Women from around the world are mobilising today to call for action on climate change as international leaders meet in New York at the United Nations General Assembly.

"There is no climate justice without gender justice," the movement argues. Solutions and policy demands will be presented in New York City as part of the Global Women’s Climate Justice Day of Action in an effort to highlight the reality that while women are among those most severely vulnerable to the effects of climate change, women are also the "key to creating climate solutions."

The aim is to get political officials to agree “equitable, immediate, and bold action on climate change" as we enter the final two months before the COP21 climate change negotiations in Paris in December. At this time, the Women’s Climate Declaration will be presented to world governments.

Connecting Women

“Women around the world are facing the impacts of the climate crisis every day,” said Osprey Orielle Lake, co-founder and executive director of the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network, which helped organise the event. “We are issuing a wake-up call to the world that the time has come for bold action to address the roots of the climate crisis, with women’s leadership at the forefront.”

Among the women speaking at the event in New York are Mary Robinson, the UN special envoy on climate change, and May Boeve, head of climate campaign group 350.org. Other leading international women speaking include Jacqui Patterson, director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program, Melina Laboucan-Massimo, First Nations and anti-tar sands activist, Jody Williams, American political activist and Nobel Prize laureate, and Patricia Gualinga, international relations director for the indigenous community of Sarayaku in Ecuador.

As Orielle Lake explained, the day of action is “about connecting women working on vital climate projects around the globe. It is about bringing our passion and determination to the surface and manifesting our vulnerabilities and fierce strengths.”

According to the UN, women form a disproportionately large share of the poor. In rural areas and developing countries women are typically the ones responsible for securing water, food and energy for cooking and heating – this dependence on local natural resources makes them highly vulnerable to climate impacts, including drought, uncertain rainfall and deforestation.

And, compared to men in poor countries, women face historical disadvantages such as limited access to decision-making and economic assets, and this further increases the challenges of climate change.

Global Action

This is why it is not just in New York City that women are mobilising. Throughout September, women in over 30 countries have been holding events calling for change.

For example, in the Niger Delta region of West Africa, women held a summit on gender and oil. Meanwhile, in the Amazon Rainforest indigenous women protested fossil fuel extraction in their territories. And, in Canada documentary photography depicts women from across the country seeking to protect water from pollution.

As the UN argues, it is “imperative that a gender analysis be applied to all actions on climate change and that gender experts are consulted in climate change processes at all levels, so that women's and men’s specific needs and priorities are identified and addressed.”

Melissa S. United States

Hala Alhaffar. Damascus, Syria

In addition to asking for a transition away from fossil fuels, protection of our forests and oceans, and increased funding for adaptation, the Women’s Climate Declaration lays out a series of gender-conscious demands. These include: a gender-responsive climate change policy and programme; recognising that gender-sensitive climate policy benefits men, women, children and the planet; and respecting and learning from the traditional ecological knowledge, wisdom and experience of the world’s indigenous peoples.

It argues: “Unsustainable consumption and production reverses development gains in the global North and the global South: Women and men of industrialized nations have a responsibility to educate themselves, examine their worldviews, commit to action, and lead by example.

“No one person, organization, community, province, region, or nation is capable of solving the challenge of climate change alone. This is a time for collaboration at a global level as never before required.”

Photo: 350.org via Flickr / Omnia Abdallah, Khartoum Sudan

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Cities are responsible for 70 per cent of global CO2 emissions but they can save the planet by greening one community at a time said Vancouver’s David Cadman at the close of the ICLEI World Congress 2015, the triennial sustainability summit of local governments in Seoul, South Korea.

“We can do it. We must do it,” Cadman, the retiring president of Local Governments for Sustainability, told some 1,500 delegates from nearly 1,000 cities and local governments in 96 countries on April 11.

The majority of climate actions and most plans to reduce CO2 emissions are happening at the city level, Cadman told DeSmog Canada in Seoul.

Vancouver and 50 other cities have committed to 100 per cent renewable energy and 500 more are part of ICLEI’s Cities Climate Registry that documents verifiable CO2 emission reduction actions and commitments that amounted to 2.8 billion tons a year in 2014.

Cadman, a former City of Vancouver councillor, has been president of ICLEI since 2006. It’s an international organization headquartered in Bonn, Germany, with 280 staff and 23 other offices scattered around the globe. ICLEI, which stands for International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, started 25 years ago in Toronto to help cities become more sustainable. It now goes by the more manageable name of "Local Governments for Sustainability," but still uses the original acronym.

Canada’s federal and provincial governments were very strong supporters in the early days but the past decade has been very different.

“We seem to be chained to the fossil energy industry in Canada and it’s pulling us down. Cities and organizations can hardly dare to speak out about this now,” he said.

Germany was only too happy to bring ICLEI to Bonn eight years ago and has been generous with its support, along with the European Union. Now the organization is experiencing what is being called an “Asian pivot,” with the mayor of Seoul, Park Won Soon, as the new president.

Park has helped Seoul to become one of the world’s leaders on sustainable development. With 11 million people and growing fast, Seoul will reduce its energy use and increase renewable generation including rolling out 40,000 solar panels to households by 2018 and 15,000 electric vehicles. By 2030, CO2 emissions will be cut 40 per cent.

“Action on climate will be by local governments no matter what national governments decide,” Park Won Soon told DeSmog Canada.

“We need to act quickly, we need to act energetically,” the mayor said.

China’s megacities are also joining ICLEI. At the congress, Hailong Li, deputy secretary general of the China Eco-city Council said the country will have 100 low-carbon eco-cities by 2017. That will drive down the costs of energy efficiency and renewable energy, Li said.

China also intends to become an expert on eco-construction and to market its expertise to the rest of the developing world.

By 2030 another 3.5 billion people will be living in cities so it is absolutely critical that the infrastructure be sustainable said Cadman who will continue to be active as special representative to the new ICLEI President.

“I’m 70 now and need to reduce my workload. My wife says she’d like me to be around a bit longer.”

Canadian cities could also do more and sooner if they had the support of provincial and federal governments, he said. That may be changing at the provincial level with growing support for various forms of carbon taxes that will help generate funds and financial incentives to reduce emissions.

“The provinces are doing the heavy-lifting on climate while the Harper government sits on the sidelines.”

Fossil fuels are in decline — divestment is taking off and investments are shifting to renewable energy. There’ll be no pipelines to the West Coast and no new investments in the oilsands, Cadman said.

Even in B.C., the hoped-for markets for LNG may not exist with China building gas pipelines to tap reserves in Iran and Russia, he said.

“Canada needs to move away from selling raw resources, but is any political party ready to go there?”

Image Credit: David Cadman and Park Won Soon at the World Congress 2015. By Stephen Leahy.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canada could become 100 per cent reliant on low-carbon electricity in just 20 years and reduce its emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, a new study shows.

The report calls for bold policies to be adopted immediately in order for Canada to transition to a sustainable society.

“Twenty years ago Canada was a leader on the climate change file. But today our reputation on this issue is in tatters,” James Meadowcroft, political science professor at Carleton University and one of the report’s authors told DeSmog Canada. “It is time for us to get serious and take vigorous action to move towards a low carbon emission economy.”

The report is a collaboration between 60 Canadian scholars and outlines a 10-point policy framework to achieve dramatic emission reductions. At the top of the list is the need to put a price on carbon which was unanimously recommended by the report’s authors.

“While the Canadian federal government has dragged its feet on the climate issue, there is good news from many of the provincial governments,” notes Meadowcroft, the Canada Research Chair in Governance for Sustainable Development.

He pointed to British Columbia’s carbon tax and Quebec’s cap and trade system linked to California as examples where provinces are forging their own promising initiatives.

“But Canada needs a carbon pricing mechanism that extends from coast to coast,” he emphasised. “And there are many other initiatives we can take to fully decarbonizes the electricity system, promote low carbon transport systems and more sustainable cities.”

Transition Process

Other immediate goals recommended by the report include eliminating subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and fully integrating the oil and gas sector into the country’s climate policies.

Green infrastructure must also be supported and aggressive goals for low-carbon electricity must be incorporated into federal and provincial climate action plans.

These short term targets will help trigger wider climate action and reduce emissions, the study explains. Long-term goals should include decarbonising the transport sector and creating a participatory and open governance system to better engage the public.

The transition process must start immediately it emphasises: “As with other past and future major transitions, e.g. industrialization or electrification, there will be controversies and setbacks. Some economic sectors will contract as others expand. The most important aspect of Canadian climate policies is to build a sustainable future starting today.”

As part of this decarbonisation process Canada should adopt an interim target of a 26-28 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 relative to a 2005 baseline the report argues. This would be “in keeping with its historical position of aligning with U.S. targets.”

Paris Climate Conference

The aim is to use these recommendations as the basis for Canada’s planning over the next six months in the run up to the Paris COP21 climate negotiations in December. The report calls for an “intense period of consultation and policy development” until then.

“We believe that putting options on the table is long overdue in Canada and hope that our input will help governments at all levels to make ambitious and thoughtful commitments to emissions reductions before December 2015 and the 2015 Paris-Climate Conference,” the report’s authors write.

Canada has repeatedly failed to back strong climate action at past international climate conferences and has yet to submit its climate targets – known as intended nationally-determined contributions (INDCs) – for the COP21 conference, with the deadline of March 31 fast approaching.

“The time is now ripe to initiate ambitious climate change mitigation efforts,” the report states, noting that “in virtually all cases, our proposals are in line with a number of international and national analyses of viable policy options to decarbonize.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Last week I started to explore the possibility that British Columbia could become a 100 per cent renewable energy region, as 140 regions in. Germany are planning to become.

This week, we look at transportation. Is it possible that we could get where we want to be and ship our goods where they need to go without any use of fossil fuels?

Helsinki, capital of Finland, is taking a big step in this direction, with its goal that by 2025, nobody will need to own a car in the city at all, thanks to an advanced integrated ‘mobility on demand’ network of shared bikes, transit, LRT, and computer-automated Kutsuplus minibuses that adapt their routes to take you wherever you want to go.

The cars, trucks, ferries and planes that we use to go about our daily lives are 38 per cent of the cause of global warming in B.C., so this is clearly a big deal. So let’s start at the easy end, and work our way into the difficult, uncharted territory.[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Have You Ever Tried Cycling in North Vancouver?

Cycling is easy: the bustling city of Copenhagen has already demonstrated that 35 per cent of its commuters can get to work by bike, and many cities in Holland can boast equally good numbers.

“Ah, but it’s flat,” you might respond. “Have you ever tried cycling in North Vancouver?”

“Ah,” I respond, “have you ever tried an electric bike?” Electric bikes defy gravity, making hills vanish with a twist of the hand. In so doing they open up new realms of possibility for older cyclists, and anyone who doubts their ability to cycle a 10 km round trip. Add safe protected bike-lanes, off-road bike trails, clearly marked intersections, good bike-sharing schemes with bike-attached tablets that give GPS based-directions, as they are doing in Copenhagen, and you’ve got a set-up in which cycling becomes irresistible.

There’s a cost to all this, of course – but in Holland, which has 35,000 kilometres of bike paths and spends $580m a year on bicycle infrastructure, the cost is 4.3 cents per kilometre pedaled by each cyclist, compared to 22 cents for a motorist. In other words: it is five times cheaper. For shorter distances of 5km or less the bike will also get you there faster than a car. In Copenhagen, they justify the cost of the bike infrastructure by the health care savings: the health benefit of cycling comes to $1 per km, creating an overall annual benefit to the Danes of some $388 million.

But even so—where will the money come from? It could come from existing transportation budgets, by spending less on roads. It could come from an increase in the gas tax. It could come by changing the way we use income from the carbon tax, spending it on positive climate solutions instead of returning it in tax reductions. It could come from a special green bonds issue. Or it could come from road tolls, which make sense in a post-carbon world when gas taxes will no longer exist. 

1,000 Kilometres a Day – in an Electric Bus

Next up is public transit, bus rapid transit and light rail transit. There are cities all over the world with excellent systems, from Portland to New York, Paris to Tokyo, Curitiba to Bogota. Light rail can be fully electric – and so can a regular bus. There are 100 per cent electric buses on the road without overhead cables in Seoul, Montreal, London, Helsinki, Los Angeles, Edmonton, Geneva (using a 15 second flash charge), Adelaide (solar electric), Umea (Sweden), San Francisco—and soon, everywhere. In the U.S., the Proterra electric bus has set a world record, travelling over 1,000 kilometres in a single day, using rapid fast charging during the day.

In China, the auto-manufacturer BDY recently received an order for 1,800 electric buses that can travel300 km on a single charge, with 1,200 going to Dalian in northeast China and 600 to Nanjing in eastern China. With that kind of range, fast luxury electric coaches travelling into Vancouver from Whistler and the Fraser Valley cannot be far away, equipped with tables, coffee and orange juice.

Next, there’s railways. The West Coast Express from Vancouver to Mission could easily be electrified, as railways are in many parts of the world. If you have never travelled on a fast, comfortable train, you don’t know what you’re missing. When I lived in England, I would regularly take the two-hour ride from South Devon to London. The seats were arranged in groups of four around a table, enabling you to spread out, work, and talk to fellow travellers if you wanted to. When I travelled on a high-speed train across South Korea, averaging 300 kph, the journey was so smooth you hardly knew you were travelling. It’s just a matter of commitment, to make the investment.

In the Lower Mainland, there is an existing Fraser Valley Interurban rail line that runs from New Westminster to Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack where a light rail train could operate, sharing the track with existing goods use. Maybe the rail line that carries coal to Roberts Bank at Tsawwassen could also share the track, allowing a light rail passenger service to operate there too.

The Electric Car – and Pick Up Truck

So now we come to the big one—the electric car. Among those who observe the scene, there is a sense of welcome inevitability that the future of cars and light trucks will be electric.

Not hydrogen fuel cell, since a fuel cell electric vehicle uses three times more energy than a straight EV.

Maybe not biofuel, since progress on second-generation biofuels grown on marginal land is slow, and most biofuel still has a large carbon footprint, with the exception of recycled biodiesel, as distributed by the Cowichan Biodiesel Co-op and other groups.

And not natural gas, since gas is a non-renewable fossil fuel that increasingly depends on fracking for extraction, polluting the groundwater with unknown chemicals and releasing fugitive methane emissions into the atmosphere.

EV prices are falling, and choices are increasing. EV drivers report a really positive driving experience, and B.C.’s charging infrastructure is spreading. If B.C. was to follow Norway’s example, with a well-organized system of incentives, 10 per cent of all new cars sold could be electric. The question is not ‘if,’ but ‘how soon?’

At today’s fuel-prices, a regular car costs $200 a month to lease and $150 for gasoline, which comes to $11 a day. A Nissan Leaf, offered for lease in America for $199 a month, and costing just $10 a month on electricity, comes to $7 a day. With prices like that, anyone who does not drive a leased EV will be losing $4 a day, or $120 a month.

And if you live out in the back-country, where you really need your rugged pick-up truck? They're coming: Tesla has plans for an EV pick-up truck similar to the Ford F-150, and Via Motors already has one on the assembly line. 

The best policy approach to accelerate the EV revolution is simply to set a high standard for fuel efficiency. In Europe, by 2020, new cars will need to produce no more than 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre, reduced from the current 120 g/km. The same approach could be used to reduce emissions to zero, giving auto-manufacturers time to plan and retool. This is not something B.C. could do on its own, however; it would require federal regulation to make it Canada-wide.

Could B.C. Produce Enough Electricity?

Would there be enough electricity if every car and light truck in B.C. were to be electric? If two million electric vehicles each traveled 15,000 kilometres a year at an average 25 kwh per 100 km, each vehicle would use 3,750 kwh a year, totaling 7,500 GWh, compared to the 60,000 GWh that B.C. consumes every year.

Solar PV on half of B.C.’s south-facing rooftops could produce 7,500 GWh a year; alternatively, since a 3 MW wind turbine can produce 7.5 GWh a year, sufficient for 2,000 cars, a thousand turbines could produce the power for two million electric vehicles. A 30 per cent efficiency improvement on every home could free up the same amount of power.

Given the potential for far more travel by bike and transit, a more realistic calculation might be for one million EVs driving 10,000 kilometres a year, resulting in 2,500 GWh of additional demand, or just 4 per cent of B.C.’s current power usage.

The Car-Sharing Revolution

In 1998, just 905 people belonged to carshare groups around the world. By 2012, that number had increased two thousandfold to 1.78 million. By 2020, carsharing revenues are set to hit $6 billion, with12 million members worldwide.

The real breakthrough, however, comes with peer-to-peer carsharing, when people put their cars into a shared rental pool. It started in San Francisco several years ago, and has spread through outfits such as Getaround, Buzzcar, RelayRides and Communauto in Montreal, with owners earning up to $300 a month. It is only a matter of time before it reaches Vancouver and Victoria.

So picture a 100 per cent per cent narrowed, creating space for trees, food and children’s play. With narrower, slower streets come more neighbourhood friendships, more green space, and an increase in our social and ecological wealth. What’s not to like about this future?

Next week: In Part 3, I will explore the more difficult challenge of achieving 100 per cent renewable energy for long-distance trucking, boats, ferries and planes. In Part 4, I will wrap things up by asking how we might be able to achieve all this.

This series originally appeared on the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association website.

Image Credit: Rush hour on the Dunsmuir separated bike lanes by Paul Krueger via Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Is your pension fund or insurance company a leader or laggard when it comes to avoiding risky bets on the future impacts of climate change?

A new survey finds that major Canadian institutional investors — such as the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund, AGF and Manulife Insurance — are not adequately taking into account the long-term financial risks of climate impacts. 

The survey, called the Global Climate Investment Risk, is based on data acquired from 460 funds who were invited to provide data, from members of those funds and using publicly available information. Each fund is rated from AAA to X based on investment mix and recognition of the financial risks that climate change will have now and in the future.

Conducted by the Asset Owners Disclosure Project, the survey concludes that of the 460 funds, only five received a AAA rating, while 173 funds are rated "X" — no Canadian funds received a AAA rating, while 19 were considered "X-rated."

The X-rated companies include well-known financial and government institutions such as: Royal Bank of Canada, Ontario Public Service Pension Plan, Canada Post Corporation, Quebec Teachers and the Pension Plan of Elected Municipal Officers. 

That last one should be of interest to Mayor of Vancouver, Gregor Robertson, who has been a very outspoken leader on climate change and sustainability issues.

"While we can see some leaders emerging, many haven't acknowledged their dangerous and foolhardy addiction to investments riddled with climate risk, let alone checked themselves into rehab," says Julian Poulter, executive director of Asset Owners Disclosure Project. "It's pretty clear through the Index that the big laggard funds continue to be too scared to take on big fossil fuel companies, even though they know there are enormous risks through continuing investing in them."

Sharan Burrow, a board member of Asset Owners Disclosure Project and general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, said: "A majority of the world's investment industry are clearly acting contrary to the interests of those whose money they represent — this is an outrageous situation. It must be remembered that much of the money being held by these organizations is the product of workers' lifelong savings,"

Here are the 10 best funds actively addressing the financial risks of climate change on behalf of their members:

1. Environment Agency Active Pension Fund (UK)

2. Local Government Super (Australian pension fund)

3. CalPERS (US pension fund)

4. Stichting Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW/PGGM) (Dutch pension fund)

5. VicSuper (Australian pension fund)

6. AustralianSuper (pension fund)

7. Government Employees Pension Fund (South Africa)

8. Florida Retirement System Pension Plan

9. BT Super for Life (Australia pension fund)

10. Aviva (UK insurance company)

You can find a complete list of all the investment firms on the Asset Owners Disclosure Project website.

So where is your money in this mix?

Image courtesy of Casual Capture on Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The human tragedy playing out in the Philippines deserves a serious moment of pause. No one aware of the devastating toll Typhoon Haiyan has taken in the region can avoid reflecting on what it must be like to be in the shoes of a mother or a son who has lost everything.

Experts are saying Typhoon Haiyan is the strongest ever recorded due to the atmospheric disruption and rising sea levels resulting from our changing climate.

Scientists at esteemed organization like NASA and the Royal Society have been warning us for years that warmer oceans will lead to stronger weather events, like typhoons and hurricanes, and rising sea levels will lead to larger and more devastating storm surges.

Something is definitely up with the weather. 

Significant Warming Trend Continues

Scientists from the World Meterological Organization (WMO) are already saying 2013 will be one of 10 warmest years on record.

"All of the warmest years have been since 1998, and this year once again continues the underlying, long-term trend. The coldest years now are warmer than the hottest years before 1998," said WMO head Michel Jarraud.

"The Philippines is reeling from Typhoon Haiyan…and is still struggling to recover from a typhoon one year ago," Jarraud added.

"Although individual tropical cyclones cannot be directly attributed to climate change, higher sea levels are already making coastal populations more vulnerable to storm surges."

Canada's Carbon Contribution

Typhoon Haiyan is the latest and most poignant, not to mention the most tragic, example of what is in store for humanity as governments like Canada continue to allow fossil fuel producers to pump carbon pollution into our atmosphere unregulated.

Last year saw record global greenhouse gas emissions and worldwide fossil fuel subsidies to the order of $500 billion.

Canada, after abandoning its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, is failing to meet its new emissions reductions targets under the Copenhagen Agreement. 

So if we know that the intensity and devastating impacts of Typhoon Haiyan are a result of climate change and record levels of industrial greenhouse gas, what is Canada's level of responsibility for what happened in the Philippines?

The impacts of climate change are cruelly disproportionate. The poorest, most vulnerable countries are being hit the hardest, while developed nations, countries like the U.S. and Canada, are responsible for the majority of the climate pollution in the atmosphere.

Canada, who is by far one of the largest producers of greenhouse gas, will likely not see any major impacts of climate change for many decades. The Philippines by comparison is a very minor producer of carbon pollution, but that country is shouldering the climate burden created by high-polluter countries like Canada. 

The Burden of Responsibility 

Individual Canadians cannot be blamed for what happened in the Philippines. Yet there is still a conversation to be had about the role nations and governments play in the international failure to mitigate climate change.

As individuals we can switch our lightbulbs, drive less and make our houses more efficient etc., but all those actions (while very important) are not going to come close to offsetting the bad policy of a government that favours industry. In Canada the Harper government refuses to put in place the necessary measures to reduce the oil and gas industry's greenhouse gas emissions. 

Yet Canadians want leadership on climate change and are demanding the government listen. A recent opinion poll found that more than 76% of Canadians want our government to sign on to an international agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

But the Canadian government not only refuses to sign a deal, it is considered a laggard and an obstructionist at international climate negotiations.

In a functioning democracy the will of the majority ultimately dictates the decisions of lawmakers. Unfortunately in Canada our democracy is suffering with divided parties, split votes, weak-willed leaders and a majority government not elected by the majority of the people. 

This weekend Defend Our Climate events are planned across the country to pressure our government leaders to regulate carbon emissions and halt projects like the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines.

These carbon mega-projects ensure that Canada will continue to grow as a source of global greenhouse gas emissions. 

If Canada has anything to learn from Typhoon Haiyan, it is that that shift away from climate-warming carbon energy involves international cooperation. Canada's leadership has never before been so necessary and so absent.

Image Credit: NASA

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

With another round of international climate negotiations opening this week in Warsaw, Poland, and a new poll finding Canadians wanting leadership on the issue, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government have an opportunity to turn the tides on what has been so far a policy trend in the wrong direction.

Since taking the helm, the majority Harper government has floundered at United Nations climate events, relegating Canada to perpetual fossil of the day and year awards.

As someone who has been working in and around these international climate talks and other such global negotiations for many years now, I have witnessed first hand Canada's fall from grace. Our small country (population-wise) has historically hit well above its weight in many international forums, with a reputation for neutrality and expert diplomacy. Now, we are called a "petrostate" and a "climate obstructionist" at such talks. 

Canada has previously been a international leader on global efforts to battle environmental issues. Former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was an outspoken global leader on reducing Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere and his leadership culminated in the Montreal Accord that saw 191 countries agree to phasing out ozone depleting chemicals.

Under Jean Chretien and the Liberals Canada was one of the first countries to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global climate change pollution, with many countries following our lead. Canada's lack of performance, and in many cases outright opposition to deals on climate change, is not only being noticed by the international community, it is also starting to be noticed at home.

A poll out late last week finds that a large majority – almost 60 percent – of Canadians agree that climate change should be a top issue for the Harper government. A whopping 76 percent say that Canada should sign on to a new international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Beyond the evidence of the poll, a cross-country day of events planned for Canada called "Defend our Climate, Defend our Communities" suggests the country's lack of climate leadership is having its effect on the street level. 

Everyday people are hoping to rejuvenate Canada's international reputation on the issue of climate change.

And the need for this has never been more urgent as more and more extreme weather events make headlines across the globe. The atmospheric disruption and extreme weather scientists talked about almost 20 years ago when Canada signed on to the Kyoto Protocol is now "the new normal."

With climate talks starting this week and next in Warsaw, Harper and his new environment minister, Leona Aglukaqq, have an opportunity to redeem Canada's reputation. Not only would this start the country on the right path when it comes to climate change, but according to public opinion polls, a strong stance on climate by Harper would be good politics.

So what's stopping him?

Image Credit: Kris Krug via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Citizens and community leaders converging this weekend in Northern Alberta for the annual "Tar Sands Healing Walk" will likely be quite happy with news that another major European financial institution is dropping their investments in Canada's tar sands. 

Norwegian financial services giant, Storebrand, issued an update saying that the company has divested it's financial interests in 13 coal extractors and six companies heavily involved in oil sands extraction.

This follows on the heels of Dutch bank Rabobank announcing four days ago that they have instituted a "no-loan" policy to any company involved in so-called "extreme" fuel extraction, mainly tar sands and shale gas. 

Both Storebrand and Rabobank are concerned about the long term financial risk the tar sands and other heavily polluting forms of energy production pose. In announcing their decision to divest of investments in the tar sands, Storebrand's head of sustainability, Christine Tørklep Meisingset said:

“[As] the stated climate goals become reality, these resources are worthless financially, but it is also true that they do not contribute to sustainable development in the extent and the pace we want. Exposure to fossil fuels is one of the industry’s main challenges, and for us it is essential to work purposefully to take our share of responsibility.” 

A recent report describes Canada's tar sands, and other extraordinarily carbon intensive energy sources, as "stranded assets" that will likely be worthless in the long term as the world shifts to renewable and carbon-free sources. According to the report, titled Unburnable carbon 2013: Wasted capital and stranded assets, last year alone $674 billion was invested in finding and developing new potentially stranded assets like coal and oil sands.

Lead author of the report, Sir Nicholas Stern stated that:

"Smart investors can see that investing in companies that rely solely or heavily on constantly replenishing reserves of fossil fuels is becoming a very risky decision. The report raises serious questions as to the ability of the financial system to act on industry-wide long term risk, since currently the only measure of risk is performance against industry benchmarks.”

As the financial community begins to wake up to this idea of stranded assets and the citizenry continues to press for reform to the Canadian tar sands industry, we might be in for a very long hot summer. 

Image Credit: Emma Pullman

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

For those who sense that something isn’t quite right with endless growth as an economic model, developing alternatives can be an isolated task. The evening news rarely leads with a story extolling the virtues of co-ops and community currencies, and the language of sustainability has been coopted by the status quo.

Although more and more people are busy creating new production models to meet the twin challenges of climate change and social justice, the hardest part may be getting them all together in a room.

For Justin Ritchie, this is exactly the opportunity that the New Economy Summit at UBC from April 4th to 6th is hoping to provide. Ritchie, one of the conference organizers and co-producer of a podcast on alternative approaches to social and economic organization called The Extraenvironmentalist, sees the 3-day event of panels and discussions as an opportunity to unite the efforts of a diverse network of people working with new economic models.

“One of our main goals in organizing the summit was to help connect many of the thinkers on campus and in the realm of the university with people working in the greater community of Vancouver, the Lower Mainland and British Columbia,” says Ritchie. “Perhaps the greatest challenge preventing many 'new economy' efforts from scaling up is that they are largely disconnected and poorly networked.”

Planning for the conference was spurred in late January of this year, thanks to a grant from the New Economics Institute (NEI) in Boston, MA. NEI were awarding grants to campuses across North America to host student summits on the theme of a New Economy, and the UBC application was selected to host the only event in Canada. Building responses to the increasing urgency of climate change, wealth inequality and financial volatility, similar conferences will be held across the United States over the course of the year.

The UBC summit plans to combine theoretical discussions with practical sessions on topics such as local agriculture, bringing together academics, writers and people who like to get their hands dirty. Although the topics presented are meant to foster a stronger movement for new economic models in BC, they’ll be drawing on ideas being put into practice around the world.

“We'll be talking about how to finance and scale up our local and regional food production, launching community currencies in a university environment, expanding opportunities for economics education at universities to include classes in ecological economics. Morris Berman will be talking about how Japan's craft economy could be a model for a post-growth world. Many other ideas will be discussed, like creating a not-for-profit world by 2050 and redefining value in our communities through focusing on alternative indicators rather than GDP.” 

One significant area of focus for the summit will be the university itself. As the global economy continues in its prolonged trajectory of stagnation and contraction, the basic assumptions of neoclassical economics have started to come undone. But while activists and local farmers have been working on new cooperative models for production and exchange, university economics departments have been slow to catch on.

“Our universities have the potential to be powerful engines for building this new economy movement, but they fill our heads with so many crazy ideas that have perpetuated the economic and ecological problems we face today. If we can start building momentum for a new economy at universities like UBC, then we have the potential to get a lot of people collaborating and moving in a positive direction.”

Registration for the UBC New Economy Summit is free with a refundable $25 deposit to aid with planning based on attendance.

The Extraenvironmentalist will be providing live media coverage of the event on their website. Their archive of past shows also provides helpful background material for many of the ideas discussed at the conference.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by Mark Jaccard that originally appeared on his blog, Sustainability Suspicions.

The global warming threat requires a rapid reduction in the carbon pollution emitted from every country in the world.

But just as each country is only a percentage of the planet’s population or GDP, each country emits only a percentage of total carbon pollution. This enables short-sighted or selfish people (perhaps profiting from carbon pollution) to argue that their country should continue with projects to expand carbon pollution (or at least not reduce it) because their individual effort will not solve the problem.

The response has two parts.

1. The first is to point out that the logical consequence of this approach is for no one to act, even major emitters, and so we would collectively march to disaster – a classic “tragedy of the commons” outcome.

But this elicits a follow-up argument that there is still no point acting until everyone acts simultaneously since free-riders will undermine one’s effort. This triggers the second part of the response.

2. It is true that the ideal is for everyone to act simultaneously. This would be wonderful. But, realistically, this is extremely unlikely since humanity lacks effective global governance, as 20 years of failed United Nations climate negotiations have shown. So, again, the logical outcome of the demand for simultaneous action is to collectively march to disaster.

An effective way to make this point is to ask what we should do in our jurisdiction in the face of this world reality – eventually arguing that the answer (below) is trivial, obvious to any child.

If (1) we do not want disaster, and (2) we know that humanity will not initially act in unison, then the only logical response is for individual jurisdictions to reduce their carbon pollution while simultaneously trying to get other jurisdictions to also act.

One cannot possibly convince others to act if one is not acting oneself. And, even if one is acting, pressure of some kind is likely required to get others to act. This is likely to be restrictions on trade that help domestic industries compete with industries located in jurisdictions without effective climate policies.

Thus, the most likely path to success looks like this. The jurisdictions that are most motivated must act first. They may be motivated because they have an enlightened understanding of the path to success (northern Europe perhaps), or effective environmental governance institutions (California perhaps), or a special incentive because of higher global warming impacts (islands like the UK and Japan, climate-vulnerable regions like Australia).

Initial efforts at trade restrictions will be difficult. But once the number of jurisdictions has passed a critical threshold, the difficulty will diminish rapidly as trade pressures mount on non-acting jurisdictions.

In the March issue of the Canadian magazine, The Walrus, I used Canada’s experience in confronting the global threat of Nazi Germany as an example of how to present these logical arguments. Here is an excerpt from that article.

We hear, “Canada contributes only 2 percent to global emissions, so there is no point making an effort until everyone acts at once.”

Yet every year on Remembrance Day, the prime minister extols our critical role in confronting Nazi Germany’s global threat. He fails to mention that we actually contributed less than 2 percent of the Allied effort in World War II; one million Canadians served in our armed forces, compared with over 60 million who fought from the USSR, the US, the British Empire, France, Poland, and other countries.

Even though we were only 2 percent of the solution, we have something to be proud of. We punched above our weight by joining France and England in declaring war on Germany in 1939, without knowing if and when the USSR and the US would join the cause.

We did not wait for everyone to act simultaneously against a global threat, which is virtually impossible, but instead showed leadership. If we were to show leadership on climate, we would join forces with other leading regions, such as California, Europe, Australia, and Japan, and as this effort snowballed we would use trade measures if necessary to bring other countries along.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

“If people don’t speak out there will never be any change,” says the University of Victoria’s award-winning climate scientist Andrew Weaver. 

And the need for change in Canada, says Weaver, has never been more pressing.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.