Skip to main content
[thethe-image-slider name="Front page slider"]

Clinton Global Initiative University

Dear Student,

The application to attend the 2012 meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative University (CGI U), hosted by President Clinton, is now available.  Click here to apply online.

The deadline for applying to attend the meeting is Tuesday, January 17th.

President Clinton will host CGI U 2012 at The George Washington University from Friday, March 30th to Sunday, April 1st, 2012.  CGI U is President Clinton’s initiative designed to engage the next generation of leaders on college campuses around the world.  Each CGI U student member makes a Commitment to Action: a specific plan of action that addresses a pressing challenge on their campus, in their community, or in a different part of the world.

CGI U is proof that young people have the power to make a significant impact by confronting some of the world's most urgent challenges.  I hope you have the chance to experience this event in DC.

For more information on CGI U, please apply online.


CLIMATE CHANGE : CANADA’S SHAME

Peter Kent has announced Canada will pull out of the Kyoto Accord. Not only is Canada abdicating its responsibility to fulfil its obligations to drastically reduce GHG emissions, but Canada is actively undermining the will of other nations to take action during this most critical period. 


Furthermore, Peter Kent has announced "Nor will we devote our scarce dollars to capitalize the new Green Climate Fund - part of the Durban agreement - until all major emitters accept legally binding reduction targets and transparent accounting of greenhouse gas inventory." 

Our emissions continue to rise. Current science advises that we must limit global temperature rise to 1.5º C. The non binding "agreement" at Durban puts us on track for a global temperature rise of 4º C. Earth at such a range is not the same Earth as that on which human civilization emerged. Most species, plants and humans included, will not be able to adapt to rapid changes in temperatures.  Such a rise signifies the end of life as we know it. 

We are a wealthy nation, well equipped to do our part to reduce GHG emissions, and to demonstrate compassion towards our fellow humans and companion species. Yet, under the current misleadership, we pretend to participate in international negotiations; Canada insinuates itself   into the process only to dismantle the hard won plan for survival. Canada selfishly puts profit over life. 

This is Canada's shame.
HUNGRY FOR CLIMATE LEADERSHIP
In response to the federal government's decision to abandon the Kyoto Protocol, we are holding a candlelight vigil of hope and solidarity at the Constituency Office of Peter Kent, Minister of the Environment on Wednesday, December 21. 
Meet at the SW corner of *Steeles and Yonge at 3:30 pm, 
to walk (30 minutes) to Peter Kent's Constituency Office, 7600 Yonge St.(on the west side of Yonge St., midway between Elgin and John)

or join us there any time (4 pm - 6:30 pm).

*By TTC, make your way to Finch station, then take bus #53 or #60 a short ride north to Steeles and Yonge.

Speeches, meditation, poetry readings, and music. 

Dress warmly. Bring a candle and drip catcher. 

Noisemakers, drums, other instruments welcome!

A symbolic fast will be held from Wednesday morning to Thursday morning. If you’re fasting, let us know: info@torontoclimatecampaign.org or on Facebook. You’re welcome to break the fast with us: Drop in between 8:00 to 9:30 am on Thursday December 22, at Friends House, 60 Lowther Avenue - walk N of St. George station).

Please take action. Contact your MP!

Lobby your representative to act now on climate change before it is too late. 

“We Canadians need to learn to be outraged by the outrageous.

We need to learn that democracy is now a full contact sport that

requires us to repeatedly raise our voices in order to be heard” –

Matt Price, in the Huffington Post, Dec. 15, 2011

"When we compromise the air, water, soil and the variety of life, we steal from the endless future to serve the fleeting present" - Dr. Kirsty Duncan, MP

"If we burn even half of Earth's remaining fossil fuels we will destroy the planet as humanity knows it" - James Hansen 


IACPES Summer Course in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

The first IACPES Summer Course in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics will be held the week of Aug 27-31, 2012 at York University.

We ask that all IACPES students put this week on hold. We are happy to have investigators and collaborators attend as well. The summer course will be open to non-IACPES students who have an interest in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Other activities during the week will also be open to non-IACPES students, conditional on space availability. Travel and accommodation costs will be covered for all IACPES students. More details will be forthcoming. A brief synopsis of the week is as follows: August 27 - IACPES Symposium (all students should plan on making a presentation) August 28-30 - Summer Course in ACP August 31 - Training activities for students (to be announced) No further details are available at the moment; they will be communicated as they come available.

We look forward to seeing you all in August.

For information on IACPES visit: http://fsepg.apps01.yorku.ca/



Hitting Bottom – Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol – Published in the Toronto Star

This blog was originally published in Professor Mark Winfield's blog.

Yesterday’s announcement by federal environment minister Peter Kent of Canada’s intention to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol marks the country’s lowest point in the forty year history of modern global environmental diplomacy. The protocol, which Canada signed in 1997 and ratified in 2002, committed Canada to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent relative to their 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 period.

Kent rolled out a familiar chain of justifications for Canada’s action – that Canada’s original targets were unreachable, that it was really the fault of the previous Liberal governments for failing to implement effective emission reduction strategies and that action by Canada was pointless unless the United States and rapidly developing economies like China and India were also subject to binding emission targets. The reality is that on the whole Kyoto has been far more a success than failure – most of the parties who were subject to binding emission targets under the protocol have either met or exceeded their goals. Canada is a among a relatively small number of parties, along with Australia, Norway, Spain and Ireland that failed to do so, and is alone in responding by withdrawing from the legally binding agreement.

As for Kent’s excuses, whatever the failings of the governments of Prime Ministers Chretien and Martin, the one thing that is certain is that Stepen Harper’s Conservative government has never really tried to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. The government has proposed a succession of strategies and plans, but the only significant action it has actually taken has been to adopt more stringent vehicle fuel economy standards. Those rules only came into being because the government’s hand was forced by the incoming Obama administration in the United States. Indeed, the federal Commissioner for Environment and Sustainable Development has recently concluded that the government had exaggerated the likely impact on emissions of what other measures it had proposed (but never implemented) by a factor of ten.

The Prime Minister’s antipathy towards serious action on climate change was well known before he took office, having once described the Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist plot.” Until this spring the Conservative government’s hands were tied by the combination of persistently high levels of public concern for environmental issues, with a strong focus on climate change, a minority government situation, the arrival of a new administration in the United States that was apparently intent on taking some sort of serious action on climate change, and the threat of climate change legislation coming out of the US Congress that would impose penalties on US trading partners if they didn’t adopt greenhouse gas emission control regimes comparable to those put in place south of the border.

The decline in top-of-mind public concern for the environment as economic uncertainly has grown, the majority Conservative government produced by this May’s federal election, the disarray of both the federal NDP and Liberal opposition as both parties search for new leaders, and the hamstringing of the Obama administration and elimination of the threat of US climate change legislation as a result of the Republican majority in the US House of Representatives produced by the 2010 mid-term elections all combined to provide an apparently perfect window for the government to make its long dreamt of move on Canada’s international climate change commitments.

The costs of the government’s actions are still unclear. Clearly the chances of any serious effort from the federal government to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have become more remote than ever. This is despite the overwhelming environmental and economic evidence in favour of early action and with respect to the consequences of inaction presented by the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy many others.

The international reaction (Canada’s decision is being given much more prominent play in the international media than in Canada itself) has been very strongly negative from both developed and developing countries. It seems unlikely Canada will have much company in its decision to formally withdraw from the international legal framework on climate change that does exist, and it remains to be seen to what extent the consequences of Canada’s status as an environmental pariah state will spill over onto other files.

Domestically the government is operating on an assumption that its own core voters have limited concern for environmental issues and, unlike the majority of Canadians, accept the government’s consistent zero-sum framing of the relationship between environmental sustainability and economic prosperity. The government’s environmental performance is an obvious potential wedge issue against the Conservatives in the hands of a new Liberal or NDP leader. If such a person can also persuade Ontario, Quebec, and BC voters that a federal government whose fundamental economic strategy is promoting fossil fuel exports from Alberta and Saskatchewan does not serve their interests well, the Conservatives could be in serious electoral trouble.

The basic elements of a cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reduction strategy for Canada have been well understood and articulated for some time. Carbon pricing, either through a carbon tax or cap and trade system, needs to be established; subsidies for fossil fuel development eliminated; progressively stronger energy efficiency standards for vehicles, buildings, equipment and appliances adopted; better integration of land-use and transportation planning is needs in urban areas to reduce automobile dependency; the massive carbon storage capacity of Canada’s boreal forest needs to be protected; and major investments made in low-impact renewable energy technologies. A meaningful adaptation strategy to deal with the climate change that is already happening is needed as well. What is clearly missing is the political leadership to implement such a strategy and put Canada on a path towards environmental sustainability and economic prosperity.


Letter to the Editor – Globe and Mail – Green Energy Act and Auditor General’s Report

This blog was originally published in Professor Mark Winfield's blog.

December 9, 2011

The Editors
The Globe and Mail
444 Front St.
Toronto, Ontario

Re: “Green spendthrifts” (December 9, 2011)

Dear Sir or Madam,

The Ontario Auditor-General’s Report on Ontario’s Green Energy Act seems to me more a more a case of an outright hopping the fence into policy than “mission creep” (Radwanski, December 7). There are longstanding debates about how far auditor-generals should stray into matters of policy, but one thing is certain, that if you are going to go there then you need to do it well.

Unfortunately the Auditor-General’s report fails badly on that front, and in doing so does more to inflame the debate about Ontario’s Green Energy Act than inform it. Indeed, at times the report seems more a recitation of every compliant (however dubious) that has ever been made against the legislation than a meaningful analysis.

The Auditor-General’s most fundamental error is looking at the impact of the GEA in isolation – as if the costs associated with the legislation would simply disappear if it were withdrawn. In such a scenario the power that would have come from renewables as a result of the legislation would need to come from somewhere else instead. The real question that then needs to be asked is what is cost of electricity obtained through the legislation’s feed-in-tariff relative to the available alternative sources? To the extent to which any serious analysis of that question has been done – principally a study published by the Pembina Institute last July – the cost impact to consumers of renewable electricity was marginal relative to the most likely alternative – increased natural gas-fired generation. At the same time renewables obtained under the legislation’s Feed-in-Tariff program avoided a range of cost and environmental risks associated with gas-fired generation.

There are unquestionably aspects of the Green Energy Act that require careful review, but the legislation is neither the cause of nor the solution to all that ails Ontario’s electricity system.

Yours sincerely,

Mark S. Winfield, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Coordinator Joint MES/JD Program
Chair, Sustainable Energy Initiative
Faculty of Environmental Studies
York University


REDD at COP17: Where is the critical perspective?

On Wednesday morning, Indigenous Peoples from Bolivia, Mexico, Kenya, US, and Canada voiced their concerns against UN's climate-change program that is going to convert their forests into carbon credits.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries has received lots of attention at COP17. The REDD initiative was first proposed at COP11 as a program that will transfer money to conserve forests in developing countries and prevent the release of about 20% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are said to be caused by deforestation and forest degradation in the Global South. In official negotiations, REDD has become the win-win program as it would reward 'forest stewardship' in developing countries, and it would allow developed countries to bank-in carbon credits. A number of climate finance programs have been established to push forward the development and application of REDD. Some of these initiatives include: the World Bank's Forest Investment Program (FIP), World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF), Norway's Amazon Fund, Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF), and Australia's International Forest Carbon Initiative (IFCI). These funds conveniently serve the role of transferring the money that has been promised in various UNFCCC protocols and accords to help developing countries introduce climate change measures. Additionally, this money helps in the continued development of the much-praised carbon economy, which will supposedly introduce cost-effectiveness to climate change mitigation efforts while at the same time allow private and public institutions to profit via carbon capitalism.

REDD and REDD+ works by converting a piece of forest into carbon credits that could then be used by 'developed' countries to either offset their GHG emissions or sell these carbon credits for profit. The REDD+ initiative is supposed to incorporate sustainable forest management initiatives into REDD projects. A number of REDD and REDD+ projects have resulted in Indigenous and rural people being robbed of their land and their livelihoods. As noted by the Nepali Indigenous Peoples, there are a number of problems in local communities that may arise from REDD projects such as "shifting, displacement, landlessness and poverty". When a piece of land is registered as a REDD project, legal restrictions are placed on how that land may be used; this may block Indigenous Peoples' access to their land and their livelihood. The problem is that there are no specific procedures that can guarantee on a project-by-project basis that Indigenous Peoples' rights will be respected. Inside the Durban Exhibition Centre at COP17, there is a number of booths where Indigenous People support the REDD program as a way to bring money into their communities. Their support, however, is conditional on full participation of Indigenous Peoples in the development and implementation of REDD projects on their lands.

A number of COP17 side-events have focused on improving the technicalities of the REDD initiative in order to introduce more transparency and consistency in forest commodification. COP17 is said to be the place where more guidelines will be introduced to improve REDD. That said, I have not seen any side-events that provided a critical perspective on the implications of commodifying forests in the Global South. Additionally, I was not able to find an Indigenous Peoples’ booth in the Durban Exhibition Centre that openly opposes the REDD initiative. As noted by Tom Goldtooth from the Indigenous Environmental Network, "there is marginalization of Indigenous Peoples that oppose the REDD program". The UNFCCC needs to maintain a spotless public campaign of Indigenous Peoples' support for REDD initiatives. However, there are some well-funded NGOs, such as Greenpeace International, that have openly opposed carbon capitalism.

As voiced in the protest outside the official COP17 negotiations, there are many Indigenous Peoples that oppose the conversion of their lands for private profit. The issue here is the application of carbon capitalism to Indigenous Peoples’ land as well as natural ecosystems. Carbon capitalism is a system where capitalists can utilize climate change as an opportunity to make profit. At the Wednesday's protest, Indigenous Peoples made a strong statement that they will not allow their forests to be converted into a money-making business. Their message to the national delegates at COP 17 is "Respect the Indigenous Peoples; Respect their rights; Respect their lands". What is interesting here is that while forests in the developing world have become the centre-piece of cost-effective climate change action, little attention is paid to the economic pressure that is placed on developing countries to cut down their forests.  What if we were to limit consumerism in industrialized countries?  What if we  were to look at what is currently happening in the forested lands of the ‘developed’ world? Industrialized countries such as Canada should focus on re-evaluating their (clear-cut) logging practices and monoculture reforestation programs. Thus, the question is once again, why is it that in COP17 the emphasis remains on limiting the ability of developing countries to pursue economic development while developed countries, responsible for today’s climate crises, can continue with business-as-usual?




York-based school eco-program could win $50,000 with your help

The following appeared in the Thursday, December 8, 2011 edition of YFile.

For a chance to win $50,000 and fund 75 better-planet projects at schools across Canada, York-based Learning for a Sustainable Future (LSF) has entered its EcoLeague program in Shell Canada’s Fuelling Change competition. Now it needs your vote.

EcoLeague is one of 14 entries vying for four $50,000 prizes in this competition. So far, it is in fifth spot and needs more online votes to push into the top four.

Through Fuelling Change, Shell Canada is granting $1 million to support environmental projects and organizations selected by voters that improve and restore Canada’s environment. This is the second competition in two years.

EcoLeague was established in 2006. It is one of several school-based sustainability action programs supported by LSF, a nonprofit Canadian organization housed at York’s Institute for Research & Innovation in Sustainability (IRIS) – and celebrating its 20th anniversary this year.

EcoLeague, which offers  eight “recipes for action” on its website, would use the funding to facilitate action days and fund action projects up to $400. In 2010, the EcoLeague project review committee granted funds for 157 action projects across Canada and facilitated 18 action days at Toronto-area schools. Winning $50,000 in the Fuelling Change competition means funds for 75 action projects.

Left: Schoolyard naturalization is the most popular EcoLeague project

The goal of EcoLeague projects is to increase awareness about sustainability issues, engage students, and benefit the school and/or local community. After the project ends, students reports – including metrics, pictures, videos and stories – are posted on the EcoLeague website.

Greening projects are very popular, says Randall Brown, EcoLeague project coordinator. Schoolyard naturalization – planting native plants and food gardens – “is definitely a big one,” she says. So is “Ban the Bottle”, where kids raise money selling reusable water bottles to buy a filling station and discourage the purchase of bottled water. Other recipes for action include building a vermicomposter, cleaning shorelines, making reusable bags, campaigning to stop vehicles idling near schools, raising awareness about water pollution and electricity conservation. EcoLeague also encourages students to design their own projects.

This is the first time LSF has entered the Fuelling Change competition to help raise funds for EcoLeague, says Annette Dubreuil, IRIS coordinator. As a nonprofit organization, LSF is constantly fundraising to support its programs and has many corporate sponsors.

Left: Students handle the worms in their new vermicomposter 

LSF’s youth-engagement expenses in 2010 were $342,000. A $50,000 boost from Fuelling Change would cover material expenses for an estimated 75 action projects.

“Help support EcoLeague and celebrate LSF’s 20th anniversary by giving us a vote in the Fuelling Change competition,” urges Dubreuil.

To find out how to vote, visit the Fuelling Change website. Voting ends April 30.

By Martha Tancock, YFile contributing writer


css.php