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

Yearly Archives: 2011

Can saving the planet save jobs?

Published by

Forum explores ecological work climate

Published Tuesday September 27th, 2011 by SHAWN BERRY in the Telegraph-Journal

Click to EnlargePhoto: Shawn Berry/Telegraph-Journal
Professors Andrew Secord, left , and Joan MacFarland, both of the economics department at St. Thomas University, along with Tom Mann of the New Brunswick Union of Public and Private Employees, second from right, and David Coon of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, are among the participants in Work in a Warming World, an international forum to be held this week at St. Thomas University.

Labourers, environmentalists and academics will gather at St. Thomas University later this week in the hopes of demonstrating that being a good steward of the environment doesn't have to mean bringing the economy to a crashing halt.

Joan MacFarland, a professor of economics and gender studies at STU who is a co-organizer of the conference, has heard the criticism that environmental protection is a job killer.

"We're hoping that there can be another way," MacFarland said.

"What's happening to the planet is so important and we think there are ways of saving the planet and creating jobs in New Brunswick."

Work in a Warming World, a forum involving participants from Atlantic Canada and New England, takes place at the Fredericton university Thursday and Friday.

It is set to focus on inspiring stories like that of the TrentonWorks plant in Nova Scotia that closed in 2007 after decades of producing rail cars. It is now producing towers for use in the wind energy industry - a project expected to create 500 jobs over three years.

It will also look at how organized labour is recognizing and embracing the need for change.

Tom Mann of the New Brunswick Union of Public and Private Employees, is one of the participants. He says moving our economy into emerging green markets has to be a priority for everyone.

"These have to be significant jobs. There has been a long historical tendency for jobs and labour to follow fossil fuel-based industry. We're at that turning point in the development of the economy and jobs.

"...?Together we have to look towards a sustainable economic base that will provide good-paying jobs."

Andrew Secord, a professor of economics also organizing the forum, said the event aims to bring people and ideas together in the hopes of spurring greater progress here in New Brunswick.

"From an economic point of view, green jobs are the future," he said.

"Most governments recognize this. It's a question of whether we work together to make that transition or whether we get left behind."

David Coon of the New Brunswick Conservation Council said the focus needs to be on fostering development of the green economy.

"In the future, jobs that are based on increasing production or consumption of fossil fuels aren't going to be available. We've clearly exceeded the limits of growth in the fossil-fuel sector because we have climate change underway.

"We have to talk about the policies and fiscal measures needed to turn our economy the other way."

William Kees, a world-renowned ecological economist whose work focuses on sustainability in an era of accelerating ecological change, will offer a public lecture Thursday at 7:30 p.m. in Kinsella Auditorium.

His lecture is entitled Confronting Ecological Change: What Would an Intelligent Species Do?

In his talk, Rees will argue that global ecological change is a dangerous reality and he will explain why the policy response to date springs less from reason than it does from emotion and instinct.

He will suggest changes to the structure of society, the economy and employment that should be implemented immediately in order to reduce the impacts of ecological change and the possibility of societal collapse.

The Work in a Warming World project is funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council and is affiliated with the Institute for Research and Innovation in Sustainability at York University.

What would a minority government mean for energy and environmental policy in Ontario?

Published by

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

Recent polls are pointing to a minority government coming out of the October 6th Ontario election. It may be useful to reflect on the potential implications of such an outcome for energy and environmental policy in the aftermath of the election. Baring any unexpected developments over the remaining few days of the campaign, the NDP is almost certain to emerge holding the balance of power between the Liberals and Conservatives (the most recent Laurier Institute seat projection (http://www.lispop.ca/Ontarioseatprojection.html), based on September 26 polling data is Liberals 46, PCs 42 and NDP 19). Despite a solid effort by new leader Mike Schreiner the Greens seem on track to a 4th place finish, with a slight loss in their popular vote relative to 2007 (5-6% seems likely relative to 8% in 2007), and are unlikely to elect any members.

Although the NDP and PCs have come to share considerable ‘pocketbook populist’ policy space, particularly with respect to the removal of the HST from electricity, natural gas and gasoline, party history and the overall distance between the two mean that the possibility of a Hudak government supported either formally (e.g. via an accord similar to that signed between David Peterson and Bob Rae in 1985) or informally on a vote by vote basis, by the NDP, is remote.

The much more likely outcome is a continuation of Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government, with some form of support from Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats. Predicting the direction of such a government offers some challenges. The Liberal platform, for its part, is decidedly thin on new commitments on the energy or environment fronts. A vague promise to expand the greenbelt, an option first presented in the party’s 2007 platform, seems the only new element. The remainder of the platform focuses on past achievements and the continuation of existing initiatives like the Green Energy Act, transit funding and mining development in the far north.

The NDP platform is more substantive on energy and environmental matters, presenting clear opposition to new nuclear construction or refurbishment projects, major new commitments on energy efficiency and combined heat and power, and maintaining the FIT program for small and community based renewable energy projects. Larger renewable projects would however be moved into the hands of a recreated Ontario Hydro, an institution whose principal successor Ontario Power Generation, has no experience in developing renewable energy sources other than hydro, and is noted for its institutional commitment to hard path technologies like nuclear and coal.

Otherwise the New Democrats have committed to increased funding for public transit, continued participation in the Western Climate Initiative’s greenhouse gas emission cap and trade system, Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) legislation, protecting public participation rights under the Liberal’s “Open for Business” inspired reform of the environmental approvals process, and action to transfer a greater portion of recycling costs onto product manufacturers and importers.

Given all of this it is possible to speculate on the possible directions for the 2011 version of a Liberal-NDP accord.

Energy
• Both parties have committed to a phase-out of coal-fired electricity. It will almost certainly proceed.
• The new build nuclear projects contained in the Liberal’s Long-Term Electricity Plan would almost certainly not proceed. As I have noted in previously blogs the proposed two new reactors at Darlington were already in serious doubt, given declining electricity demand, rising cost estimates and, with the recent sale of Atomic Energy of Canada, the lack of a viable vendor. The need to make peace with the NDP could provide the government with a way out on the projects.
• Although a renewed commitment to energy conservation seems likely, the fates of the Darlington and Bruce B refurbishment projects will be more contentious. Some delay is likely at least as some sort of review of the province’s options is undertaken, perhaps even under the Environmental Assessment Act as the NDP has proposed.
• The fate of the Green Energy Act, particularly the FIT program for larger renewable energy projects, is very uncertain. The popular MicroFIT program for small household and farm level projects is likely to survive given the support from both parties – although probably with reduced rates, particularly for solar. There is far less common ground on the main program. The NDP has yet to clarify how it would maintain the renewable energy industry development aspects of the Liberal initiative if its leadership were transferred to a resurrected Ontario Hydro. Potential compromises include reductions in the FIT rates, or even moves back to competitive bidding (RFPs) for larger renewable energy projects. The continued strong backing of the FIT system by Germany, and the powerful connections the Germans have made between their FITs and the development of what is now a very robust renewable energy manufacturing sector should give the New Democrats cause to rethink the desirability of major changes on the green energy front.
• The NDP’s proposal to remove the HST from energy prices has the potential to create some serious challenges as well. Notwithstanding the obvious contradictions with the NDP’s emphasis on energy conservation and its implications in terms of revenue losses in the context of the province’s overall fiscal situation, the proposal has been central to the party’s ‘pocketbook populist’ campaign, making a compromise with the Liberals on the HST front difficult. A middle way may be to introduce additional tax credits and other supports, especially for energy efficiency investments for low-income households and others for whom energy costs present particular hardships or challenges.

Climate Change
• The government has been backing away from any serious action on reducing the province’s GHG emissions, beyond the coal phase-out, for some time. Although the NDP has committed to continuing participation in the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), the Liberals and NDP have retreated from any suggestion of introducing carbon pricing, especially given the WCI’s difficulties on the US side. Although Quebec remains a potential partner engaged on the WCI cap and trade system, in the short term the most likely outcomes for Ontario are to further reinforce the focus on energy conservation and transit funding.

Land-Use and Transit
• The existing policy framework for land-use and infrastructure planning, established through the 2005 Greenbelt legislation and 2006 Places to Grow Act seems likely to be maintained. Some enhancements to funding for specific transit projects may emerge, although this is complicated by the presence of the Ford administration in the City of Toronto.

Far North
• The NDP’s positions on the north are in many ways even more pro-development than the government’s, which has itself enthusiastically backed the “ring of fire’ and other mining developments and transferred of forest management from the more conservation-oriented Ministry of Natural Resources to the development focussed Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forests. Good news on the northern conservation front seems unlikely under a Liberal-NDP alliance.

Anti-SLAPP Legislation
• Some form of anti-SLAPP legislation seems probable, given the backing from both the NDP and the government’s own pre-election advisory panel on the issue. The low cost of such legislation (from a government perspective) makes it even more likely win for the New

 

Democrats and environmental groups pressing for legislation.
Approvals reform and ‘Open for Business’
• With some pushing from the environmental groups (principally CELA and EcoJustice) that have led the criticism of the government’s ‘regulatory reform’ proposals, some movement on their worst aspects may be possible, particularly with respect to their impact on public participation rights under the Environmental Bill of Rights. The legislation was virtually the only part of the 1990-1995 NDP government’s environmental legacy to survive the Harris ‘Common Sense Revolution’ intact.

Waste
• As with some aspects of the energy file, some pressure from the NDP might provide the government with the opportunity for a reset and restart on the blue box and household hazardous waste funding issues, which have been stalled since last summer’s ‘Eco-fee debacle.

IRIS researchers praised for helping make sense of the “assisted migration” debate

Published by

For academics, there are few things more satisfying than having a research paper you slaved over for months published in a top peer-reviewed scholarly journal. When a leading scientist then blogs enthusiastically about the article, telling the world how great it is, the feeling is even better. That's what happened this week for a group of IRIS researchers after they published an article in the prestigious journal Biological Conservation about whether to use "assisted migration" to help species adapt to a rapidly changing climate.

Assisted migration is the intentional translocation of species outside their historic ranges to mitigate biodiversity losses caused by climate change. While this idea has been around for decades, it has recently become the subject of fierce controversy in the academic literature.

The article was written by IRIS Senior Fellow and York geography instructor Dr. Nina Hewitt and an interdisciplinary team of IRIS-affiliated researchers from biology, environmental science, business, law and social science. It takes stock of the burgeoning academic literature on this topic and identifies possible avenues toward consensus on how to address what might otherwise become an intractable ethical and policy problem.

Joern Fischer of Leuphana Universität Lüneburg in Germany, a leading scientist in the field, wrote about the article yesterday in his "Ideas for Sustainability" blog. He congratulated the article for its thorough analysis of a very complex and polarized debate. It is polarized because many scientists see assisted migration as pitting two conservation goals against each other: the preservation of a single species from extinction, versus the protection of entire ecological communities against the risks posed by introduced species, which can have impacts similar to invasive alien species.

Fischer lauded the article for focusing on the nuances and complexities of the debate rather than accepting a polarized, black-and-white view. He especially liked a figure in the article that presents the arguments for and against assisted migration and their key inter-relationships in a one-page schematic.

Professor Fischer praised the article's effort to provide a conceptual framework within which scientists and policy makers can find common ground:

"The authors state that the debate is complex, and rather than proposing a simple solution, they try to provide a framework which can help to reach case-specific solutions. Hooray …! I wish more scientists did this. ... Hewitt et al. have done a great job of giving an authoritative overview of many relevant arguments. I highly recommend their paper!"

This endorsement from one of the protagonists in the assisted migration debate is a great vindication for the hard work that went into the study, and it suggests that the article will have a constructive impact both on the scientific debate and on conservation policies and practices on the ground. Achievements like this article really help to advance IRIS's mission as a national and international leader in practical, collaborative and interdisciplinary research that influences policy and decision makers on a variety of sustainability issues.

There is one irony in this story. The research was funded by the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, one of the victims of the Canadian federal government's recent massive cuts to scientific and environmental programs. These cuts are one of many sad indications of this government's unfortunate head-in-the-sand attitude toward climate change and other ecological challenges.  CFCAS pleaded with the government, to no avail, to reconsider the cuts and devote adequate funding to weather and climate research.

Biology prof awarded fellowship in forest research at Harvard

Published by

The following appeared in the Tuesday, September 27, 2011 edition of Y-File.

What strikes York biology Professor Dawn Bazely, ensconced for the next six months at Harvard University’s Harvard Forest, a National Science Foundation long-term ecological research site, is the absolute isolation combined with the knowledge that she’s only 15 minutes away from a Wal-Mart.

Bazely is at Harvard Forest, part of the US Long Term Ecological Research Network, on a prestigious Charles Bullard Fellowship in Forest Research, one of only six awarded the fellowship out of dozens who applied. The Fellowship is given to people in mid-career who show promise of making a major contribution to forests and forest-related subjects.

“Everything I need is quite nearby, but it seems so isolated because I am surrounded by forest,” says Bazely, who is living in a house on the Harvard estate that was built before 1820. “I keep explaining to people here, that when you drive eight hours to Ontario, the landscape is completely different. It’s industrial and urbanized, with very little forest cover, and that’s Southern Ontario. I keep thinking, where do you find this kind of forested landscape in Ontario? Well, you would have to go north to the Boreal Forest.”

Right: Forest Road leading into Harvard Forest

Bazely is at Harvard Forest to finish her book on conservation biology in Southern Ontario, which she started in 1999, long before she became director of the Institute for Research & Innovation in Sustainability. It’s taken awhile for the book, she admits, but then, she says, everything happens for a reason, and much of what she has learned from her social sciences and humanities colleagues at York will inform her writing.

At the Harvard Forest site, established in 1907, there is a rich archive, as well as the wealth of libraries for her to use while interacting with top researchers who’ve been studying there for years. This will give her the opportunity to compare and contrast the conservation/ecology experience in New England with that of Southern Ontario.

“I’m here to learn as much as I can about the New England states, particularly Massachusetts, and their land use history, policies and politics,” says Bazely. They are doing a great deal of work on invasive species, such as the Asian long-horn beetle, and climate change at the Harvard Forest, she says, and that will play into her finishing of the book, which helps to answer the question: What do we know about biology and conservation management in southern Ontario?

Left: Nicky Lustenhouwer (left), a Dutch graduate student and Harvard Forest visitor from the European Erasmus Mundus master's program in evolutionary biology, with Dawn Bazely in front of a display of Dutch elm disease at Harvard Forest

“Most people in Canada live within 100 miles of the Canada-United States border,” says Bazely. “This why Southwestern and Southeastern Ontario is the most urbanized, industrialized and intensely farmed area in all of Canada. It has the highest number of endangered and threatened species in the country, and remaining natural cover is less than three per cent in some areas.” And that has Bazely concerned. How do we conserve the natural environment, especially when there are so many competing demands on our land base and resources?

“It’s really a sustainability issue with its population and intensive land use and climate change challenges. With climate warming, we are going to be seeing more species migrating northwards from the US and what are they going to hit – well a lot of concrete.”

Left: The house on the Harvard Forest estate, built before 1820, where Dawn Bazely is staying for six months

In New England, even though the forests were razed and sheep were grazed, after the settlers left and went west, the forests rejuvenated. These landscape changes are illustrated in the famous dioramas of the Massachusetts landscape found at Fisher Museum. There is now a rich diversity of plant and animal life, and lush forests, which is so different from the Southern Ontario experience, she says.

“We’ve been going down in terms of natural habitat cover. So what does it mean if we want to preserve and conserve and restore, if we are to protect the natural habitat in this pressure cooker of conflicting land uses?”

These issues are the same everywhere, she says. But it’s how communities deal with them that makes the difference.

After she finishes this latest book, Bazely is set to complete Environmental Change and Human Security in the Arctic, which she is co-editing. Then she is off to Oxford University for four months to write yet another book, related to her International Polar Year project that recently wound up; this one about oil and gas and local communities.

“It all has to do with sustainability,” says Bazely.

By Sandra McLean, YFile writer

Climate change film screening will bring York and Nunavut together

Published by

The following appeared in the Thursday, September 22, 2011 edition of Y-File:

How does climate change affect those living in a Nunavut community? Talk directly with members of the northern hamlet of Arviat on the western shore of Hudson Bay as part of the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Film Festival next Tuesday.

Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change, by Zacharias Kunuk and Ian Mauro, will screen simultaneously at York and in Arviat, Nunavut, on Sept. 27, from 7pm to 9:30pm, in Curtis Lecture Hall F, Keele campus. Three shorts – Introduction to Nanisiniq, Martha’s Gang and Experiencing Climate Change - Inuit Elders and Youth – by Jordan Konek will also be shown, followed by a live by video Q&A with youth and elders from the Arviat community and filmmaker Mauro.

It is a pay-what-you-can event presented by York’s Institute for Research & Innovation in Sustainability (IRIS) and the Nanisiniq Arviat History Project. It is just one of the ways IRIS is working with the communities most affected by climate change to have their voices heard, said Annette Dubreuil, IRIS coordinator. She hopes to have their message brought to the United Nations climate change conference COP17 in Durban, South Africa, in November. The funds raised through the York film screenings will help send three Arviat youth to Durban.

Last year, two York students went to the 16th annual conference on climate change – COP16. IRIS and the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists will co-host a series of upcoming virtual events in advance of the conference.

York Faculty of Environmental Studies post-doctoral fellow Rachel Hirsch hopes there will be more opportunities for further dialogue about climate change between various interested groups. "We hope more people will want to collaborate with us in the lead up to the COP17," she says. She is already busy planning more events at York and partnering with outside groups to further the climate change discussion.

Anyone wishing to collaborate, should contact Hirsch at rhirsch@yorku.ca.

For more information about the work IRIS is doing regarding climate change, visit the IRIS Climate Justice website.

Schulich ranked a world leader in global MBA survey

Published by

The following appeared in the Tuesday, September 27, 2011 edition of Y-File:

York’s Schulich School of Business has been rated one of the world’s best when it comes to equipping future business leaders with the tools needed to manage in today’s changed business environment.

It has placed second overall in a global ranking of the top 100 MBA programs that are preparing future managers for the environmental, social and ethical complexities of modern-day business.

The Beyond Grey Pinstripes ranking is published every two years by the Washington, DC-based Aspen Institute. It rates the top 100 global MBA programs in the world that are providing future business leaders with a comprehensive and integrated understanding of the social and environmental issues that are reshaping the way businesses are managed – everything from increased consumer activism and greater transparency in labour and environmental practices to changes in corporate governance policies and executive compensation. A total of 149 business schools from 22 countries took part in the survey.

According to the Aspen Institute, this year’s ranking marked the first opportunity since the global economic downturn to comprehensively measure the extent to which MBA programs are altering the content of their curriculum – and the result has been a sea change in the way that business schools are focusing on social, ethical and environmental issues in the classroom.

“The global corporate landscape has changed dramatically in the last few years and a greater number of businesses are dealing more seriously with the triple bottom line of social, environmental and economic issues,” said Dezsö J. Horváth (left), dean of the Schulich School of Business. “Adopting a broad, triple bottom line approach is more than just good corporate citizenship – it’s simply good business management. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index confirms that corporations that focus on the triple bottom line also generate higher shareholder value on average over the mid-to-long term.”

Horváth said that businesses are facing increased expectations and demands on the part of governments and the public. “The narrow shareholder model of the past has been overtaken by a much broader stakeholder model – one that considers the implications of strategic decisions on everyone from consumers and employees to investors and citizens.”

He added that, “There is a growing awareness that business issues are rarely isolated from social, political and environmental considerations. The Beyond Grey Pinstripes ranking measures how well business schools are preparing students for this new reality, and Schulich is proud to be rated a world leader when it comes to graduating managers who have the tools necessary to lead in the new world of business.”

Schulich placed second overall, close behind top-ranked Stanford University and ahead of Michigan, Yale, Northwestern, Cornell and University of California - Berkeley in the world’s top 10 business schools. Schulich ranked either first or second in the world in three of the four categories measured by the survey. Schulich was rated number one in the world in the categories of Faculty Research and Relevant Coursework (Stanford ranked fourth and second, respectively).

Schulich ranked second in the world in the category of business impact, which measures the total number of courses offered that focus on the role that for-profit business can play as a force for positive social and environmental change (Stanford placed first), and Schulich ranked 13th in the category of Student Exposure (Stanford ranked 24th).

For more information and a full description of the ranking, its methodology and individual MBA program ratings, visit the Beyond Grey Pinstripes website.

enviroSCULPT Competition

Published by

THINK GREEN MAKE ART WIN BIG

The Toronto Chapter of the Emerging Green Builders is hosting a contest for students and young professionals (within 5 years of graduation) to divert materials from the waste stream by re-purposing them and creating a sculpture!  This contest is designed to encourage the creative exploration of using non-virgin materials to create in whatever medium that is chosen by the participants. Three finalists will be presented with cash awards at the CaGBC Greater Toronto Chapter's 2011 Annual Gala on November the 23rd at the Royal Conservatory TELUS Centre for Performance and Learning.  Sculptures by the finalists will be displayed in the venue during the Gala.

Rules: 
Download contest rules

How to Register: 
Fill out the enviroSCULPT registration form and email it to EGB@greenbuildingontario.ca

Key Dates: 
Oct 16th - Registration Closes
Nov 16th - 6:30pm Judging Event (3 finalists selected)
Nov 23rd - CaGBC Gala (Winners Announced)

Prizes:
First Prize: $1000
Second Prize: $500
Third Prize: $350

All finalists will be given free admissin to the CaGBC-GTC Gala!

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Film Festival

Published by

Come join us for our first Speaker Series event of the school year, the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Film Festival at Curtis Lecture Hall F on Tuesday September 27th 7pm.

Presenting Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change by Zacharias Kunuk & Ian Mauro

Plus 3 shorts by Jordan Konek:

  • Introduction to Nanisiniq
  • Martha's Gang
  • Experiencing Climate Change - Inuit Elders and Youth

Questions and Answers Live by video with the community of Arviat and filmmaker Ian Mauro

This will be a COP 17 fundraiser event, pay what you can. You can also make a donation online:

Event Details:

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Film Festival
Date: September 27, 2011
Time: 7pm to 9:30pm EST/6pm to 8:30 pm CST
Location (Toronto): Curtis Lecture Hall F, York University, Keele Campus
Location (Arviat): Nunavut Arctic College Community Learning Centre

Virtual Details:

A. Watch all the films online at the following addresses:
1) Nanisiniq: Journey of Discovery:http://youtu.be/kQSknLrmRoU
2) Meet the team: http://youtu.be/I8HJj0k675w
3) Martha’s Gang: http://youtu.be/mDVlnjLwl6M
4) Experiences of Climate Change from Elders: http://beta.arcticcollege.ca/video/Climate%20Change%20Project_x264.mp4
5) Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change: http://www.isuma.tv/hi/en/inuit-knowledge-and-climate-change

B. Join us at about 12:30AM GMT (8:30 pm EST) for an Adobe Connect Meeting after our Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Film Festival: To join the meeting:  http://meet70572453.adobeconnect.com/arviat/
(Invited by: Jamie Bell nacpublicaffairs@gmail.com) Back-up link to join the meeting: http://connect.canterbury.ac.nz/climate_change_1/

***If you have never attended an Adobe Connect meeting before:
Test your connection: http://meet70572453.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm
Watch an Adobe Connect Tutorial (credit to APECS):  http://www.apecs.is/virtual-poster-session/live-sessions/2013-vps-tutorial***

C. Follow @NanisiniqArviat or @irisyorku on Twitter for discussions/updates throughout the day about IQ and COP 17.

D. Donate funds to IRIS to support the Arviat Youth as part of our York Delegation to attend COP17:
Use the York form: https://eapps.uit.yorku.ca/OnlineDonations/
Under “Please designate my gift to:” select “Other”, and then immediately below in the “If “Other” please specify” field, enter “IRIS-COP“.
All are welcome!

Background

York University’’s Institute for Research and Innovation in Sustainability (IRIS: http://www.irisyorku.ca) and the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS: http://www.apecs.is/) are co-hosting a
series of virtual events to help organize in advance of the 17th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties in Durban, South Africa (COP 17: http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_17/items/6070.php). Please see our website for more information: http://climatejustice.irisyorku.ca/

We are pleased to announce that for our first event we are partnering with the Nanisiniq: Arviat History Project (http://nanisiniq.tumblr.com/) to screen a series of films in parallel on September 27, 2011 including: “Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change” by Zacharias Kunuk and Ian Mauro. We are synchronizing with Arviat, Nunavut so that we all watch the movies at the same time and then can have a dialogue between Arviat youth/community members and Toronto youth/community members afterwards.

A big THANK YOU to our other partners:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=222419061148685

Climate Politics at the Cross Roads

Published by

This article originally appeared in the Science for Peace Bulletin, Fall 2011

Introduction

For nearly 20 years the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has been the international body responsible for addressing the global problem of climate change.  In 1990, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution formally launching negotiations towards an international climate change agreement and, on May 9, 1992, the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted (IPIECA, 2008: 2). Currently, the Convention has been signed by 191 nations. Historically, the United Nations has been the highest decision making body that nations turn to in order to come to an agreement on how to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At the core of the UNFCCC process is the ideal of international cooperation and democratic pluralism leading to collective action to solve the problem of climate change. The UNFCCC represents and forwards the widely held belief that cooperation among interested parties, including states, corporations, and civil society, can result in policies to resolve global warming. The annual Conference of the Parties (COP) serves as a space for nations to evaluate, negotiate, and improve their commitments within the Convention.

However, for several years now, the UNFCCC and its annual COP have come under severe criticism. First of all, the on-going political negotiations of the UNFCCC have not moved the world closer to resolving the problem of climate change despite growing scientific evidence of the serious risks to ecosystems and society. In fact, since the beginning of the Convention, the mean global concentration of CO2 has actually increased from 356.27 ppm in 1992 to 389.78 ppm in 2010 (Mauna Loa Observatory), calling into question the capacity of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol to actually curb and reduce emissions. Secondly, the Conference of the Parties 15 (COP15) in Copenhagen was a turning point in the legitimacy of the UNFCCC insofar as the façade of democratic pluralism (which its legitimacy relies upon) was officially shredded. Over 30,000 official delegates were locked out of the COP15 negotiations and found themselves confronted by police brutality while the Copenhagen Accord was put forward by a handful of states without the support of the G77. The failure of leading industrial nations to be inclusive or deliberative in the face of a major threat to the survival of the human race led many experts and observers to concede that the UNFCCC process is unlikely to provide any meaningful action on curbing GHG emissions. Thirdly, in the last round of negotiations at COP16 in Cancun, the international community agreed to maintain a global temperature rise of 2°C, while suggesting that the controversial Carbon Capture and Storage and REDD+ (reduced emissions through decreased deforestation) schemes should form a new market-based solution to curbing emissions, while also putting forward a new Green Fund for mitigation and adaptation actions for developing countries. Despite the the UNFCCC’s rush to promote these decisions as ‘progress’, Cancun failed to fulfill the central purpose of the UNFCCC which is to establish a legally binding commitment to reduce emissions between countries.

Civil Society and the UNFCCC

From a political perspective, one of the most alarming features of the UNFCCC currently has been its reconfigured relationship to civil society which began in 2009. At COP15, 45,000 official delegates arrived at the conference to participate as official invited observers. This historical turnout proved to be a serious challenge for the United Nations. Logistically, the conference site could hold only 15,000 people, leaving 30,000 delegates stranded outside for days on end. Outraged over their exclusion, NGO delegates protested and joined a climate justice street march. The protestors were confronted with 9,000 police officers who used brutality and arbitrary arrest to dissipate the peaceful march. Amid the chaos, the president of the UNFCCC resigned and the UNFCCC unilaterally decided to formally lock out all 15,000 NGO delegates from COP15 leaving decisions to the state and corporate delegates who were locked behind closed doors. Thousands of invited participants were officially blocked from the multilateral climate process, marking the end of open NGO participation within the UNFCCC.

Reviewing the situation, the UNFCCC realized that civil society was willing to mobilize in large numbers to express its discontent with the UNFCCC process and the failure of democratically elected governments to represent the concerns of citizens. In order to reclaim its legitimacy at COP16 in Cancun, the UNFCCC made a number of strategic manoeuvres. In the first place, the conference was relocated to the Yucatan Peninsula, far away from major population centers. Cancun provided a strategic spatial fix for the UNFCCC insofar as the protests that did inevitably occur in Mexico City had no key location upon which to converge. Secondly, for the first time in its history, the UNFCCC decided to physically separate official NGOs and non-delegate civil society from the negotiation space of the conference. Overall, the conference zone was so large that it would have taken seven hours to traverse the entire zone by foot and just over two hours to traverse the zone by car or bus, a calculation that does not include the delays caused by military checkpoints along the way. In contrast, in Copenhagen the conference was located in one space and was easily accessible by anyone via public transit. This effectively erased all civil society from the space of the official negotiations. Finally, the choice of Cancun also afforded UNFCCC COP16 delegates the opportunity to attend the conference in an idyllic location offering the eco-vacation of a lifetime. To this end, Cancun was transformed into an environmental fantasyland where delegates, who were secured accommodations in all inclusive ‘eco-resorts’, could purchase carbon offsets to ensure their flight to the COP was carbon neutral, wake up to the sounds of pre-recorded birds singing in a transplanted ‘conservation’ forest, gorge on all-you-can-eat daily vegan, and ‘get back to nature’ in their downtime by taking various eco-trips into artificial conservation areas along the peninsula. These actions on the part of the UNFCCC served to re-legitimate the organization in the eyes of delegates, and set forward a new precedent to physically remove civil society from the spaces of power in international climate politics.

The Road to Durban COP17

COP17 will take place in Durban from November 28 – December 9 2011. As we approach the eve of another COP, what can we expect in light of the UNFCCC’s recent history and the outcomes of the interim talks in Bonn since Cancun? In a nutshell, we can expect to witness the end of the Kyoto Protocol with no new legally binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to replace it. The failure of the interim negotiations in Bonn last June to produce a draft for negotiation in Durban is a telling sign that the international process to reduce emissions via a legal agreement is unlikely to move forward in the near term, and instead we should expect to see international efforts diverted towards financing and establishing the basis, implementation, and details of the $100 billion per year Green Fund for developing countries by 2020. But, the Green Fund, in the absence of new legally-binding emission reduction targets, will act to divert attention away from the main emitters of GHGs. Instead, the international community’s attention will be placed on technology transfers to the South rather than on substantive cuts for the world’s major emitters, establishing the legally controversial REDD+ scheme, and encouraging new forms of experimental adaptation finance- none of which will achieve the immediate and pressing goals of reducing global GHG emissions to curb catastrophic climate change. Patrick Bond, has described the situation poignantly: “What everyone now predicts is a conference of paralysis. Not only will the Kyoto Protocol be allowed to expire at the end of its first commitment period (2012). Far worse, Durban will primarily be a conference of profiteers, as carbon trading – the privatization of the air, giving rich states and companies the property-right to pollute – is cemented as the foundation of the next decade’s global climate malgovernance” (Bond, 2011: 1). This is evident as the UNFCCC recently called for a ‘quantum leap’ in private sector involvement in investment to combat climate change this September (Chestney and Twidale, 2011). The power of corporate interests in the negotiations has been a prominent feature of the UNFCCC since the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, and the force of market interests is evident in the push forward towards REDD+. Moreover, some elements of civil society appear to be shifting, with Greenpeace announcing a change in its strategic focus, choosing to focus less on the UNFCCC negotiations and more on action against industrial polluter and corporations. To date, the activities of civil society and the climate justice movement for mobilizing action at COP17 appear fragmented, and although it is difficult to predict the future, the location of COP17 in the wealthy guarded neighbourhoods of Durban raises questions regarding the capacity of civil society to adequately impact the process through traditional forms of protest and mass mobilization. In all likelihood, political activism at COP17 is likely to remain outside of the purview of the negotiators and power, as a market-based agenda is pushed forward and entrenched deeper into the UNFCCC and its various non-binding agreements.

Developing a Radical Climate Politics

Currently, it appears that previous modes of pressure by civil society  have not been able to stop the UNFCCC from putting forward market-based solutions to climate change that privilege economic and corporate interests. Calls for a fair and just climate deal have fallen on deaf ears for nearly two decades, with no change in sight. Moreover, we find ourselves at a moment where the summer Arctic ice extent has reached a record low, where East Africa is experiencing its worst drought in 60 years, and where Texas had the worst wildfires in its history. Yet, these trends which should alarm all of us to the potential devastating consequence of climate change for humans and nature, have been met with further equivoaction by the corporate state and the power elite who claim that the market can solve this unprecedented environmental problem, and even that climate change will bring new unforeseen benefits and an age of “climate prosperity” (NRTEE, 2010). Sheldon Wolin would explain these politics as shaped by the inverted totalitarianism that has been normalized in US and international politics. Unlike classic totalitarianism, where a powerful state dominates the economy, in inverted totalitarianism corporations and the economic imperatives dominate the state. According to Chris Hedges, climate change is inseparable from inverted totalitarianism, and the failure of the liberal class who have placed their hopes in the climate negotiations is that it “sought consensus and was obedient when it should have fought back.  (It) continues to trumpet a childish faith in human progress.....the naive belief that technology will save us from ourselves. The liberal class assumed that by working with corporate power, it could mitigate the worst excesses of capitalism and environmental degradation. It did not grasp, perhaps because liberals do not read enough Marx, the revolutionary and self-destructive nature of unfettered capitalism” (Stryker, 2010 quoting Hedges, 2010). We have failed as a society to address the problem of climate change through our existing political mechanisms and economic structure. For example, the current Canadian government’s tendency to privilege corporate and economic interests at the climate negotiations and its continued support of the Tar Sands is exemplary of the inverted totalitarianism under which we now live. Given the clear directive of the Harper government to ignore the overwhelming majority of Canadian voices (65%) that believe the government should take action on climate change at home (CBC, 2011), and  by extension,  the inaction of our government at the UNFCCC negotiations, suggests that we should seriously re-evaluate what citizens can accomplish through protest or representative politics.  Notwithstanding a major change in government direction after the next election, it may be time to reconsider the shape that climate politics ought to take. It may be time to put aside our hopes that the UNFCCC and negotiations among the power elite can solve the problem. Instead, we should consider preparing for the changes to come as our governments, institutions, and economic structures fail to take the actions necessary to halt climate change. A radical politics of climate change will not be found in a protest march barricaded by police on the outskirts of a dying UNFCCC negotiation in Durban. Radical action on climate change will happen in our communities and among us. At the most basic level, this will include building communities that do not depend on oil for the basis of their survival, a move towards self-sufficient self-governing sustainable democratic communities capable of providing for their material needs outside of capitalist social relations, developing the capacity to grow food outside of the agro-industrial complex, developing economically democratic systems for production, reclaiming the commons that are fundamental to human survival , and above all a fundamental change in consciousness where the human domination of nature, the human domination of other humans, and the human domination of the self no longer forms the basis of our social relations.

Sources

Bond, P. (2011).  ‘The Durban Climate Summit (Conference of the Parties 17) Climate Justice versus Market Narratives’, Nature™ Inc. Questioning the Market Panacea in Environmental Policy and Conservation, Institute for Social Studies, The Hague, 30 June 2011

CBC (2011). ‘Climate Change an Issue in Canada: Poll’, CBC News Online, February 22, 2011

Chestney, N. and Twidale, S. (2011). ‘Climate Investment need ‘quantum’ leap, says U.N. Official’, Reuters, September 14, 2011

Hedges, C. (2010). ‘How Corporations Destroyed American Democracy’, Socialism 2010, Oakland, California, 3, July 2010

IPIECA (2008). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol: A Guide to the Climate Negotiations.

Medalye, J. (2011). ‘Brave New UNFCCC: Spatial fixes, Environmental Utopia, and the New Governmentality of International Climate Politics’, Canadian Dimension, Web Exclusive, February 9, 2011

Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO)

Medalye, J. (2010). ‘COP15 in and Uneven World: Contradictions and Crisis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’, Part 1, in Sandberg, L.A. and Sandberg, T. (eds), Climate Change- Who’s Carrying the Burden? The Chilly Climates of the Global Environmental Dilemma, The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives: Ottawa

National Roundtable on Environment and Economy (2010), Climate Prosperity

Stryker, D. (2010). Chris Hedges, Marx, and Climate Change

Wolin, Sheldon, S. (2008). Democracy Incorporate: Managed Democracy and Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, Princeton University

css.php