Showing posts with label climate change crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change crisis. Show all posts

17 March 2019

It Used to Be Cliché, But Now It's Reality (Youth Are Now Our Hope for a Future)

The climate strike at the Legislature in British Columbia, Canada's capital city, Victoria (photo by Laura Hinton)
We used to say that "children are our future" and I'd mutter "Duh!" under my breath (with all due respect to Whitney Houston). It was so obvious as to be cliché. We used to say that young people were our hope for the future and I'd get mad — "Don't lay it on them; it's our responsibility to fix this!"

But we didn't fix it. While we waited for a silver bullet remedy to the climate crisis, we crossed our fingers and hoped a hero would come forward. When Al Gore stepped up, half of America excoriated him for making climate change a "political" thing (like it was his fault he was a former Vice-President). He's done a ton of good work in waking the world up to the crisis, but the nasty US Republicans (I'm sure there are some nice ones) made sure he didn't reach hero status. 


And so we kept waiting. And like that carnival game Whack-a-Mole, we ignored or denounced anyone who dared try to lead us to solutions. We ignored Ban Ki-moon and James Hansen; we shat on Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, reminding me of that old adage "You can't win for losing." Perhaps we'll listen to António Guterres, the current secretary-general of the United Nations, who has said:
If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us.
Climate change is an existential threat to most life on the planet.
And then a braided young Swede sat down last summer in front of her parliament on a "climate strike," which continued into the school year on Fridays. The founder of We Don't Have Time "discovered" her (he has since sincerely apologized for the way he did that, but has been excoriated nonetheless), and the rest — cliché alert! — is history.

Since then, Greta Thunberg has garnered the attention of youth around the world. Sure, people (on both sides of the issue, grrrrrrrr) are casting aspersions on her, but Greta seems unfazed. She knows what's at stake, and she just keeps sayin' it. 

The worldwide youth climate strike this past Friday, March 15th in over 100 countries took its inspiration from Greta's school strike. It proved beyond a doubt that young people — fighting for their own future — are, in reality, our only hope. Their speeches were eloquent and bang on the climate science! Their posters were colourful and poignant! Their songs were fun! Their energy was high and their mood was exuberant! 

Two of my former students holding up my (uncolourful) sign: "Climate safety is a human right" (with thanks to Diana Lindley and her lyric)
I felt very privileged to be part of their strike (standing off to the side at the back of the crowd). I was inspired to create a new social media page that will collect positive affirmations and "prayers" for positive action on the climate change emergency, Positive Affirmations for a Healthy, Vibrant Future on Earth: https://www.facebook.com/Positive-Affirmations-for-a-Healthy-Vibrant-Future-on-Earth-2811092489116966/


I have just one wish for these young folks, who invited all of us to bring 10 friends to the next strike. Please, don't be afraid to be disruptive. Walk down the middle of whatever street you want to block. People's "right" to convenience is trumped by your right to a viable future. Their right to be on time does not trump your right to have time to grow up. Go for it! Blessed be ... and see you at the next climate strike.

16 September 2018

Here's Proof that the Climate Change Crisis is a Crisis of Imagination


I read something at Inside Climate News the other day that made me laugh and nearly cry at the same time. 

Have you heard of the Heartland Institute? Their mission is "to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems." Sounds pretty benign, until you remember that it's free-market capitalism that is killing the biosphere. (The "free" in free-market economics means capitalists are free to make as much money as possible in any way possible with as little government regulation as possible. But who was it who said, perhaps a bit tongue in cheek, that the role of government is to keep corporations from getting away with murder?)
Heartland co-founder Joseph Bast provoked laughter by recounting carmaker GM's response to the Trump administration proposal unveiled last week to freeze fuel economy standards. Quoting the vision statement of GM CEO Mary Barra—that the company is working toward a future of "zero crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestion"—Bast said: "That is impossible, and it's absolutely ludicrous. Zero of each of those things mean zero cars. It means zero respect for people's personal choices of transportation. It would mean a devastating impact on the economy."
Imagine, a car company is envisioning a future of "zero crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestion" — and the Heartland Institute laughs. That would "mean zero cars," they say. 


So because they can't imagine a different future, a better future, a future where "people's personal choices of transportation" aren't killing off the future, they just deny the climate change crisis and focus on free-market "solutions." 

These free-market men in suits take themselves very seriously. But if they don't have the creativity or imagination — both signs of intelligence, gentlemen — to envision, or at least support, creative and imaginative zero-carbon solutions, then how can we take them seriously? 

I never thought I'd lend my support to a car company. But when it shows vision, inspiration, inventiveness, resourcefulness, ingenuity and originality; proposes some nifty ideas for fighting the climate change crisis; and uses government regulations as the parameters within which to innovate, well, I'll go with a company with that kind of imagination to make the changes necessary to safeguard the future. I think the Heartland Institute forgets that there is no economy — let alone a free-market economy — on a planet devoid of human life.



06 August 2017

There is Nothing Sexy about the Climate Change Crisis

Mr. Mr. called me over to his desk just before bedtime the other evening. "Check out these heatwave maps! Look at southern Europe! And check out this part of Canada!" (You can see some maps below.)

"You really know how to romance a gal," I said aloud. (Let's face it. There is *nothing* sexy about the climate change crisis.) 


But inside I was crying. Crying for what this means. Crying for all the people (human and otherwise) who are suffering and struggling in this heat, with these wildfires, under these droughts. Crying for all the times I was called an alarmist, too negative, a climate crank, a greenie, an ecoweenie, a doom-and-gloomer — and wishing they were right and I'd been wrong.

Through the orange haze of wildfire smoke from many hundreds of kilometres away, how I wish we could all just wake up and get back to "normal" lives of love and romance, work and fun, raising our kids and paying our bills ... without the stench of the future going up in flames plaguing my sleep with nightmares, plaguing thousands of people in my province with evacuation orders, and plaguing hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of people every year now to loss of loved ones and livelihood, food security and water sources, homes and entire homelands. 

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/forecastmaps?LANG=en&CONT=namk&MAPS=vtx&LOOP=0&LAND=__&MORE=1&UP=0&R=0&DAY=0
  
https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/firemap/



August 5-6, 2017

03 July 2016

EARTHx: A Prescription for Our Children's Future

Here's a guest post by Howard Breen, which was published June 30th, 2016 as an op ed in the Vancouver Observer. (If you've already read it, it's worth reading again!)

As a physician for nearly 40 years, Pender Islander Dr. Peter Carter [my beloved] did his best to save lives and help heal thousands of patients. But it wasn’t until he retired and became a full-time climate change research presenter that he made his most dire diagnosis.

“Earth has a dangerous fever it can’t shake,” Dr. Carter says. “The atmosphere and oceans are being poisoned by excess carbon dioxide, which reached a record 409 parts per million this spring. (It should be under 350 ppm.) CO2 is highly persistent and cumulative in both vital systems of the biosphere. The planet is in a rapidly deteriorating state of emergency for our future survival.”

As if to prove this diagnosis correct, the NASA team at Climate Science Awareness and Solutions has recently predicted that 2016 will be another record year for surface temperature increase, which is now above 1.0ºC (a record reached in 2015). “We are living on a planet substantially damaged and different from the one our species has developed on. Global temperature is now in the extremely dangerous zone for the world population and the rest of the “biosphere,” Dr. Carter explains. 

According to Dr. Carter, founder of the Climate Emergency Institute, “The 2015 UN Paris Climate Agreement prescription only offers ‘intended’ targets that pretend to cure the afflicted Earth. The Paris prescription is to keep administering the poison under the guise of good intentions, which can only result in the death of the patient.” The 2 May 2016 UN Climate Secretariat update of nations’ non-binding targets reports that emissions will be higher in 2030 than they are today – making the Paris Agreement a death sentence.”

The essential – and totally reliable – test that Dr. Carter uses for this grim diagnosis is the level of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere. “Record high, still accelerating levels of atmospheric GHG pollution have for years been on a consistent heading to end the human race and wipe out almost all life on Earth (both on land and in the oceans). Just in the last few years, the levels have jumped up even faster.”

“In a time of climate change deceit,” Dr. Carter confides, “telling the truth is a personal act for global survival.” So he doesn’t mince words when he shares the urgency of the climate and oceans emergency. “When I was a physician, it would have been the grossest negligence not to tell my patients of their diagnosis, no matter how bad it was.”

“The worst crime of all time, and now clearly the greatest evil ever, is the connivance of the big banking and fossil fuel corporations – with the compliant complicity of some big-economy governments – to deny the catastrophic dangers of continued emissions and to keep delaying decisive and rapid action to put global emissions into decline. This worst-ever negligence has come about because as a society we are in deep denial of the dire state of planetary emergency the entire world is in.”

The prognosis is grim. Dr. Carter believes that “only our profound care and compassion can save today's children and all future generations from inheriting a literal hell on Earth.”

The 2014 Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gave us the bottom line for our future survival. “The IPCC said that limiting warming requires ‘near zero emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases.’ Science rules this world, and rules out more carbon emissions.”

The “other long-lived greenhouse gases” are methane and nitrous oxide. Methane emissions from the livestock industry and artificial wetland rice production, as well as from the natural gas industry (fracking), can and must be eliminated. According to Dr. Carter, “The switch to a healthy vegan (lower GHG-emitting) diet is now vital for tomorrow’s children – and today’s – to have a life worth living.

Other “prescriptions” to get our greenhouse gas fever down include ending government subsidies to fossil fuel corporations and charging large corporate greenhouse gas polluters the full cost of their deadly pollution.

“Our only and best imaginable future is with safe, clean, everlasting 100% renewable energy,” Dr. Carter says. That’s why he is now urging an immediate planetary emergency Manhattan-style R&D Project along the lines of a worldwide Marshall Plan model – a global-scale venture to rescue our future. His emergency response plan depends on fast tracking the progress being made to develop safe, zero-carbon, and super-high energy-dense fusion power. Fusion will be able to power heavy industry and heavy transportation that clean renewable energy is not yet up to.

“The burning age is over,” insists Dr. Carter. “We literally have no future with fossil fuels. With carbon-free fusion power, we’ll be able to manufacture the enormous amount of renewable energy infrastructure we need without having to burn more fossil fuels to rebuild the entire world for the age of safe, clean, everlasting energy. To survive the climate and oceans emergency, and revert to a safe level below 350ppm CO2 and 1.5 degrees Celsius, we also have to mechanically remove vast amounts of carbon dioxide directly from the air for the next hundred years, chemically converting it to a solid carbonate, which can be safely achieved only with safe, zero-carbon, energy-dense fusion power.” 

“Runaway climate change and ocean acidification are not future-tense events,” concludes Dr. Carter. “It is of the utmost urgency that we immediately act to abolish the burning of fossil fuels – or watch as fossil fuels abolish humanity.”



EARTHx event in Victoria, BC, Canada - July 4th, 6-10 p.m. at the Victoria Event Centre (1415 Broad Street). The planned program for EARTHx includes video screenings and presentations on the climate and oceans emergency. (The VEC refreshment bar will be open for the event.)

22 May 2016

You Don't Have to Be a Denier to Be in Denial

We're taking our time watching a difficult and eye-opening movie called Labyrinth of Lies. Based on the life of Fritz Bauer, Frankfurt's attorney general, and three prosecutors who were instrumental in bringing Auschwitz Nazis to trial in 1963, this film is a story that exposes the conspiracy of prominent German institutions and government branches to cover up the crimes of Nazis during World War II. 

I had no idea that many, many Germans in the post-war era didn't acknowledge, accept or even know about the atrocities committed in Nazi concentration camps during the war. (I knew about Ernst Zündel and his Holocaust denial but didn't realize he'd immigrated to Canada in 1958 from a zeitgeist of denial in Germany.) After the camps were liberated by the Allies (April 1945), "German civilians [were] forced by American troops to bear witness to Nazi atrocities at Buchenwald concentration camp, mere miles from their own homes." (See Forgotten Alfred Hitchcock Holocaust Documentary Gets New Life.)
When Auschwitz and several other camps, like Bergen-Belsen, were liberated, the British army sent along a film unit. Under the aegis of Sidney Bernstein, and with the help of supervising director Alfred Hitchcock, the grisly and shocking footage was meant for a documentary called German Concentration Camps Factual Survey. However, as the war came to a close, the governments that had once supported exposing German crimes had a new interest in reconciliation. So plans for the film were scrapped, and most of the footage was archived at Britain’s Imperial War Museum until the 1980s.
That footage is now included in a new documentary, Night Will Fall, which "tells the story of how the footage came to be, and what happened to it."
Margaret Bourke-White, Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images
In an Independent article (Germany finally pays tribute to first Nazi hunter Fritz Bauer), I learned that "only six of the [22] accused ["Nazi SS henchmen"] were given life sentences. Twelve others were given terms of up to 14 years. The trials nevertheless obliged a reluctant German public to face up to the horrors of the Holocaust and accept that the perpetrators lived in their midst." The article says that "surviving film footage reveals how controversial the trial was. Inside the court the police saluted the accused as former 'comrades.'"

I'll bet you can see where I'm going to go with this. I probably don't even have to say it. The terrifying metaphor revealed itself as we watched Labyrinth of Lies. Many German people weren't deniers -- but they were certainly in denial. Their ignorance. Their apathy. Their disbelief. (Some of the Germans who did see the footage believed it was propaganda staged by the Americans.) Their hubris. The fact that many were still benefiting from their Nazi connections. Their society-wide unwillingness to look at what had happened, to see that "many Third Reich values were still admired," to feel shame and deep remorse, to take some responsibility. (There's a scene in the movie where the stenographer taking down witnesses' testimony runs from the room and breaks down in sobs. No longer in denial, her character is becoming someone who helps in the fight to bring justice.)

I don't know what I would have done if I had -- by luck and timing of birth -- been there. I'm not saying I'm better than any one of those German civilians. But I'm alive today, and I'm not going to let the climate chaos holocaust carry on without vociferously protesting it. And why wouldn't I protest it? There is no SS threatening to track me down and lock me up because I oppose the globalized Western economy's biosphere-devastating, life-murdering business-as-usual fossil fuel status quo. 

I can go about my daily life and speak up about the climate change crisis online or in person, with family, friends, neighbours, colleagues and strangers. I can keep my job and send faxes and emails about emergency climate change mitigation to my elected representatives and leaders. I can live free of fear in my country and attend protests, make presentations and give workshops about climate justice. (Confession: I can't do all these things and keep my house tidy. So I've chosen life over tidiness.)

Fritz Bauer received death threats nearly every day once he began his campaign to see justice done (he was responsible for the capture of Adolf Eichmann). What's keeping you from speaking up on behalf of those most vulnerable to the ravages of climate change impacts ... on behalf of all those who are already losing their lives and their livelihoods, their food security and water sources, their homes and entire homelands? 

Our very own "Global Reich" -- fossil fuel companies, the big money that bankrolls them and the governments sitting comfortably in their pockets -- is killing about 5 million people per year, and that number is rising as 2016 continues to knock out temperature records and see record CO2 levels. We see increasing evidence everywhere we look. So where is our outrage? 


14 September 2014

The Saddest of Déjà Vus, All Over Again

Remember Libya? Yeah, it wasn't that long ago. But the war drums didn't stop beating in the Middle East.

And now the American president, Barack Obama, has unleashed the dogs of war -- on Syria

I am feeling so, so sad for Syria and its people. It's Iraq and Libya all over again (and reminding me of a song lyric: "Thank you for our freedom, could you leave now please?") 

But I'm also feeling outraged that Obama would so blatantly and unabashedly announce this new "war" a week before the huge climate change events in New York City. It's like a giant Eff U to the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who called the September 23 Climate Summit, and anyone else who gives a damn about the climate crisis.

Obama never had any intention of doing anything about climate change. He was always a coal man, allowed to become president by his Big Money backers. 

So true to form, after stalling for a couple of years (during which some of us naively thought he was showing restraint for the right reasons), he picks now to announce a new war. 

If there was a shred of respect left in me for this man, it has shrivelled up in my province's drought and blown across the dried up agricultural lands of Syria.

20 April 2014

Why We Can't Solve the Climate Crisis ... We're Useless, Narcissistic and Disconnected

Caveat: I'm talking about EuroAmericans in this post. I don't want to assume that all human beings on this planet are as useless as we are.

When you spend hours every day reading about climate change, researching climate change, writing about climate change, teaching about climate change and talking with others about climate change, it's easy to get a little miffed at times about the slowness of our reaction time.

And when I say "reaction time," I'm talking about society's general apathy about climate change, but also about how long it's taken the average Joe Public person in our culture to wake up. The latest instalment of the IPCC's 5th assessment report has people talking though (with thanks to the media). Generally misquoting the report and not understanding who or what the IPCC is, but finally talking at least.

Unfortunately, it seems people are talking ... but still not thinking. And that's probably because we still aren't taking the time to sit down and think about what we're hearing on the news and in the other media.*** 

Case in point: given all the warnings in the Working Group 3 report on mitigation about food security, I'm still hearing people go on and on about sea level rise. Our food security is extremely fragile. Food emergencies have already started. Every aspect of global warming and climate change (from loss of Arctic summer sea ice to yes, sea level rise) can affect our food production. Sea level rise -- the kind that people are picturing and pseudo-panicking about -- on the other hand, is a creeping problem that will likely take decades if not a century or more.

My husband and I (he's the one who spends hours and hours every day on climate change) were talking about how blessed we are, food-wise, at this time in this place -- and how we're throwing it all away. Environmental NGOs still create climate change campaigns that don't mention food security while others are creating food security campaigns that don't even mention climate change. It's crazy!

Why can't people (of all ilks and intelligences) critically think their way to seeing the connection between food security and climate change? We came up with two theories:

1. Pathological cultural narcissism (this one comes from an old friend who practises psychiatry in a large Canadian city)

Narcissism is excessive interest in oneself; extreme selfishness; a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration. Because it runs our lives (remember, I'm talking societally here) and we have no insight into the fact that it's controlling us, it is a psychosis (a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality).

We are disconnected from reality.

2. Pathological cultural uselessness (again, please remember that I'm talking societally and about EuroAmericans) 

People in this culture no longer know how to ensure our own survival. Practically no one knows how to grow, prepare or preserve all their own food. We don't know how to grow or forage our own fibre plants to make our own cloth and clothing. We have to hire tradespeople to create our shelters (and even then, each one has a specialty and very few can build a whole house). We don't know how to collect our own clean drinking water or generate our own electricity.... All we know how to do is shop, shop, shop ... buy, buy, buy. In other words, we're useless. 

We are disconnected from reality. 

So if we don't understand our connection to the "real world" there's little chance that people are going to see/understand/act on the connections that are being impacted by climate disruption.

Which brings me to the children and what they should be learning in school. The most important curriculum in a child's life today is learning how to build their own soil, grow their own food, collect their own rainwater, and generate their own energy. Let them study reading and writing, math and science, social studies and physical education through their real-world learning about how to survive. 

On this day of religious rebirth for many millions of people around the world, may you find some time to reconnect with Creation.


*** Perhaps every time we sit on the toilet, we could take that time to think about climate change. It's not like we've got anything else to do (I'm obviously desperately trying to figure out ways to get the public thinking up climate change solutions ;-).

12 January 2014

Learning from – and Standing Beside – Our First Nations Sisters and Brothers


Thanks to Nina for writing last week with the title of a book to check out. Reading about it reminded me of something I was told long ago.

Indigenous (Native or aboriginal) North Americans (First Nations and Inuit peoples in Canada) have withstood assault after assault after assault by the marauding European explorers, settlers and resource exploiters. Assaults on their territories, their livelihoods, their health, their sovereignty, their pride and their identities. 

And yet, they're still here. Try as my European ancestors might, they could not eradicate, annihilate, obliterate or even assimilate the people who were here first. The First Nations "won" (if we ignore the attempted genocide, disintegration of families and communities, continued discrimination, rampant poverty and associated widespread health problems) because of their resilience.

Aboriginal peoples around the world showed themselves to be resilient. And now, climate change is testing that resilience once again. Many Native communities are among the most vulnerable to the ravages of climate disruption.

*****
I'd never considered resilience as something that could be asserted. Yet, there it is, in a title: Asserting Native Resilience: Pacific Rim Indigenous Nations Face the Climate Crisis. This 2012 book edited by Zoltán Grossman and Alan Parker is a collection of Native and non-Native voices and perspectives on the climate change crisis. From the description:
"Indigenous nations are on the frontline of the current climate crisis. With cultures and economies among the most vulnerable to climate-related catastrophes, Native peoples are developing responses to climate change that serve as a model for Native and non-Native communities alike. 
"Native American nations in the Pacific Northwest, First Nations in Canada, and Indigenous peoples around the Pacific Rim have already been deeply affected by droughts, flooding, reduced glaciers and snowmelts, seasonal shifts in winds and storms, and changes in species on the land and in the ocean. 
"Having survived the historical and ecological wounds inflicted by colonization, industrialization, and urbanization, Indigenous peoples are using tools of resilience that have enabled them to respond to sudden environmental changes and protect the habitat of salmon and other culturally vital species. They are creating defenses to strengthen their communities, mitigate losses, and adapt where possible."
Winona La Duke, executive director of Honor the Earth and White Earth Land Recovery Project, said:
"In the times of the unraveling of our world, it is essential to stand against the combustion, mining and disregard for life. Life is in water, air, and relatives who have wings, fins, roots, and paws, and all of them are threatened by climate change — as are people themselves. 
"Grossman and Parker have done an excellent job in telling the stories of climate change, and the people who are standing to make a difference for all of us. Change is indeed made by people, and climate change must be addressed by a movement, strong, strident, and courageous."
Reviewer Chris Arnett suggests that "in promoting an indigenous worldview, there is a slight tendency throughout the text to essentialize Indigenous people for their unique resilience or capacity to weather change, when resilience is a characteristic of all people." He then admits, "All contributors acknowledge that Indigenous people, or any people in a close relationship with place over time, have unique firsthand knowledge of place and, as this book shows, science supports such a view."

*****
That reminds me of a suggestion that came up at the Council of Canadians AGM a year or two ago. Well, it came up in conversation out in the hallway, with someone who could maybe be considered a little "fringe." He thought that all Canadians should ask to be adopted by a First Nations band (tribe) and then renounce their Canadian citizenship. That way, he said, we could really join together to fight the federal government and their "Tar sands and pipelines of the people, for the people, by the people" philosophy. 

*****
You know how much I like synchronicity. At dinner with a friend last night, she mentioned a 2011 documentary called People of a Feather (see the trailer here), which tells the story of the Sanikiluaq Inuit community in Hudson Bay, whose traditional dependence on the eider duck has been threatened by giant hydro-electric projects. "Inspired by Inuit ingenuity and the technology of a simple feather, the film is a call to action to implement energy solutions that work with nature."

*****
Our friend at dinner also mentioned a segment of CBC Radio's Quirks and Quarks science show called The Mental Health Toll of Climate Change. It seems the resilience we spoke of earlier is starting to meet its match among Labrado Inuit as the changing climate impacts their traditional lifestyle so negatively. That's got to feel like a real kick in the teeth, after surviving so much.


05 January 2014

We Certainly Live in Interesting Times

Know what? I'm sensing (and perhaps it's simply new year's verve I'm picking up on) a turn in our attitude towards the climate change crisis. My Debbie Downer side would say it's coming too late, but let's, for the sake of optimism, say it's not. People seem to finally be "getting" that decarbonizing and making the world a better place would, well, make the world a better place!

Robert Kennedy, in a speech in Cape Town, South Africa in June 1966, said:

There is a [now debunked] Chinese curse which says 'May he live in interesting times.' Like it or not we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of [women and] men than any other time in history.

So as climate scientists are dreaming up ever fancier ways to tell us that +4ºC is the new +2ºC (which, as a European Union policy "guardrail" decided upon in 1996, was already way too high since crops will start failing at +1ºC and extreme weather events are already upon us) and that we're hooped, here are some examples of the new enthusiasm and creative energy that's happening in the webosphere these days. [Bold emphasis added.]

1. Guy Dauncey is one of Canada's best known and loved environmentalists. He's the one who taught me that we have to create "a compelling vision" of the future we're trying to create (which is why I go on and on about a zero-carbon world being safer, cleaner, healthier, more equitable and more peaceful than one based on depletable fossil fuels). If Guy ever gets down about the future, he doesn't let it show. Here's something he wrote in his first blog post of the year. It's number 7 in his "'Wouldn’t That Be Amazing!' Wish-List for 2014."

The World Embraces Climate Solutions Treaties
Why are we stuck in negative when it comes to the biggest crisis of them all — the global climate crisis? We have treaties to reduce this and mitigate that, but none of it cries out, "Come on over here — this is amazing!" When was the last time you used the word "mitigate" over the dinner table? "Honey, can you mitigate this soup? It’s so bland."

We need to have amazing confidence in how great a sustainable world beyond fossil fuels will be, and how much better it will be for everyone once we stop grubbing around in the dark of the Arctic Ocean and the beauty of Alberta’s forests to scrape out the last gooey substance to satisfy our addicted craving for oil. As well as Kyoto-style reductions treaties, we need Climate Solutions Treaties in which nations agree to work together to accelerate the many solutions, from solar energy to electric vehicles, from soil carbon storage to ancient forests protection.

How could that happen? I see a big gathering attended not by national leaders but by climate leaders in the world's cities, businesses and universities, all of whom are working hard to implement the solutions. They could develop some draft treaties, and then seek support from the new E-17 Group of Nations [something Guy proposes in #6 to replace the old G-20] to advance them to the global agenda in time for the big UN Climate Summit in New York in September 2014.


2. Murray Dobbin, a Canadian commentator, is calling 2014 The Year of Living Consciously.
The terrible irony of our situation is that just as we all need to be what I call "intentional citizens," we are, unconsciously and even unwillingly, becoming less and less engaged, more and more individualistic. Just what are we to do, as individuals, when faced with crises so overwhelming that our minds reel at the thought of the varied, frightening consequences: "Oops, better not go there. Way too scary. I know! Let’s go shopping!" 
Our collective institutions are similarly at their weakest points just as we need them to be at their strongest and most imaginative. Our democracy — including political parties — is increasingly unable to deliver what it once promised, let alone what we want. Universities are increasingly corporatized, jettisoning traditional ethics for corporate loot to pay their bills. 
Regulations developed over decades to protect us are either being eliminated or simply unenforced by governments whose job it once was to ensure our safety. Major media, which once, nominally at least, entertained the notion of political debate about society's direction, have been hijacked by corporatist ideology and are thus rendered incapable of seeking the truth, let alone telling it. 
So, as always, it is up to us to reverse this juggernaut, to get in its way, to make clear statements through our actions as individual citizens until a time when we constitute a critical mass of citizenry that becomes a movement for social change. And it will take time. My generation will only see the start of it. 
How realistic is such a notion? No one can say for certain how the next five to 10 years will unfold regarding democracy, inequality, climate change and peak oil. But the notion that we can behave as if it is business as usual will not wash. We can hardly expect our institutions — which like it or not are reflections of us — to address the moral imperative of facing the crises, if we don’t do so personally.


3. As if to support Dobbin, Faith Morgan (Arthur Morgan Institute for Community Solutions, which works in Cuba) wrote:
Given the lack of political will to make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, it is time for us to embrace the future, and say, "A life of less energy consumption can be a good life. Let's seek it, develop it, and stop fighting the inevitable, pretending it won't come." This long view is what we are developing at Community Solutions, ways to have hope and joy in life as it is and will be. At a talk at Antioch College this fall, Wendell Berry was asked how he was able to stay positive. He didn't mince words about the problems he sees. But he said we must also keep wonder in our lives; see the beauty around us, in the earth, family, and friends. Believing there will be a good tomorrow helps. 
I learned several things from Cuba that I think are important. First, before 1990 when the Soviet Union collapsed, there were people who foresaw the approaching catastrophe and began developing solutions, living as if they already didn't have what the Soviet Union was providing. They persisted and developed and refined their approaches, even though few other people were interested. Once the emergency was upon the country, the knowledge and skills developed by these visionaries were needed and valued. So, I encourage people to find ways to curtail their energy use, experiment in living a simpler, less consumptive life — for you, for the earth, and as an example that others can follow when conscience or circumstances brings them to change. 
Second, when our Cuban friend Roberto Perez was asked whether people would turn on each other when times get bad, he paused, then said, "That's not what happens. People come out and help each other. The best comes to the surface... I know, [because] that's what happened in Cuba."

4. Juan Manuel Sánchez Gordillo, mayor of Marinaleda, Andalusia, an intentional utopian community in Spain, says:
We have learned that it is not enough to define utopia, nor is it enough to fight against the reactionary forces. One must build it here and now, brick by brick, patiently but steadily, until we can make the old dreams a reality:  that there will be bread for all, freedom among citizens, and culture; and to be able to read with respect the word "peace." We sincerely believe that there is no future that is not built in the present.

5. Polly Higgins, who instituted the Eradicating Ecocide Global Initiative, reminded us of John F. Kennedy's challenge of landing a human being on the moon, Nelson Mandela's challenge of working for his people despite life imprisonment, and William Wilberforce's challenge of ending the slave trade.

The impossible happened. How? Each set an intent, never let it waver, empowered others to help make it happen and expanded people's vision. Each of them shifted their vision of what is possible — and the world shifted its vision too. 
In fact, the impossible happens many times and in many ways in all of our lives every day — it just may not be as dramatic as the image of the first astronaut setting foot on the moon, or the day apartheid was declared a crime or the moment the British Slavery Abolition Act was brought into force. Shifting our vision — meeting the challenge that comes with facing the seemingly impossible — brings with it the means to get there. Each step takes us closer.
Each of these men handed over the baton to others to help make their vision become true. What they sought was something greater than any one person could achieve and they united many in a common intent to help make something truly remarkable happen. Each of them helped create a legacy from a place of genuine belief in a greater good. 
What we do know, and can learn, from each of them, is that each of us can bring our vision of a greater world to bear, be that through our standing up for bringing an end to an injustice or by supporting others who are speaking out. We each have different roles and often it is not until later that we see how each of our lives can and does have impact. 
It seems to me that the starting point is to challenge ourselves — especially when the justice we seek seems to be so impossible. For me, one phrase keeps on coming back: "It's up to us what happens next." I wonder how many times each of the above said to themselves words to the same effect.


We definitely are living in interesting times. Let's work together to make that a blessing rather than a curse.


20 October 2013

The IPCC: "All About Modelling, Not About Protecting the Earth"


I've waited awhile to let the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) hype die down a bit. Man, it sure was loud! But I'm not sure which was worse: the deniers saying that the report "proved" (huh?) that global warming has stopped or the enviros claiming that the report says "we face a global climate emergency" when it doesn't say that at all (but should).

Both groups are wrong. But for different reasons. 

The deniers? Well, we've been pumping 90 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every DAY for ages (almost half of which has been absorbed by the oceans). Where do they think all the heat radiated by those extra greenhouse gas molecules has gone? (The answer, by the way, is that the oceans have been warmed and ice sheets and sea ice have been melted. It takes some heat to accomplish that!)

The enviro groups? Well, the mistake they've been making is not noticing how much the IPCC has left out — namely all positive (that is, amplifying) carbon and climate feedbacks. So the IPCC's new ("RCP") scenarios are actually underestimates of the dangers we are unleashing in the climate system. In other words, the situation is much worse, and much more urgent, than the IPCC's Working Group I (Physical Science Basis) report.

It's all very complicated and complex, and clearly the media have to simplify it for the public. But how can we rely on the IPCC's assessments when they don't include all possible sources of warming in their computer models (due to "carbon cycle uncertainties")? How can we trust the IPCC assessments when they offer a range, but then only speak to the "mean warming projections" (what they call "most likely")? 

Should not climate scientists use the upper end of the temperature range when talking of risk? Especially since risk equals probability multiplied by magnitude (and the upper range of possible temperature increases is the potential magnitude)? Yet we're not just risking the mean warming projections, are we? We're also risking the upper ranges. And we're not just risking the upper ranges, we're risking those upper ranges with several degrees caused by carbon feedbacks tacked on.

Unfortunately (and perhaps ironically), the IPCC does not "do" risk. This intergovernmental panel that synthesizes the science of climate change has a code of silence on dangerous, disastrous, or catastrophic climate change. They claim that they cannot define "dangerous" climate change because that is a "value judgement" that science cannot make. (Gee, last time I checked, doctors were scientifically trained and they can tell you what's dangerous and deadly to human life.)

I'm not sure why the IPCC hobbles its scientific contributors and their discussions this way. But perhaps if each country's general public asked for more scientific honesty and a scientific assessment of how dangerous climate change could become, they'd be able to change their terms of reference.

If human beings (and our food/agriculture systems) have never experienced the temperatures that we're heading for, doesn't that at least imply danger ahead? Not "Ooh, it's not looking good," but "Holy flying %$#!, we're heading into a dangerous climate change emergency!"

Worth writing a letter or two, anyone? After all, changing political will is about the only transformative action (beyond individual reductions in carbon emissions) the public still has the power to take.

So, with apologies to the great Welsh bard, I'll leave you with a Dylan Thomas rendition by my husband that reminds us what our response to the AR5 ought to be. 
Do not go gentle into this unnatural night.
Real people burn and rave at Mother Earth's deplorable plight.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Rage, rage, rage with all your might.
— Peter Carter 

p.s. That quote in the title is also from my hubby, someone who spends many, many hours every day reading and synthesizing research on climate change.

13 October 2013

Blog Action Day: Climate Change and Human Rights


Blog Action Day is this Wednesday, October 16 and this year's theme is human rights. So you can probably already guess what my questions to you are going to be.

Is a safe climate a human right? Do we have a right to a safe climate? Do we? Conversely, do we humans ("we" as in EuroAmericans and those who have adopted the Western economy that we've globalized) have a right to make the climate increasingly unviable for other species? Indeed, isn't the climate change crisis a perfect point of overlap between human rights and the rights of all other living things?

And when we talk of human rights, which humans are we talking about? When it comes to climate disruption, are we talking about people in developing parts of the world? Today's children and future generations? Or just old white guys? 

And which rights are we discussing? I swear, some capitalists (the ecologically illiterate ones, and that seems to be most of them) believe that they have the right to "earn" (I use that term loosely) as much money as they want, damn the consequences. That's the whole basis of the neoliberal agenda.

If we can't decide, globally, as a species, that food and water — and the stable climate upon which both depend — are basic human rights, then the rest is moot. If we don't get this one right, then by default we're saying that we don't have the right to life.


25 August 2013

Why Canada's Prime Minister Prorogued Parliament This Time*

This week, I received a copy of Franke James's Banned on the Hill: A True Story about Dirty Oil and Government Censorship. It's an adult "graphic novel" styled book about Franke's experience as a Canadian artist whose work was going to be shown in a 20-city European solo show with financial support from our federal government. 

The key word there is was, because that government support was withdrawn and the tour was cancelled. But what's worse is that the pressure to cancel this artistic initiative seemed to come directly from the PMO (the Prime Minister's Office) because the message of her art didn't, you know, jibe with the Conservative government's take on the tar sands (which, in a word, sucks). Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for the PM and his O, Franke is not a quitter. Besides being an artist and a writer, she's also an environmental activist who deeply understands the climate crisis.

Now here is Not-Very-Prime Minister Harper proroguing parliament for the third time. According to the Globe and Mail:
"While Mr. Harper's uses of prorogation when he governed with a minority were controversial, majority governments often employ the procedure to signal a new legislative agenda. New sittings begin with a Speech from the Throne."
Here is what Franke doesn't know. I have it on good authority* that Stephen Harper's reason for proroguing the Canadian parliament this time is to figure out what his government is going to do to fight the climate change emergency.

Yes, Stephen Harper (according to my source*) has finally got it through his thick, er, primeministerly skull that continuing to pump 90 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day is not such a good idea after all. 
from Franke's book (used with permission)


He's finally recalling that he did indeed learn about the carbon cycle in school, and has acknowledged that methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is seeping into the atmosphere from thawing permafrost and destabilizing methane hydrates in the Arctic. 

He's at long last recognized the food security nightmare we're staring down as the Arctic's summer sea ice (the air conditioning for our growing season) disappears more and more in extent and/or volume each year.

My source* says that soon after his Throne Speech in mid-October, the Canadian Prime Minister is going to call on world leaders in government, business, religion, civil society and science to declare the climate change emergency and start the race to the zero-carbon economy. 

Reticence (aka, ahem, a flat-out refusal) to make that declaration is the only thing keeping us from launching (under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and through a UN Security Council motion) an all-out emergency response to the climate crisis and its impacts on billions of people — not to mention most other forms of life. 

So there it is! Another month or two and Prime Minister Stephen Harper will become a world-renowned global hero on climate change. All those Fossil of the Year awards that Canada has been winning? He will personally be returning them to the 2013 climate talks in Warsaw in November. 

I've got to say, I'm looking forward to once again being able to hold my head up high as a Canadian.




* Sadly, my source is my imagination.