“If the last year has shown us anything, it’s the impacts of climate change are here sooner than expected and they’re devastating,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the House, promising to throw “the full power of government and the entire force of our commitment behind real, meaningful climate action.” That promise will include increased funding to municipalities through the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, the Toronto Star reports.

“This is not about bad weather. This is about whether human civilization can survive,” said Saanich-Gulf Islands MP and former Green Party leader Elizabeth May, adding that her husband’s farm was sheltering climate refugees for the second time this year.

“No issue could be more riveting,” May said. “The stakes could not be higher.”

“The government speaks a lot about addressing climate change,” added Mission-Matsqui-Fraser Canyon MP Brad Vis. “Here is the opportunity to back those words with action through resilient infrastructure, climate change adaptation, and mitigation for the 21st century. I call on the government to work with partners to rebuild Lytton, to fund critical infrastructure, and to empower First Nations to have more control over disaster management, because the current way of doing things is failing.”

Continue Reading

What we needed at the Cop26 climate conference was a decision to burn no more fossil fuels after 2030. Instead, powerful governments sought a compromise between our prospects of survival and the interests of the fossil fuel industry. But there was no room for compromise. Without massive and immediate change, we face the possibility of cascading environmental collapse, as Earth systems pass critical thresholds and flip into new and hostile states.

So does this mean we might as well give up? It does not. For just as the complex natural systems on which our lives depend can flip suddenly from one state to another, so can the systems that humans have created. Our social and economic structures share characteristics with the Earth systems on which we depend. They have self-reinforcing properties – that stabilise them within a particular range of stress, but destabilise them when external pressure becomes too great. Like natural systems, if they are driven past their tipping points, they can flip with astonishing speed. Our last, best hope is to use those dynamics to our advantage, triggering what scientists call “cascading regime shifts”.

Continue Reading

Across the world, many countries underreport their greenhouse gas emissions in their reports to the United Nations, a Washington Post investigation has found. An examination of 196 country reports reveals a giant gap between what nations declare their emissions to be versus the greenhouse gases they are sending into the atmosphere. The gap ranges from at least 8.5 billion to as high as 13.3 billion tons a year of underreported emissions — big enough to move the needle on how much the Earth will warm.
The plan to save the world from the worst of climate change is built on data. But the data the world is relying on is inaccurate.
“If we don’t know the state of emissions today, we don’t know whether we’re cutting emissions meaningfully and substantially,” said Rob Jackson, a professor at Stanford University and chair of the Global Carbon Project, a collaboration of hundreds of researchers. “The atmosphere ultimately is the truth. The atmosphere is what we care about. The concentration of methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is what’s affecting climate.”

Continue Reading

Here is what we know. We know that our lives are entirely dependent on complex natural systems: the atmosphere, ocean currents, the soil, the planet’s webs of life. People who study complex systems have discovered that they behave in consistent ways. It doesn’t matter whether the system is a banking network, a nation state, a rainforest or an Antarctic ice shelf; its behaviour follows certain mathematical rules. In normal conditions, the system regulates itself, maintaining a state of equilibrium. It can absorb stress up to a certain point. But then it suddenly flips. It passes a tipping point, then falls into a new state of equilibrium, which is often impossible to reverse.
….It scarcely matters how green you think you are. The main cause of your environmental impact isn’t your attitude. It isn’t your mode of consumption. It isn’t the choices you make. It’s your money. If you have surplus money, you spend it. While you might persuade yourself that you are a green mega-consumer, in reality you are just a mega-consumer. This is why the environmental impacts of the very rich, however right-on they may be, are massively greater than those of everyone else.

Preventing more than 1.5C of global heating means that our average emissions should be no greater than two tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per year. But the richest 1% of the world’s people produce an average of more than 70 tonnes. Bill Gates, according to one estimate, emits almost 7,500 tonnes of CO2, mostly from flying in his private jets. Roman Abramovich, the same figures suggest, produces almost 34,000 tonnes, largely by running his gigantic yacht.

The multiple homes that ultra-rich people own might be fitted with solar panels, their supercars might be electric, their private planes might run on biokerosene, but these tweaks make little difference to the overall impact of their consumption. In some cases, they increase it. The switch to biofuels favoured by Bill Gates is now among the greatest causes of habitat destruction, as forests are felled to produce wood pellets and liquid fuels, and soils are trashed to make biomethane.

Continue Reading

An Interview with Philipp Schmidt-Pathmann  President and CEO of IeRM ((Note: We asked Mr. Schmidt-Pathmann for his views on climate change, global efforts to mitigate the problem, and what he thought would be most effective. This is the first segment of his remarks, which have been edited for continuity.)) Over the past summer, we’ve seen ample evidence of climate change: excessive heat and drought, wildfires out of control, tropical storms more powerful and more damaging than ever before, flooding, loss of beach front – the list goes on. And while people seem to be waking up to the problem, there are very few if any proposals for action now. Some want to switch to renewable energy – 50% by 2050. Some look around for someone or something to blame – big coal, big oil. And some just throw up their hands and say, “what can we do, when China and India won’t cooperate.” The honest and sad truth is that we’ve dug ourselves a pretty deep hole, and we can’t wait for the world’s leaders to get together at their next summit and argue about reduction targets and revised timetables. We also have to recognize that we, as individuals, need to accept some responsibility for both the problem and the solutions. That means, to put it bluntly, changing our behavior. One area where we, as individuals, can have an impact pretty quickly is waste management. But wait, you say, that’s a government function. I pay my fee, I put out my trash, and somebody takes it away. Well, that’s true, to an extent, but think about it. Where does waste management start? In the home! That’s why the first and most important element in the international waste control hierarchy is called “source reduction.” It means, don’t throw so much away. Americans generate a lot of trash – over 1,600 lbs per person per year. That’s more than three-quarters of a ton. Here’s just one example: according to the US Dept. of Agriculture, between 30% and 40% of our annual food supply is wasted – nearly 300 pounds of food per person per year. Think of all the energy it took to grow that food, to irrigate it, to harvest and package it, and to deliver it to your local grocery store or specialty shop. Now think about how much carbon dioxide all those activities generated. Finally, consider the amount of methane all that wasted food will generate when thrown in a landfill. Agricultural activities contribute 25-30% of greenhouse gas emissions. By reducing food waste by 50%, we could make a big reduction in carbon emissions. And it would save you money! ((In the coming weeks, we’ll provide more of Mr. Schmidt-Pathmann’s remarks, as well as interviews with policy-makers,environmentalists, and corporate leaders.))

Continue Reading

to top