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

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?

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 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 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.

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

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.

..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 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.

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

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...

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?    

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 

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."

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.

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...

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....

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....

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

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