many acts of non-violent civil disobedience, will continue to become more common all across the United States. This is true in Canada as well. We need to show solidarity with our American counterparts and with Indigenous people who are bravely defending their land and our collective future.

 

Powerful solidarity will come from winning battles here, in our own backyard, to prove that winning is still possible. What's at stake is not whether the energy transition will happen. It's how quickly it will arrive, and whether it will be fast enough to save our climate.

 

It's in our hands.

 

That's why we cannot give up. Instead, we need to redouble our efforts and create a groundswell. We need to bend like a willow and be as strong as an oak.

 

Donald Trump can set the fight against climate change back years or even decades. But he hasn't done it yet.

~

If you want to fight for a world where every person's right to a healthy environment is respected, join us at http://bluedot.ca/join-us/

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

To help protect Canada's oceans, we've made it easy to call your MP.

The federal government's announcement of an "oceans protection plan" has little to do with protecting the ocean. Instead it sets the stage for increased marine shipping and development.

SUGGESTED SPEAKING POINTS

Say who you are (that you live in their riding) and a bit about yourself (e.g., a mother, concerned citizen, scientist, immigrant, Indigenous person, voter, etc.).
Ask why the recent "Coastal Protection Plan" doesn't focus on marine planning and protection, but instead provides funding for infrastructure that facilitates oil tanker traffic.
Explain that even the best oil spill response leaves 80 per cent of spilled oil in the water. Shouldn't we focus on reducing or eliminating transporting oil in coastal areas?
Tell them that increased container and tanker traffic means increased ship strikes on whales and dolphins.
Ask them for a commitment to work in Parliament to stop all new oil and gas infrastructure projects, especially pipelines like Kinder Morgan that will lead to increased tanker traffic.
Leave them your name and phone number and ask them to reply to confirm whether they will commit to fighting for real ocean protection.

TIPS FOR THE CALL

Use a headset or hands-free -- This will give you both hands to take notes about what was said.



Be polite but firm -- MPs are our elected representatives. They will likely be happy to hear from engaged constituents. Be polite and direct. Make sure to ask for a response.

If you have any problems using the tool, please contact: climateaction@davidsuzuki.org

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Federal government announcement misses the boat on coastal security

VANCOUVER -- While the David Suzuki Foundation welcomed today's federal government announcement to improve West Coast marine safety and oil spill response, it pointed out what's missing for a real oceans protection plan.

"Improving responses to spills on B.C.'s coast is absolutely necessary, as we've seen recently with the botched spill recovery near Bella Bella," said Jay Ritchlin, the Foundation's director-general for Western Canada. "It's impossible, however, to adequately clean up oil spills, especially bitumen. As long as we keep increasing transport of fossils fuels, ecosystems, wildlife and communities remain at unacceptably high risk.

"With a decision by the federal government about the Kinder Morgan pipeline project just around the corner, coastal ecosystem security should be front-and-centre. This government must say no to expanding fossil fuel infrastructure."

Industry only recovers on average 14 per cent of oil in a spill and the impacts are felt in ecosystems for many years. "There's no coastal security with this kind of poor oil spill recovery, especially with plans to increase tanker traffic seven-fold should the Kinder Morgan pipeline project be approved," Ritchlin said.

Real security for coastal communities and wildlife must go beyond spill response measures. That requires effective marine planning and protected areas, wild salmon and killer whale recovery and a ban on tankers for the North Coast, according to the Foundation.

"We were disappointed that today's announcement focused on clean up after the fact rather than avoiding oil spills in the first place by reducing fossil fuel production and transportation.

"If the federal government was focused on meeting Canada's marine biodiversity targets and protecting coastal ecosystems, it would ratify a long-awaited framework for ocean planning for the north Pacific.

"The safety of wild salmon and other marine species, including the 80 remaining endangered southern resident killer whales, has to be part of any plan for the coast. Following the lowest B.C. sockeye salmon run in recorded history, acting on the Cohen Commission recommendations and investing in actions under Canada's Wild Salmon Policy is more important than ever," Ritchlin said.

- 30 -

Media contact:

Jay Ritchlin, Director-General Western Canada, David Suzuki Foundation

Cell: 604-961-6840

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

COP22 is a chance for Canada to follow through on its promises

VANCOUVER --The 22nd United Nations climate conference starts today. It's been nearly a year since more than 195 countries signed the first global agreement to limit climate change to safe levels. But the important work of deciding how the Paris Agreement will be implemented lies ahead. As a country that led in the agreement's development, Canada is obligated to show strong leadership in addressing climate change.

"Canadians want a comprehensive national plan to drive down emissions," said David Suzuki Foundation director of science and policy Ian Bruce. "COP22 is an opportunity for leaders nationwide to take clear, co-ordinated action to meet and exceed our emissions reductions targets."

In the wake of announcing a federal price on carbon emissions to come into effect in 2018 and ahead of a first minister's meeting in December, Canada needs to show it's willing to do what it takes to drive down carbon emissions. This is especially true following the approval of an LNG plant for the B.C. coast that will be one of the country's largest sources of emissions.

"The federal government needs to show how it plans to reduce emissions in the context of approving new fossil fuel projects or it needs to put a stop to them," Bruce added. "It can't take steps to address climate change and approve projects that actively work against that goal at the same time."

A comprehensive approach to climate change should build on the recently announced price on carbon emissions and renewed investment in public transit and green infrastructure. The next steps for Canada are to phase out coal-fired electricity, end fossil fuel subsidies -- that work in direct opposition to a carbon price -- and expand access to low- and zero-emissions vehicles.

"With the Paris Agreement ratification underway, the world has sent a clear message about the importance of acting on climate change," Bruce said. "That action begins at home with a comprehensive plan to meet the goals we've set and live up to our international obligations."

Media:

David Suzuki Foundation -- Steve Kux 604-374-4102

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

"World class" may not mean much when it comes to oil spill response

(Credit: FHG Photo via Flickr)

In July, a pipeline leak near Maidstone, Saskatchewan, spilled about 250,000 litres of diluted oil sands bitumen into the North Saskatchewan River, killing wildlife and compromising drinking water for nearby communities, including Prince Albert. It was one of 11 spills in the province over the previous year.

In October, a tugboat pulling an empty fuel barge ran aground near Bella Bella on the Great Bear Rainforest coastline, spilling diesel into the water. Stormy weather caused some of the containment booms to break. Shellfish operations and clam beds were put at risk and wildlife contaminated.

Governments and industry promoting fossil fuel infrastructure often talk about "world class" spill response. It's one of the conditions B.C.'s government has imposed for approval of new oil pipelines. But we're either not there or the term has little meaning. "This 'world-class marine response' did not happen here in Bella Bella," Heiltsuk Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett told Metro News.

If authorities have this much trouble responding to a relatively minor spill from a tugboat, how can they expect to adequately deal with a spill from a pipeline or a tanker full of diluted bitumen? The simple and disturbing truth is that it's impossible to adequately clean up a large oil spill. A 2015 report commissioned by the City of Vancouver and the Tsleil-Waututh and Tsawout First Nations concluded that "collecting and removing oil from the sea surface is a challenging, time-sensitive, and often ineffective process, even under the most favourable conditions."

What the oil and gas industry touts as "world class spill response" boils down to four methods: booms, skimmers, burning and chemical dispersants. An article at Smithsonian.com notes, "For small spills these technologies can sometimes make a difference, but only in sheltered waters. None has ever been effective in containing large spills." Booms don't work well in rough or icy waters, as was clear at the Bella Bella spill; skimmers merely clean the surface and often not effectively; burning causes pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; and dispersants just spread contaminants around, when they work at all.

Researchers have also found that cleaning oil-soaked birds rarely if ever increases their chances of survival. A tiny spot of oil can kill a seabird.

After the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill off the Alaska coast, industry only recovered about 14 per cent of the oil -- which is about average -- at a cost of $2 billion. The 2011 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has cost more than $42 billion so far, and has not been overly effective. In that case, industry bombed the area with the dispersant Corexit, which killed bacteria that eat oil! Record numbers of bottlenose dolphins died.

We're not going to stop transporting oil and gas overnight, so improving responses to spills on water and land is absolutely necessary. And increasing the safety of pipelines, tankers and trains that carry these dangerous products is also critical, as is stepping up monitoring and enforcement. With the Saskatchewan spill, the provincial government deemed an environmental assessment of a pipeline expansion connected to the one that leaked as unnecessary because the Environment Ministry did not consider it a "development." University of Regina geography professor Emily Eaton, who has studied oil development, told the National Observer that Saskatchewan "gives a pass" to most pipelines it regulates.

Beyond better response capability and technologies, and increased monitoring and enforcement, we have to stop shipping so much fossil fuel. The mad rush to exploit and sell as much oil, gas and coal as possible before markets dry up in the face of growing scarcity, climate change and ever-increasing and improving renewable energy options has led to a huge spike in the amount of fossil fuels shipped through pipelines, and by train and tanker -- often with disastrous consequences, from the Gulf of Mexico BP spill to the tragic 2013 Lac-Mégantic railcar explosion.

Spills and disasters illustrate the immediate negative impacts of our overreliance on fossil fuels. Climate change shows we can't continue to burn coal, oil and gas, that we have to leave much of it in the ground. If we get on with it, we may still have time to manage the transition without catastrophic consequences. But the longer we delay, the more difficult it will become.

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Federal infrastructure investment could be a boon to the economy and the environment

VANCOUVER -- The David Suzuki Foundation applauds the federal government's doubling down on what the International Monetary Fund calls a winning economic strategy by increasing already historic infrastructure investments across the country. The plan to spend $25.3 billion over the next 11 years to improve and expand public transit infrastructure will cut traffic congestion, reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainable development in major Canadian cities. This investment goes beyond the $2 billion in annual transit investments we've called for in the past.

"These funds will lead to realistic, low-carbon transportation options across the country," said David Suzuki Foundation director of science and policy Ian Bruce. "Not only will this commitment help stimulate the national economy and put people to work, it marks a major step in transitioning Canada to a carbon-free economy by mid-century."

Transportation sector emissions currently make up about a quarter of Canada's total annual carbon pollution. Research shows that access to fast, reliable public transportation networks gives people the option to drive less or forego personal vehicle ownership altogether. Public transportation investments also reduce traffic congestion, benefiting drivers, emergency services and businesses that transport goods.

"In allocating these funds, the federal government should focus on projects that reduce carbon emissions and promote smart growth," added Bruce. "By encouraging dense development along transit lines, the government can further address climate change and housing issues by providing access to large numbers of energy-efficient homes."

The government announcement also included a commitment of $21.9 billion over 11 years to expand green infrastructure. This investment demonstrates an understanding of the importance of reducing emissions and ensuring reliable access to clean, safe drinking water.

"While it's encouraging to see government investing in infrastructure that will reduce carbon emissions, it's important to also move away from expanding fossil fuel infrastructure," said Bruce. "Approving long-lived carbon infrastructure like pipelines and new oilsands projects cancels out the benefits of this plan."

We look forward to seeing more details about the proposed investments in the months to come.

For more information:

David Suzuki Foundation -- Steve Kux 604-374-4102

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Foundation offers fellowships for future David Suzukis

VANCOUVER -- Three scholars will get the chance to follow in David Suzuki's footsteps next year, thanks to a fellowship program launched today by the David Suzuki Foundation.  

Thanks to generous donors, the Foundation is offering annual fellowships, with $50,000 plus $5,000 for travel and other professional expenses, as well as access to office space and computers. The first three fellows will work in the Foundation's Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto offices on climate change solutions related to transportation, clean energy and Indigenous knowledge.  

Under the guidance of Foundation staff and mentors, including David Suzuki himself, each will be required to complete a one-year research project as well as contribute to Foundation work and initiatives. Foundation staff will foster leadership, provide mentorship and reduce financial barriers so fellows can work on solving complex environmental challenges. 

David Suzuki said he understands the value of help and encouragement for students and academics who want to put their education to good use.  

"When I was accepted into Amherst College in Massachusetts in the 1950s, a healthy scholarship made attending possible," Suzuki said. "I did an honours degree in biology and was inspired by Prof. Bill Hexter to go into genetics after graduating. I went to the University of Chicago, where I studied and worked as a research assistant to fruit fly geneticist Bill Baker and then received a large scholarship that helped me finish my PhD in three years. In 1961, I worked as a research associate at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's biology division under Dan Lindsley, one of the world's leading experts in chromosome manipulation." 

Like David Suzuki, fellows will learn communication and public engagement strategies so they can share their research findings with the public. 

Fellowships are open to Canadian citizens, or those with work visas, with a master's degree or PhD, or in the final year of a PhD. 

"I'm extremely grateful to all who helped me academically and financially during my studies," Suzuki said. "I hope we can do the same for some of today's bright students and academics who want to put their ever-growing knowledge to resolving some of the environmental crises we face." 

For information on applying for a fellowship, visit fellowships.davidsuzuki.org. The applications deadline is February 1, 2017. 

-- END --

 

For information, contact: 

Harpreet Johal, David Suzuki Foundation: hjohal@davidsuzuki.org 

Theresa Beer, David Suzuki Foundation: 778-874-3396

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Ontario-Quebec electricity deal a breakthrough for renewables expansion

In February, the David Suzuki Foundation, Équiterre and the Ontario Clean Air Alliance urged the federal government to facilitate greater electricity trade between Ontario and Quebec. We particularly wanted Ontario to purchase more of its eastern neighbour's abundant water-generated power.

In June, we made a similar request to Ontario's then energy minister, Bob Chiarelli, noting Quebec hydro power could complement Ontario's variable wind and solar generation and replace some of its nuclear baseload power.

On October 21, the two provinces announced Ontario would import up to two terawatt hours of Quebec hydro power annually from 2017 to 2023 -- "enough electricity to power a city of 240,000 people," according to The Globe and Mail.

The deal is auspicious for at least three reasons.

First, it shows the Ontario government recognizes natural gas-fired power is problematic. During the phase-out of Ontario's coal plants, government often held up gas as a good alternative. No one wanted the dirty black rock and gas was seen as an acceptable replacement. But this hydro deal signals a shift. The official statement says the new hydro will be imported "at targeted times when natural gas would otherwise be used." The Globe and Mail says the hydro power will replace approximately 15 per cent of Ontario's natural gas-fired electricity. That's not a dramatic reduction, but the policy implication is clear: Ontario is taking seriously the need to further cut fossil fuel use, implicitly admitting we can't meet our climate targets if we rely too heavily on natural gas.

The hydro deal also addresses energy storage. The official statement says Ontario will "leverage Quebec's energy storage capacities to make better use of its own clean energy resources." Critics often cite storage as a major barrier to renewables expansion. One attendee at a consultation on Ontario's long-term energy plan I attended claimed the province couldn't move to 100 per cent renewables because it "didn't have the technology (and) doesn't have the storage capacity to deal with solar and wind power." True, these technologies don't produce electricity at all times. So when they do, their output needs to be stockpiled. But, as we said in our joint letter to the federal government, Quebec's water power reservoirs could "be used like a giant battery to convert Ontario's intermittent solar and wind power into a firm, 24/7 source of base-load electricity." When Ontario renewables are producing above average amounts of power, the surplus could be sent to Quebec to help run its grid, allowing Quebec to store more water. Water could then be used to produce power for Ontario when its solar and wind generation is below average. The deal shows the naysayers that an all-renewable power system can work.

The plan should help to lower electricity prices as well. The Clean Air Alliance says Ontario will buy Quebec water power for five or six cents per kilowatt hour. Output from the Darlington nuclear plant - currently being refurbished - costs at least eight cents per kilowatt hour.

Detractors often say renewables are too expensive to afford and their intermittency is a fatal shortcoming. The new inter-provincial electricity policy should help put these canards to rest.

Gideon Forman is a Climate Change Policy Analyst at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Tell Canada to stop supporting Big Oil

We won't be able to realize the potential of Canada's renewable energy and clean technology industries unless we stop supporting and investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure.

SPEAKING POINTS

Tell them:

Who you are (that you live in their riding) and a bit about yourself (you are a mother, concerned citizen, scientist, immigrant, Indigenous person, voter, etc.).



Why climate change concerns you (impacts from increased extreme weather, air quality, sea level rise, extinctions, climate refugees).



We won't be able to realize the potential of Canada's renewable energy and clean technology industries unless we stop supporting and investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure.



Ask them for a commitment to work in Parliament to stop all fossil fuel subsidies and against any new oil and gas infrastructure projects like pipelines (including Kinder Morgan, Energy East and Northern Gateway).



Leave them your name and phone number and ask them to reply to confirm whether they will commit to fighting for this bold climate action.

TIPS FOR THE CALL

Use a headset or hands-free -- This will give you both hands to take notes about what was said.



Be polite but firm -- MPs are our elected representatives. They will likely be happy to hear from engaged constituents. Be polite and direct. Make sure to ask for a response.

If you have any problems using the tool, please contact: climateaction@davidsuzuki.org

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Heated debates ignore an overheating planet

(Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Scientists worldwide accept that Earth is warming at an unusually rapid rate, that humans are primarily responsible, mainly by burning fossil fuels, and that the consequences for humanity will be disastrous if we don't take immediate, widespread action. The U.S. Defense Department calls climate change a security risk "because it degrades living conditions, human security and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations."

People in the U.S. and around the world are already experiencing the costly impacts: more frequent and intense extreme weather, prolonged droughts, flooding in coastal areas, contaminated water, ocean acidification, growing refugee crises and more. Every month this year has become the new hottest on record, and the past three years have also broken records.

Considering the magnitude of the threat, you'd think global warming would merit an entire debate between the two contenders for president of what is still the world's most powerful and influential country. At the very least, it's significant enough to warrant numerous questions from debate moderators and thorough policy discussions from the candidates.

So, in three debates, how many questions have moderators asked about climate? How much time have candidates devoted to discussing it? The answer to the first question is zero. They've been asked about email usage, abortion, Muslims and taxes, but not about an issue that overwhelms all the others.

The answer to the second question is "barely five minutes", mostly about energy rather than climate. One candidate extolled the virtues of fossil fuels and mythical "clean coal" while the other promoted the misguided notion of natural gas as a "bridge fuel" to help us transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. But for much of the three debates, one candidate threatened and called the other names and discussion centred on issues such as tweets about a former Miss Universe and who has the required "stamina" to lead.

That doesn't mean both candidates and their parties are equal on climate change. One talks about the need to shift to renewable energy and has a party platform that outlines solutions. The other calls climate change a "hoax" perpetrated by the Chinese, and believes in promoting fossil fuels at the expense of renewables. But even their differences on this critical issue aren't getting airtime.

"I've been shocked at the lack of questions on climate change. It really is fiddling while the world burns," Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Kerry Emanuel told the Guardian, calling it "collective cowardice."

Although the U.S. joined 194 other countries and the European Union in December 2015 in agreeing to keep global average temperatures from rising more than 2 C above pre-industrial levels, and has now ratified the Paris Agreement, the country's oil industry is booming. In Canada, which also ratified the agreement, governments continue to approve, promote and subsidize fossil fuel projects like pipelines, LNG development, coal exports and oil sands expansion.

Although we've known about climate change and its causes and consequences for a long time, and we have a wide range of viable solutions, with more and better ones developed daily, our political representatives -- and, to be fair, many people they were elected to represent -- don't appear to understand the gravity of the situation or to have the courage to address it. A complacent public and compromised media mean the topic is all but ignored during one of the most important, albeit bizarre, political campaigns in recent history.

Solutions and opportunities could and should be included in these debates, as well as in media coverage and everyday conversation: carbon pricing to provide incentives for clean energy and disincentives for outdated, polluting technologies; increasingly efficient and cost-effective clean energy and storage technologies; protecting natural carbon sinks; and changing agriculture practices.

We've ignored the problem for so long that a smooth transition is becoming more challenging every day. For those hoping to head a country that has shown leadership in so many ways to ignore or outright deny the problem is a punch in the face to humanity. Let's hope that, whatever the outcome on November 8, the U.S. government will heed its experts at the Pentagon, NASA, NOAA and every other scientific and policy department and get serious about climate and the measures needed to ensure citizens' well-being and survival.

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook