Planet Earth is now in a Global Warming Emergency Code Red!

I basically agree that our politicians are not the answer, they are a big part of the problem. It's the young people's future, if they survive, older people won't, who are the only ones that have the slightest chance of reducing global warming, but can they move quick enough.   

“I haven’t met a politician ready to do what it takes”: Greta Thunberg and Björk in conversation

https://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2022/10/greta-thunberg-bjork-gu...

Greta Thunberg says she earns no money from her activism

‘I have won many awards... but I’ve donated all my money,’ 19-year-old says

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/greta-thunberg-activism-net-wor...

We are so screwed!

State of emergency declared on B.C.'s Sunshine Coast because of drought

20 Nations at High Risk From Global Warming Might Halt Debt Payments

The countries want their collective $685 billion in debts forgiven so the money can be invested in climate projects.

Coastal erosion in the arctic

https://earth.org/coastal-erosion-arctic/

What if we could put out fire with gasoline It's possible

https://twitter.com/ChrisGusen/status/1582740118984568832

What if Canada could have a bigger oil and gas industry, and lower emissions? It’s possible

- globe and mail editorial oct 17

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/10/19/oceans-war...

Trees help cities tackle climate crisis and inequality

by David SuzukiOctober 19, 2022

Greening cities is a crucial part of resolving the climate crisis, but it also offers ways to address the many inequities that poor urban planning has created and climate disruption has exacerbated.

A photo of trees in a green space. Credit: Beth Macdonald / Unsplash

Environmental racism or discrimination can take many forms. It can mean building polluting factories or mines next to Indigenous communities, or “relocating” marginalized or racialized people to make room for an industrial project or dam.

To find an urban example, look to the trees. Research shows wealthier neighbourhoods usually have better tree and shrub cover than poorer, more diverse neighbourhoods. That’s important for a number of reasons. First, most of us live in cities — 80 per cent in Canada. Beyond the fact that they look nice and increase property values, trees and shrubs reduce pollution and noise, keep air cooler, decrease flooding and runoff, make cities more resilient, improve mental health and well-being, and provide shelter and habitat for numerous animals.

Trees’ ability to cool and shade is particularly critical as the planet heats up. Sadly, people in areas with fewer trees also often lack air conditioners or public buildings where they can get relief.

Giving more people better access to treed green spaces is something everyone can get behind. David Suzuki Foundation studies in Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto found residents in all three cities are willing to invest in “an urban forest with a higher density of trees, a wider diversity of tree species, the presence of street shrubs.”

The studies — conducted by researchers at the University of Quebec in Outaouais and University of Montreal — point out that, in terms of resilience, social acceptance and economic viability, natural infrastructure is one of the most effective climate adaptation solutions.

They also noted that “the distribution of vegetation over a city’s territory is generally uneven: poorer or more multicultural neighbourhoods often have a thinner canopy than their richer or white neighbours. These well-documented inequalities can be seen in cities around the world, and Canadian cities are no exception.”

It’s especially important as research shows urban areas are heating faster than rural areas — on average about 29 per cent. A study by scientists at Nanjing and Yale universities found planting trees along streets, creating rain gardens and removing pavement can create a cooling effect and reduce the rate of urban warming. Increasing trees and green spaces in urban areas has already reduced heat in cities in Europe and the U.S.

But just as urban life can be difficult for residents in areas lacking green spaces and trees, it can also be difficult for trees. “Trees are not given enough room, they have poor soil quality and limited access to water,” University of British Columbia assistant forestry professor Lorien Nesbitt told the West End Journal. “They’re usually planted in an environment after all the grey infrastructure has already gone in. We need to create more space for trees in our city, and to prioritize protecting them.”

A recent study in Nature found that “more than two-thirds of tree species across cities worldwide are facing severe climate risks, undermining their roles in climate adaptation and other ecosystem services they provide.” The researchers recommend cities everywhere take immediate measures such as planting more trees and shrubs, especially climate-resilient ones, and channelling rainfall into rain gardens or tanks.

An urban forest is not, after all, the same as a wild forest, with its incredible diversity, mother trees, interconnected mycelial networks and abundance of wildlife. Urban plantings need to be planned and executed in ways that ensure resilience, including increasing tree and shrub diversity. The Foundation study found that, just as tree cover is lacking in neighbourhoods with socio-economically vulnerable populations, tree diversity was also proportionately lower, increasing “the risk of destruction of a larger part of the urban forest in these neighbourhoods following a disturbance.”

It’s no wonder that research found such widespread support for more urban greening. Not only do trees, shrubs, rain gardens, “Butterflyways” and other green spaces offer numerous benefits for everything from human health and well-being to the climate crisis, they can also save enormous amounts of money by reducing health care costs, making city infrastructure more resilient to extreme weather–related events and even reducing crime.

Greening cities is a crucial part of resolving the climate crisis, but it also offers ways to address the many inequities that poor urban planning has created and climate disruption has exacerbated. It’s an affordable, practical, popular solution with numerous benefits and no real downside.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Writer and Editor Ian Hanington. Learn more at davidsuzuki.org.

https://rabble.ca/environment/trees-help-cities-tackle-climate-crisis-an...

Metro Vancouver's last remaining glacier is disappearing fast

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/last-glacier-metrovancou...

Eleven wrong ideas about climate

Many of them are full of good will and good intentions—the road to hell, as we know, is paved with them

Michael Löwy / October 20, 2022 / 9 min readSYNDICATED

ENVIRONMENTSOCIALISM

Photo by Magnus D/Flickr

In various speeches on climate and climate change, we find a large number of commonplace ideas, repeated a thousand times in all tones, which constitute wrong ideas. These lead, voluntarily or not, to ignoring the real issues, or to belief in pseudo-solutions. I am not referring here to negationist or denialist speeches, but to those that claim to be ‘green’ and ‘sustainable.’ These are assertions of a very diverse nature: some are real manipulations, fake news, lies, mystifications; others are half-truths, or a quarter of the truth. Many of them are full of good will and good intentions—the road to hell, as we know, is paved with them.

This is the road we are on: if we continue with business as usual—even if painted green—in a few decades we will find ourselves in a situation much worse than most of the circles of hell described by Dante Alighieri in his Divine Comedy.

The following eleven examples are just a few of the common mistakes to avoid.

1. We must save the planet

We see it everywhere: on billboards, in the press, in magazines, and in statements by political leaders. In fact, it is nonsense: the planet Earth is not at all in danger! Whatever the climate, it will continue to revolve around the sun for the next many millions of years. What is threatened by global warming are the many forms of life on this planet, including our own: the species Homo Sapiens.

“Saving the planet” gives the false impression that it is something that is external to us, that is somewhere else, and that does not concern us, directly. People are not asked to worry about their lives, or their children’s lives, but about a vague abstraction, ‘the planet.’ No wonder that the least politicized people react by saying: I am too busy with my own problems to worry about ‘the planet.’

2. Do something to save the planet

This common mistake, infinitely repeated, is a variant of the previous formula.

It contains a half-truth: it is necessary that each one personally contributes to avoid the catastrophe. But it conveys the illusion that it is enough to accumulate ‘small gestures’—turning off the lights, closing the tap—to avoid the worst. We thus evacuate—consciously or not—the necessity of deep structural changes in the current mode of production and consumption; changes that question the very foundations of the capitalist system, based on a single criterion: the maximization of profit.

3. The polar bear is in danger

It’s a picture that is everywhere, repeated over and over again: a poor polar bear trying to survive in the middle of drifting ice blocks. Certainly, the life of the polar bear—and of many other species in the polar regions—is threatened. This image may arouse the compassion of a few generous souls, but for most of the population it is a matter that does not concern them.

But the melting of the polar ice is a threat not only to the brave polar bear, but in the long run to half, if not more, of humanity living in large cities by the sea. The melting of the immense glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica can raise the sea level by a few dozen meters. However, it only takes a few meters for cities like Venice, Amsterdam, London, New York, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai and Hong Kong to be submerged. Of course, this will not happen next year, but scientists can only observe that the melting of these glaciers is accelerating. It is impossible to predict how fast it will happen; many factors are difficult to calculate for the moment.

By putting forward only the poor polar bear, we hide that it is a terrifying affair which concerns us all.

Polar bear on sea ice near Wahlenbergfjord, Norway. Photo from Flickr.

4. The Global South is at risk of suffering a lot with climate change

It is a half-truth, full of good will: global warming will affect mainly the poor countries of the South, which are the least responsible for carbon emissions. It is true that these countries will be the most affected by climate disasters, hurricanes, drought, reduction of water sources, and so on. But it is not true that the countries of the North will not be affected, to a very large extent, by these same dangers: haven’t we seen terrible forest fires in the USA, in Canada, in Australia? Haven’t heat waves caused many victims in Europe? We could multiply the examples.

If we maintain the impression that these threats only concern the peoples of the South, we will only be able to mobilize a minority of convinced internationalists. However, sooner or later it is the whole of humanity that will be confronted with unprecedented catastrophes. It is necessary to explain to the populations of the North that this threat weighs on them too, very directly.

5. By the year 2100, temperature may rise to 3.5 degrees (above pre-industrial period)

This is a statement that is, unfortunately, found in many serious documents. This seems to me a double error. From a scientific point of view, we know that climate change is not a linear process; it can have sudden ‘jumps’ and accelerations. Many dimensions of global warming have feedbacks, whose consequences are unpredictable. For example: forest fires emit huge amounts of CO2, which contribute to warming, thus intensifying forest fires. It is therefore very difficult to predict what will happen in four or five years. How can we pretend to predict a century away?

From a political point of view: at the end of the century, we will all be dead, as well as our children and grandchildren. How can we mobilize people’s attention and commitment for a future that does not concern them, neither from near nor from far? So we should worry about the generations to come? Noble thought, argued at length by the philosopher Hans Jonas: our moral duty toward those not yet born. A small minority of very respectable people could be touched by this argument. For most ordinary people, what will happen in 2100 is not a matter that interests them much.

6. By 2050 we will be carbon neutral

This promise of the European Union and of various governments in Europe and elsewhere is not a half-truth, nor is it naïve goodwill. There are two reasons why it is pure and simple mystification.

Instead of committing now, immediately, to the urgent changes demanded by the scientific community (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) for the next three to four years, our governments promise wonders for 2050. This is obviously much too late. Besides, as governments change every four or five years, what guarantee is there for these fictitious commitments in 30 years? It is a grotesque way to justify present inaction with a vague promise in the distant future.

Moreover, ‘carbon neutrality’ does not mean a drastic reduction of emissions, quite the contrary! It is a misleading calculation based on offsets, ‘compensation mechanisms’; company X continues to emit CO2, but plants a forest in Indonesia, supposed to absorb the equivalent of this CO2—if it does not catch fire. The ecological NGOs have already denounced the farce of offsets enough, I won’t cover the same ground here. But this shows the perfect mystification contained in the promise of ‘carbon neutrality.’

7. Banks finance renewable energies and thus participate in the ecological transition

This common method of green-washing is also deception and manipulation. Of course, banks and multinationals also invest in renewable energies, but precise studies by ATTAC and other NGOs have shown that this is a small—sometimes tiny—part of their financial operations: the bulk continues to go to oil, coal, gas. It is a simple question of profitability and competition for market shares.

All ‘reasonable’ governments—unlike Trump, Bolsonaro and co.—also swear, in every tone, that they are committed to the ecological transition and renewable energies. But as soon as there is a problem with the supply of a fossil energy—gas recently, because of the aggressive Russian policy—they take refuge in coal, reactivating lignite power plants, or they implore the (bloody) royal family of Saudi Arabia to increase oil production.

The fine speeches about the ‘ecological transition’ hide an unpleasant truth: it is not enough to develop renewable energies. First of all, renewable energies are intermittent: the Sun does not always shine in Northern Europe… Of course, technical advances exist in this field, but they cannot solve everything. And above all, renewables require mining resources that are likely to be exhausted. If the wind and the Sun are unlimited, it is not at all the case of the materials necessary to use them (lithium, rare earth metals). It will therefore be necessary to consider a reduction in the global consumption of energy, and a selective decrease: unimaginable measures within the framework of capitalism.

8. Thanks to carbon capture and sequestration technology, we will avoid the climate catastrophe

This is an argument that is increasingly used by governments, and it can even be found in some serious documents. It is the illusion of a technological miracle solution, which would save the climate, without the need to change anything in our (capitalist) mode of production and in our way of life.

Alas, the sad truth is that these miraculous techniques of capture and sequestration of atmospheric carbon are far from being a reality. Certainly, a few attempts have been made, a few projects are underway here and there, but for the moment we cannot say that this technology is effective and operational. It has not yet solved the difficulties of either capture or sequestration (in underground regions impervious to leakage). And there is no guarantee that in the future it will be able to do it.

9. Thanks to the electric car, we will substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions

This is another example of a half-truth: it is true that electric cars are less polluting than thermal cars (gasoline or diesel), and therefore less damaging to the health of urban residents. However, from the point of view of climate change, their record is much more mixed. They emit less CO2, but contribute to a disastrous ‘all-electricity’ situation. And yet, in most countries, electricity is produced with… fossil fuels (coal or oil). The reduced emissions of electric cars are ‘compensated’ by the increased emissions resulting from the higher consumption of electricity. In France, electricity is produced by nuclear energy, another dead end. In Brazil, it is the mega-dams that destroy forests and are therefore responsible for a poor carbon balance.

If we want to drastically reduce emissions, we cannot avoid a significant reduction of private car traffic, thanks to the promotion of alternative means of transport: free public transport, pedestrian zones, cycle lanes. The electric car maintains the illusion that we can continue as before, by changing the technology.

Electric vehicle parking spot. Photo from Shutterstock.

10. It is through market mechanisms that we will succeed in reducing CO2 emissions

Among sincere environmentalists, this is an illusion; in the mouths of governments, it is still a mystification. Market mechanisms have proven their inefficiency in reducing greenhouse gases. Not only are they anti-social measures that make the working classes pay the price of the ‘ecological transition,’ but above all they are incapable of making a substantial contribution to limiting emissions. The spectacular failure of the ‘carbon markets’ instituted by the Kyoto agreements are the best demonstration of this.

It is not by ‘indirect’ or ‘incentive’ measures, based on the logic of the capitalist market, that we will be able to put a brake on the omnipotence of fossil fuels, which have kept the system going for two centuries. To begin with, it will be necessary to expropriate the capitalist energy monopolies, to create a public energy service, which will have as its objective the drastic reduction of the exploitation of fossil fuels.

11. Climate change is inevitable, we can only adapt

This kind of fatalistic assertion can be found in the mainstream media and among political ‘leaders.’ For example, Mr. Christophe Bechu, Minister of Ecological Transition in the new Macron government in France, recently declared:

Since we will not be able to prevent global warming, no matter how hard we try, we must manage to limit its effects while adapting to it.

This is an excellent recipe to justify inaction, immobility, and the abandonment of any ‘effort’ to try to avoid the worst. However, the IPCC scientists have clearly explained that if warming has indeed already started, it is still possible to avoid exceeding the 1.5 degree red line—provided that we start immediately to reduce CO2 emissions in a very significant way.

Of course, we must try to adapt. But if climate change becomes uncontrollable and accelerates, ‘adaptation’ is only a decoy. How can we ‘adapt’ to temperatures above 50°C?

We could multiply the examples. All of them lead to the conclusion that if we want to avoid climate change, we must change the system and replace it by another form of production and consumption. This is what we call ecosocialism. But this is the subject of another text.

Michael Löwy, a philosopher and sociologist of Brazilian origin, is a member of the New Anti-capitalist Party in France and of the Fourth International. He is the author of many books, including The Marxism of Che Guevara, Marxism and Liberation Theology, Fatherland or Mother Earth? and The War of Gods: Religion and Politics in Latin America. He is joint author (with Joel Kovel) of the International Ecosocialist Manifesto.

This article originally appeared on the Global Ecosocialist Network website.

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/eleven-wrong-ideas-about-cli...

International climate change bodies win humanity award

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2022/10/13/international-climate-chang...

Greenwashing Bunk

https://thetyee.ca/News/2022/10/21/FortisBC-Claims-Greenwashing-Bunk/

When governments screw around to mislead citizens about science, including our survival, what chance do we have? 

Law governing Bureau of Meteorology must change to reflect climate crisis, says former chief

Exclusive: Rob Vertessy says there was a ‘baked-in cautiousness’ in the bureau about discussing climate change under the Coalition

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/24/law-governing-bur...

We Still Haven’t Learned to Live with Wildfires

Despite a long history of devastation in Canada, politicians have failed to do what’s necessary to prevent future fires.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2022/10/26/Have-Not-Learned-To-Live-With-Wil...

When will we reach the point of no return or are we already there?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/27/headed-for-a-global-catastroph...

Greta to pass on bullshit climate summit in Egypt!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/31/greta-thunberg-to-sk...

Vacation trips to Europe during the summer may become a thing of the past, as we continue to cook our our planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/02/europes-climate-warm...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/glaciers-disappear-by-2050-unesco-report...

What a farce!

‘Among the worst in the world’: environmental advocates slam outsized oil and gas company influence in Canada’s COP27 delegation

The official Canadian delegation to the 27th UN Climate Conference is made up of approximately 335 people, but one critic says many civil society representatives have had to find their own way to Egypt.

Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, seen here on Sept. 15, is leading Canada's 300-plus person official delegation to COP27 in Egypt from Nov. 6 to Nov. 18. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

NEWS | BY KEVIN PHILIPUPILLAI | November 10, 2022

​

Canadian environmentalists are decrying Ottawa’s “embarrassing” decision to include too many fossil fuel industry representatives in its official COP27 delegation, saying that presence is also visible in Canada Pavilion programming. Meanwhile, one industry representative says any solution to the climate crisis must involve the oil sands.

Environmental advocate Tzeporah Berman told The Hill Times in a WhatsApp exchange from the United Nations climate conference in Egypt, “it is embarrassing that Canada has oil companies on the government delegation at the climate negotiations.”

Her comments come following reports of a sharp overall increase in fossil fuel industry delegates at the COP27 climate talks.

https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2022/11/10/among-the-worst-in-the-world-...

Village in French Alps demolishes its ski lift because there's no snow left

Xiaofei Xu, CNN • Published 21st November 2022

FacebookTwitterEmail

Paris (CNN) — After several squeaks, the rusty wheel was finally wrenched from the tarnished white pole that once stood proudly on the mountainside.

Watching from the sidelines, roughly a hundred people gathered in the small French Alpine village of Saint-Firmin to bid farewell to their ski lift as a small team worked to dismantle it late last month.

The reason? It hasn't been in use for years -- because there was no more snow.

"Global warming happened, and that's what changed our view of this site," Didier Beauzon, 63, a life-long resident of Saint Firmin and an elected official serving the village, told CNN.

"Well, we had to give it back to nature," he added.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/french-ski-resort-dismantled-ski-lift...