Leap Manifesto: 'A Call For A Canada Based on Caring For the Earth and One Another'

490 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Berlin Is The Latest City To Pull Out Of Fossil Fuels

Berlin’s parliament voted Thursday to pull its money out of coal, gas and oil companies.

The new investment policy, part of the German capital’s goal of completely weaning off carbon by 2050, will force the city’s pension fund — worth $852.8 million, or €750 million — to divest from shares of German oil giants RWE and E.ON, as well as the French behemoth Total.

The move comes a week after Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, vowed to end its investments in fossil fuels companies, making Berlin the seventh major Western city to join a divestment movement that already includes Paris, Copenhagen, Oslo, Seattle, Portland and Melbourne. In September, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio urged the city’s five pension funds — worth a collective $160 billion — to sell their $33 million exposure to coal, by the far the dirtiest fossil fuel.

A handful of smaller U.S. cities have pledged to curtail fossil fuel investments, too.

quote:

The decision, hailed as a victory for environmentalists, comes as the divestment movement gains steam in the wake of the historic climate treaty brokered in Paris in December. About 170 nations signed the accord at the United Nations in New York two months ago. More than 500 institutions — including well-endowed universities, pension funds and religious organizations collectively representing $3.4 trillion — have agreed to stop investing in fossil fuels since the campaign began....

Rev Pesky

From that original post on Grande-Synthe:

Quote:
...the environmentalist mayor of Grande-Synthe has had to manage the arrival in his community over the last year -- and in comparable proportions -- of a significant number of migrants who wish to go to the United Kingdom. For the most part, they are Iraqi Kurds. The migrants comprised 10 percent of the local population -- 21,000 residents -- in December 2015. The humane and determined response of Carême and his team in the face of a humanitarian crisis unprecedented since World War II terminates any comparison with Calais right there. The town of Grande-Synthe has created the first French camp that complies with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' norms.

In fact it wasn't the town that built the new refugee camp, it was MSF. And it wasn't the town that paid for it, it was MSF.

 

Now, what I am talking about in quoting, well, I'll give an example. From one of your posts above:

Quote:
The necessity of a camp seemed the only conceivable solution, especially as Doctors Without Borders (MSF) committed to be responsible for a very large share of the expenses to create one -- 2.5 million euros. The town advanced the remaining 700,000 euros, counting on a reimbursement from the European Community, so as not to burden the local budget. The prefect [French national government local official] did not oppose the plan, but issued an unfavorable opinion, professing security concerns. MSF's expertise and the mayor's determination defeated these procrastinations. The camp was created in March at Linière, an area at some distance from the town between the warehouse and the highway, while the present refugee population is 1,300 people. A petition launched in opposition to the new camp garnered only a few dozen signatures. "I believe people are mostly proud of their town," says Carême.

This part of your post was outside a quote box, and there was no attribution. My question is, was this you writing, or was it part of someone else's writing?

iyraste1313

Published onMonday, June 27, 2016byCommon DreamsPlan for Nation's Largest Oil-by-Rail Terminal Faces Massive Opposition

Only two groups will argue in support of the project during the five weeks of hearings, while more than a dozen entities are opposed

byDeirdre Fulton, staff writer

...meanwhile back in BC, digging our organic gardens, playing and listening at the music festivals...while in the background...the trains roll by...these ominous black looking tar sands gook rail cars role by...dozens after dozens, with picturesque mountains in the background, some with awfully nervous looking slides...down to the tracks.... 

 

Orange Crushed

Rev Pesky wrote:

quizzical wrote:

your "non-fact" was your declaration BC is a net importer of hydro not exporter.

start using the real technology for energy production they're not using.

I'll split the importer/exporter thing with you, based on a paper from the University of Victoria. The paper is from 2010, but there's no reason to suppose things are a lot different now.

Quote:
In essence, British Columbia was exclusively a net exporter of electricity prior to 1993 – the amount of energy leaving the province consistently exceeded the amount entering. Between 1993 and 2008, BC was both a net importer and a net exporter of electricity. Over the past eight years (2000 to 2008), BC was a net importer in four years (2001, 2004, 2005 and 2008) and a net exporter in four years (2000, 2002, 2003 and 2007).

...While the net export data from BC Stats (2010), CANSIM and the National Energy Board (2010b) are equivalent, none of the data sources agree with the dates and volumes of net exports from BC Hydro’s (2006) Integrated Energy Plan (IEP). The IEP states that BC Hydro was a net importer in five of the eight years – F2001, F2002, F2003, F2004 and F2005.

Your second 'answer' is of course, a non-answer. The question is, how would you allocate the 'right to emit' given a hard cap on emissions. Your non-answer implies a situtation where there is plenty of energy to go around, which would mean there was no longer any need for a hard cap.  I don't think any realist anywhere believes that we can continue to consume energy in the amounts we do, and the way we do, even with massive spending on 'alternate' electical generation. First off, there's a lot of things electricity can't do. For instance, you can't pave a road with electricity.

You can fly an airplane with electricity, but you can't carry cargo or people. So unless you're willing to give flying, you're stuck with fossil fuels.

No shit.  Glad we don't have to get into the equally pressing issue of how we'd produce enough fertilizer or plastics with using ANY petro at all.  Not that anyone has implied that here.  I don't believe anyone's implied that there's not enough energy to go around either, without some use of dinosaur juice at least to start    The issue here is whether alternative energy sources combined can replace it and meet demand.  I do believe we'll have to cut back on the extras in the near future.  Nice job of derailing and reinserting your own pet horse into the middle of it.

Quote:

There are many other examples. I'm sure you could think of some yourself.

It's also true that a hard cap is only a beginning. In order to really work, that cap has to be constantly lowered until the point that emissions don't matter any more. If demand is higher than the cap allows, some sort of rationing must exist. You can choose to ignore the problem, but that won't make it go away.

 

As for your first more relevant point.  That apparently depends on what's included in the totals.

Here's the linmk to yours: 

http://web.uvic.ca/~kooten/documents/BCgeneratingSystem.pdf

 

Here's one that questions it by looking at other areas of hydro production:

http://greenpolicyprof.org/wordpress/?p=51

 

Here's a Wiki with links arguing otherwise: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BC_Hydro

 

 

Orange Crushed

And do I have any ideas on how proposed scheme might work?  I'd say take it to some real scientists and engineers and then the UN committee on Climate change as well as the oil industy and convince them.  Then get back to us with treaties in hand. 

Rev Pesky

Orange Crushed wrote:

And do I have any ideas on how proposed scheme might work?  I'd say take it to some real scientists and engineers and then the UN committee on Climate change as well as the oil industy and convince them.  Then get back to us with treaties in hand. 

A hard cap on emissions is a political decision, not a scientific one. So the question of how to allocate the 'right to emit' is a political decision, not a scientific one. One could consult with scientists and engineers on what is really 'green', and I think we should. There's been a lot of solutions put forward, and many of them are not really green at all. To move forward, it really is necessary to determine what is 'green' and what isn't.

But once the science is in, and assuming a hard cap on emissions, no scientist or engineer would have any more idea of how to allocate the emission 'resource' than anybody else. And we don't even need the UN. Emissions by country are well known.

Wikipedia: Emissions by country

As you can see in the above table, per capita emissions in Canada are three times the world average. and slightly more than double the per capita emissions of China. In fact Canada is in the top ten per capita emitters in the world. (By the way, the large majority of countries in the world are below per capita average emissions.)

I propose, as a short term goal, to reduce Canada's per capita emissions to double the world average. If, as I suspect is true, my proposed reduction isn't possible without a hard cap, then some system of allocating emissions space is going to have to be used. My question is, what system? I've proposed mine. What are the other proposed hard cap emissions strategies?

Pondering

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/norway-to-ban-th...

Norway will ban the sale of all fossil fuel-based cars in the next decade, continuing its trend towards becoming one of the most ecologically progressive countries on the planet, according to reports.

Politicians from both sides of the political spectrum have reportedly reached some concrete conclusions about 100 per cent of Norwegian cars running on green energy by 2025.

Rev. Pesky, you argue in circles using absolutes. If we only cut 90%, or even 75% of our use of fossil fuels it's still a massive improvement.

Neither Canada nor the rest of the world needs more Alberta oil than it is already producing. The world has to use less oil not more. What is being prevented is expansion of the oil sands. They aren't being shut down by a long shot but over the next few decades oil production in Alberta will continue to decline.

The crux of your arguments seem to boil down to, as long as we are going to burn oil it might as well be Alberta's.

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
The crux of your arguments seem to boil down to, as long as we are going to burn oil it might as well be Alberta's.

i don't agree with much of what Rev says but i agree with this point of his.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the leap has come out with a study guide. looks awesome from what i have seen so far.

Lesson 2 People, The Planet, and Economic Growth

As part of the push for rapid economic growth, the government of India supported the efforts of a private company to build a coal-based power plant in Sompeta, Andhra Pradesh. If the plant had been built, it would have covered the local wetland with landfill. Thousands of community members rely on the wetland for their livelihood and believe that the power plant will make them poorer.

mark_alfred

I think it's just clips from the movie.  Doesn't seem to be anything new there.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..yes your right mark_a. here's from an email that sent me that link.

quote:

We are pleased to share that our This Changes Everything book & film study guide is now available in-full online for free. The guide features 8 lessons; each lesson includes a plan for educators, hand outs for students as well as clips from the film and excerpts from the book. 

The guide was developed by the This Changes Everything team in partnership with study guide writer Cari Ladd and our US education partner Rethinking Schools.

Rethinking Schools have been doing some incredible work in Portland, Oregan. The Board of Education for the Portland Public Schools have passed a resolution that all schools in the district will “abandon any adopted text material that is found to express doubt about the severity of the climate crisis or its roots in human activity." We applaud their amazing activism!

mark_alfred

Yeah.  It's helpful to have it broken down with some explanatory text as well.  One issue with the movie was that it was long and seemed to jump all over the place.  So, this makes it more accessible, which is good.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Oakland City Council Adhering to Social Demands Blocks Coal Project

On June 27, the Oakland, California City Council voted unanimously to block the handling and storage of large shipments of coal at a new proposed portside terminal. Joining us now to discuss the environmental justice victory in Oakland is Irene Gutierrez. She is an attorney in Earthjustice's California regional office, and much of her work has involved this issue. Good to have you with us.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..a short but sweet rabbler perspective. even comes with video.

Let's have climate tests for all policy

Justin Trudeau said earlier this year that blocking pipelines is a "simplistic solution" to climate change. But a couple of months prior, his government announced new pipelines will have to pass a climate test before they're approved. So by saying a focus on only pipelines is too simplistic, Trudeau implied that a climate test for only pipelines is also too simplistic. And he was accidentally right.

quote:

Like shouldn't trade agreements have to pass a climate test? TransCanada just filed a 15 billion dollar claim under NAFTA over the U.S.'s rejection of the Keystone pipeline. It's a good reminder that trade agreements have huge implications for the climate because they allow fossil fuel companies to threaten governments with lawsuits if they don’t do what they want.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/norway-to-ban-th...

Norway will ban the sale of all fossil fuel-based cars in the next decade, continuing its trend towards becoming one of the most ecologically progressive countries on the planet, according to reports.

Politicians from both sides of the political spectrum have reportedly reached some concrete conclusions about 100 per cent of Norwegian cars running on green energy by 2025.

Rev. Pesky, you argue in circles using absolutes. If we only cut 90%, or even 75% of our use of fossil fuels it's still a massive improvement.

Neither Canada nor the rest of the world needs more Alberta oil than it is already producing. The world has to use less oil not more. What is being prevented is expansion of the oil sands. They aren't being shut down by a long shot but over the next few decades oil production in Alberta will continue to decline.

The crux of your arguments seem to boil down to, as long as we are going to burn oil it might as well be Alberta's.

What part of this did you not see?:

Rev Pesky wrote:
...I propose, as a short term goal, to reduce Canada's per capita emissions to double the world average. If, as I suspect is true, my proposed reduction isn't possible without a hard cap, then some system of allocating emissions space is going to have to be used. My question is, what system? I've proposed mine. What are the other proposed hard cap emissions strategies?

I have never suggested anywhere that 'as long as we burn oil it might as well be Albertai's'. I merely point out that exporting oil brings in money from outside, something which the various 'green' job creation plans do not. In fact most Alberta oil is not suitable as fuel.

By the way, Norway is not exactly a poster child for green, in that they make a large part of their foreign exchange by selling fossil fuels.

Courtesy Wikipedia:

Quote:
...In 2011, Norway was the eighth largest crude oil exporter in the world (at 78Mt), and the 9th largest exporter of refined oil (at 86Mt). It was also the world's third largest natural gas exporter (at 99bcm), having significant gas reserves in the North Sea. Norway also possesses some of the world's largest potentially exploitable coal reserves (located under the Norwegian continental shelf) on earth.

Three million barrels of oil adds 1.3 Mt of CO2 per day to the atmosphere as it is consumed, 474 Mt/year.[citation needed] Thus the global CO2 impact of Norway's activities is significant. Much of the CO2 creation happens outside of Norway's borders, from Norwegian fossil fuel exports.

So, great. They're going to electric cars which presumably will be paid for, at least indirectly, by fossil fuel exports. Norway, with a population about 1/7th of Canada's, exports more oil that we do (marginally). Seems to me they're not exactly a great example to follow.

 

 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:
...I propose, as a short term goal, to reduce Canada's per capita emissions to double the world average. If, as I suspect is true, my proposed reduction isn't possible without a hard cap, then some system of allocating emissions space is going to have to be used. My question is, what system? I've proposed mine. What are the other proposed hard cap emissions strategies?

I'm not technical and I don't need to be. The equation is simple. Pipelines pose an unacceptable local environmental threat and the world needs to reduce not increase overall production. Alberta oil will not displace oil that is cheaper to access. The Saudis have made it clear that they will flood the market with cheap oil for as long as it takes. They can go down to 10$ a barrel and still break even. They can read the writing on the wall. The age of oil is over. We will continue to use it, even burn it, but overall we will be using less not more which is why the oil companies won't build a new refinery in Alberta or Saskatchewan.

Rev Pesky wrote:
I have never suggested anywhere that 'as long as we burn oil it might as well be Albertai's'. I merely point out that exporting oil brings in money from outside, something which the various 'green' job creation plans do not. 

The environmental risks of pipelines are far more important than "bringing in money from outside". Canada has other industries than bring in money "from outside".  We sell a great deal more than just oil. Again, no one is talking about shutting down the oil sands. We just don't want them expanded. We need to become less economically dependent on oil not more dependent on it. Also, green industries do export therefore do bring in "outside money". We have lots of industries we can expand on rather than expanding the oil sands industry.

Rev Pesky wrote:
In fact most Alberta oil is not suitable as fuel.

That doesn't make the pipelines any safer.

Rev Pesky wrote:
By the way, Norway is not exactly a poster child for green, in that they make a large part of their foreign exchange by selling fossil fuels. 

I was using it as an example of countries moving away from burning fossil fuels for transportation not as a general role model although they also used their oil money better than Canada.

If oil companies had a reputation for putting safety first they might have an argument but instead they have proven their untrustworthieness repeatedly. They do what's cheapest not what's safest.

I feel badly for Alberta. I am all for Canada doing everything possible to help Alberta develop other industries. What I won't do is accept pipelines. We don't need them and they pose a threat. Alberta's oil  industry will not be shutting down anytime soon but it is time for Alberta and Canada to transition away from dependence on oil.

 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Trudeau Climate Plan Challenged at Toronto ‘Town Halls’

quote:

Lessons from the Town Halls

The People's Climate Plan has proven an effective tool in engaging with the government's moves on climate. Still, experience in the Toronto consultations suggests two topics where there is perhaps something to learn.

→ For an emissions reductions schedule

The second pillar of the PCP calls for a plan that “builds a 100% renewable energy economy by 2050.”[1] At the Toronto consultations, this point did not come through strongly. There were only six mentions of some type of prioritization for energy transition.

This may be because the 2050 target is too distant; it does not demand anything of the present government.

The meaning of the renewables goal can be clarified by pointing to the need to adopt specific targets for yearly reductions of at least 5% in total carbon emissions, starting immediately.

→ Canada's global responsibilities

One of the six most frequently mentioned themes in the Toronto consultations was, “Protect victims of climate change worldwide.” This concept is not in the PCP. Granted, the PCP consists of only three sentences and cannot say everything. But we can globalize the PCP's scope by inserting four words into this point.

The final phrase of the PCP calls for a climate plan that “takes leadership from those hit hardest by the climate crisis.” We should amend this by adding the words both nationally and globally.

We should seek opportunities to discuss all global barriers to effective climate action, from militarism and the arms race to global trade pacts.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Tally of group responses at the two Toronto consultations

  • Support Indigenous rights, implement UNDRIP — 14
  • Leave the tar sands in the ground — 13
  • No more pipelines or fossil fuel infrastructure — 11
  • No subsidies to oil corporations, polluters should pay — 9
  • A just transition for oil workers; for green jobs — 8
  • Protect victims climate change worldwide — 8
  • Expand mass transit, rail service — 6
  • For community solutions, building codes — 6
  • Renewable energy: give priority to, for rapid transition — 6
  • Against the TPP — 5
  • For carbon taxes — 5
  • Expand health services and education — 4
  • Government's policy is contradictory, two-faced — 3
  • Reduce consumption, degrowth — 2
  • Election reform — 2
  • No nuclear, no geoengineering — 2
  • Ready for civil disobedience — 1
  • Carbon taxes are not enough — 1
  • For sustainable food — 1
  • Punish those who commit carbon crimes — 1

NorthReport

So remind me again how we are going to care for these oil workers.

Lost Generation of Oil Workers Leaves Few Options for Next Boom

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-06/lost-generation-of-oil...

mark_alfred

Re: post #469

That's a broken link (404 result).  I believe this link works, though:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-07/lost-generation-of-oil...

Orange Crushed

*

Orange Crushed

Rev Pesky wrote:

Orange Crushed wrote:

And do I have any ideas on how proposed scheme might work?  I'd say take it to some real scientists and engineers and then the UN committee on Climate change as well as the oil industy and convince them.  Then get back to us with treaties in hand. 

A hard cap on emissions is a political decision, not a scientific one. So the question of how to allocate the 'right to emit' is a political decision, not a scientific one. One could consult with scientists and engineers on what is really 'green', and I think we should. There's been a lot of solutions put forward, and many of them are not really green at all. To move forward, it really is necessary to determine what is 'green' and what isn't.

But once the science is in, and assuming a hard cap on emissions, no scientist or engineer would have any more idea of how to allocate the emission 'resource' than anybody else. And we don't even need the UN. Emissions by country are well known.

Wikipedia: Emissions by country

As you can see in the above table, per capita emissions in Canada are three times the world average. and slightly more than double the per capita emissions of China. In fact Canada is in the top ten per capita emitters in the world. (By the way, the large majority of countries in the world are below per capita average emissions.)

I propose, as a short term goal, to reduce Canada's per capita emissions to double the world average. If, as I suspect is true, my proposed reduction isn't possible without a hard cap, then some system of allocating emissions space is going to have to be used. My question is, what system? I've proposed mine. What are the other proposed hard cap emissions strategies?

Alright, one more in reply.  I may be mistaken but the federal NDP proposed a hard-cap and trade.  I don't know the details buit you could take it up with their policy makers.  There are other proposals out there, as in the Kyoto Accord which was supposed to send credits to poorer low emission countries to buy more Green techology, etc.  And to encourage them to save their remaining forest land and fields.  Hardly perfect solutions, but an attempt to encourage existing global markets to respond to political will.  The preserving Co2 absorbing green-space side has tended to be overlooked, and the tax and trade side seems to have become as pessimists feared -a mere pollution tax or licencing fee. One that may not be reinvested where needed, as Christy Clark's half assed plan failed to do.

My comment about scientists and engineers was half facetious as you keep arguing that alternative energy sources to oil are just unrealistic technically.  While constantly sidestepping or redefining others' counter-arguments.   Let me guess, you have an electrical generator at home you tinker with, and you've read some articles online which support your view, yes?    

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Climate change 'can be slowed' by building more cycle paths

A new study by Canadian scientists says there's a quantifiable reduction in the vehicle tailpipe emissions that contribute to global warming when people are tempted by bike-friendly routes instead of driving.

And it's a bargain basement deal. "The greenhouse gas benefit from adding low-cost new cycling infrastructure can be as important as other more costly strategies," say the scientists from Montreal's McGill University.

For a 7% increase in the length of a city's cycle path network, greenhouse gas emissions can fall by 2%, they say. If that seems like a small return on investment, it's excellent compared to the cost of making public transport more environmentally friendly.

The scientists calculate that to get the same cutback in GHG levels in a major international city like Montreal, all of its diesel buses would have to be converted to hybrid technology and all of its commuter trains would have to be electrified.

That's not a cheap option compared to boosting cycling. "A 40-foot hybrid bus costs Can$450,000 (£250,000)," the scientists say, "It's equivalent to [building] approximately 5.5 km (3.5 miles) of cycle tracks."

NorthReport

The Leap Manifesto is like leaping off a cliff for most Canadians. Who wants to vote for a party that is dead set against jobs for Canadians?

The reality is Alberta's oil has to be shipped out, so the NDP needs to decide whether it wants to continue to be the party of no, and keep losing elections. Actually for the forseeable future it doesn't matter what the NDP does federally, as Trudeau's ratings are through the roof. What the federal NDP can do however, by continuing to be the party of no is, with the Leap Manifesto, ensure that Canada's only NDP government left in Canada will soon bite the dust.

Jason Kenney anyone!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/notley-no-pipeline-delays-1.3671209 

mark_alfred

There's extra space in the link to the CBC article above, which breaks the link.  Here's a working link:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/notley-no-pipeline-delays-1.3671209

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

NorthReport wrote:

The Leap Manifesto is like leaping off a cliff for most Canadians. Who wants to vote for a party that is dead set against jobs for Canadians?

The reality is Alberta's oil has to be shipped out, so the NDP needs to decide whether it wants to continue to be the party of no, and keep losing elections. Actually for the forseeable future it doesn't matter what the NDP does federally, as Trudeau's ratings are through the roof. What the federal NDP can do however, by continuing to be the party of no is, with the Leap Manifesto, ensure that Canada's only NDP government left in Canada will soon bite the dust.

Jason Kenney anyone!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/notley-no-pipeline-delays-1.3671209 

..this is the wrong thread for that piece. we already have an ongoing debate in the pipeline threads and there are other threads more appropriate as well. the leap didn't cause the problems the tarsands did.

..having said that. northreport i'd like to hear you address why notley isn't seeking remedy to the treaty violations when it comes to the tarsands project. as well as the violations of undrip which the federal ndp supports. everyone wants jobs not just you. the question is what kind of jobs and at who's expense.

quote:

Notley said she understands the need for First Nations to have a say in the Northern Gateway process.

She said Alberta is examining the court decision and will ask the federal government to take whatever action is necessary to meet those standards.

"But in a respectful way that engages meaningfully with affected stakeholders and in particular First Nations people because they have a strong set of rights under our laws."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Inside The Green Economy: Promises And Pitfalls In 9 Theses

In their new book Inside the Green Economy–Promises and PitfallsThomas Fatheuer, Lili Fuhr, and Barbara Unmüßig of the Heinrich Böll Foundation set out to explore the underlying assumptions, hypotheses, and propositions of the green economy and to spell out their consequences in the real world. The authors call for radical realism and the courage to recognize the complexity of the global crises. They assert that the great task will be to continue the project of modernity, embracing the latest knowledge about planetary boundaries as well as the old vision of broad democratic participation and an end to poverty and injustice.

1. The green economy is an optimistic vision of fossil-fuel phase-out in an economy assumed to become greener via technology and efficiency

In the mainstream imagination, the green economy wants to break away from our fossil-fueled business-as-usual. It’s a nice, optimistic message: the economy can continue to grow, and growth can be green. The green economy even hopes to become a driver of more growth. Yet reconciling climate change mitigation and resource conservation with economic growth in a finite and unjust world remains an illusion. With its positive associations, the term “green economy” suggests that the world as we know it can continue much as before thanks to a green growth paradigm of greater efficiency and lower resource consumption.

However, anyone making such a promise must deliberately downplay complexity and have powerful faith in hoped-for miracles of the market economy and technological innovation, while at the same time ignoring social inequality and not wanting to tackle existing economic and political power structures. The green economy is thus a matter of faith and selective blind spots.

It can only be a realistic option for the future if it recognizes planetary boundaries, overcomes social and political injustice and ensures the radical reduction and fair distribution of emissions and resource consumption....

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

On the Precipice: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Lead Fight for Energy Independence

According to a new study by NASA, rising temperatures and melting ice sheets are responsible for a redistribution of the Earth's weight, causing a shift in the way the planet wobbles on its axis.

Warming ocean temperatures, now considered unstoppable, are responsible for unpredictable severe weather patterns, heat waves, drought, floods and reduced food supplies.

Antarctic ice has begun to melt and break apart. The collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, also considered unstoppable, will eventually contribute to sea level rise by more than 10 feet, scientists warn. This collapse would leave cities such as New York, Boston, Miami and New Orleans, as well as many other cities around the globe, in peril.

If we were to collectively cease the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels today, and shift to alternative sources of clean energy, these changes may only slow, but not stop, the trajectory we are on.

quote:

At the demonstration, Phyllis Young, a member of the Hunkpapa Lakota and Ihanktonwan Dakota (Hunkpapa Lakota and Ihanktonwan Dakota are different bands of the same Oceti Sakowin-or Sioux Nation) Nations and a co-founder of the activist organization Women of All Red Nations, spoke to the room full of scientists and engineers about the possibility of bringing this energy into our homes.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has endorsed LENR technology, sometimes referred to as "cold-fusion" or, in Brillouin's case, "controlled electronic capture reaction," and is seeking funding from the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture for the deployment of clean energy projects, education and planning of this technology.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

California Breaks Solar Record, Generates Enough Electricity for 6 Million Homes

According to figures from California's Independent Solar Operators Corporation (ISO) which operates most of the state's grid, a whopping 8,030 megawatts of large-scale solar power was generated at 1:06 p.m. on July 12, nearly doubling the amount of solar energy produced in mid-2014 and nearly 2,000 megawatts higher than in May 2015.

"This solar production record demonstrates that California is making significant strides forward in connecting low carbon resources to the grid in meeting the state's goal of reaching 33 percent renewables by 2020," ISO President and CEO Steve Berberich said. "California continues to lead the nation in adding clean resources to the system and writing a playbook for operating a low carbon grid."....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Nation’s Largest Teachers Union Endorses Teaching “Climate Justice”

In May, the Portland, Oregon school board passed the country’s first comprehensive “climate justice” resolution. The school board voted unanimously to “abandon the use of any adopted text material that is found to express doubt about the severity of the climate crisis or its root in human activities,” and called for all schools to teach a “climate justice” curriculum. The Portland resolution said that students in city schools “should develop confidence and passion when it comes to making a positive difference in society, and come to see themselves as activists and leaders for social and environmental justice—especially through seeing the diversity of people around the world who are fighting the root causes of climate change…”

That effort received a big boost last week in Washington, D.C., when the country’s largest union, the National Education Association (NEA), voted at its national convention to support the Portland resolution and to encourage state and local affiliates to create and promote climate literacy resolutions in their own communities, using the Portland resolution as a model. The NEA has close to 3 million members, and its convention is dubbed “the world’s largest deliberative assembly,” with 7,000 delegates...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Join us at the World Social Forum in Montreal

Dear friends,

Will you be in Montreal this August? The Leap Manifesto is coming to the World Social Forum! Join the Leap team, Naomi Klein and friends for workshops, panels, interactive art and more. Check out our program of events below and join us in building our movement by spreading the Leap throughout Canada and beyond.

Consider volunteering with us! We are a small team and need your support to make the Leap at the WSF a success.

In solidarity,
Kaela, Bianca and the Leap Team

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

An Illness to One is the Concern of All: The Health Impacts of Rising Fossil Fuel Use

This TUED Working Paper has been written to help unions representing workers in all sectors get a clear sense of what is presently happening in terms of the health impacts of fossil fuel use and what could also happen if present patterns in energy use continue into the future.

Authored by Svati Shah and Sean Sweeney, the paper draws attention dual crisis: the alarming implications for human health caused by pollution and by climate change, both of which are being made worse by the growing use of coal, oil, and gas.

The amount of fossil fuels being burned on an annual basis globally is more than twice the levels of just 25 years ago. Global agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO) have struggled to stay on top of the health impacts of this disturbing trend, but recent WHO studies point to an alarming increase in the number of lives seriously damaged and, in millions of cases annually, cut short as a result of exposure the fossil-based pollution.  Working alongside the WHO, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has focused attention on the health impacts of climate change and climate-related events. Patterns of disease are changing along with the climate, and the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report released in November 2014 concluded that warming temperatures are already having a serious impact on human health, and many of these impacts are expected to increase in severity in the coming years....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Chomsky: World Indigenous People Only Hope for Human Survival

Indigenous people across the world are the ones keeping the human race from destroying itself and leading earth to a disaster as they gain voices in countries in Latin America, the United States and Australia, renowned political commentator and academic Noam Chomsky said in a recent interview.

“Indigenous communities have begun to find a voice for the first time in countries with large Indigenous populations like Bolivia (and) Ecuador,” Chomsky said in an interview last week according to Alternet.

“That’s a tremendous step forward for the entire world. It’s a kind of incredible irony that all over the world the leading forces in trying to prevent a race to disaster are the Indigenous communities.”...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

California's Fast-Track Solar Permits Let the Sun Shine In Faster—and Cheaper

California cities are leading the nation in eliminating one of the biggest hurdles to the growth of residential solar: lengthy and confusing permitting.

Spurred by a recent state law, hundreds of California communities have streamlined their permit process for small residential solar systems over the past year, some bringing it down to a single day. Some cities have also fast-tracked inspections to within a few days of permit approvals. The outcome? The state's biggest cities are now processing and signing off on hundreds of these solar projects each month.

San Jose, for example, streamlined its permit review and approval process last August and has since approved more than 4,500 residential rooftop solar permits. That's a nearly 600 percent increase over the previous year, when San Jose, California's third-largest city, permitted a mere 661.

"We want to make it fast and easy so that no one can hesitate due to bureaucratic red tape to be able to make the transition to a greener energy source," San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo told InsideClimate News....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

The Leap Manifesto hits home: Reflections from a family working in natural resources

quote:

After much reflection I have come to realize the reason I wasn’t celebrating Leap was out of fear, and not an objection to the manifesto’s vision. I don’t think I am alone. After reaching out to contacts in the building trades and organized labour, I found that many people weren’t ready to comment on Leap or even discuss the subject.

People want to know that they can feed their families and pay their bills. The thought of losing good jobs is frightening to them. Yet, while I care about good jobs that pay living wages, this privilege should not come at the expense of other Canadians or the environment. There has to be another way.

The recent oil spill should force us to think about the future of work and the economy in Saskatchewan and set us on a path towards change. Still, supporters of Leap need to be careful with how they promote their message. I still think there needs to be an understanding of what a just transition will mean for workers and communities that depend on oil and resource extraction. As long as people fear the loss of jobs, there will be hostility and divisions. But there are opportunities that need to be seized.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Living Cheap and Local, No Fossil Fuels Necessary

Seven ways we’re already preparing for the transition. Add your own.

1. Community cooperative utilities

2. An electric bicycle commute

3. Perennial grains

4. In Alaska schools, it’s fish for lunch

5. Bringing young people back to the city

6. Linking affordability with access to transit

7. Putting down roots

iyraste1313

5.?

I had to take a double check on that one...what is crucial is building movement and community on the land and rural communities...protecting the security and survival of rural lifestyle...this has to be the base, from which urban community can build in alliance......as the corporate extractive system loses control, the rural communities will be the first to fail...as is now ongoing certainly in the BC Interior...so the desperate need to support the industriasl logging system and site C.......

No! Rural alternative culture built on energy and food self reliance, community building! is of first priority!

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i believe these proposals, #5 included, are local specific iyraste. not meant to be universal declarations.

MegB

Continued here.

Pages

Topic locked