Greater Sudbury is strategically positioned to play a significant role in the emergent green economy. Due to geographic circumstances, demographic make-up, and past investments in business and infrastructure, Greater Sudbury has an opportunity to capitalize on economic opportunities which could arise from efforts to reduce our collective reliance on fossil fuels. To do so, however, careful and considered planning will be necessary. Investments which further the perpetuation of the status quo, fossil fuel driven brown economy must begin to be phased out in favour of spending our money smarter.
Our City consists of a highly educated and skilled workforce. We have two community colleges and a University within our municipal boundaries, and a number of technical schools. And although we have an aging community, there exists opportunities to turn that around if we are able to capture the imagination of the leaders of the green economy. We have one incredible advantage which we must capitalize on: our quality of life. It’s one of our best kept secrets that we can’t afford to keep a secret any longer!
What is the “green economy”? You’ve likely heard this term before, or others like it, such as “green collar jobs”. While there is no wholly-accepted definition of “green economy”, most agree that certain key sectors play a role in its composition. I’ll explore each sector below in the context of opportunities for Greater Sudbury.
1. Clean Transportation. It may not seem obvious at first glance that Greater Sudbury, a city which is very spread out within our own geographic boundaries, and somewhat isolated from neighbouring municipalities of any size, would have a lot to offer with regards to clean transportation. But we do. Greater Sudbury is situated at the junction of both CP and CN rail lines. Rail transport offers a cleaner alternative for bulk goods than does truck transport. With gasoline prices expected to increase, rail will play a more important transportation role in our future. Infrastructure already exists in this City which can be used to our advantage to increase our share of rail-generated wealth. Expansion and relocation of significant rail infrastructure may also be something for Greater Sudbury and the rail companies to imagine.
Investments have been made municipally in improving our public transportation system. Although there is still a ways to go, we can expect to see the increased use of transit, with improved connections running between the former City of Sudbury and the outlying centres. There already exist significant opportunities for intra-community public transit routes in places such as Hanmer and Valley East, and Chelmsford. With an aging population interested in downsizing, and with higher gasoline prices, we have opportunities here to build on our growing transit successes.
Our road network has a number of opportunities for upgrade to accommodate the anticipated growth in alternative means of transportation. Park and ride features to assist transit, as well as high occupancy vehicle lanes, could be easily implemented with little cost in many parts of the City, especially on those major streets which currently have middle turning lanes. Priority can easily be given to vehicles (buses, car-pools, bicycles) which use our transportation system in a more sustainable manner, which (along with rising gasoline prices) will lead to changes in personal choices regarding transportation.
2. Green Buildings. Greater Sudbury already has made a significant investment in building stock, and unlike other areas of the Province, we’re not likely to see more investment in new buildings. Retrofitting existing buildings will actually make more sense and save money in the long run, as many of our older buildings were constructed to stand up to the tests of time. Green retrofit programs will benefit businesses and homeowners, and will lead to energy and water conservation. Investing now in retrofits will save money down the road.
The adaptive re-use of existing, under-utilized or abandoned buildings is also something which Greater Sudbury can take advantage of. These buildings tend to be located in areas where servicing already exists. New businesses (especially green businesses) can be encouraged to re-use existing buildings and save money in the process. The recent purchase of the old Northern Breweries property on Lorne Street by Sookram Bus Lines of Chelmsford is an excellent example. Further, municipal programs can offer tax incentives for businesses choosing to use a brownfield site over a greenfield location (and that’s about the only time “brown” beats “green” in my opinion!).
During the municipal election campaign, through her “Green Vision” release, Mayor Marianne Matichuk, talked about the need to upgrade and use existing facilities to both save money and the environment. Strong leadership in this area will assist Greater Sudbury in becoming a green building champion.
3. Managing our Water. If there’s something Greater Sudburians know a lot about, it’s how to co-exist sustainably with our water resources. While our impacts on existing water sources have not always been light (think here of Kelly Lake and Junction Creek), the fact is that even where we have failed in the past, we can today speak about our growing successes. Today, we have an enhanced understanding of the important role that water plays in our lives and in our economic opportunities. Indeed, as Greater Sudbury is blessed to be the home of over 300 lakes, the quality of life we experience here in Greater Sudbury is second to none. That alone is a significant attraction for new businesses who will be looking for homes in the future, and one which we can all do our part to hype.
Maintaining and improving the quality of our water resources needs to be a priority. The City is currently on track to build a new biosolids plant by 2012, which will greatly assist in improving water quality.
Having more residential homes currently on septics and wells hooked into municipal systems, those systems become more financially sustainable. Since many of these homes exist on lakefront properties, the value of getting these homes off of septics will also be realized through better water quality. The City can also easily improve lake water quality by progressively banning the use of phosphates in residential lawn fertilizers, as several North American jurisdictions have already done.
Our water resources benefit our community in so many ways. We are very lucky to have them, and we can not take them for granted.
4. Renewable Energy. There exists significant opportunity within Greater Sudbury for the locating of small-scale renewable energy projects, enough to service our own needs. We often hear about the need for a mega-grid to connect far-flung areas of the province to one another, but instead what we need to start doing is thinking about local energy needs in a local setting. When we begin to look at energy production and distribution in this way, the opportunities present in Greater Sudbury quickly come to light.
Geothermal energy and biomass are two renewables sources of energy which Greater Sudburians can take significant advantage of in the coming years. Waste products from industries, both local and regional (remember those rail lines), can be used to generate heat and electricity.
Energy will also be increasingly produced in ones home or business for consumption. It’s not unreasonable to believe that backyard or roof-mounted solar and wind will make contributions to our local energy mix in the future.
5. Waste Management – Greater Sudbury continues to develop its recycling and organic waste management programs. We can capitalize on the growing success of these programs by extending them to our business community. We can no longer afford to view our garbage as waste; instead, we need to understand that even our cast offs have value.
There is the potential for growth here for the mining sector, through the recycling of important metal products. We have already made significant infrastructure investments here in Sudbury which could be upgraded to accommodate an aggressive metals recycling program, if there is the will to do so. That will might eventually be expressed in higher metal prices. Why not look beyond the existing ore bodies in the Sudbury basin and towards the opportunities which exist in recycling and re-use?
6. Managing Our Land. Greater Sudburians continue to have a bit of that pioneering spirit leftover when it comes to land. While manicured lawns might be the rage in suburban southern Ontario, we here in Greater Sudbury tend to have a greater appreciation for trees and rocks. Indeed, when it comes to managing our land, we in this community can hold our heads high as we have accomplished something unparalleled in the world: we’ve brought our natural environment back from the brink of death.
We can continue to build on our past successes. A thriving agricultural community in the Valley can be supported by prioritizing local food purchases, and creating opportunities for local food to enter the marketplace (already we have the Farmer’s Market at Market Square and Eat Local Sudbury. Can a farmer’s market in Hanmer be up and running in five years, possibly at the Place Bonaventure Mall – reusing an existing, underutilized structure?).
Our City has already made significant investments in sewer and water infrastructure to accommodate anticipated growth. We must now get serious about focusing growth within existing urban areas, and saying no to expensive ex-urban subdivisions. Our communities are poised to grow upwards if only we can resist growing outwards simply because it might be cheaper for a land owner. In the long run, every resident of the City pays more for unsustainable suburban and rural growth.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Change is Upon Us, Part 5: The Cost of Inaction
There are those who believe that climate change is happening, but advocate for inaction, citing that any sort of action which Canada might take to reduce emissions or put a price on carbon will economically disadvantage us. They are concerned about factories closing up and moving overseas to countries which don’t price carbon. Of course, there are economic actions which can be taken to put a price on carbon when goods are imported. These economic tools, called “tariffs”, have been around for a long while, and their use makes sense when one nation under-prices its manufactured goods for whatever reason.
A better argument yet against the do-nothing approach is that the cost in the long run to our economy should we continue to do nothing is that ultimately Canada will be at an economic disadvantage, because we have not invested wisely in green technology and renewable resources. Instead of creating a positive economic environment for green jobs, our continued investments in the brown economy, powered by increasingly expensive and depleted fossil fuels, will ensure that the benefits from an emergent green economy pass us by. If we continue to invest in the brown economy, we run the risk that the future will pass Canada by.
There are those who acknowledge the need to begin to make some small changes to our current economic situation, so that we can start taking action to reduce our emissions. For those who advocate a “go slow” approach, often the sorts of changes discussed have to do with subsidizing emergent renewable energy technology, or imposing modest carbon pricing. We are seeing the “go slow” approach at work in places such as the European Union (which has established a cap and trade system which has not been effective at reducing emissions, given the very low price put on carbon). Ontario, through the creation of the Green Energy Act, can be put into the “go slow” category as well.
A “go slow” approach seems like a very typically Canadian action to take. The use of incremental changes to address problems is very much a part of our national character. Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change, these incremental changes will prove to be too little, too late. Climate scientists are warning world leaders gathered this week in Cancun that international carbon emissions must peak within the next 5 to 10 years, and that we must begin to reduce emissions significantly after 10 years if we are going to hold warming at 2 degrees Celsius.
The 2 degrees C level of warming is an important marker, because climate modelling shows that we risk triggering positive feedback loops should we exceed this threshold, and thus face runaway climate change. The 2 degrees C level of warming roughly translates into 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Pre-industrial levels of C02 in our atmosphere were approximately 260-270 ppm. Scientiests believe that while we can peak at 450 ppm, it is important to then return to a level of approximately 350 ppm. Currently, there are about 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that’s rising by almost 2ppm per year, although the rate is accelerating with increased emissions, making 450 ppm a likely outcome about 10 year’s time.
Folks, that’s the timeframe that we’re talking about to get our collective acts together if we’re going to have much hope at staving off climate catastrophe. That’s not a doom and gloom prediction, by the way; first, it’s based on science. Second, instead of doom and gloom, what we have here is an opportunity for our exploitation. Instead of building a future for the world of the past, we can use the next decade to construct for ourselves a cleaner, greener, healthier future.
We must spend smarter. That applies to both governments and individuals. The choices we make will greatly impact our level of emissions. These choices will not be easy to make in many circumstances, given that there are those out there with a vested economic interest in perpetuating the status quo, despite the status quo being ill-suited for our anticipated future.
We must disinvest in fossil fuels and invest in the green economy. The brown economy is not sustainable, and indeed if we continue to invest in the increasingly expensive fossil-fuel reliant economy of the past, we can absolutely expect to see more poverty and fewer jobs. Continued investment in the brown economy is a recipe for disaster for all but the wealthiest amongst us.
We must put a price on carbon. Carbon pricing will help ensure that we spend smarter, and will level the playing field when it comes to energy. Currently, we subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of billions of dollars a year. That must stop, and indeed the fossil fuel industry and those reliant on it must begin paying the price for their pollution. Their pollution is bad for our climate’s health and bad for our own personal health.
We must allow people to make better choices with their own money. Put money back into people’s wallets so that they can choose which products and services to purchase. They may a premium for a low-carbon home, or a higher price for a downtown condo unit, yet in the long run, such an investment will pay for itself. One of the barriers to investment, however, is the entry price of purchase. If you give people back more of their hard-earned money, entry price might no longer be such a barrier.
We must encourage smarter investments at all levels. We can no longer afford to subsidize wasteful spending. This means that we have to reign in urban sprawl (one of the most expensive and wasteful projects ever undertaken). We must stop building expensive highways and roads for a future where there will be fewer cars. We can no longer invest in government-sponsored mega-projects from which we derive little net benefit (example: nuclear power, one of the most expensive forms of electrical generation out there).
We must look for opportunities for smart spending. Instead of roads and cars, it’s time for public transportation and rail. Instead of mega nuclear projects, invest instead in small-scale local energy projects, built at the community level. Instead of massive mono-cultured crops which rely on pesticides and oil-derived fertilizers, invest instead in sustainable local agriculture, and make farming and food production a worthy career choice.
Certainly, we are going to continue to need non-renewable resources, such as nickel and copper, in our future, and oil to power our industries. A change to renewables and prioritizing sustainable transportation and building complete communities will actually help the resource extractive sector by keeping the price of oil down. Think about it: if there is less demand for oil from other sectors, those sectors of our economy which require its use will benefit from relatively lower prices.
Right now, we can’t live without oil. But we can certainly live comfortably by using less oil, and by using energy smarter. The benefits of reducing our reliance on oil are many-fold, and will ultimately lead to healthier lifestyles.
However, if we continue to with a “business as usual” scenario, we can expect to blow through the 2 degrees Celsius warming threshold quite handily and without the ability to look back. Right now, even if all of the international agreements made under the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Accord are achieved, we will still find ourselves at about 750 ppm of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere three quarters of the way through this century. Many who are reading this blog today will still be alive at that time. They’ll be living on a radically altered planet if those international agreements are the only ones to be honoured.
What type of world are we talking about at 750 ppm? Globally, that’s a rise of between 3-7 degrees Celsius, which might not seem like much. However, that’s a global average. Warming isn’t going to impact every part of the planet equally. It will be felt most at the poles, where it may translate to as much as 10 degrees. That kind of warming will spell the end to Arctic Ocean sea ice, and likely to the West Antarctic ice sheet as well. With less ice, albedo effects will speed up warming (as light coloured ice reflects sunlight, while dark-coloured open ocean waters absorb it). Sea levels would be expected to rise between 3 and 8 feet, necessitating expensive damns and dykes around major coastal cities, or abandoning them altogether should expenses be too high.
Increased desertification at mid-latitudes is also expected. Drought in areas which currently are “breadbaskets”, such as the North American plains, will sharply limit food production. Southern Europe, Central America, the Middle East, southern China and Inida will experience drought, and drought’s associated impacts to crops. This means that in a hotter world, there is going to be much less food to go around.
What sorts of economic impacts might Canada face in such a world? Perhaps we’ll lose a million jobs, or more, because things will have fallen apart so badly and comprehensively for many of our trading partners. What might the level of unemployment in Canada be in this future? What about poverty and homelessness? Where will the middle class be?
Some might consider that inaction, in this scenario, actually represents an irresponsible use of our resources. I’m certainly one of them. And this “scenario” is where we are headed unless we can start turning things around.
The very real security threats created by global warming are well documented. The military planners of many nations have been war-gaming various scenarios based on expected outcomes of climate change. This isn’t a secret; in fact, a lot of this information is available to the public, despite it not being widely reported by the mainstream media (for a good read, try Canadian journalist Gwynne Dyer’s “Climate Wars”, published in 2008)
This doom and gloom world of the future, however, need not become our actual future. If we undertake transformational changes to our economy, we can avoid some of the worst impacts we can expect to experience from climate change, and avoid the negative economic impacts from the end of cheap energy. We must begin taking those steps now; they must be bold and assertive steps, however. Baby-steps are not going to help in the long-term. That’s why I’ve used the term “transformational”.
The cost of inaction is too high for Canadians to bear, much less the rest of the world which is, for the most part, sitting in a far less pretty position geographically speaking than is Canada when it comes to the anticipated impacts of a changing climate. Canada, though, in our globalized world, will not prove to be immune from connected and cascading impacts felt elsewhere in the world. That’s why it’s important for Canada to become a leader in international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The health of our collective future depends upon us taking action to address climate change in the next decade. We can and we must undertake this venture.
A better argument yet against the do-nothing approach is that the cost in the long run to our economy should we continue to do nothing is that ultimately Canada will be at an economic disadvantage, because we have not invested wisely in green technology and renewable resources. Instead of creating a positive economic environment for green jobs, our continued investments in the brown economy, powered by increasingly expensive and depleted fossil fuels, will ensure that the benefits from an emergent green economy pass us by. If we continue to invest in the brown economy, we run the risk that the future will pass Canada by.
There are those who acknowledge the need to begin to make some small changes to our current economic situation, so that we can start taking action to reduce our emissions. For those who advocate a “go slow” approach, often the sorts of changes discussed have to do with subsidizing emergent renewable energy technology, or imposing modest carbon pricing. We are seeing the “go slow” approach at work in places such as the European Union (which has established a cap and trade system which has not been effective at reducing emissions, given the very low price put on carbon). Ontario, through the creation of the Green Energy Act, can be put into the “go slow” category as well.
A “go slow” approach seems like a very typically Canadian action to take. The use of incremental changes to address problems is very much a part of our national character. Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change, these incremental changes will prove to be too little, too late. Climate scientists are warning world leaders gathered this week in Cancun that international carbon emissions must peak within the next 5 to 10 years, and that we must begin to reduce emissions significantly after 10 years if we are going to hold warming at 2 degrees Celsius.
The 2 degrees C level of warming is an important marker, because climate modelling shows that we risk triggering positive feedback loops should we exceed this threshold, and thus face runaway climate change. The 2 degrees C level of warming roughly translates into 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Pre-industrial levels of C02 in our atmosphere were approximately 260-270 ppm. Scientiests believe that while we can peak at 450 ppm, it is important to then return to a level of approximately 350 ppm. Currently, there are about 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that’s rising by almost 2ppm per year, although the rate is accelerating with increased emissions, making 450 ppm a likely outcome about 10 year’s time.
Folks, that’s the timeframe that we’re talking about to get our collective acts together if we’re going to have much hope at staving off climate catastrophe. That’s not a doom and gloom prediction, by the way; first, it’s based on science. Second, instead of doom and gloom, what we have here is an opportunity for our exploitation. Instead of building a future for the world of the past, we can use the next decade to construct for ourselves a cleaner, greener, healthier future.
We must spend smarter. That applies to both governments and individuals. The choices we make will greatly impact our level of emissions. These choices will not be easy to make in many circumstances, given that there are those out there with a vested economic interest in perpetuating the status quo, despite the status quo being ill-suited for our anticipated future.
We must disinvest in fossil fuels and invest in the green economy. The brown economy is not sustainable, and indeed if we continue to invest in the increasingly expensive fossil-fuel reliant economy of the past, we can absolutely expect to see more poverty and fewer jobs. Continued investment in the brown economy is a recipe for disaster for all but the wealthiest amongst us.
We must put a price on carbon. Carbon pricing will help ensure that we spend smarter, and will level the playing field when it comes to energy. Currently, we subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of billions of dollars a year. That must stop, and indeed the fossil fuel industry and those reliant on it must begin paying the price for their pollution. Their pollution is bad for our climate’s health and bad for our own personal health.
We must allow people to make better choices with their own money. Put money back into people’s wallets so that they can choose which products and services to purchase. They may a premium for a low-carbon home, or a higher price for a downtown condo unit, yet in the long run, such an investment will pay for itself. One of the barriers to investment, however, is the entry price of purchase. If you give people back more of their hard-earned money, entry price might no longer be such a barrier.
We must encourage smarter investments at all levels. We can no longer afford to subsidize wasteful spending. This means that we have to reign in urban sprawl (one of the most expensive and wasteful projects ever undertaken). We must stop building expensive highways and roads for a future where there will be fewer cars. We can no longer invest in government-sponsored mega-projects from which we derive little net benefit (example: nuclear power, one of the most expensive forms of electrical generation out there).
We must look for opportunities for smart spending. Instead of roads and cars, it’s time for public transportation and rail. Instead of mega nuclear projects, invest instead in small-scale local energy projects, built at the community level. Instead of massive mono-cultured crops which rely on pesticides and oil-derived fertilizers, invest instead in sustainable local agriculture, and make farming and food production a worthy career choice.
Certainly, we are going to continue to need non-renewable resources, such as nickel and copper, in our future, and oil to power our industries. A change to renewables and prioritizing sustainable transportation and building complete communities will actually help the resource extractive sector by keeping the price of oil down. Think about it: if there is less demand for oil from other sectors, those sectors of our economy which require its use will benefit from relatively lower prices.
Right now, we can’t live without oil. But we can certainly live comfortably by using less oil, and by using energy smarter. The benefits of reducing our reliance on oil are many-fold, and will ultimately lead to healthier lifestyles.
However, if we continue to with a “business as usual” scenario, we can expect to blow through the 2 degrees Celsius warming threshold quite handily and without the ability to look back. Right now, even if all of the international agreements made under the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Accord are achieved, we will still find ourselves at about 750 ppm of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere three quarters of the way through this century. Many who are reading this blog today will still be alive at that time. They’ll be living on a radically altered planet if those international agreements are the only ones to be honoured.
What type of world are we talking about at 750 ppm? Globally, that’s a rise of between 3-7 degrees Celsius, which might not seem like much. However, that’s a global average. Warming isn’t going to impact every part of the planet equally. It will be felt most at the poles, where it may translate to as much as 10 degrees. That kind of warming will spell the end to Arctic Ocean sea ice, and likely to the West Antarctic ice sheet as well. With less ice, albedo effects will speed up warming (as light coloured ice reflects sunlight, while dark-coloured open ocean waters absorb it). Sea levels would be expected to rise between 3 and 8 feet, necessitating expensive damns and dykes around major coastal cities, or abandoning them altogether should expenses be too high.
Increased desertification at mid-latitudes is also expected. Drought in areas which currently are “breadbaskets”, such as the North American plains, will sharply limit food production. Southern Europe, Central America, the Middle East, southern China and Inida will experience drought, and drought’s associated impacts to crops. This means that in a hotter world, there is going to be much less food to go around.
What sorts of economic impacts might Canada face in such a world? Perhaps we’ll lose a million jobs, or more, because things will have fallen apart so badly and comprehensively for many of our trading partners. What might the level of unemployment in Canada be in this future? What about poverty and homelessness? Where will the middle class be?
Some might consider that inaction, in this scenario, actually represents an irresponsible use of our resources. I’m certainly one of them. And this “scenario” is where we are headed unless we can start turning things around.
The very real security threats created by global warming are well documented. The military planners of many nations have been war-gaming various scenarios based on expected outcomes of climate change. This isn’t a secret; in fact, a lot of this information is available to the public, despite it not being widely reported by the mainstream media (for a good read, try Canadian journalist Gwynne Dyer’s “Climate Wars”, published in 2008)
This doom and gloom world of the future, however, need not become our actual future. If we undertake transformational changes to our economy, we can avoid some of the worst impacts we can expect to experience from climate change, and avoid the negative economic impacts from the end of cheap energy. We must begin taking those steps now; they must be bold and assertive steps, however. Baby-steps are not going to help in the long-term. That’s why I’ve used the term “transformational”.
The cost of inaction is too high for Canadians to bear, much less the rest of the world which is, for the most part, sitting in a far less pretty position geographically speaking than is Canada when it comes to the anticipated impacts of a changing climate. Canada, though, in our globalized world, will not prove to be immune from connected and cascading impacts felt elsewhere in the world. That’s why it’s important for Canada to become a leader in international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The health of our collective future depends upon us taking action to address climate change in the next decade. We can and we must undertake this venture.
Change is Upon Us, Part 4: Decarbonizing Our Economy
We are at a crossroads. The future is not going to be like the past. Our economic model, which requires growth to occur through economic development, is not sustainable. Climate change is happening as a result of human industrial development. We are currently living in an age of Peak Oil, where less oil is now being produced each year than there has been in the past, since about 2005-06, despite demand generally tending to grow year by year. As demand outpaces supply, the price of oil will increase. Higher oil prices will affect everything we do, especially the way in which we grow, harvest, and transport our food.
Yet these crises are not the sort which have an immediate and acknowledged impact, such as an earthquake or a tsunami. Instead, the impacts of climate change are very gradual, sort of like the lobster in the pot of water, set to boil: the lobster feels ok, maybe there is some warmth, but by the time it’s apparent that something has to be done, it’s too late. The impacts of Peak Oil might be more like a roller-coaster ride: a sudden drop occurs (in the economy), and then things begin to level out, and then climb again (and it feels nice to climb), but then, there’s another sudden drop. Repeat.
It’s because impacts are not felt immediately that many deny the severity of the crises which face us. The media, which operates in a world of “crisis today / gone tomorrow”, has a hard time following and reporting stories about climate change and Peak Oil, because the cause and effects are sometimes difficult to explain, and because a slowly changing climate or rising oil prices don’t make for good copy.
Nevertheless, we are in the midst of these crises. The sooner we acknowledge the severity of the crises facing us, the sooner that we will be able to move forward with solutions. Yet, many of us continue to refuse to acknowledge that there’s anything wrong at all. How can we move forward in such circumstances?
As I’ve indicated before, the first step is to tune out those who deny that climate change is happening. They have nothing to contribute when it comes to looking for solutions. Indeed, many who deny the science of climate change do so for their own corporatists agendas: they have an acknowledged interest in the continued perpetuation of the status quo, often an economic interest. The fact is, though, the status quo can not continue, because of the nature of the crises which we face. One way or the other, the status quo that we have come to expect is gone forever. We are living in a time of transition. The only question is, on whose terms are we going to change? Our own terms, or are we going to let nature take its course and react to whatever is thrown at us? That’s the crossroads where we find ourselves.
If we are going to take matters into our own hands, and collectively decide our own fate, there are many things which we must do. To address the climate change crisis and Peak Oil, at the top of the list is the need to “decarbonize” our economy.
Some have suggested that the very nature of our capitalist economic system imperils our future, and our children’s future, as capitalism is predicated on the notion that growth must occur if the system is to remain viable. Some have advocated for the need to do away with this system altogether, and replace it with a system based on sustainability.
Well, that’s not going to happen, or at least not within the timeframe for which action needs to be taken. We’re not going to get rid of our current economic system, nor can we abandon the infrastructure which we have created to service the society of the past. The term “sunk costs” describes past investments made by our society, often in the context of infrastructure (although I believe that the term is equally applicable to our current economic system in general).
We’ve sunk a lot of costs in some pretty big infrastructure projects, and we’ve not always realized the value for dollars paid in doing so. For example, in Ontario, we’ve invested billions in nuclear reactors, and we continue to spend billions on repairs and upgrades. The only way to recoup these costs is to continue to use these reactors for energy generation. Although it may seem socially responsible to stop the use of nuclear power, the fact is we’ve put so much money into this form of energy, we can’t just simply flick the switch to “off” right now.
Instead, what we must do is stop investing in technology and infrastructure which will prove unhelpful, and indeed, wasteful, in the future in which we anticipate we’ll live. For example, the Conservative government is investing $300 million in untried carbon capture and storage technology. At best, should this technology prove to be workable, we can expect to see a 5% reduction in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions (and then only starting in about 2017 or so). However, since one of the goals behind carbon capture and storage is to use stored CO2 to facilitate underground oil extraction in place of water, what we’ll end up doing is losing the very modest gains we have made to emissions reduction to…increase emissions. It’s this bizarre form of investment which gets us nowhere.
The fact is, if we are going to take the future into our own hands, we need to begin the process of decarbonising our economy. That must start by putting a price on carbon, but it certainly must not end there. As you can imagine, if an international cap and trade system was initiated, or a carbon tax was added to purchases (be they bulk fuel purchases for industries or just to the price of manufactured goods), we can expect to see prices on just about everything rise.
Rest assured that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, in that it is an unwanted by-product which has proven to be detrimental to our health, and the health of our climate. Yet, for too long, industries have been paying nothing for polluting our atmosphere. This has to change. But it must change responsibly. And by responsibly, I mean that it must change in a way which is affordable, and change must actually reduce emissions.
Canadians must be given the opportunity to make sound choices when it comes to purchasing everything, from food to houses. Right now, middle class Canadians see a considerable amount of their personal incomes lost to income taxes. Richer Canadians, who can afford to pay more in income taxes, do so, but only marginally so relative to income. The ultra rich, it seems, have numerous tax loopholes at their disposal, and we often hear about how they are not paying their fair share of tax.
I’d like to have more of my personal income left in my bank account so that I can choose how best to spend it. While prices on some goods and services may rise as a result of carbon pricing, I’ll be able to choose more easily where I target my own spending. Instead of buying two cars, perhaps one car will be enough, along with a transit pass. Instead of taking an airplane on a business trip, I will take the train or bus. Instead of cranking the air conditioning up in the summer time, I’ll sweat it out. Whatever the choices will be, they will be mine to make.
Now, not everyone will be in my position. The poorest amongst us will be the most vulnerable in this situation, along with those living on fixed incomes and those living in rural areas. For carbon pricing to be effective for all segments of our society, we will be able to figure out ways of levelling the playing field. Lately, some have suggested that it’s time to look at the idea of a guaranteed annual income, which would go a long way to assist with the transition to a decarbonized economy. There are actually lots of ways which governments can address this issue.
Over time, during the transition from carbon economy to a decarbonized economy, we can expect to see carbon prices go up, which will act as a disincentive for carbon use. We must also stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Instead, we must invest smarter, so as to avoid those future “sunk costs”. We must invest in alternative energy, curbing urban sprawl, public transportation and rail infrastructure. We must stop building highways and roads (in anticipation of their being fewer cars on the road, due to high oil prices), and we must stop investing in expensive energy, such as nuclear power.
We must also leave in the ground most of the fossil fuels which are left in the world. For Canada, this means that we must stop investing in the tar sands. If the world were to continue to emit greenhouse gases produced by tar sands sources alone, we can certainly expect to blow through the 2 degrees Celsius threshold identified as being the upper limit of warming we can tolerate before triggering positive feedback loops (such as permafrost melting and the release of stored methane, which is a greenhouse gas 7 times as potent as carbon dioxide). Investments in off shore oil must also come to a close, as the risks of warming posed by extracting deep-water oil are also significant.
Let’s not kid ourselves here: decarbonising our economy is not going to happen overnight, nor is it going to be something easy to do. The sectors of the brown economy which will be impacted are numerous, and unfortunately they are the ones which we have sunk considerable costs in: the oil sector and the auto sector. Yet, if we don’t begin to turn things around, we can expect to reap the whirlwind of an economy ill-prepared for the future.
Green tech jobs are being created in Europe and China, while Canada and the USA fall behind. It doesn’t have to be this way, even with the considerable sunk costs we’ve experienced. By ending subsidies to the oil industry, investing smarter, returning people’s income to their own wallets, and by putting a price on carbon, we will begin to turn things around. It’s not going to be easy. First, we need to find the political will to make these choices. While a majority of Canadians want our government to take action to address climate change, our current government has instead chosen to be an obstruction. This can’t continue; if it does, we will put too much at risk, including our livelihoods.
If our Prime Minister believes that taking action to address climate change will cost millions of jobs (which he recently stated as a justification for having his hand-picked unelected Senators defeat Bill C-311 after parliament approved it), than he is misleading Canadians. Prepping our economy for the future which we can expect does not need to cost jobs; in fact, if we transition smoothly, we can expect to create jobs. The number of jobs which will be lost due to a changing climate and peak oil will be considerable if we continue to spend our tax dollars on projects which don’t make sense for the future we can expect.
Yet these crises are not the sort which have an immediate and acknowledged impact, such as an earthquake or a tsunami. Instead, the impacts of climate change are very gradual, sort of like the lobster in the pot of water, set to boil: the lobster feels ok, maybe there is some warmth, but by the time it’s apparent that something has to be done, it’s too late. The impacts of Peak Oil might be more like a roller-coaster ride: a sudden drop occurs (in the economy), and then things begin to level out, and then climb again (and it feels nice to climb), but then, there’s another sudden drop. Repeat.
It’s because impacts are not felt immediately that many deny the severity of the crises which face us. The media, which operates in a world of “crisis today / gone tomorrow”, has a hard time following and reporting stories about climate change and Peak Oil, because the cause and effects are sometimes difficult to explain, and because a slowly changing climate or rising oil prices don’t make for good copy.
Nevertheless, we are in the midst of these crises. The sooner we acknowledge the severity of the crises facing us, the sooner that we will be able to move forward with solutions. Yet, many of us continue to refuse to acknowledge that there’s anything wrong at all. How can we move forward in such circumstances?
As I’ve indicated before, the first step is to tune out those who deny that climate change is happening. They have nothing to contribute when it comes to looking for solutions. Indeed, many who deny the science of climate change do so for their own corporatists agendas: they have an acknowledged interest in the continued perpetuation of the status quo, often an economic interest. The fact is, though, the status quo can not continue, because of the nature of the crises which we face. One way or the other, the status quo that we have come to expect is gone forever. We are living in a time of transition. The only question is, on whose terms are we going to change? Our own terms, or are we going to let nature take its course and react to whatever is thrown at us? That’s the crossroads where we find ourselves.
If we are going to take matters into our own hands, and collectively decide our own fate, there are many things which we must do. To address the climate change crisis and Peak Oil, at the top of the list is the need to “decarbonize” our economy.
Some have suggested that the very nature of our capitalist economic system imperils our future, and our children’s future, as capitalism is predicated on the notion that growth must occur if the system is to remain viable. Some have advocated for the need to do away with this system altogether, and replace it with a system based on sustainability.
Well, that’s not going to happen, or at least not within the timeframe for which action needs to be taken. We’re not going to get rid of our current economic system, nor can we abandon the infrastructure which we have created to service the society of the past. The term “sunk costs” describes past investments made by our society, often in the context of infrastructure (although I believe that the term is equally applicable to our current economic system in general).
We’ve sunk a lot of costs in some pretty big infrastructure projects, and we’ve not always realized the value for dollars paid in doing so. For example, in Ontario, we’ve invested billions in nuclear reactors, and we continue to spend billions on repairs and upgrades. The only way to recoup these costs is to continue to use these reactors for energy generation. Although it may seem socially responsible to stop the use of nuclear power, the fact is we’ve put so much money into this form of energy, we can’t just simply flick the switch to “off” right now.
Instead, what we must do is stop investing in technology and infrastructure which will prove unhelpful, and indeed, wasteful, in the future in which we anticipate we’ll live. For example, the Conservative government is investing $300 million in untried carbon capture and storage technology. At best, should this technology prove to be workable, we can expect to see a 5% reduction in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions (and then only starting in about 2017 or so). However, since one of the goals behind carbon capture and storage is to use stored CO2 to facilitate underground oil extraction in place of water, what we’ll end up doing is losing the very modest gains we have made to emissions reduction to…increase emissions. It’s this bizarre form of investment which gets us nowhere.
The fact is, if we are going to take the future into our own hands, we need to begin the process of decarbonising our economy. That must start by putting a price on carbon, but it certainly must not end there. As you can imagine, if an international cap and trade system was initiated, or a carbon tax was added to purchases (be they bulk fuel purchases for industries or just to the price of manufactured goods), we can expect to see prices on just about everything rise.
Rest assured that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, in that it is an unwanted by-product which has proven to be detrimental to our health, and the health of our climate. Yet, for too long, industries have been paying nothing for polluting our atmosphere. This has to change. But it must change responsibly. And by responsibly, I mean that it must change in a way which is affordable, and change must actually reduce emissions.
Canadians must be given the opportunity to make sound choices when it comes to purchasing everything, from food to houses. Right now, middle class Canadians see a considerable amount of their personal incomes lost to income taxes. Richer Canadians, who can afford to pay more in income taxes, do so, but only marginally so relative to income. The ultra rich, it seems, have numerous tax loopholes at their disposal, and we often hear about how they are not paying their fair share of tax.
I’d like to have more of my personal income left in my bank account so that I can choose how best to spend it. While prices on some goods and services may rise as a result of carbon pricing, I’ll be able to choose more easily where I target my own spending. Instead of buying two cars, perhaps one car will be enough, along with a transit pass. Instead of taking an airplane on a business trip, I will take the train or bus. Instead of cranking the air conditioning up in the summer time, I’ll sweat it out. Whatever the choices will be, they will be mine to make.
Now, not everyone will be in my position. The poorest amongst us will be the most vulnerable in this situation, along with those living on fixed incomes and those living in rural areas. For carbon pricing to be effective for all segments of our society, we will be able to figure out ways of levelling the playing field. Lately, some have suggested that it’s time to look at the idea of a guaranteed annual income, which would go a long way to assist with the transition to a decarbonized economy. There are actually lots of ways which governments can address this issue.
Over time, during the transition from carbon economy to a decarbonized economy, we can expect to see carbon prices go up, which will act as a disincentive for carbon use. We must also stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Instead, we must invest smarter, so as to avoid those future “sunk costs”. We must invest in alternative energy, curbing urban sprawl, public transportation and rail infrastructure. We must stop building highways and roads (in anticipation of their being fewer cars on the road, due to high oil prices), and we must stop investing in expensive energy, such as nuclear power.
We must also leave in the ground most of the fossil fuels which are left in the world. For Canada, this means that we must stop investing in the tar sands. If the world were to continue to emit greenhouse gases produced by tar sands sources alone, we can certainly expect to blow through the 2 degrees Celsius threshold identified as being the upper limit of warming we can tolerate before triggering positive feedback loops (such as permafrost melting and the release of stored methane, which is a greenhouse gas 7 times as potent as carbon dioxide). Investments in off shore oil must also come to a close, as the risks of warming posed by extracting deep-water oil are also significant.
Let’s not kid ourselves here: decarbonising our economy is not going to happen overnight, nor is it going to be something easy to do. The sectors of the brown economy which will be impacted are numerous, and unfortunately they are the ones which we have sunk considerable costs in: the oil sector and the auto sector. Yet, if we don’t begin to turn things around, we can expect to reap the whirlwind of an economy ill-prepared for the future.
Green tech jobs are being created in Europe and China, while Canada and the USA fall behind. It doesn’t have to be this way, even with the considerable sunk costs we’ve experienced. By ending subsidies to the oil industry, investing smarter, returning people’s income to their own wallets, and by putting a price on carbon, we will begin to turn things around. It’s not going to be easy. First, we need to find the political will to make these choices. While a majority of Canadians want our government to take action to address climate change, our current government has instead chosen to be an obstruction. This can’t continue; if it does, we will put too much at risk, including our livelihoods.
If our Prime Minister believes that taking action to address climate change will cost millions of jobs (which he recently stated as a justification for having his hand-picked unelected Senators defeat Bill C-311 after parliament approved it), than he is misleading Canadians. Prepping our economy for the future which we can expect does not need to cost jobs; in fact, if we transition smoothly, we can expect to create jobs. The number of jobs which will be lost due to a changing climate and peak oil will be considerable if we continue to spend our tax dollars on projects which don’t make sense for the future we can expect.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Facebook Wall Posts, Part VII
Who Stands on Guard for Democracy in Canada? Not the Conservatives, Liberals or NDP
Here we go again. The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP claim that they are champions of democracy, but the Globe & Mail is today reporting that all three parties are now in agreement that a bill to add federal seats in urban parts of Ontario, Alberta and B.C. to address under-representation will be scrapped. This week, over 120,000 voters in the urban Ontario riding of Vaughan were able to cast their ballots in a federal by-election; in the rural Manitoba riding of Dauphin-Swan River, only about 51,000 voters were eligible to participate. This is democratic inequality write large: if you live in Vaughan, your vote is worth less than half of a rural Manitobans. And it's like this across the country. The Cons, Liberals and NDP don't seem to care that urban voters are disadvantaged. They may say that they do. Indeed, I was hopeful that at least the Conservatives, who introduced (the admittedly imperfect) Bill C-12 in the first place, might actually take action to address this inequality. With this Bill now set to die without the support of any elected political party, it's clear that the mainstream parties don't really care that much about democracy.
-----
More "Degrees of Change" Embarrassment for Canada and Climate Prosperity Nonsense
Canadian Youth Delegate Maggie Knight is attending COP-16 in Mexico. She blogs about a disturbing trend regarding Canada's stance on limiting warming to 2 degrees celsius. The stance itself, while potentially problematic for many reasons, isn't what disturbs me today. It's the fact that the Canadian government appears to be using the completely discredited NRTEE "Degrees of Change" poster as a justification for its position. This is the same document which was used to launch Canada's "Climate Prosperity" program, which talks up the positive economic impacts for Canada in a warming world! Green Party Leader Elizabeth May referred to this poster, which is apparently also being distributed to school children across Canada, as being embarrassing, misleading and incredibly callous propaganda. May is absolutely right about this. I've blogged about this poster and the incredibly disgusting campaign underway through the Conservative government to convince Canadians that global warming will put money in our pockets. I'm very concerned that our government appears to be taking its own discredited propaganda seriously on the international stage. Thanks, Maggie, for keeping us informed about what's happening with the Canadian delegation in Cancun.
-----
Neo-Con Power Grab in Ontario Progressive Conservative Party Underway?
All is not well within the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party: Looks like ultra-right-wing neo-con Randy Hillier's friends in the Landowners Associations are trying to take over the PC's from within. If successful in implementing their agenda, Hillier and Co., are sure to make Mike Harris look like Mother Theresa. PC MPP Norm Sterling knows this. It was his riding which was recently under attack by these right-wing demagogues, who want to see land use controls and conservation authorities abolished. That Tim Hudak continues to allow the likes of Hillier and Bill Murdoch, MPP for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, participate in his caucus is very problematic for the PC's, and for the citizens of Ontario whose government Hudak desperately wants to lead as Premier. Can the PC's keep a lid on this rift? Maybe. But Hillier and Murdoch are mavericks who are not afraid of speaking, and acting out against their leaders. Keep an eye on this troubling trend.
-----
George Monbiot vs. Greenwasher Patrick Moore
A scathing and deserved indictment by George Monbiot of Canadian Patrick Moore. Moore has for too long been coasting on his past association with Greenpeace as a "leading environmentalist" and go-to guy for the mainstream media. Read Monbiot's article to find out how Moore has lately been employed by one of the worst environmental polluters in the world, Indonesia's Asian Pulp and Paper (APP), whose products are being dropped like hot potatoes by companies such as Staples over concerns about unethical practices. Moore's attempt to greenwash APP's business practices are very disturbing. And the media's apparent lack of interest in who is paying for Moore's services is equally disturbing. Despite this guy's past (and significant) participation in Greenpeace, he's long since joined the dark side.
Here we go again. The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP claim that they are champions of democracy, but the Globe & Mail is today reporting that all three parties are now in agreement that a bill to add federal seats in urban parts of Ontario, Alberta and B.C. to address under-representation will be scrapped. This week, over 120,000 voters in the urban Ontario riding of Vaughan were able to cast their ballots in a federal by-election; in the rural Manitoba riding of Dauphin-Swan River, only about 51,000 voters were eligible to participate. This is democratic inequality write large: if you live in Vaughan, your vote is worth less than half of a rural Manitobans. And it's like this across the country. The Cons, Liberals and NDP don't seem to care that urban voters are disadvantaged. They may say that they do. Indeed, I was hopeful that at least the Conservatives, who introduced (the admittedly imperfect) Bill C-12 in the first place, might actually take action to address this inequality. With this Bill now set to die without the support of any elected political party, it's clear that the mainstream parties don't really care that much about democracy.
-----
More "Degrees of Change" Embarrassment for Canada and Climate Prosperity Nonsense
Canadian Youth Delegate Maggie Knight is attending COP-16 in Mexico. She blogs about a disturbing trend regarding Canada's stance on limiting warming to 2 degrees celsius. The stance itself, while potentially problematic for many reasons, isn't what disturbs me today. It's the fact that the Canadian government appears to be using the completely discredited NRTEE "Degrees of Change" poster as a justification for its position. This is the same document which was used to launch Canada's "Climate Prosperity" program, which talks up the positive economic impacts for Canada in a warming world! Green Party Leader Elizabeth May referred to this poster, which is apparently also being distributed to school children across Canada, as being embarrassing, misleading and incredibly callous propaganda. May is absolutely right about this. I've blogged about this poster and the incredibly disgusting campaign underway through the Conservative government to convince Canadians that global warming will put money in our pockets. I'm very concerned that our government appears to be taking its own discredited propaganda seriously on the international stage. Thanks, Maggie, for keeping us informed about what's happening with the Canadian delegation in Cancun.
-----
Neo-Con Power Grab in Ontario Progressive Conservative Party Underway?
All is not well within the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party: Looks like ultra-right-wing neo-con Randy Hillier's friends in the Landowners Associations are trying to take over the PC's from within. If successful in implementing their agenda, Hillier and Co., are sure to make Mike Harris look like Mother Theresa. PC MPP Norm Sterling knows this. It was his riding which was recently under attack by these right-wing demagogues, who want to see land use controls and conservation authorities abolished. That Tim Hudak continues to allow the likes of Hillier and Bill Murdoch, MPP for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, participate in his caucus is very problematic for the PC's, and for the citizens of Ontario whose government Hudak desperately wants to lead as Premier. Can the PC's keep a lid on this rift? Maybe. But Hillier and Murdoch are mavericks who are not afraid of speaking, and acting out against their leaders. Keep an eye on this troubling trend.
-----
George Monbiot vs. Greenwasher Patrick Moore
A scathing and deserved indictment by George Monbiot of Canadian Patrick Moore. Moore has for too long been coasting on his past association with Greenpeace as a "leading environmentalist" and go-to guy for the mainstream media. Read Monbiot's article to find out how Moore has lately been employed by one of the worst environmental polluters in the world, Indonesia's Asian Pulp and Paper (APP), whose products are being dropped like hot potatoes by companies such as Staples over concerns about unethical practices. Moore's attempt to greenwash APP's business practices are very disturbing. And the media's apparent lack of interest in who is paying for Moore's services is equally disturbing. Despite this guy's past (and significant) participation in Greenpeace, he's long since joined the dark side.
Friday, December 3, 2010
TV Ontario's Big Ideas: James Hansen and Climate Change, this Saturday and Sunday at 5pm
This email from TV Ontario was forwarded to me from my friend Lilly Noble, who asked me to post it to Facebook. Not knowing how to do so, given the size of the text, and not wanting to fiddle around with Facebook Notes, I thought maybe I would cut and paste it into my blog, and link it to Facebook. Maybe it might even reach a wider audience.
I know I'm going to try to tune in to TVO's coverage this weekend!
-----
From: "TVOntario's Big Ideas"
Date: 3 December, 2010 6:15:40 PM
Hello,
This weekend’s BIG IDEAS broadcasts are devoted to one side in the debate on climate change. The reason why there is only one side represented has to do with the highly ideological nature of the debate. Science for Peace and The Centre for Global Change Science which organized the event invited participants who hold the view that when it comes to climate change there is only one side. And that those who deny the dire state of global warming are morally if not criminally responsible for a future that is going to threaten the health of “our grandchildren”
The main speaker at the event was James Hansen one of the best known climate scientists in the world and the author of “Storms of My Grandchildren”. His talk on Human-Made Climate Change: A Moral, Political, and Legal Issue will be aired tomorrow, Saturday, Dec 4th
On Sunday, December 5th James Hansen will be joined by Naomi Klein, the author of The Shock Doctrine; The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and Clayton Thomas Muller, an activist with the Indigenous Environmental Network to engage in a conversation about the political and legal ramification of the struggle to curb man-made global warming.
Perhaps in preparation for the two broadcasts, you might want take a look at a series of programs about climate change debate which aired last season on The Agenda with Steve Paikin http://bit.ly/gtckuB
BIG IDEAS airs on TVO every Saturday and Sunday at 5:00 pm. To download our podcast, please go to our website at www.tvo.org/bigideas.
If you miss the weekend broadcasts, you can also watch or listen to BIG IDEAS podcasts via iTunes. Here is a handy link http://bit.ly/9fcG3C .
Don’t hesitate to share this e-mail with friends who might share your enjoyment of great lectures.
Enjoy,
Wodek Szemberg ProducerBIG IDEAS Best Lecturer CompetitionFlying SoloThe Agenda with Steve PaikinP: 416-484-2751 E: wszemberg@tvo.org
I know I'm going to try to tune in to TVO's coverage this weekend!
-----
From: "TVOntario's Big Ideas"
Date: 3 December, 2010 6:15:40 PM
Hello,
This weekend’s BIG IDEAS broadcasts are devoted to one side in the debate on climate change. The reason why there is only one side represented has to do with the highly ideological nature of the debate. Science for Peace and The Centre for Global Change Science which organized the event invited participants who hold the view that when it comes to climate change there is only one side. And that those who deny the dire state of global warming are morally if not criminally responsible for a future that is going to threaten the health of “our grandchildren”
The main speaker at the event was James Hansen one of the best known climate scientists in the world and the author of “Storms of My Grandchildren”. His talk on Human-Made Climate Change: A Moral, Political, and Legal Issue will be aired tomorrow, Saturday, Dec 4th
On Sunday, December 5th James Hansen will be joined by Naomi Klein, the author of The Shock Doctrine; The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and Clayton Thomas Muller, an activist with the Indigenous Environmental Network to engage in a conversation about the political and legal ramification of the struggle to curb man-made global warming.
Perhaps in preparation for the two broadcasts, you might want take a look at a series of programs about climate change debate which aired last season on The Agenda with Steve Paikin http://bit.ly/gtckuB
BIG IDEAS airs on TVO every Saturday and Sunday at 5:00 pm. To download our podcast, please go to our website at www.tvo.org/bigideas.
If you miss the weekend broadcasts, you can also watch or listen to BIG IDEAS podcasts via iTunes. Here is a handy link http://bit.ly/9fcG3C .
Don’t hesitate to share this e-mail with friends who might share your enjoyment of great lectures.
Enjoy,
Wodek Szemberg ProducerBIG IDEAS Best Lecturer CompetitionFlying SoloThe Agenda with Steve PaikinP: 416-484-2751 E: wszemberg@tvo.org
Change is Upon Us, Part 3: Food Security
The bad news about the world’s population is that we are currently on track to reach 9 billion people by 2050. A rising population requires additional resources to service: more food, more water and more energy. Our resources are already very strained.
The good news is that globally, quality of life has been generally improving these past few decades. More people, especially women, are receiving an education, are better fed, and are participating more fully in the workforce, contributing to the economy. This has led directly to a declining birth rate; in the western world, birth rates are often already lower than population replacement levels, which means that the several decades out, we are likely to experience a decline in western populations. If current trends continue, our population is expected to peak between 2040 and 2070, and begin the process of levelling off.
The bad news is that current population trends may not be sustainable even in the near term. The so-called “Green Revolution” which relied on the use of fossil fuel inputs to manage and increase agricultural production, and which led to those quality of life improvements I referred to earlier, have also left global food security in a bit of a mess. The growth of global food production which we saw over the last half of the 20th century has proven to be unsustainable in the longer term, as growth which relies on the input of non-renewable resources must be. As the price of oil goes up, so does the price of food. The more expensive food is to produce, the fewer people who can afford it. As agricultural lands are lost due to drought, or because of displaced workers, the more expensive food becomes for everyone.
As a result, with a rising population, and rising food prices, the current trend towards a population of 9 billion by mid-century is likely not going to be met. Those two big-ticket issues I wrote about in previous blogs, climate change and peak oil, are going to significantly impact our food security. As a result, we can expect global food shortages to occur in the near future, unless we begin to recognize and address the problems with industrial-scale agriculture which relies on massive inputs of fossil fuels for the growing, harvesting and distribution of food.
What am I saying here? Let me be blunt: I’m talking about the need to change our food production and distribution system or we risk starvation on a massive scale. Hungry people are a threat to international security. If people do not get enough to eat, there is a significant likelihood that they will take matters into their own hands.
In Canada, it might appear that we are relatively insulated from the coming food shortages, as we have an incredible amount of agricultural land, and not that many mouths to feed. Further, even slight warming in global temperatures may create positive situations for agricultural opportunities, as the range of crops might be extended further north. And, since Canada has a good supply of oil, perhaps it makes sense to expect that we’ll weather the agricultural storm better than other parts of the world will.
Canada, however, can not be looked at in isolation. We are connected to global markets through economic forces and agreements, such as NAFTA. The health of our economy relies on exports. Should international markets for our products begin to dry up due to economic collapse, you can bet that Canada will not emerge unaffected.
The Green Revolution, which initially increased crop yields worldwide significantly, has also left us vulnerable to a changing climate and the end of cheap oil. It’s time that we began weaning ourselves off of soil-depleting artificial fertilizers and mechanization. Crop yields can be sustained at current levels if we manage our agricultural lands in innovative ways. Agricultural experts already know how to do this, and even here in North America, farmers have proven that they can sustain current yield levels without significant inputs of oil.
We need to begin to think about agriculture as something different than an industry. Instead, we need to treat agriculture as a life-sustaining resource. In the future, if we choose to take action to ensure our long term food security, agriculture is going to have become much less reliant on fossil fuels and more reliant on labour and human interventions. There will be more farmers, and the farming profession will be a more respected calling than it is today.
Our food must also travel less before it reaches our plates. The cost of moving food around the globe is only going to increase. Strategies which promote eating local are already being implemented around the world. To be even more successful, these strategies may require more significant supports.
Canadians will also need to start eating less meat, as animals bred for meat production in our industrialized agricultural sector are contributors to climate change and oil depletion in a number of ways, including through the consumption of grains. While we can not expect meat to disappear from our diets altogether, we can expect to consume less of it in the future.
Without intervention in our agricultural system, and in our food distribution system, we can expect to suffer the negative consequences of our inaction.
The good news is that we know what we need to do to continue putting food on our plates in the future. The bad news is that we’ve yet to find the political will to begin making the changes to our agricultural sector which we must make. The price for inaction will be high if we continue along the path set out by the so-called Green Revolution. Like the economy in general, which has relied historically on cheap oil for growth, so too has our agricultural sector. This reliance on oil has made both our economy and agricultural sector unsustainable.
The good news is that globally, quality of life has been generally improving these past few decades. More people, especially women, are receiving an education, are better fed, and are participating more fully in the workforce, contributing to the economy. This has led directly to a declining birth rate; in the western world, birth rates are often already lower than population replacement levels, which means that the several decades out, we are likely to experience a decline in western populations. If current trends continue, our population is expected to peak between 2040 and 2070, and begin the process of levelling off.
The bad news is that current population trends may not be sustainable even in the near term. The so-called “Green Revolution” which relied on the use of fossil fuel inputs to manage and increase agricultural production, and which led to those quality of life improvements I referred to earlier, have also left global food security in a bit of a mess. The growth of global food production which we saw over the last half of the 20th century has proven to be unsustainable in the longer term, as growth which relies on the input of non-renewable resources must be. As the price of oil goes up, so does the price of food. The more expensive food is to produce, the fewer people who can afford it. As agricultural lands are lost due to drought, or because of displaced workers, the more expensive food becomes for everyone.
As a result, with a rising population, and rising food prices, the current trend towards a population of 9 billion by mid-century is likely not going to be met. Those two big-ticket issues I wrote about in previous blogs, climate change and peak oil, are going to significantly impact our food security. As a result, we can expect global food shortages to occur in the near future, unless we begin to recognize and address the problems with industrial-scale agriculture which relies on massive inputs of fossil fuels for the growing, harvesting and distribution of food.
What am I saying here? Let me be blunt: I’m talking about the need to change our food production and distribution system or we risk starvation on a massive scale. Hungry people are a threat to international security. If people do not get enough to eat, there is a significant likelihood that they will take matters into their own hands.
In Canada, it might appear that we are relatively insulated from the coming food shortages, as we have an incredible amount of agricultural land, and not that many mouths to feed. Further, even slight warming in global temperatures may create positive situations for agricultural opportunities, as the range of crops might be extended further north. And, since Canada has a good supply of oil, perhaps it makes sense to expect that we’ll weather the agricultural storm better than other parts of the world will.
Canada, however, can not be looked at in isolation. We are connected to global markets through economic forces and agreements, such as NAFTA. The health of our economy relies on exports. Should international markets for our products begin to dry up due to economic collapse, you can bet that Canada will not emerge unaffected.
The Green Revolution, which initially increased crop yields worldwide significantly, has also left us vulnerable to a changing climate and the end of cheap oil. It’s time that we began weaning ourselves off of soil-depleting artificial fertilizers and mechanization. Crop yields can be sustained at current levels if we manage our agricultural lands in innovative ways. Agricultural experts already know how to do this, and even here in North America, farmers have proven that they can sustain current yield levels without significant inputs of oil.
We need to begin to think about agriculture as something different than an industry. Instead, we need to treat agriculture as a life-sustaining resource. In the future, if we choose to take action to ensure our long term food security, agriculture is going to have become much less reliant on fossil fuels and more reliant on labour and human interventions. There will be more farmers, and the farming profession will be a more respected calling than it is today.
Our food must also travel less before it reaches our plates. The cost of moving food around the globe is only going to increase. Strategies which promote eating local are already being implemented around the world. To be even more successful, these strategies may require more significant supports.
Canadians will also need to start eating less meat, as animals bred for meat production in our industrialized agricultural sector are contributors to climate change and oil depletion in a number of ways, including through the consumption of grains. While we can not expect meat to disappear from our diets altogether, we can expect to consume less of it in the future.
Without intervention in our agricultural system, and in our food distribution system, we can expect to suffer the negative consequences of our inaction.
The good news is that we know what we need to do to continue putting food on our plates in the future. The bad news is that we’ve yet to find the political will to begin making the changes to our agricultural sector which we must make. The price for inaction will be high if we continue along the path set out by the so-called Green Revolution. Like the economy in general, which has relied historically on cheap oil for growth, so too has our agricultural sector. This reliance on oil has made both our economy and agricultural sector unsustainable.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Change is Upon Us, Part 2: Peak Oil
Peak Oil. You may have heard of this term before, as it’s been slowly creeping into mainstream consciousness over the past 10 years or so. The concept, although not difficult to understand, is still often poorly understood, often due to it being misrepresented by those who have a continuing vested interest in denying that peak oil is happening.
At the top of that list used to be the IEA (International Energy Agency), which is an international body established by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development), which is itself an international body comprised of member nations “committed to democracy and the market economy”. If you think of the OECD as a group of like-minded bankers, firmly committed to the status quo, you won’t be far off. The point is that both the OECD and the IEA do not operate under the United Nations; they exist for the benefit of member nations, which tend to be those with strong economies and western democratic ideals.
Prior to just a few weeks ago, the IEA pretended to have never heard of the concept of Peak Oil. You see, every year the IEA publishes its World Energy Outlook report, which in part assesses proven reserves of oil, and looks ahead to what we can expect in the next several decades based on current information.
There has long been suggestions out there that the IEA has suppressed data, and has therefore tended to paint a much rosier picture of the world’s energy reserves than what actually exists. Some have suggested that they have done so under pressure from large nations, such as the United States, who have intervened out of fears that if the true picture began to emerge, there would be widespread concern amongst the populace. Whether this is true or not (or whether data is manipulated due to oil producing nations over-stating their proven reserves), the fact is that the IEA’s oil outlook has always been pretty optimistic.
As a result, you’ve probably heard the Big Oil Executives tell you through the media that the world isn’t running out of oil and that there’s nothing to worry about. Those that suggest otherwise are just fear-mongers, or are using “peak oil” to advance their own (often “socialist” or “environmentalist”) agendas. Either way, everything is fine, go to sleep and don’t worry about the future.
Well, a couple of weeks ago the IEA released its 2010 World Energy Outlook, and guess what? For the first time, the IEA started talking about Peak Oil. Not only did the IEA acknowledge that there is such a thing as Peak Oil, they went further and said, “Guess what? We’ve already passed the peak, back in 2005 or 2006.”
The Big Oil Execs are right about one thing, though: the world isn’t running out of oil. Every time they trot that argument out in an attempt to deny the existence of peak oil, you need to understand that their argument is irrelevant. The world isn’t running out of oil. What we are running out of is cheap oil.
Think of oil this way: when we first started extracting oil, about 100 years ago, for every barrel of oil used to power extraction, 17 barrels of new oil were produced. That was a 17:1 ratio. Today, the ration has fallen to something closer to 6:1. Why has this happened? It’s because we’ve already exploited all of the easily accessible oil, and we’re now having to spend more money (and energy) on extracting oil in places which are harder to get to, such as on continental shelves or in deep waters like the Gulf of Mexico.
We’re also increasing supplies from unconventional sources, such as the Alberta Tar Sands, where the ratio of return is estimated at being closer to 3:1.
So, there is still a lot of oil left in the ground, but unfortunately it’s the stuff which is harder to get to. However, since demand for oil remains strong, and is in fact increasing significantly year by year, we have little choice but to turn to more expensive sources.
Demand for more oil will continue to drive extraction. For our market economy to function, it must continue to grow. Unfortunately for us, what powers are market economy are fossil fuels, especially oil. Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources, which means that they can be depleted. As depletion occurs, the resource becomes more scarce, and the price trends upwards. Those who can continue to pay the higher price do so, and continue to prosper, albeit at smaller profit margins. Those who can’t afford to pay the price lose out, go out of business, and stop doing whatever it was they were doing, such as producing a particular product and employing a certain number of people to make it.
So think about that for a moment. Our whole economy is structured on the notion that growth must occur. That’s why economists and politicians like to talk about economic growth as being necessary, and “negative growth” as being a threat. However, what is fuelling our economic growth is something which is getting increasingly expensive to produce. Looks like we’re in for a bit of a rough ride as everything will get more expensive, right?
Well, actually, it could get worse than that. You may have learned in Economics 101 that if demand goes up, so do prices, but usually this is only temporary, as more supply will eventually arrive on the market to meet demand. Sometimes this referred to as the Law of Supply and Demand, as if it were some high and might scientific principle applicable to all market situations.
Unfortunately, what Peak Oil is all about is confounding the “Law” of Supply and Demand. While demand for oil will continue to increase, the world’s ability to supply oil to meet demands isn’t going to happen, because we will produce less oil, due to the increasing costs associated with unconventional sources. Even today, in 2010, the world is not producing as much oil as we did in 2005, which goes against the previous 100 year trend.
The impacts which Peak Oil are likely to have on our lives are uncertain, and there are many contradictory assessments which are out there. Clearly, though, there is going to come a time in the near future when those who can afford higher prices are going to be separated from those who can’t afford them, and this is going to be a game changer.
On the surface, the concept of Peak Oil has little to do with climate change. Certainly, a changing climate has nothing to do with how little oil we have left in the ground after extraction. However, the overlap between climate change and peak oil occur when we go looking for solutions.
Burning oil contributes to climate change. Burning oil will become more expensive in the coming years. What we need to find is a new source of energy which won’t contribute to climate change, and which can ultimately begin to replace oil. The process of doing this is sometimes referred to as “Decarbonizing” our economy. It sounds like it might not be so hard to do, as we are already aware of many alternative, renewable sources of energy. The reality is, it’s going to be the biggest undertaking in the history of humanity.
The first step forward to address peak oil and climate change will be to begin having conversations at all levels about what we can do, as individuals, business owners, corporations and governments. We must acknowledge that the problems exist, and tune out those who deny these realities, identifying them for the obstructions to progress that they are. This won’t be easy, as international corporate elites have a lot of money invested in our current market economy, and they have shown time and again that they won't let facts get in the way of their agenda.
Peak oil and climate change are two issues we need to start figuring out solutions for. The solutions are out there, but they are going to be transformative for us should we implement them. If we don't implement solutions of our own choosing, well, other solutions will be imposed on us, because change is happening. Tomorrow will not be the same as today, that's clear.
At the top of that list used to be the IEA (International Energy Agency), which is an international body established by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development), which is itself an international body comprised of member nations “committed to democracy and the market economy”. If you think of the OECD as a group of like-minded bankers, firmly committed to the status quo, you won’t be far off. The point is that both the OECD and the IEA do not operate under the United Nations; they exist for the benefit of member nations, which tend to be those with strong economies and western democratic ideals.
Prior to just a few weeks ago, the IEA pretended to have never heard of the concept of Peak Oil. You see, every year the IEA publishes its World Energy Outlook report, which in part assesses proven reserves of oil, and looks ahead to what we can expect in the next several decades based on current information.
There has long been suggestions out there that the IEA has suppressed data, and has therefore tended to paint a much rosier picture of the world’s energy reserves than what actually exists. Some have suggested that they have done so under pressure from large nations, such as the United States, who have intervened out of fears that if the true picture began to emerge, there would be widespread concern amongst the populace. Whether this is true or not (or whether data is manipulated due to oil producing nations over-stating their proven reserves), the fact is that the IEA’s oil outlook has always been pretty optimistic.
As a result, you’ve probably heard the Big Oil Executives tell you through the media that the world isn’t running out of oil and that there’s nothing to worry about. Those that suggest otherwise are just fear-mongers, or are using “peak oil” to advance their own (often “socialist” or “environmentalist”) agendas. Either way, everything is fine, go to sleep and don’t worry about the future.
Well, a couple of weeks ago the IEA released its 2010 World Energy Outlook, and guess what? For the first time, the IEA started talking about Peak Oil. Not only did the IEA acknowledge that there is such a thing as Peak Oil, they went further and said, “Guess what? We’ve already passed the peak, back in 2005 or 2006.”
The Big Oil Execs are right about one thing, though: the world isn’t running out of oil. Every time they trot that argument out in an attempt to deny the existence of peak oil, you need to understand that their argument is irrelevant. The world isn’t running out of oil. What we are running out of is cheap oil.
Think of oil this way: when we first started extracting oil, about 100 years ago, for every barrel of oil used to power extraction, 17 barrels of new oil were produced. That was a 17:1 ratio. Today, the ration has fallen to something closer to 6:1. Why has this happened? It’s because we’ve already exploited all of the easily accessible oil, and we’re now having to spend more money (and energy) on extracting oil in places which are harder to get to, such as on continental shelves or in deep waters like the Gulf of Mexico.
We’re also increasing supplies from unconventional sources, such as the Alberta Tar Sands, where the ratio of return is estimated at being closer to 3:1.
So, there is still a lot of oil left in the ground, but unfortunately it’s the stuff which is harder to get to. However, since demand for oil remains strong, and is in fact increasing significantly year by year, we have little choice but to turn to more expensive sources.
Demand for more oil will continue to drive extraction. For our market economy to function, it must continue to grow. Unfortunately for us, what powers are market economy are fossil fuels, especially oil. Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources, which means that they can be depleted. As depletion occurs, the resource becomes more scarce, and the price trends upwards. Those who can continue to pay the higher price do so, and continue to prosper, albeit at smaller profit margins. Those who can’t afford to pay the price lose out, go out of business, and stop doing whatever it was they were doing, such as producing a particular product and employing a certain number of people to make it.
So think about that for a moment. Our whole economy is structured on the notion that growth must occur. That’s why economists and politicians like to talk about economic growth as being necessary, and “negative growth” as being a threat. However, what is fuelling our economic growth is something which is getting increasingly expensive to produce. Looks like we’re in for a bit of a rough ride as everything will get more expensive, right?
Well, actually, it could get worse than that. You may have learned in Economics 101 that if demand goes up, so do prices, but usually this is only temporary, as more supply will eventually arrive on the market to meet demand. Sometimes this referred to as the Law of Supply and Demand, as if it were some high and might scientific principle applicable to all market situations.
Unfortunately, what Peak Oil is all about is confounding the “Law” of Supply and Demand. While demand for oil will continue to increase, the world’s ability to supply oil to meet demands isn’t going to happen, because we will produce less oil, due to the increasing costs associated with unconventional sources. Even today, in 2010, the world is not producing as much oil as we did in 2005, which goes against the previous 100 year trend.
The impacts which Peak Oil are likely to have on our lives are uncertain, and there are many contradictory assessments which are out there. Clearly, though, there is going to come a time in the near future when those who can afford higher prices are going to be separated from those who can’t afford them, and this is going to be a game changer.
On the surface, the concept of Peak Oil has little to do with climate change. Certainly, a changing climate has nothing to do with how little oil we have left in the ground after extraction. However, the overlap between climate change and peak oil occur when we go looking for solutions.
Burning oil contributes to climate change. Burning oil will become more expensive in the coming years. What we need to find is a new source of energy which won’t contribute to climate change, and which can ultimately begin to replace oil. The process of doing this is sometimes referred to as “Decarbonizing” our economy. It sounds like it might not be so hard to do, as we are already aware of many alternative, renewable sources of energy. The reality is, it’s going to be the biggest undertaking in the history of humanity.
The first step forward to address peak oil and climate change will be to begin having conversations at all levels about what we can do, as individuals, business owners, corporations and governments. We must acknowledge that the problems exist, and tune out those who deny these realities, identifying them for the obstructions to progress that they are. This won’t be easy, as international corporate elites have a lot of money invested in our current market economy, and they have shown time and again that they won't let facts get in the way of their agenda.
Peak oil and climate change are two issues we need to start figuring out solutions for. The solutions are out there, but they are going to be transformative for us should we implement them. If we don't implement solutions of our own choosing, well, other solutions will be imposed on us, because change is happening. Tomorrow will not be the same as today, that's clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)