Skip to main content

Blogs

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.

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

Ontario’s Electricity Election – Published in the Toronto Star

Published by

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

Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives have enjoyed a long-standing lead in the polls in the run up to the October 6th Ontario provincial election, but the race has tightened considerably over the past two months. With the PCs, Liberals, NDP and Greens moving into full election mode, the outcome now looks like anyone’s guess. What we do know is that the issues of electricity and energy are likely to be central to the campaign.

The electricity sector in Ontario has been in turmoil for the better part of the last two decades, following the Harris government’s experiments with a competitive market model for the system. Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government was seen to make a decisive move in the direction of ‘greening’ the system through its 2009 Green Energy and Green Economy Act, establishing a feed-in-tariff system for renewable energy projects. But the government’s behaviour on the file became increasingly contradictory following the departure of the legislation’s architect, Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman in the fall of 2009. The government abruptly went, for example, from providing incentives for off-shore wind development to imposing ban on such projects this past spring.

The Liberals have now clearly decided make ‘green’ energy a wedge issue against Hudak’s Tories, who have promised to repeal the 2009 legislation. The green energy focus offers the government some potentially significant electoral advantages, particularly among younger voters for whose loyalty the Liberals are competing with the NDP and Greens. The complication for the Liberals is that you can’t claim to be all that green when, regardless of the Green Energy Act, your are irrevocably committed (as the government seems to be) to keeping the province’s electricity system 50% nuclear in a post-Fukishima world.

PC Leader Tim Hudak is a politician who has lived by the catchy sound bite, epitomized by his party’s powerpointish ‘changebook’ platform. But now the Conservative leader finds himself in deepening waters as questions from the media, municipalities and the public, aware of where the same sort of content thin platform has lead Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, grow about what Hudak would actually do on complex files like electricity.
The Tories have already been vilified in the press for their suggestion that they can make the billions in debt, largely left over from the old Ontario Hydro’s nuclear projects, that underlie the debt retirement charge appearing on Ontarians’ electricity bills, magically disappear. Otherwise, beyond repeal of the Green Energy Act, the PCs have been decidedly vague on what their actual plans for the electricity system are. Recent work by the Pembina Institute has made clear that abandonment of the commitment to green energy would actually do very little to reduce electricity rates. At the same time it would increase the risks of higher costs and environmental impacts as a result of the need to rely more heavily on natural-gas fired power plants instead of wind and other renewables.

The number of new solar and other renewable energy installations apparent to anyone travelling the Ontario countryside this summer raises another question – whether the Tories have miscalculated the appeal of the Act’s feed–in-tariff system in their own rural heartland.

Andrea Horwath’s NDP has presented a platform that is strong on energy efficiency and in its opposition to both new nuclear faculties and further refurbishments of existing ones. But its commitments on energy efficiency are undermined in part by the party’s promise to remove the HST from energy bills, and thereby reduce the incentives to consumers to conserve. A better strategy would be to target support specifically at the impact of the HST on low-income Ontarians.

The NDP platform contains another, even bigger contradiction, proposing to put Ontario Power Generation in charge of the large scale development of renewable energy in the province. Presumably the product of an effort at reconciliation with the Power Workers’ Union, the proposition would put the future of renewable energy in Ontario in the hands of an institution whose focus and expertise is on ‘hard path’ energy technologies like nuclear and coal.

Mike Schreiner’s Greens, for their part, share a certain amount of energy policy space with the NDP, with a strong focus on energy efficiency and conservation and opposition to new nuclear facilities. But while the NDP proposes to put Ontario Power Generation at the helm of renewable energy development the Greens emphasize locally-owned, community-based combined heat and power and renewable energy projects and the possibility of imports of hydroelectricity from Quebec and Manitoba. But the Greens’ platform also plays to local opponents of renewable energy projects, making references to “restoring” local decision-making over energy projects, an idea shared by Progressive Conservatives.

So far, none of the parties has put together a compelling picture of how they intend to stabilize the province’s electricity system and put it on a path to environmental and economic sustainability. They all deserve to face tough questions about their electricity plans as the campaign unfolds.

Should Ontario implement a cap-and-trade system even if other jurisdictions keep putting it off?

Published by

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

Going into this fall’s provincial election the leaders of the Liberal, Progressive Conservative and New Democratic Parties rejected a call from Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner to introduce a price on carbon, either through a carbon tax or a cap and trade system. All three parties argued that other jurisdictions in Canada and the US are backing away carbon pricing, and that therefore Ontario should to the same to make sure that our industries are not put at a competitive disadvantage. Only the Green Party, currently running at less than 5 per cent in opinion polls, has endorsed the idea of introducing a carbon tax in Ontario. But Pricing carbon is essential to fulfilling Ontario’s existing commitments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It will help prevent what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has termed “dangerous climate change.” And it is in our economic interest as well.

The reality of climate change means that widespread introduction of carbon pricing is almost certain to happen in the next five to ten years. Introducing carbon pricing now will signal to Ontario’s industries that they need to invest in energy efficiency, low carbon technologies, and renewable energy sources that will enable them complete in the carbon constrained world to come. Industries in jurisdictions that put off introducing carbon pricing will be at a disadvantage when that reality hits.

Ontario is already committed to participating in the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) cap and trade system. This gives Ontario a seat at the table in designing the rules for cap and trade that is likely to strongly influence whatever system for controlling GHG emissions emerges in North America. This ensures Ontario industries are not unfairly impacted by whatever system is established.

Finally, while debate on a GHG emission cap and trade system is on hold in the U.S. for now, we know, based on past Congressional bills, that any national legislation the U.S. adopts will include provisions for trade penalties against any jurisdiction with less stringent GHG emission reduction systems than its own. Participating with BC, Quebec, Manitoba and the leading US States on the climate change issue in the WCI cap and trade system is one of our best guarantees of maintaining access to the US market no matter what the US Congress does.

Analyses by the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy and others suggest that only a few sectors in Ontario – cement, steel, and parts of the pulp and paper and chemical manufacturing industries – would be vulnerable to competitiveness impacts as a result of the introduction of carbon pricing. The situation of these types of energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries can be addressed in the design of a carbon tax or cap and trade system, and through other forms of transitional assistance.

While it seems most of Ontario’s political leaders would like the climate change issue to just go away, that just isn’t going to happen. Rather, Ontario’s best route to safeguarding its environmental and economic interests is to move forward with a carbon pricing system now, before its too late.

Climate change and water issues in Umbumbulu, South Africa

Published by

Members of Umbumbulu drawing a map of community and water resources at a participatory local assessment workshop.

This past week, I visited Umbumbulu, a village in the outskirts of eThekwini municipality, where Umphilo waManzi (which means 'Water for Life' in isiZulu) was conducting a participatory local assessment workshop on water resources and climate change there with representatives of the community.  The workshop is part of IRIS’ IDRC-DFID Climate Change Adaptation in Africa project, titled Strengthening the role of civil society in water sector governance towards climate change adaptation in African cities – Durban, Maputo, Nairobi. The project is linking university researchers from the University of KwaZulu Natal and community-based NGOs (Umphilo waManzi) through a participatory action research (PAR) and action research (AR) approach.

Umphilo waManzi is carrying out this research in four communities around eThekwini municipality: Ntuzuma, Mzinyathi, Mpumalanga, and Mbumbulu.  The first stage of the project aims to engage communities to characterize how they are coping with climate change impacts, with a focus on water, which Umphilo is doing through the participatory workshops.  The maps and charts, produced by community members will serve as a framework to identify climate vulnerabilities and strengths and weaknesses with regards to water services, availability and quality.  The focus of the workshops is to value the indigenous knowledge within these communities and document their experiences.

The assessment process consists of four exercises.  First, participants create a spatial map illustrating the location of resources in the community in relation to water and community development.

A map of the Umgeni river around Ntuzuma community. The community lies downstream from Inanda dam.

Second, a timeline of significant events in the community is created with a particular focus on issues of flooding, drought, storms, etc. over the last 30 years.  Third, a time trend is created to represent how the significant events identified in the timeline, such as flooding and drought have impacted the community in terms of housing, land quality, water quality, river health, food security, etc.  Finally, participants create a Venn diagram to illustrate the sociopolitical environment in the community, illustrating relationships between community services, government agencies, and traditional councils.  The Venn diagram helps the community identify whom they can approach with their concerns and which services they can access to help them adapt.  For example, in Umbumbulu, community members expressed interest in working with agricultural extension officers from the provincial Department of Agriculture, Environmental Affairs, and Rural Development to learn about drought resistant crops.

In the Umbumbulu workshop, participants expressed particular concern over issues of flooding and increased rainfall in the area.  The day I visited, followed three days of heavy rainfall in the region, extremely rare for the month of July, which falls during South Africa’s winter and dry season.  Flooding from previous rainfalls has caused damage to crops, housing and infrastructure, such as roads and sanitation services.  This past January there were a number of deaths by drowning in the community from the rivers swelling from heavy rainfall.  People at the meeting were particularly concerned about the destruction of housing and sanitation facilities, particularly urine diversion toilets, from flooding.  Many houses have been built in wetlands and in the floodplain, where homes are particularly vulnerable to water damage.  The community has also experienced periods of drought and community members raised issues around harvesting tanks, accessibility of standpipes and food security.

Members of Umbumbulu learning how to create a timeline of significant events related to their water resources in the community.

The second stage of the project will begin to look at creating action plans for the four communities and training for community members on how to bring their issues forward to the local officials and advocate for programs and services.  The hope is that community members and local officials will be able to work together to prepare for climate change impacts.  In particular, the aim is that community responses to these issues now will help build up resiliency against water vulnerability from further climatic changes.

Beth Lorimer is a 3-month research intern with York University’s IDRC-DFID Climate Change Adaptation in Africa project, titled Strengthening the role of civil society in water sector governance towards climate change adaptation in African cities – Durban, Maputo, Nairobi.  She is currently in Durban, South Africa working with Umphilo waManzi.

The Challenges of Green Marketing in The Age of Persuasion

Published by

I am an unabashed Public Radio junkie. All of my Sony Ericsson Walkman phones back to 2006, have not only had integrated flashlights but also functioned as transistor radios, allowing me to be permanently hooked up to CBC Radio 1, or to BBC and NPR Podcasts.

This week's award-winning Age of Persuasion Episode is titled "It's Not Easy Being Green: Green Marketing" and is one of my three essential Podcast episodes of 2011*.

Rachel-Carson-Bridge-in-PittsburghTerry begins with Rachel Carson (that's her bridge in Pittsburgh) and then traces the history of environmentally conscious consumerism, linking it to how marketers and advertisers have shaped their campaigns for sustainable, green goods. In  2007, 300,000 green trademarks were registered with patent offices, which is more than the number of trademarks and patents sought at the height of the dot.com boom.

The three main take-home messages are:

1. "Beginning with the publication of Silent Spring in 1962... various environmental crises have provoked behavioural change and new behavioural changes created new demands from the public." Responding to these demands for new products (such as sun protection lotions following the discovery of the ozone hole) has required "very delicate, very careful marketing on behalf of advertisers".

In green marketing, the public wants to know the motives of companies immediately, and green marketing ignites scrutiny.

2. "One of the biggest problems for marketers is that sustainability is a moving target. And there haven't been any universally-accepted baselines or calculators." E.g. "Are paper products green and good or, do they flatten forests? Is glass eco-friendly or, does it take a lot more fuel to transport glass than it does plastic? Is cotton one of the most natural products in the world or, is cotton one of the world's biggest pesticide crops? It's a very complicated issue."

3. The fatal mistake when it comes to green marketing is that "virtue cannot be proclaimed in green marketing". Smart marketers stay humble in their green marketing, so that the customer and press spread the word about green and ethical companies. Accusations of "Greenwashing", the deceptive use of green marketing or PR (Jay Westerveld, 1986), are likely to be targeted at green marketing campaigns with over-the-top claims, and to have major consequences.

The most cited example of Greenwashing is the rebranding of British Petroleum (BP) as Beyond Petroleum. The campaign strategy was to rebrand BP as a progressive energy company, bp. The rebranding implied that wind and solar were being invested in heavily by BP, but the reality was that BP was investing more than ever in oil exploration. (And, was recently rebranded, and not by themselves, but the public, as Biggest Polluter).

This brilliant episode of The Age of Persuasion ended with the correct observation about the contradiction that lies at the heart of green marketing: that being sustainable means consuming less, while marketing is about encouraging people to consume more. Nevertheless, he goes on to conclude, that the main task of green marketing is to normalize those high quality, truly green products, that are sustainable across multiple social and environmental indicators.

And, from Bruce Philp's new book, The Consumer Republic: "Buy the change you wish to see in the world."

Congratulations, Terry!

Dawn Bazely

*My other two top Podcasts for 2011, so far...

July 26th  2011 Interview of David Altman by Jian Ghomeshi on Q, CBC, about the rise of narcissism in North America: http://www.cbc.ca/q/episodes/

July 2nd  2011 interview of Lori Gottlieb by Jian Ghomeshi on Q, CBC, about how overparenting is creating brittle youth who lack resiliency because their parents have not allowed them to learn how to recover from failure.

The Green Marketing Manifesto by John Grant, was Terry's essential background reading.

Welcome to IRIS’ new Director for 2011-12, Prof. Stepan Wood: Dawn’s last post as Director

Published by

In the first six months of 2011, the time absolutely whizzed by. In fact, in the 5 years, since I took on the assignment of being Director of IRIS, time has accelerated ever more rapidly. I began my third 12-month sabbatical on July 1st 2011 - they happen every 7 years - but it was not until the end of July that I have finally cleared off the last of several administrative obligations. When I tell friends and family that I am on sabbatical, they generally look on with envy and quite a few sarcastic comments. This is not surprising, because not many careers have the built in idea of a sabbatical. BUT, just to give an idea of how hectic my life was in June, just before the sabbatical began: I squeezed in field work in Iceland and business meetings in Oxford University during  a 10-day family vacation to see aged relatives! Here's some shots of grass collecting in Iceland!

 

 

 

 

 

I am very excited about two things for this sabbatical:

1. Getting up and working a nice 10-15 hour day in which I work on my own top priority projects, rather than having to prioritize the administrative tasks required to support other people.

2. Getting to be a student again, and learning a lot of new stuff.

During my last sabbatical in 2004-05, I wrote an article for University Affairs about being a harassed, overworked working parent of young children and trying to have a successful sabbatical. On rereading it, I found that my advice to readers, was actually helpful to me six years on!

I started planning for my current sabbatical two years ago. I will be spending 6 months at Harvard Forest on a Charles Bullard Fellowship finishing a book that I started writing 10 years ago. After that, I will be going back to the Zoology Department in Oxford University, where I did my doctorate. I will be a Visiting Scholar in the group of Prof. Kathy Willis, at the Long-Term Ecology Lab., where I will write another book. But before this blog reader goes all misty-eyed, yes, that IS Oxford's picturesque Radcliffe Camera, with my daughters standing infront, a few weeks ago, but to right, is a shot of the very 70's concrete Zoology building. Squeezed in between my time at Harvard and Oxford, I will be attending conferences and workshops, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2012 AGM, where the symposium that I proposed and am organizing with former York U student, Dr. Andrew Tanentzap, "Making Progress on Wicked Problems Through Interdisciplinary Collaborations" was successful in the peer-reviewed adjudication competition!

 

 

 

 

 

This sabbatical will be quite different from my previous one, when I did three separate one month trips to Sweden, and hung out in the basement at the Massey College Library at the University of Toronto, for the rest of the time. Together, with the Librarian, P J MacDougall, I wrote a cool article for Trellis, the Toronto Botanical Garden newsletter, about the Victorian gardening writer, James Shirley Hibberd, "A Victorian Google".

During the next year, IRIS will be very ably led by Prof. Stepan Wood of Osgoode Hall Law School, whom I am delighted to welcome back from a very successful Sabbatical Year in Italy. I hope that he will find time to blog, but he will probably find himself in the same mega-time-crunch boat that I did. On the other hand, I hope to be blogging more in the next year about my travels, and posting in the regular blog part of IRIS. The work that I will be doing, relates to sustainability, and specifically, habitat conservation and restoration, as well as to oil and gas and energy security.

I wish Stepan and the IRIS community, the very best for a productive  year, and I hope to see some of you in Harvard and Oxford.

Dawn Bazely

 

C17 July Meeting: The Movement’s Progress

Published by

The Civil Society Committee for COP17 (the committee is known as C17) is a grassroots organization dedicated to making civil society’s climate concerns heard at the upcoming 17th annual Conference of the Parties (COP17) in Durban, South Africa in November and December of 2011. COP17 will pick up where COP16 (in Cancun) left off, which, according to some expert opinion, is at a point of insufficient progress.

On July 5, 2011, C17 met at Durban’s Botanic Gardens Education Centre. At the meeting, I observed an interesting mix of harmony and disharmony among the various organizations and individuals in attendance. This can be expected, given the range of organizations and individuals present. One of the biggest questions that must be asked is the question of how much progress was made at the meeting (not an easy question to answer in my opinion). I must also concede that this was my first C17 meeting and as such I am in no position to comment on the progress that was made prior to the meeting.

One of the primary purposes of the meeting was to determine a list of principles that C17 should stand for. After small groups discussed the principles, all votes were tallied and universally agreed upon principles were noted. Some attendees felt that the process for deciding which principles for C17 to follow was itself flawed and undemocratic. This stemmed from the fact that if only one single person in attendance didn’t agree with one principle, it would be instantly and permanently scrapped.

All in all, of the 25 principles set out, only 4 were agreed upon:
• Demand a binding agreement for emissions reductions
• Pledge and review system is unacceptable
• Environmentally sustainable, socially just and equitable development
• Safeguard biodivertiy and peoples’ rights

However, several principles were almost agreed upon. That is to say that several principles were agreed upon by all groups except one or two, who made minor alterations to the principle but still ultimately agreed on it (even as little an alteration as changing “drastically reduce fossil fuel emissions” to “reduce fossil fuel emissions”). This left some universally desired principles off the agreed-upon list, with altered principles perhaps to be voted on at a later date.

The presentation delivered from a government official left most attendees disappointed. The government presenter arrived late (thereby forcing a last-minute schedule change), gave a presentation that confused the majority of attendees, and then left without actually attempting to settle the confusion. The presentation was rife with acronyms unknown to almost the entire audience. Even though attendees mentioned to her that members of the audience were confused, she nevertheless failed to explain herself. She agreed to explain the acronyms “sooner or later” yet this never happened.

Another item on the agenda was to decide on a name for the side event venue thus far simply known as ‘the space.’ A relatively unimportant (albeit necessary) decision in my opinion, yet the disagreement that came about from this decision reflected the disagreements occurring throughout the day. The democratically voted-upon name was Amandla oMa, meant to mean “Power to Mother Earth” in Zulu. However, due to discrepancies surrounding the correct translation, the name for ‘the space’ has yet to be decided.

All in all, some progress was achieved to be sure. One notable example was the amount of attendees who signed themselves up to volunteer for C17 as well as events that were registered, mostly to be held during the COP17 conference in ‘the space.’ Of course, progress during meetings of such diverse points of view cannot be expected to come particularly easily or swiftly. Having said this, the movement still seems to be alive and somewhat well, and I am hopeful that any obstacles at this stage can be overcome in the crucial months leading up to COP17.

Flushing out the realities of urine diversion toilets in South Africa’s eThekwini municipality

Published by

Urine diversion toilet with dual chamber in eThekwini Municipality

If you worked for a municipality and were tasked with implementing a plan to provide some 40,000 households with sanitation on a limited budget and a strained water supply system, how would you carry out this challenging task?   After attending a workshop on the social implications of urine-diversion toilets, an innovative, environmentally sensitive type of sanitation, in South Africa’s eThekwini municipality, the complexities of such a task and the challenges of sanitation became glaringly evident.  The workshop was delivered by Umphilo waManzi, a water services advocacy organization based in Durban, South Africa, that is conducting an action research project on urine diversion (UD) toilets.   Since 2006, eThekwini municipality has been working to provide over a half million residents with UD toilets in peri-urban and rural areas of the municipality.  According to eThekwini’s Water & Sanitation programme, “the urine diversion toilet is a form of waterless ecological sanitation designed to separate urine and feces so that the fecal matter remains dry and rendered disease free for safe handling over time.”  The toilet has an opening in the front for passing urine, which is directed to a soak-away pit, and a large one at the back for the passing of feces.  See Case Study: Urine Diversion Technology.  The toilets used by eThekwini have two vaults—when the first vault is full, the pedestal can be moved across to the second vault.  This allows time for the first to be sealed and begin the composting process.

Schematic of a urine-diversion toilet

The push for UD toilets was driven by shortcomings of ventilated pit latrines (VIPs), which are found in most townships of South Africa.  The UD toilets provide a cost-effective form of on-site sanitation, which is needed in most peri-urban and rural parts of the municipality where water-borne sewerage is currently unavailable.  For the municipality, providing proper sanitation is imperative to avoid costly public health outbreaks, such as cholera.  However, the implementation of UD toilets has been met with mixed-reviews by the residents that use them, as well as municipal officials, academics, and civil society.  In some areas of the municipality, the toilets have been accepted and are being used with little issue.  On the other hand, Umphilo waManzi’s action research in the community indicates a long list of issues, including a lack of consultation with community members about operation and maintenance, construction problems, hygiene challenges, and other social issues, such as the use of these facilities by people with disabilities.

There is also a huge responsibility on the residents to maintain the toilets.  Residents are responsible for pouring sand over fecal matter after each use to prevent odour and flies.  They are also responsible for emptying the chambers once they are full and the matter has desiccated.  The “compost” must be buried underground and a tree planted on top to mark the burial spot.  With a high-degree of responsibility being placed on residents to maintain the UDs, the need to remove the taboo around the handling of fecal matter has also become a challenge.

Also, there have been serious issues in areas where on one side of the road residents have water-borne sewerage and flush toilets, and on the other side of the road, residents have UD toilets.  Despite the large amounts of capital required to increase water-borne sewerage to peri-urban and rural areas of the municipality, this division of service is creating an urban bias for municipal services, which is contentious.  Residents on the fringes are being asked to conserve water for the sake of residents in the urban core, who use flush toilets and have higher water use habits in general.  In some areas, the toilets are being outright rejected—being used as maintenance sheds for tools, rather than for their intended purpose.  In an attempt to garner support from the masses for these toilets, the municipality is planning to construct UD toilets in its new office building in the downtown area—perhaps a symbolic gesture, or maybe a step in the right direction.

Furthermore, increased rainfall and flooding from climate change impacts in the region will pose interesting challenges to how UD toilets are constructed and maintained.  Researchers from the University of KwaZulu Natal’s Pollution Research Group in Durban have been studying more scientifically the composition of fecal matter from UD toilets and the effects of nitrate leaking from the urine soak-away pits into local groundwater sources.  Together with Umphilo waManzi, they are beginning to share information regarding the health concerns and social implications of these toilets.  Hopefully, this information and knowledge from the community can be shared with the municipality to address some of the issues and improve sanitation service delivery.

Beth Lorimer is on a 3-month research intern with York University’s IDRC-DFID Climate Change Adaptation in Africa project, titled Strengthening the role of civil society in water sector governance towards climate change adaptation in African cities – Durban, Maputo, Nairobi. She is currently in Durban, South Africa interning at Umphilo waManzi, which means  ‘Water for Life’ in isiZulu.

 

The City of Toronto’s Core Service Review

Published by

As my previous postings have referenced, I am working for the Toronto Environment Office for the summer. It is an extremely interesting time to be working for the municipal government. Last week, the Core Service Review, conducted by KPMG, recommended that the City undertake a number of changes and reductions in its environmental protection and improvement activities to help the city realize cost savings and close the deficit gap.

Political leanings and ideology aside, this is a great example of how our government works and the democratic process. On Thursday July 21, the public is invited to provide deputations (in person or written) expressing their opinion about these proposed reductions. 

As an MBA student focusing in both sustainability and organizational change, I am very interested in the outcomes of this process. How will the vision, mission, and activities of the Toronto Environment Office evolve? How will these changes be communicated not only to TEO staff, but within City Hall and to the general public? How will the key decision makers obtain buy in from key stakeholders?

css.php