Skip to main content

Blogs

Dawn Bazely on CBC Radio Points North speaking about Invasive Plants

Published by

Invasive plants discussed in Sault Ste. Marie

There are some unwanted visitors creeping around Ontario. And they come in the form of plants.

Listen audio (runs 5:19)

Dawn Bazely mentioned a number of links to help gardeners choose non-invasive plants:

http://www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca/
http://www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca/files/GMI_2012_web_North.pdf
http://www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca/files/GMI2012web.pdf
http://www.invasivespeciescentre.ca/

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/pointsnorth/episodes/2012/08/21/invasive-plants-discussed-in-sault-ste-marie/

Getting my waistline back!

Published by

My 12-month sabbatical ended on June 30th, and in the last 3 weeks, I have been back on campus, teaching and catching up with what's been happening at York while I've been abroad. I am particularly excited by the progress on the subway stations. Back in March 2012, I rode on the gorgeous new subway trains up to York.

The GTA (Greater Toronto Area) now has the longest commuting time in North America - on average, people spend a month a year in their cars. Evergreen at the Brickworks is sponsoring Tanner Zurkoski to live in his car for a month and write about the experience.  I am delighted that before I retire from York U, I will be able to take transit to and from work on a daily basis, without spending longer on the TTC than in my car. At the moment, it takes me 3 hours a day to take public transit to work, in comparison to 1 hour per day spent in the car. So, sadly, it's the car for me.

Yesterday, a very kind colleague told me that I look 15 years younger. A number of other colleagues have commented that I look a lot slimmer. Well, walking 50 km a week for 3 months in Oxford, UK, will do that for a person. Before that, for 6 months, I hiked around the Harvest Forest trails. During my sabbatical I spent hardly any time commuting anywhere in a car.

During the 5 years that I was director of IRIS (2006-2011), long working hours, catered meetings, sitting in my car (instead of walking to work or to the TTC), combined with less in-class lecturing and field work (i.e. severely reduced movement), resulted in me putting on weight. So, ironically, at the same time as I was carrying out research on "human security", including "health security" and writing blogs about the ecology of food production, I was piling on the pounds. There is extensive media coverage of the so-called "obesity" epidemic, including an excellent multimedia series Sick Cities in the Sydney Morning Herald website. This Australian series does a great job of explaining the economic and social drivers behind our collective expanding waistlines, including the lack of exercise incorporated into our daily lives, partly due to poor public transport systems. In Oxford, I walked everywhere, all the time (or took the bus).

During each of my sabbaticals, I have undertaken one "personal" project that will contribute to improved career performance as a professor. In 2004, I worked on being on time for meetings - my entire family is notoriously late for everything and I was right up there with my numerous uncles, aunts and cousins. I worked with a life coach and the book Never Be Late Again: Cures for the Punctually Challenged by Diane DeLonzor. It HAS made a difference. This past sabbatical, and in fact, beginning in January 2011, my goal was to return to my 2006 "fighting weight". I used a pedometer, started mapping my walks and got a hold of a personal trainer, to kick me into lifting weights and meaning it. I am not there yet, but I am moving nearly as much as I did before 2006. This is a GOOD thing. And, the research is in - we evolved, as humans to think as we move. John Medina's excellent book, Brain Rules, explains the research very well indeed. The more we move, the better our thinking.

Along the way, I learned from my personal trainer, who also has a B.Ed. degree, that the multibillion dollar fitness industry exists simply because people are, in general, fundamentally lacking self-discipline, and the ability to keep on task. You DON'T need a fancy gym or classes to keep fit. You just need to keep on doing a bunch of incredibly boring exercises, such as sit-ups, push-ups, squats and lunges, with less than $100 of exercise equipment, that you can keep in your own front room, plus, just walk 7 km a day. The average person just cannot keep this simple effort up by themselves.

This all raises the question of the extent to which education is able to shift societal norms. The reality is that a large proportion of the population is NOT moved to action by education that comes from peer-reviewed research. Indeed, I am a prime example of this, and I am scientist! This morning, I have written this blog, instead of doing the supersets promoted by Canadian Living's fitness advisor, Pam Mazzuca. While living in Oxford, I had no choice but to walk, and carry groceries in my backpack (which took care of the weights).

However, money IS a motivator for many more people than is knowledge and education. An interesting example of this, comes from a relative in the UK, whose family is required to wear pedometers and to upload the data weekly to their health insurance company. The exercise undertaken by the family translates into reduced health insurance premiums. Is this a form of "fat tax"? I'd say so - although it's also a bit like negative billing from cable companies.

Dawn R. Bazely

Director Dawn Bazely is back from sabbatical!

Published by

To quote Sam Gamgee "Well I'm back", after a wonderful sabbatical year, most recently, from 3 months in my old department at Oxford University. Nearly every day I walked past The Eagle and Child pub where JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis and their fellow Inklings hung out. Oxford is dripping with history and it was fun to be back there after 22 years.

I extend my thanks and appreciation to Professor Stepan Wood, for the stellar job that he did as IRIS' Acting Director this past academic year (2011-2012). Details of his and IRIS’ activities can be found in the annual report.

I return as IRIS Director for 2012-2013, refreshed and recharged by the work of my sabbatical, and I look forward to re-engaging with my IRIS colleagues, the York community and fellow Canadians.

The Sabbatical, in which we are paid 80% of our salary for 12 months, continues to be an important perk in Academia. Many consider it essential for allowing quality research to flourish and develop. The concept comes from the biblical tradition of resting every seventh year,

During the past year I had the opportunity to recalibrate my academic reputation and achievements and also to calibrate the standing and achievements of IRIS. I spent the year as a Research Fellow at Harvard Forest, Harvard University and as a Visiting Researcher in the Biodiversity Institute, an Oxford University Martin Interdisciplinary School.

As a science professor, I usually thinking of "recalibration" as sending out pieces of laboratory equipment that measure some factor with high accuracy, for testing and re-setting or re-calibrating. However, a colleague in the UK used the term in relation to some of her team members needing to recalibrate themselves and their achievements against their peers. In other words, it’s a reality check. I predict that "recalibration" will become a new buzzword, given that the title of a recent article in the UK's Daily Telegraph was "We need to recalibrate what we think of as success”. Still, I kind of like it.

So, how did IRIS stack up against Harvard’s, Oxford’s and other institution’s efforts to drive forward the environmental, economic and social sustainability agenda?

Actually, remarkably well.

IRIS has done a lot with very little cash. We have a director who is a full-time faculty member, with course-release, paid for by the university, and a co-ordinator, whose salary is 100% soft-money, plus some office space (that's a big "in-kind"), and access to parts of the university infrastructure. Our business model is that of a small NGO – often running on fumes.

Nevertheless, we have had great success in leveraging the talent and energy of members of the York community and beyond. We have also been innovative and creative in delivering cutting edge research and action on the sustainability front, which compares favourably with far better-funded efforts here and abroad.

I have been gratified to receive many complements and kudos for IRIS-developed programmes from colleagues from across the UK and USA, this past year. I have also received, over the past 6 years, many inquiries about how colleagues from other institutions might replicate IRIS' achievements.

To these questions I usually reply that “it’s xxxxxx hard work – only those willing to roll up their sleeves and pitch in, should consider getting involved here.”

While it's certainly the case that top-reputation institutions like Oxford and Harvard have much deeper pockets than York, it's also the case that they, too, often do a lot with relatively little; there is a high degree of competition for funds in these institutions. What IRIS has in common with sustainability researchers at these institutions is a smart, energetic, positive “can-do” attitude, and hard workers. In this, we stack up well against the best of them. Let’s be clear that the average Harvard and Oxford professor works many more than 40 hours in a week. Excellent research and outreach results come not just from talent and decent funding, but from hard, uncomplaining work.

I cannot emphasize this message enough to the York community and to Canada in general. Particularly in light of Federal Government cuts to Environment Canada, Parks Canada and Statistics Canada. Society as we know it, in Canada is built on the work of dedicated scientists and social scientists. I continue to believe that the average Canadian has relatively poor understanding of the work of scientists and other academics and that that solid advocacy for research funding is one of the tasks of every academic. It’s not enough to say that what we do has societal relevance – we must prove it – every day.

However, there is also no doubt, that given a common buzzword, namely, "austerity", that excellent sustainability research is not enough to guarantee support and funding. In a shrinking pool of resources, the politics surrounding sustainability and other areas of academic are increasingly in evidence. A large part of my research this past year was aimed at gaining insight into the politics-policy-science issue and the question "Why don't ecologists in particular, and scientists in general, get more respect?" I had great fun with this, and you can read about this and my other sabbatical activities in my official report to York University.

Response to “The Sustainability Mindset”

Published by

My comments on Michael Spence Sustainability Mindset
David V. J. Bell

Hi Mike – thanks for sending this along. It is beautifully written, and succinctly lands some very important points.

Your emphasis on education and values is spot on – though I agree that they are necessary but not sufficient underpinnings of sustainability.  I used precisely the same formulation in the conclusion to my book chapter (see p. 21ff.) entitled “Education for Sustainable Development:  Cure or Placebo?”. Ultimately we require a global “culture of sustainability” in order to provide the foundation for sustainability-based wise choices, decisions and policies in the economy, political system, and society generally.

I am reminded of the scenario exercise conducted a number of years ago by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development. (WBCSD)  They outlined three main scenarios, each of which was premised on the increasing environmental toll of economic activity.

The first scenario (“FROG”) led to environmental disaster.  Business As Usual continued under the banner “Forever Recognize Our Growth”. The double entendre of the title referred to the idea that a frog placed in lukewarm water that is gradually heated to the boiling point will fail to “pick up the signals” and instead of jumping our of the pot, will eventually die.  By analogy, the global environment in this scenario deteriorates beyond critical thresholds because governments, businesses, and society in general fail to “pick up the signals” in time to avert tragedy.  (Cf. the last sentence of your piece!).

In the second scenario, GEO, the signals are picked up in time and draconian action is taken under the aegis of a Global Environmental Organization that is given sufficient authority and power to regulate and legislate the world’s businesses, governments and individuals to behave more sustainably.  Disaster is averted.

The third scenario was much preferred.  Entitled JAZZ, it entailed a transformation of behaviour achieved through the influence of education and value change rather than through the power and authority of an all powerful global regulatory body. (I’m using these terms as defined in my book Power, Influence and Authority: An Essay in Political Linguistics.)  Jazz in this case is not an acronym but a metaphor. Jazz musicians are able to co-create music spontaneously and collaboratively by improvising on a structure outlined in a shared “chart” that shows the melody and chord changes.  By analogy, in the JAZZ scenario businesses, governments and citizens/consumers/householders would all be “on the same page” because they would all understand sustainability imperatives and would share the values needed to coordinate actions to achieve sustainable outcomes.  Pretty far fetched to be sure, but an intriguing idea.  What strikes me as useful in this scenario is the notion that a culture shift toward sustainability would make it a lot easier for both businesses and governments to adopt appropriate policies and decisions.

Another key point you raise is the challenge of developing a more sustainable alternative to the growth model.  Basically I think we have somehow to effect a transition from 20th century capitalism to 21st century sustainable enterprise.  But what does this entail?  I’m sure you are correct that this transition will require plenty of invention and innovation (or what I referred to in an earlier comment as “sustainability ingenuity”.)  As you pointed out in your comments back to me, lots of the requisite ingenuity appears to be going on.  But how much more is needed?  How can we hasten it along? And what will a sustainable economy look like?

I think we have a fair idea of the “design specs” for a sustainable economy.  At minimum I think a sustainable economy must:

  • Create sustainable livelihoods for (most of) the world’s 1 billion unemployed
  • Provide products and services that meet basic needs (food, shelter, water, energy) for a population of over 7 billion rapidly growing toward 9 billion
  • Drastically reduce waste  (According to Paul Hawken et al.’s book Natural Capitalism, 99% of everything produced in the USA is in the waste stream within 6 months!!)
  • Reduce throughputs of energy and materials by factor of 10 (or more likely a factor of 20)
  • Operate on a low carbon basis that will allow us to reduce GHG’s approx 80% by 2050
  • Reduce environmental impacts and contribute to environmental conservation/restoration
  • Reduce transportation impacts (for workers, inputs, and products)
  • Encourage sustainable consumption
  • Ensure that all companies and businesses are socially and environmentally responsible
  • Achieve “smart” effective regulation.

For me the most hopeful point you make in The Sustainability Mindset is about the growing attention to sustainability in Asia and throughout the developing world.  No doubt you are doing what you can to encourage this.

Thanks again Mike!

David
David VJ Bell
Chair of LSF

Pro Tem Guest Editorial, By David V.J. Bell

Published by

The following appeared in the February 2012 issue of Pro Tem. David V.J. Bell is an IRIS Executive Board member, as well as the YCAS Director emeritus; BA'65 (York/UofT) AM '67, PhD'69 (Harvard University) is Chair of Learning for a Sustainable Future (www.lsf-lst.ca) and is Professor Emeritus and Former Dean, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University.

I’m honored to be invited to serve as co-editor for this issue of Pro Tem, a position I last held in 1964-65! It’s gratifying that the name Pro Tem (adopted with tongue in cheek) has survived despite its obvious ephemeral quality. The student founders of the paper were fairly confident that a more enduring moniker would emerge within a few months of the original publication in February 1962. But then the name caught on – and I’m glad it continues.

A bit of personal background. I began my undergraduate life here at Glendon, as a member of the third entering class of York students, 50 years ago this Fall. The total student body numbered around 300 spread over first, second and third year programs of the 3 year “general” Bachelor of Arts program. At that time the
Keele campus had not even been conceived, so we constituted the total student enrolment of York University. There were about 40 faculty members. York was smaller than nearly everyone’s high school.

Despite its tiny student body York was an intellectually exciting place. The vibrant sense of community among students, faculty, and staff extended far beyond the classroom. There were academic clubs and guest lectures and musical performances and foreign films and lively common room discussions. Traditions were emerging. We defined a “tradition” as anything that had been done the year before. The place was alive with pranks and practical jokes and endless amounts of literary humour (including the occasional writings of a fictitious student named Chuck Brayfield, who even managed to get outrageously satirical letters to the
editor published in the Toronto Star).

A distinct intellectual identity had already emerged, inspired by foundingPresident Murray Ross’s writings about The New University. York embraced ideals of interdisciplinarity, the integrity of all knowledge, and a quest for wellroundedness,balance and wholeness. Ross had written “…when specialization requires or implies that knowledge be limited to one narrow area of life, and that an individual’s view of mankind be lacking in perspective and that he be insensitive to the problems of the modern world, then certainly there is need to question the adequacy of an educational system that produces such specialists.” York would strike a new path, true to its motto Tentanda Via – the way must be tried. The sculpture of the “whole Man” reminded us daily that even as undergraduates we were embarked on an intellectual journey that was new and different and wonderful – and a bit scary.

York’s ideals have served the institution well through its first half century. York has innovated in a number of key areas: General education at the undergraduate level; interdisciplinary graduate programs in both the Social Sciences/Humanities and the Natural Sciences; the world’s first Faculty of Environmental Studies (itself highly interdisciplinary); a unique Faculty of Fine Arts, and so on.

But looking ahead 50 years I believe that York’s founding ideals need to be reinterpreted and expanded. It is abundantly clear that in the wealthy countries like Canada and the US; the emerging economies like China and India; and the poorest countries like Haiti, Zimbabwe and Afghanistan: the current trajectory of development is environmentally, socially and economically unsustainable. Although my perspective on the key to a more sustainable future has evolved over the past 2 decades I am now absolutely convinced that education is the sine qua non of a successful transition. I believe that as a species we face an “educational challenge for humankind” – can we learn to live differently on this planet?

Consider this formulation. In the 19th century some people were “pupils”; in the 20th century most of us became “students’; in the 21st century all of us must become “learners.” We must learn to live sustainably on this planet. Educators become less the omniscient imparters of knowledge (access to which is expanding
exponentially through the internet and social networks) than coaches and mentors in the learning process; themselves life-long learners.

If Murray Ross were writing today about the educational underpinnings of a new university he would surely describe sustainability education as required general knowledge for the 21st century.

How does all of this relate to Glendon in the year 2012 and to this issue of Pro Tem? To begin with, the theme of this issue, anticipation, reflects a central tenet of sustainability: “it is better to anticipate and prevent than to clean up after the fact.” (ORTEE - Ontario Round Table on Environment and the Economy 1992.) We need to think ahead and anticipate the future consequences of present day actions such as our wasteful use of energy and our growing reliance on fossil fuels (despite the irrefutable evidence of anthropogenic climate change). We
need to consider the future implications of growing inequality in our society, and of a world population greater than 9 billion half of whom (if today’s situation is replicated in 2050) will be living on less than $2 US per day.

Glendon has the potential to become a living laboratory of sustainable practices and behaviours. Thanks to a group of current students mentored by Sociology professor Stuart Schoenfeld (and assisted by one of Glendon’s first undergraduates John Court), a new website (http://glendon.irisyorku.ca/) situates Glendon in its natural and historical context and discusses “Conservation, Preservation and Sustainability” of the campus. Current students can find out about the immediate environment as a step toward enhancing their sustainability literacy. They can “connect the dots” (one of my favorite definitions of sustainability) between the past and the present, and between the environmental, social and economic aspects of Glendon. They can start “conversations about the future” (my other favorite definition) that they envision for their own and
subsequent generations, expanding their focus from the very local to the global. In short, they can learn and practice attitudes, values, and actions that will help bend the curve toward a more sustainable future.

Merci beaucoup. À l’avenir durable!

The 2012 Federal and Ontario Budgets and the Environment

Published by
This blog was originally published in Professor Mark Winfield’s blog.

The following summary of the environmental implications of the 2012 Federal and Ontario Budgets draws on the work of Chris Winter of the Conservation Council of Ontario ( http://www.weconserve.ca/cco/) as well as environmental lawyer Diane Saxe

More commentary from me to follow soon.

The Ontario 2012 Budget

2012 Deficit: $16 billion
Provincial Debt: $242 billion

Ontario actions:

  • Environment and Natural Resources budgets are two of only three ministries to be cut (p.195).
  •  the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit, a $1 billion electricity consumption incentive, is being phased out for major consumers over 3,000 kWh per month for a savings of around $100 million per year (p. 48)
  •  transportation and environmental fees may be increased (p.103 ff)
  •  many environmentally significant laws that are administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources are proposed to be amended, including the Endangered Species Act, the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, the Public Lands Act, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, and the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.
  • Moving what remains of the Drive Clean program to a Delegated Administrative Agency similar to the TSSA .
  • Eliminating the funding to municipalities for household hazardous waste management that was covering the funding lost as a result of the government’s cancellation of the Stewardship Ontario ‘eco-fee’ program in 2009
  • Funding for municipal sustainable water planning under the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, 2010 is being cancelled as the regulations requiring the development of plans have yet to be adopted.

It is what is not in the budget that is most important:

  • no detail on investments in refurbishing or new builds for nuclear power plants and their impact on stranded debt
  •  little detail on conservation programs within the electricity sector
  •  little detail on green infrastructure, including urban renewal
  •  little detail on incentives for local and green economic development.

With files from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario and the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

The Federal 2012 Budget

2012 Deficit: $25 billion

National Debt: $580 billion

Federal actions:

  • further cuts to core Canadian environmental programs, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada
  • environmental assessments are to be streamlined to two years max, including for the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline.
  •  the National Round Table on Environment and Economy is axed. The NRTEE was recently asked to review all provincial climate change strategies.
  • $8 million in new funding to audit charities to ensure they are not “politically active,” i.e. that they do not speak out against the government’s mismanagement of the environment.
  •  failed to renew the federal ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes program, which provided much-needed incentives for home energy conservation.

More positively, it looks like the budget does not include rumoured amendments to the Fisheries Act to weaken its fish habitat protection provisions (s.35). The Conservatives may have realized that the proposal, floated a few weeks ago, not only outraged environmentalists, but also sport hunters and fishers, who are also often Conserative voters in rural Canada.

The Drummond Report and Ontario’s Future

Published by
This blog was originally published in Professor Mark Winfield’s blog.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government is widely seen to have survived the province’s October 2011 election less as a result of its own appeal to the electorate and more as a result of errors and misfortunes on the part of PC Leader Tim Hudak. The government was seen to be tired, and out of ideas about how to move forward on the economic, social and environmental challenges facing Ontario. The first few months of the government’s new minority mandate have been notable only for the lack of new initiatives and the ORNG air ambulance debacle.

The Report of the Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services (a.k.a. the Drummond Report) has, to some degree, now provided a government that was in search of an agenda with one.  Whether it is an agenda that will serve Ontario’s interests well in the long term is another question altogether. The Commission’s report is extremely broad in its scope, and its most interesting, imaginative and detailed aspects deal with health care.

The report’s other elements vary greatly in their depth and originality. Its sections dealing with electricity, the environment, natural resources management and land-use, for example, are generally thin on new analysis and largely endorse the government’s existing policy directions. There are remarkably few new ideas and quite a few old ones of very doubtful value. Further “streamlining” an environmental assessment process that has already been ‘reformed’ to a point of virtual meaninglessness and increasing the reliance on not-for-profit corporations controlled by the industries they are supposed to regulate hardly look like progress  from the perspective of advancing sustainability or protecting public safety, health and the environment.

More generally the report, with its focus on “efficiencies,” lacks any overall positive vision for where the province should be going.  It does ask the government to articulate an “economic vision” for Ontario – highlighting by implication the government’s failure to effectively provide such a vision so far. The lack of any underlying sense of the way forward makes it difficult to evaluate the wisdom of the bulk of Drummond’s proposals. This is particularly true with respect to education, an area with major implications in terms of longer-term economic and environmental strategy.

Moreover, the report is almost entirely focussed on the expenditure side of the equation. In fairness to Mr.Drummond that limitation was imposed by the government. There are strong suggestions that the province review the usefulness of its existing $1.3 billion per year in direct business support and $2.3 billion per year in corporate tax expenditures. However, there are few specific recommendations or any sense of the potential to generate additional revenue by closing loopholes that have long outlived their purposes or which may have been of questionable value in the first place. Some modest opportunities to generate new revenues through user fees (e.g. charging for parking at GO terminals and full cost pricing of sewer and water services) and terminating the pre-election gimmicks of the undergraduate university tuition fee rebate and the Clean Energy Benefit on electricity bills are identified, and there is some discussion of the possibility of road tolls as a transit funding mechanism, but there is no discussion of more substantial options on the revenue side.

The cancellation of the final stage of the government’s corporate tax cuts seems likely at this stage. Given the burdens in terms of lost services and increased user fees that ordinary Ontarians are being asked to accept, some contribution from a business community that has benefitted from a succession of tax cuts will be politically essential.  That step would save about $800 million per year in revenues.

More serious revenue options like occupying some of the tax room vacated by the federal government when it cut the GST  by increasing the provincial portion of the HST, – or better still more ambitious strategies like the introduction of a carbon tax (something Mr.Drummond himself proposed in 2008) have not been put on the table. Given the scale of the impact of Mr.Drummond’s proposals, those options need to become part of the conversation.

Even Toronto Mayor Rob Ford (with considerable prompting from city council) when faced with similar challenges, recognized the need to move on the revenue side to moderate the need for damaging expenditure reductions. The risks of the province mortgaging its future by focussing exclusively on expenditures are far too large for it to ignore the same alternative.

A declining US market for exports, the difficulties for export-oriented value-added economic activities posed by a rising Canadian dollar driven by resource exports from western Canada, the regional impacts of climate change, the rural-urban split evident in the outcome of the 2011 election, and a federal government oriented towards the interests of the Alberta, have all contributed to the challenges facing the province. But more imagination and vision that what Mr.Drummond has offered will be needed to put the province back onto a path towards sustainability and prosperity.

Mark Winfield’s new book Blue-Green Province – The Environment and the Political Economy of Ontario has just been published by UBC Press.

The Drummond Report and the Environment, Energy, Natural Resources and Public Safety in Ontario.

Published by
This blog was originally published in Professor Mark Winfield’s blog.

General Observations

As expected the Report of the Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services (a.k.a. the Drummond Report) report is extremely broad in scope. The report’s most interesting, imaginative and detailed aspects deal with health care. Its elements related to electricity, the environment, natural resources management and land-use, by contrast generally lack depth and largely endorse the government’s existing policy directions. There are remarkably few new ideas in these areas and quite a few old ones of very doubtful value from the perspective of advancing sustainability or protecting public safety, health and the environment. Think the “common sense revolution” with a human face with respect to these topics.

(For a more detailed discussion of the report’s overall implications see my February 19th post http://marksw.blog.yorku.ca/2012/02/19/the-drummond-report-and-ontarios-future/)

 

Environment, Energy, Natural Resources and Public Safety Highlights

Some of the highlights in terms of energy, the environment, natural resources management, land-use and public administration are as follows.

Chapter 12 – Infrastructure Real Estate and Electricity

Public Infrastructure

• The report endorses a move to full cost recovery on water and wastewater services by municipalities and the Ontario Clean Water Agency, a recommendation made a decade ago by the Walkerton Inquiry and yet to be fully implemented.

Transportation

• The report recognizes that the gap between Metrolinx’s transit plans and committed funding resources is “the elephant in the transit room”

Electricity

• The Commission recommends that an Integrated Power System Plan based on the province’s Long-Term Energy Plan be adopted. The recommendation seems to ignore the consideration that the Commission’s own conclusions regarding future rates of economic growth throw fundamental assumptions about the future of electricity demand underlying the plan into doubt.

• The report recommends that the impact of the Green Energy Act on electricity prices be mitigated by lowering FIT rates and introduce digression rates to reduce the tariffs over time – directions in which the government is likely to move as a result of the FIT review. The impacts on electricity prices of cost-overruns on nuclear refurbishment projects are by contrast ignored.

the Report suggests a stronger emphasis on competitive request for proposal bidding processes for acquiring new electricity supply, although it is ambiguous about whether the implied criticism is directed at the FIT program, the province’s approach to procuring conventional supply (particularly nuclear) or both.

• The commission’s other recommendations include the termination of the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit as soon as possible and increases in the ratio of peak to off-peak electricity rates. There are also the usual calls for some sort of “rationalization” of the roles of the alphabet soup of agencies involved in the electricity sector.

Chapter 13 – Environment and Natural Resources

Ministry of the Environment Approvals Reform

• The report provides an unqualified endorsement of the Ministry of the Environment’s approvals reform project. This is despite very serious concerns that have been raised about its impact on environmental protection and the rights of the public to participate in environmental decision-making (see http://www.cela.ca/sites/cela.ca/files/720.ModernizingApprovalsProcess.pdf). The report emphasizes the importance of “risk-based” approaches to approvals, but makes no mention of the failure of the existing process to deal with the cumulative effects of emissions from multiple sources – a problem likely to be exacerbated by the approvals “reform” process.

Environmental Assessment

• The report pulls out some very old chestnuts regarding environmental assessment. There are calls for further streamlining of the environmental assessment process – a surprising recommendation given the Environmental Commissioner’s recent conclusions that the Ontario process has already been “streamlined” to the point of virtual meaninglessness (http://www.ecoissues.ca/index.php/Environmental_Assessment:_A_Vision_Lost) The report also calls for “substitution” of federal and provincial EAs for each other – again a surprising suggestion given that the evidence of federal/provincial overlap in this area in Ontario is virtually nil (the same conclusion applies the Commission’s more general recommendation regarding the overlap of environmental responsibilities between the province and the federal government). The more serious question that exists is the lack of any meaningful assessment by either level of government of the major mining projects taking place (first the Victor Diamond Mine in Attawapiskat and now the “Ring of Fire” development) in Ontario’s far north.

Cost Recovery

• More positively the report recommends moves towards full cost recovery for sewer and water services and environmental approvals, and a more meaningful pricing regime for water takings.

Natural Resources Management and Land-Use in Southern Ontario

• The report includes a vague recommendation of the consolidation of various agencies involved in natural resources management and land-use planning in southern Ontario. Given the diversity of the mandates and functions of the agencies involved this could prove vastly more complex than it sounds. Whether it would lead to better policy implementation on the ground is another question altogether.

Environmental Liabilities and Financial Assurances

One area where the report does recommend strengthening the province’s approach is with respect to requirements for financial assurances for activities which may leave the province with environmental liabilities – mines sites, for example where if an operator goes bankrupt the province could be left with the costs of closure and perpetual care of the site, tailings and waste rock. These requirements were weakened significantly through the Harris governments notorious Bill 26 – the Savings and Restructuring Act. The report also recommends a Superfund-like mechanism to finance the remediation of abandoned contaminated sites.

Chapter 16 – Operating and Back-Office Expenditures

Delegated Administrative Authorities

• The report provides an unqualified endorsement of Delegated Administrative Authority model for government regulatory functions. This is despite some spectacular regulatory failures on the part of such agencies in Ontario (e.g. the Sunrise Propane explosion) and long-standing concerns regarding accountability, performance, cost-effectiveness and desirability of separating regulatory and policy functions (see my commentary on the TSSA and the Sunrise Propane explosion (http://marksw.blog.yorku.ca/2010/05/07/public-safety-in-private-hands-rethinking-the-tssa-model-published-in-the-toronto-star-august-2008/) and work on this subject for the Walkerton Inquiry (http://www.pembina.org/pub/37).

Mark Winfield’s new book Blue-Green Province – The Environment and the Political Economy of Ontario has just been published by UBC Press.

There’s No Green in Harperland: The Northern Gateway, the “Radical Groups,” and what it means for the future of Canada’s Environment, Economy and Politics.

Published by

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

Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s “open letter” on diversifying Canada’s energy markets and reforming the regulatory approval process for energy projects, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s remarks in an interview with The National’s Peter Mansbridge last week regarding the Northern Gateway pipeline project from Alberta’s oil sands to the BC coast have intensified the already growing debates about energy policy, the environment, and the roles and rights of the public and First Nations in decision-making processes.

The attacks on free speech, public participation, and civil society implicit in the Prime Minister and minister’s remarks and the underlying double standard with respect to acceptability of massive expenditures by international corporations in favour of energy development and export projects in Canada but hyperbolic objections to the relatively small amounts of US foundation money supporting some of the participants in the Northern Gateway hearings (to say nothing of the government’s aggressive lobby in the United States in favour of the Keystone pipeline) have been rightly pilloried in the both cyberspace and the mainstream media (For Rick Mercer’s contribution see http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iZf5fC9v2qE).

The government’s stance begs some deeper consideration as well. Listening to the Prime Minister and Minster of Natural Resources one comes away with the impression that the Canadian economy and its future prospects are limited to the further expansion of the oil sands and the export of their products. The rest of the Canadian economy and the possibility of paths forward beyond the oil sands do not seem to exist in their minds.

The risks associated with such a view on the part of the federal government are enormous. The environmental consequences in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, water use and contamination, air pollution, tailings generation and management, and destruction of the boreal forest of the accelerating development of the oil sands are well documented and understood. The Royal Society of Canada, federal Commissioner for Environment and Sustainable Development and others have highlighted the failures of the Federal and Alberta governments to establish meaningful capacity to even monitor, much less control or mitigate, the environmental effects of these developments.

The overheating of the Alberta economy and the extent to which the pace of development is outstripping the province’s capacity to provide the required physical and social infrastructure has been recognized by some very prominent voices in the province itself. Former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed, for example, has warned that “The oil sands have created in our province, because of the rapid growth that has occurred in the past decade, a very high-cost economy… That means we have a built-in cost factor here in our province that is very difficult for people in other businesses and I see a growing pressure on the current government to revisit this issue.”

The federal government’s perspective imperils for the rest of the country as well. An economy dominated by a single sector subject to profound boom-bust cycles driven entirely by the vagaries of world oil prices is a recipe for economic fragility. It is also a formula for regional division, a point highlighted by Quebec Premier Jean Charest last week in his observation that “There’s two realities in Canada; there are the economies of oil, gas and potash and others.”

For “the others,” including Ontario, the upwards pressure on the value of the Canadian dollar flowing from the growth in energy commodity exports presents profound problems for value-added economic activities, the outputs of which become less and less competitive in potential export markets as the dollar rises. The situation also reinforces the fractures between the provinces like Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and, sometimes, BC, who see their futures in a post-carbon global economy, and those, like Alberta and Saskatchewan, who seem determined precisely to prevent the emergence of such an economy.

The narrowness of the Conservative government’s vision carries with it substantial political risks for the government itself. Like the Harris government in Ontario, in which a number of Mr. Harper’s key ministers (Flaherty, Clement and Baird) first served, the Harper government clearly regards environmental concerns as unimportant, and indeed seems unable to grasp how anyone could regard them as being as significant as the economic potential of natural resources development.

The consequence has been a series of blindsiding of the government by environmental issues. The Obama administration’s unexpected (in the government’s eyes) rejection of the Keystone pipeline project this week is just latest example of this pattern. The government’s early attempts to walk away from the climate change file in 2006 and 2007 prompted a resurgence of public concern for the environment and climate change in particular, and compelled it to look as if it had some intention to act, at least for a little while. Canada’s lonely and almost universally condemned exit from the Kyoto Protocol looks like yet another colossal environmental miscalculation, this time on the international stage.

The government’s calculus on the Northern Gateway project looks equally faulty. The Prime Minister and natural resources minister’s public statements in support of the project seem to invite a judicial review of any National Energy Board decision in its favour on the basis that the board could not be seen as acting independently in the face of their remarks. For the BC First Nations affected by the project, the factums regarding the failure of the federal government to fulfill its “duty to consult” with them regarding proposed activities on territories subject to unresolved claims of aboriginal title in a meaningful and substantive way virtually write themselves.

As disturbing as the government’s behaviour has been, the apparent inability of either of the major opposition parties to mount an effective response to the challenges and opportunities presented by the government’s actions and statements has been even more distressing. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has at least attempted to mount some sort of response, (http://www.elizabethmay.ca/blog/an-open-letter-to-joe-oliver/) but is faced with the realities of the boundaries of what a single independent MP can do. The NDP opposition, shattered by the loss of leader Jack Layton, and now lost in the midst of a leadership contest, seems at times to have disappeared off the face of the earth.

As for the Liberals, in face of the government’s attack on the environment, public discourse, civil society and aboriginal rights (to say nothing of the tough on crime legislation, abolition of the long-gun registry, dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board, and deconditionalization of federal health care funding to the provinces), the best that the party that claims the mantle of Laurier, Pearson and Trudeau has been able to offer is proposals to legalize pot and abolish the monarchy – hardly compelling responses to the current situation.

One would think that the government’s directions represent a significant enough attack on what are thought to be core values of both the New Democrats and Liberals that more forceful and effective responses are warranted regardless of their leadership situations. If nothing else the stunningly narrow regional and economic frame within which the government has positioned itself offers a tremendous opportunity to the both parties to appeal to both the voices of moderation in the fossil fuel exporting provinces and to the more than eighty per cent of the Canadian population that constitutes what Premier Charest terms “the others.” It also presents an invitation to offer a vision more in line with that of the overwhelming majority of Canadians who have consistently and decisively rejected the sort of environment protection vs. economic development dichotomy favoured by the government over the 25 years in which pollsters have asked questions on the topic.

The one thing that does seem certain is the government’s next move. A further gutting of what remains of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is clearly on tap through the implementing legislation for the next federal budget. Fixed timelines for environmental assessment reviews, regardless of the complexity of the project under evaluation are clearly in the cards. What else might lie ahead is anyone’s guess, but the Harper government seems to be setting the table for a major, and potentially profoundly divisive debate about the future of Canada’s environment and economy.

The Importance of ‘Listening’ in International Climate Change Conferences

Published by

This blog is cross-published and also available on the CC-RAI website: http://www.climateconsortium.ca/

As a graduate student from York University, I had the opportunity to attend the United Nations’ Conference of Parties (COP17) in Durban, South Africa this December. The experience helped me understand that climate justice is about knowing when to stop talking and start listening. It is about humility and creating institutional opportunities for the people who are most affected by climate change to voice their concerns.

During a COP17 protest, I sat down under a tree beside a group of rural women from Northern Cape, South Africa. They were tired, hungry, and thirsty from protesting all day, but they were there to fight for agricultural and land reform. I have tried to understand their cause, but I was left confused by their passion and determination for climate justice. My situation was a lot more different than theirs: I live a relatively comfortable life in Canada as a student researching climate change policies. I do not know what it means to have limited opportunities when your family goes hungry because of a shortage of food caused by climate change. I went to South Africa with a desire to better understand the Conference of Parties as a policy platform. However, I have quickly learned to stop asking pre-determined questions and just start listening. My lesson in the importance of listening can further be applied to the new ways that climate justice can be incorporated into the institutional structure of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the many programs that are part of this greater scheme.

The current market-based approach in the UNFCCC to regulate greenhouse gases is supported by some and opposed by others. An interesting aspect of COP17 was how these different opinions were concentrated in different physical locations. The physical structure of COP17 in South Africa can be divided into three main physical spaces. There was the Durban Exhibition Centre, which has over two hundred information booths from various research institutes, NGOs, and private companies; this was also the location of various panel discussions on the technicalities of UN’s programs as well as discussions on private and public involvement. The official place for governmental negotiations on international climate change initiatives was the International Conference Centre. In these two spaces there was very little opposition, with the exception of a number of civil society groups such as GreenPeace and the Canadian Youth Delegation, against a market-based approach in mitigating climate change.

The third location, a park called the “speakers corner”, became a public space where people from different parts of the world would gather to express their dissatisfaction with carbon markets and governmental inaction. The plurality of voices in this space provided different opinions on what can be considered adequate and realistic action on climate change. That said, the majority of protesters were against a profit-based approach and were either calling for more participatory, accountable, and transparent UN climate negotiations or the disposal of the current process and the establishment of a new system that would be based on peoples-solutions to climate change. I believe that there is space for both - the governmental and peoples-driven approaches to climate change - but the key to success is greater interaction between these two systems.

A recognized advantage for the majority of the world’s population during COP17, relative to other COPs, was that this conference took place on African soil. This presented an opportunity for many civil society people from Africa and Asia to be able to attend this international conference and place ‘climate justice’ on center stage by either protesting or participating in panel discussions. ‘Climate justice’ is based on the understanding that industrialized countries such as Canada and the United States are historically responsible for the current climate crises whereas ‘developing’ countries and lower-income communities (including communities in the ‘developed’ world) will be most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. In the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  (1992) the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ principle was introduced to outline that both ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries needed to introduce different measures to combat climate change as per their different responsibilities and capacities. This principle is arguably being eroded by the pressures of certain big players such as United States and Canada to incorporate ‘developing’ countries into a legally-binding climate agreement while refusing to provide adequate financial support to help developing countries develop their economies sustainably. Placing a greenhouse gas emissions’ cap on certain developing countries would limit their economic development. For this reason, a number of developing countries, including India, have been very vocal about ‘equity’ and ‘right to development’ during COP17 and in future international climate negotiations. The ‘climate justice’ slogan became a common sight and chant during COP17 protests. What does ‘climate justice’ mean now after the signing of the Durban deal where countries have agreed to move forward with a legally binding agreement that will incorporate the ‘developing’ world?

‘Climate justice’ in future COPs should be about creating the right institutional opportunities for those who are currently lacking the space to voice their concerns and propose their different solutions. In short, ‘climate justice’ is about recognizing that industrialized countries have a circumstantial privilege in not only dealing with climate-change impacts but also during climate change negotiations at the United Nations level. Countries such as Canada and the United States need to learn when to stop talking and start listening. Although COP17 proved to be the fertile ground to explore the realities of many developing countries that are already being disproportionately affected by climate change, the institutional structure and negotiation climate at COP17 did not place enough emphasis on the importance of listening. The official delegates were in Durban to represent their government’s perspective and their national interests. However, it must be recognized that it is in their interests to hear what others, including the protesters, have to say about climate change. The protesting of many people from around the world on climate change was often categorized as unrealistic and unpractical opinions. But the conversations that happened at protests contain valuable information on how to approach ‘climate justice’ in international climate change policy and should inform the future development of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. ‘Climate justice’ is about meaningful dialogue between developed and developing countries, private and public sector representatives, and the national delegates and the people.

 

css.php