FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Aug 7

When It Comes toTackling Climate Change, Trump is Nowhere to be Found

by bcurry

In the latest move, the Trump administration has decided to no longer fund in fiscal year 2026 the Orbiting Carbon Observatories, which can precisely show where carbon dioxide is being emitted and absorbed and how well crops are growing.  A free-flying satellite launched in 2014, the mission has become an important source of greenhouse gas data for scientists, policymakers and farmers.  Experts said the administration’s move is just another one designed to eliminate funding aligned with other actions aimed at cutting or burying climate science.  NASA employees are currently making plans to end the missions.

This move is no surprise given that you have a president and a governing party that believes climate change is a hoax.  You have a president who has greatly weakened the programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designed to use science to understand the impacts associated with climate change and those that support counter measures.  There are also policies aimed at stimulating the coal industry, oil and gas exploration, mining and lumbering in national parks, and attacking regulated greenhouse gas emissions in the automotive industry.

Back in a January 2025, reports noted that President Trump was stocking the EPA with officials who have served as lawyers and lobbyists for the oil and chemical industries, many of whom worked in his first administration to weaken climate and pollution protections.  Lee Zeldin, Mr. Trump’s choice to lead the E.P.A., has little experience with environmental policy. He was expected to fulfill Mr. Trump’s fire hose of orders directing the agency to cut regulations.

This year, the world has seen a greater number of extreme weather events than ever before.  The U.S. and Canada alone have had to cope with drought caused by heat waves and a lack of normal precipitation, resulting in some of the worst wildfires and potential crop failures in our time.  Flooding, tornadoes and major hurricane activity have become more prevalent, causing enormous property damage and multiple deaths.

The sad fact is that one could see this coming, especially after Trump’s first term in office.  The U.S. emits around 40% of the world’s greenhouse gases.  Without a sustained and committed support by the U.S. to tackle the issue of climate change and its consequences for our planet, the situation will simply get worst.  Maybe, this is exactly what climate change deniers want?

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change Donald Trump US

Leave a comment »
Jul 3

Trump’s Current Energy Policies Just Don’t Make Sense

by bcurry

There is no more clean and renewable federal energy support in the U.S.as a result of Donald Trump’s most recent policy actions.  In his first term as president, he imposed tariffs on imported solar panels, whereby American companies opened or announced plans for new U.S. solar panel factories, thereby reviving a manufacturing business that had largely withered away.  Now, those same companies, particularly in solar manufacturing, are concerned that the attack on clean energy, especially solar and wind, and increasing support for fossil fuels will mean a potential disaster for the continued growth of the industry.  Indeed, it has been reported that Mike Carr, the executive director of Solar Energy Manufacturers for America, concluded that the administration’s policies would give the entire solar manufacturing industry over to China starting in 2027.  The shift has been particularly jarring in Texas and other Sun Belt states.  For example, renewable energy companies had announced plans for $64 billion in new investments in Texas, mostly for solar and battery storage projects, when Washington passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022. 

On the other hand, the oil and gas industry is counting on the administration’s help to keep oil and gas prices higher in order to increase exploration and lower fracking costs, and subsequently their profits.  With a strong desire not to offend the president, one has to remember that the oil and gas industry apparently spent more than $75 million to elect Trump.  Interestingly, the U.S. also relies heavily on Canadian oil in particular, which American refineries combine with domestic crude to make gasoline and diesel fuel.  For this reason, there is much industry anxiety around the tariffs on Canadian oil currently set at 10 percent.  This and cross border pipeline discussions will certainly dominate trade talks between the two countries.

Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency — paired with other executive orders — amounts to a promise to test the limits of presidential power to ensure demand for fossil fuels, including coal, remains robust.  It’s a sharp reversal from his predecessor’s agenda, which aimed to push the nation away from fuels that are primarily responsible for climate change.  In addition, Trump’s efforts to support coal during his first term were no match for cheap natural gas that ultimately out competed coal in the market.  U.S. coal consumption reportedly declined more than a third during Trump’s first term.  Coal extraction is clearly no longer economically viable.

Studies have also shown that any restrictions on renewable development would increase electricity prices over the next decade in both Canada and the U.S., and potentially leave thousands of homes without electricity during extreme weather events.  For this reason, Canada is continuing to promote the expansion of clean energy, including that produced by nuclear and wind and solar.  On the other hand, the demand for electricity continues to increase due to new high tech needs, including those related to transportation and artificial intelligence.  Canada, unlike the U.S. under President Trump, is still committed to tackling the adverse effects of climate change by attempting to lessen our reliance on fossil fuels and by reducing our green house emissions.

Solar energy and wind power are much more capable of having electricity provided in a more decentralized and efficient way by being located closer to the sources of need, without the requirement for costly long-distance transmission infrastructure.  This more mobile asset can reduce the initial costs of electricity production and in turn the costs of delivery to consumers.  Not surprisingly, the current shift has been particularly jarring in Texas, a Republican state and the nation’s top wind power producer, second only to California in solar energy and industrial battery storage.  Moreover, the Trump administration’s energy policies just don’t make sense, adding to the inflationary cost of electricity for consumers and to the costs associated with the evident extreme consequences of climate change.

Canada Climate Change Climate Change Donald Trump Economy Energy New Technologies Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Technological Change Trading Relationships US

Leave a comment »
Apr 15

Canada’s Version of a Mini-Trump

by bcurry

As the federal election moves forward to its April 28th voting date, there is one leader of a party who is increasingly portraying himself as Canada’s version of a mini-Trump.  That leader is Pierre Poilievre of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).  His discourse prior to the election call has on several occasions been similar in content and tone to that of Donald Trump.  He spoke of Canada being broken; of “woke” predominance among the current Liberal government and the New Democratic Party (NDP); of a need to be tougher on crime; of Canada’s need to “drill-baby-drill” when it comes to fossil fuels, most notably in crude heavy oil found in Alberta.

In recent weeks, Poilievre appears to be even more aggressive, primarily due to the recent polls which show that the Liberal leader, Mark Carney, is now leading: including being the preferred candidate for the position of Prime Minister.  This is a major shift from prior to the election and the resignation of Pierre Trudeau as PM, when the Conservatives had a twenty plus lead in the polls.  However, along came Donald Trump and his tariffs against Canada and all that changed.  Carney has a business, economic and international finance background.  This has led Canadians to believe that Carney can better negotiate some sort of new trade deal with the Trump administration.  In addition, many Canadians are now comparing Poilievre to a mini-Trump because of the Conservative policies and the ongoing slogans surfacing in his campaign. 

Most recently, Poilievre has pushed for tougher measures as they pertain to sentences handed out by the courts under Canada’s Criminal Code.  This included the idea of arbitrary “three strikes” vis-à-vis convictions, whereby one’s prison term will be automatic and potentially longer.  However, one only has to study the consequences of this approach in California where its use clogged up the justice system for years and resulted in extreme over crowding in its prisons.  The situation was so bad that many non-violent prisoners had to be released as a result of COVID 19 and the danger of widespread infection in these crowded facilities. Get ready to build new prisons!

Next, is Poilievre’s pledge to use the “notwithstanding clause” in the Canadian constitution (Section 33) to allow longer sentences for multiple murderers, something that the Supreme Court of Canada had in 2022 ruled against as a violation of an offender’s Charter rights.  Politically, this represents a groundbreaking promise and he would become the first prime minister to invoke the clause while in office.  As one expert noted, the extraordinary use of the “notwithstanding clause” would occur not in crisis situations, not judiciously, not after massive public debates and so on, but due to a majority government which for its own political reasons is playing to its base.  Sounds like something that Trump would do.  Both Liberal Leader Mark Carney and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh rejected using the notwithstanding clause.  In order to protect established rights, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, more than 50 organizations, human rights advocates and legal experts have openly urged all federal party leaders to commit to a public consultation on the notwithstanding clause within six months of forming a new government.  Without extensive prior-consultation within Canadian society at large, the clause’s federal use would establish a potentially perilous precedent with its first-time usage at the federal level.

Poilievre also appears to want to give carte blanche to the Canadian oil and gas industry to expand its production and exports in order to offset the American tariffs and grow the industry.  This of course would mean rapidly expanding pipeline construction from Alberta to the west coast, speeding up environmental reviews and consultations with indigenous peoples in the territories through which pipelines would go.  However, while this would certainly benefit the oil and gas industry in Canada
, one has to ask whether and by how much Canadians will benefit.  The Conservative base in Alberta
will certainly benefit, but how about the rest of the country?  In addition, many in the Conservative party tend to be “climate change” deniers.  Sounds familiar! 

All in all, Poilievre’s campaign has clearly had elements of Trumpism reflected in its content: something not lost on many Canadians.  Let’s face it, Trump is not too popular in Canada at this moment, and his unpopularity is definitely echoed in this election.

Canada Climate Change Donald Trump Federal Election Federal Government Populism in Canada Trade with U.S.

Leave a comment »
May 2

Student Protests in U.S. and Canada More Than Just About Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

by bcurry

As most people know who follow current news and social media, college student protests in both countries have escalated in recent weeks.  Students have now set up encampments on campus grounds and have even occupied university buildings.  In numerous cases, especially in the U.S. to date, the university administrations have called in the police to physically force the protesting students from their encampments on campuses.  Universities are doing so under the guise of protecting the safety of their student population, especially in the case of Jewish students who appear concerned for their safety on campus.  In some cases, faculty members have joined the protesters in objecting to the use of physical force, especially where the protests have been peaceful.

However, the fact of the matter is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has also galvanized the unrest witnessed among student bodies over the last two to three decades.  As one observer notes, in many students’ eyes, the war in Gaza is linked to other issues, such as policing, mistreatment of Indigenous people, racism and the impact of climate change.  More than likely, protesters have been joined by others who oppose the role of their governments in terms of their global policies and lack of action on tackling climate change viewed by many as the first priority in terms of today’s issues.  There is a lot of pent-up anger among young people over a number of social issues that they are facing on a daily basis.  In addition, many college programs and policies supporting diversity, equality and inclusion have been watered down, particularly in the U.S. as a result of recent Supreme Court decisions.

In addition, there is the apparent lack of transparency among university administrations concerning the allocation of resources and investments in various domestic and foreign industries and businesses.  Students pay a lot of money to attend these universities and are asking for greater transparency and accountability in such transactions at home and abroad, not only with respect to Israel but also other global matters.  One has to ask whether such student demands are indeed reasonable under the circumstances?

Most would agree that violence on campus, including hate mongering, is not the answer.  Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail over the course of the coming weeks.  However, with pro-Israel students ratcheting up their counter protests on a number of campuses, the climate could grow even more strained in the coming days.  The current disproportionate involvement of an increasingly militarized police force is a major concern, and can only exacerbate the situation on many campuses.

Young people have a right to peacefully protest, which is part of the freedom of expression normally supported in universities and colleges across Canada and the U.S.  Unfortunately, college faculties in many states have come under attack by governments over what is being referred to inappropriately as the “woke” effect.  Critical thinking has come under attack by conservative elements in both countries.  Some faculties are being told not only what they can teach but also how they go about teaching certain subjects.  We must all agree that this is a major affront on the fundamental rights and obligations of universities to offer open and considered dialogue on today’s important issues.  These attacks have once again frustrated many students in light of the increasingly apparent lack of respect for these institutions of “higher learning”.

Universities have often served as one of society’s important settings for activism, given the very nature of examining and questioning many of our daily issues; whether political, economic, environmental or technological.  Activism can often lead to open peaceful protests in a democratic society and must be supported, especially on our campuses.

Canada Climate Change Education Education Foreign Policy Israel US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Apr 25

Worsening Air Pollution Leads To Worsening Health

by bcurry

The findings in a new report from the American Lung Association (ALA) show the worst toxic particle pollution in the 25 years since the Association released its first annual “State of the Air” report.  More than 131 million Americans live in areas that indicated unhealthy levels of air pollution.  Higher pollution rates have been found to lead to higher rates of chronic health problems such as asthma, diabetes and heart disease.  In the long term, researchers have even found that pollution very likely is linked to brain damage that puts people at higher risk of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and other related dementias. 

The ALA report used only data from 2020 to 2022.  It did not include the impact of the historic wildfires across Canada in 2023 that choked many eastern U.S. and Canadian cities, often turning skies orange.  Air quality across American and Canadian cities is once again expected to deteriorate due to an early start to the wildfire season already underway this spring, notably in Alberta and British Columbia.

The costs of health impacts due to pollution, especially on the health care system, are enormous.  A University of B.C. study in 2007 claimed that pollution is killing 25,000 Canadians a year and costing the health care system more than $9 billion (Can) annually.  A recent analysis by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggested that further lowering the level of allowable particulate matter in the air would save lives and health costs.  By 2032, the EPA estimates that it would amount to $46 billion (U.S.) in cost savings and help the U.S. avoid 4,500 premature deaths, 800,000 cases of asthma and 290,000 lost workdays.

Paul Billings, ALA’s senior vice president of public policy, told USA TODAY that, despite a lot of progress on air pollution cleanup, we’re seeing the impacts of climate change, particularly wildfires.  The impact is overwhelming a lot of cleanup, particularly with respect to these daily spikes of particle pollution.  There is little doubt that much more needs to be done in both the U.S. and Canada to reduce air pollution and improve air quality.  Both countries have managed to do this with respect to ozone levels which have declined in some places due to governments acting on implementing regulated restrictions and encouraging new greener technologies.

So when you go out for your daily run or bicycling in urban locations, don’t forget that you may be breathing in air that very likely will not be overly healthy for you physically.  If you must, do so in the early morning hours when pollution levels are at their lowest.  Take the appropriate precautions, especially during the wildfire season by wearing an appropriate mask and limiting your outdoor activities when applicable.  Fortunately, most municipalities have good air quality monitoring on a continuing basis which can be accessed daily via the Internet.  I know that I’ll be using these information sources once again this coming summer.  Good luck and good health!

Canada Climate Change Health Care Urban Issues US

Leave a comment »
Mar 25

Electorate in Both U.S. and Canada Appears to be Very Disgruntled. I Wonder Why?

by bcurry

George H. W. Bush Senior, going into his bid for a second term, was frequently told that it’s all about the economy stupid!  The U.S. economy went into a recession in 1990; the unemployment rate rose from 5.9% in 1989 to a high of 7.8% in mid-1991; and the debt percentage of total gross domestic product (GDP) rose from 39.4% in 1989 to almost 46.8% in 1992.  By the presidential election in1992, many conservative Republicans’ support of Bush had waned for a variety of reasons, including raising taxes and cutting defense spending.  Americans were less concerned with his foreign policy successes (e.g. Persian Gulf War victory over Iraq) than with the nation’s deteriorating economic situation.  Thus, despite having once been a relatively popular president, he lost to Bill Clinton.

Today, the primary issue among voters continues to be the economy, and especially the high rate of inflation and high interest rates affecting people’s mortgages and the cost of loans in general.  Yes, there is low unemployment and more people are employed today than anytime since the pandemic.  However, unfortunately for Joe Biden, the average American is struggling on a daily basis to make ends meet, especially since average wages have not kept up with increasing inflation over the last few years.  Many people and businesses are still recovering from the pandemic, which has created a real sense of insecurity and a general malaise within the population.

Taking all of this into account, and that people are not happen with another Trump vs. Biden election, there is a general mistrust with governance.  The same can be said for in Canada where you have a Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and a party that has been in power for over nine years.  The opposition is continuously harpooning about the high cost of inflation and high interest rates that average Canadians are facing.  There is also a good amount of discord over the government’s intention to raise the national carbon tax this coming April, despite it being only one element of several policies aimed at tackling climate change.  However, right now, climate change has taken a back seat to the economy.  A federal election will very likely be called next year in Canada, and all the government can hope for is that the economy will improve and inflation will come down.

Overall, these are tough times for governing parties.  There appear to be no win-win situations.  Government deficits have been climbing steadily, partly in earlier response to the pandemic, with no end in sight.  Wars overseas in the Ukraine and Middle East are not helping.  Funds are being allocated to support the Ukraine against Russia, Israel’s military and the plight of Palestinian refugees in Gaza.  The situation has placed both the U.S. and Canada in a difficult situation given the evolving humanitarian crisis in both conflicts.  In terms of foreign policy, domestically it is a no-win and highly emotive situation for both governments in terms of supporting one side or the other particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In addition, stability in the energy markets is constantly under threat as a result of the sanctions against Russian oil and natural gas exports and the general unstable situation in the Middle East.  As a result, there has been a measurable direct or indirect impact in the form of rising costs for gas and heating fuel in North America.

There is little doubt that we live uncertain times.  There is also little doubt that voters are concerned with the cost of living and continuing hard economic times.  This bleak outlook does not bode well for President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau.  The question then becomes whether their political opponents can take advantage of the situation?  I guess time will tell.

Canada Climate Change Economy Economy Elections Federal Election Federal Government Federal Government Foreign Policy Presidential Election 2024 Ukraine Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Nov 13

Environmental Groups Cut Programs as Funding Shifts to Climate Change

by bcurry

When it comes to non-profit environmental groups, many of us are familiar with Greenpeace because of its activist actions from time to time which capture the attention of mainstream media and the authorities.  However, in both Canada and the U.S., there are numerous other lesser known groups that have concentrated on more specific environmental issues.  For example, in the U.S. you have such groups as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, the Environmental Working Group, the ClimateWorks Foundation and the Union of Concerned Scientists.  For a long time, such groups focused on particular environmental issues such as nuclear power safety, environmental toxins, and nearly extinct wildlife or threatened species in North America.  However, in recent years there has been a significant shift in donor contributions to nonprofits fighting climate change, leaving some of the both nations’ biggest environmental organizations facing critical budgetary shortfalls in existing programs.

According to a survey released in September by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, global spending to fight climate change by environmental groups and other nonprofits reached $8 billion (U.S.) in 2021, most of it in the U.S. and Canada.  Reportedly, leaders of some legacy environmental groups now largely agree that climate change, given its wide range of increasing global effects, is the top priority.  Since these organizations depend extensively on funding contributions from different sources, including from some of the world’s richest individuals, they have had to realign their goals to reflect policies and practices designed to tackle specific concerns around climate change.  This also means increasing support for government and industry initiatives promoting green technologies, including those related to solar, wind and thermo energy projects.  Even nuclear energy appears to be making a comeback as an additional means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  For example, the NRDC is eliminating its longstanding program promoting nuclear safety and cleanup as its donors focus on the climate crisis.

Facing unsustainable budget deficits, some of the largest non-profit environmental organizations are being forced to announce layoffs among their staffs.  This will result in the lost of a good deal of environmental expertise and program support for some time to come.  In addition, younger donors now tend to increasingly support those initiatives targeting climate change.  After all, younger people really view that climate change is the most immediate challenge affecting their lives in so many ways. 

The shift in priorities is also reflected in government policy, with climate change winning the lion’s share of some agencies’ budget increases. The number one strategic goal among declared priorities in the U.S. Environment Protection Agency’s list of seven priorities in its five-year strategic plan is to tackle the “Climate Crisis”.  The use of the term “crisis” is an important recognition of our need to focus on climate change sooner rather than later.  Interestingly in Canada, formally known as Environment Canada, the department’s name was recently changed to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC).  ECCC is the now the department of the Government of Canada responsible for coordinating environmental policies and programs, as well as preserving and enhancing the natural environment and renewable resources.

Environmental groups, like governments, have no choice but to adapt their policies aimed at tackling the consequences of climate change, both short-term and long-term.  There is only so much donor funding available in both countries, and failure to adapt could result in their eventual demise.  Somehow, marketing of existing programs and policies have to be reoriented to tie into climate change issues in some way.  No organization is immune from the current shifts in peoples’ priorities in the environmental field.  Unfortunately, failure to effectively adapt could eventually mean their very extinction.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change US

Leave a comment »
Jul 14

Severe Weather Patterns Topping News Headlines This Summer

by bcurry

Never have I seen as many news headlines about the weather both in Canada and the U.S. then this summer.  Severe droughts in Arizona and California, flooding in the Northeast states, tornadoes throughout the mid-West, extreme heat waves through the southern states, extensive flooding in Vermont and New York State, etc., etc.  A day doesn’t go by when some form of extreme weather event occurs in both countries.  Dry conditions throughout British Columbia and Quebec led to a record number of wildfires during the spring, creating clouds of smoke which not only permeated Ontario and Quebec, but also as far away as New York and Chicago. 

For most governments — local, state/provincial and federal — the consequences of extreme weather events have been enormous.  Not only are people dying as a result of extreme heat, flooding and wildfires, but homes, businesses and infrastructure have been severely damaged or destroyed.  This has resulted in the insurance industry having to re-examine the impact of an increasing number of compensation claims, often in the billions of dollars.  In the near future, insurance companies will be withdrawing from more high risk areas.  Where insurance continues to be offered, the premiums will be such that few people will be able to afford them.

Most scientists are attributing the extreme patterns as being a consequence of “climate change” and the continued warming of the planet.  Most would also agree that it would take extraordinary measures by countries to slow down the current progression of subsequent impacts.  For the time being, societies will have to make significant changes in order to adapt to this new reality.  Such adaptation will not take months, but years and possibly decades.  Every day, targets developed through bodies such as the United Nations become less and less credible.  Rapidly moving away from our dependence on fossil fuels to more green energy sources is increasingly becoming an illusion. 

Countries continue to argue that the transition can only be made if economic impacts are taken into consideration.  However, they also continue to understate the costs associated with weather extremes, especially when it comes to assessing those associated with such sectors as agriculture, tourism, transportation, housing, etc., etc.  The costs of many essential inputs to maintain a viable industry are going to keep on increasing exponentially.  One only has to look at the impact on freshwater sources due to annual droughts.  Demand is outstripping supply in several regions.  Access to water is critical to one’s survival.

There are those who argue that new technologies need to be factored into future adaptations.  However, there are those who believe that the introduction of new technologies may not be adequate and timely enough.  In the meantime, news headlines about severe weather patterns and their impact on affected communities and scarce resources will continue to appear on an almost daily basis.  Whether we react in a constructive manner and on an urgent basis, only time will tell?  Whether such regular reported events will change the minds of the ‘Nay Sayers’ is another matter.  Is humanity prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to effectively tackle the enormous challenges before us, is the biggest question of them all?

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change US

Leave a comment »
Mar 20

How Big Corporations Are Greenwashing When It Comes To The Environment

by bcurry

Back in 2010, Heather Rogers wrote in “Green Gone Wrong: How Our Economy Is Undermining the Environmental Revolution” that green capitalism is actually undermining ecological progress.  In 2016, the Business Development Bank of Canada launched a $135 million fund that will invest in entrepreneurial startup companies in the energy and clean technology sector.  The Bank anticipated investing the money over several years into between 15 and 20 Canadian firms that demonstrate global potential in green tech fields.  A drop in the bucket!  Now, a group comprising Canada’s big banks and financial institutions is working on a new set of labels to clearly identify “green” financial products for investors.  However, they are facing accusations of “greenwashing”.  Some refer to “greenwashing” as it applies to efforts by companies or governments to make businesses or commercial activities look less damaging to the planet than they really are.

Now, we are all familiar with the term “whitewashing” which alludes to efforts to cover up wrongdoing or hide embarrassing mistakes by governments or corporations.  In some cases, it most often involves trying to put a more favourable face on corporate initiatives by highlighting the positive attributes of new products or services.  However, informed consumers normally can see through the marketing strategies aimed at encouraging people to use their services and products, regardless of any attempt at whitewashing.

With increasing concern over climate change and environmental issues, governments and corporations are plugging their efforts to reduce their negative environmental footprint impacts, primarily through the implementation of green technologies and so-called “sustainable development”.  Part of the reason that corporations are marketing their efforts is primarily to convince investors to invest in their enterprises and consumers to consume their products.  Automotive manufacturers are now skirring around in the race to produce more electric vehicles, each stressing their mission to eventually eliminate vehicles run by combustion engines.  Oil and gas companies are advertising their efforts to develop and implement carbon capture and storage technologies.  Perhaps, too little, too late?  In 2018, a report by the World Energy Outlook (WEO) released by the International Energy Agency projected that global fossil fuel use — and related emissions — would grow out to 2040, as oil, gas and coal continue to dominate the energy picture.  At that time, the WEO stipulated that the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar was only 1.1 percent. 

Moreover, when it comes to assessing whether green investments are truly valid is not easy, given the connections of many corporations to general profits and the bottom line.  Consumers and investors find it difficult to determine to what extent greenwashing is taking place.  In some cases, the claims of corporations have been discovered to be bogus.  Take for example, the Competition Bureau last year ordered Keurig Canada to pay a $3-million penalty for falsely claiming its single-use K-Cup pods can be recycled.  In another case, a group of environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club and the Indigenous Environmental Network, ranked the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) fifth globally among major banks financing the fossil fuel industry.  However, in marketing materials, RBC states that it is “fully committed” to supporting drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.

This is not to say that all companies are disingenuous in promoting their initiatives aimed at reducing negative impacts on the environment.  Many manufacturing and warehousing facilities have reduced their energy uses, green gas emissions and general environmental footprint.  Some provincial governments in Canada are also guilty of dishonest campaigns focusing on short-term emission reductions made in the certain sectors, but failing to define what “sustainability” really means for the province in the long-term.  All of this to say that each of us have to take such marketing with a grain of salt.  I’m certain that I will.

Canada Climate Change Climate Change

Leave a comment »
Jan 1

How Is Climate Change Affecting Our Younger Generation?

by bcurry

You may have heard of the terms “eco-anxiety” or “eco-distress” being used when one talks about the psychological impact of climate change on people, especially youth.  Unless one is living on another planet, one cannot help but recognize the extremes we are witnessing with respect to our climate in recent years, even by former deniers.  Across the world, we are seeing more severe weather resulting in flooding, droughts, wildfires, heat waves, tornadoes, etc., etc.  This phenomenon has led to many of us to question the future of humankind in light of one major disaster after another.

The grim forecasts have even led to something referred to as “reproductive anxiety”, whereby the young generation in particular is seriously questioning whether or not to have children?  On the one hand, people look at the carbon print attributed to having another child born.  On the other hand, some question whether it is the responsible thing to do in having a child born into an era of climate and environmental crises.  This tends to be an issue primarily among North American and European highly educated classes, who have the luxury of considering all the alternatives.  After all, it is the industrialized countries that produce the vast majority of fossil fuel emissions and greenhouse gases. 

One can certainly appreciate such arguments among today’s younger generation as we begin a new year.  We appear no closer to resolving the issue than we were five decades ago.  This has left us with an air of extreme pessimism, especially given recent world events.  Governments pay a lot of lip service to reducing carbon and other detrimental emissions, without actually achieving much of anything.  However, where I disagree is over the issue of where our future environmentalists, scientists, engineers and other professionals will come from.  We have come to believe that we have to better adapt our dwellings, infrastructure and technologies to meet the existing climate change challenges.  We will rely heavily on the creativity and productivity of our youngest to commit to developing and implementing new forms of adaptation and effective policies to deal with the multitude of climate change impacts.

Numerous technological experiments are already underway and it is up to the next generation to continue these initiatives.  Many of us are fortunately in a position to encourage and support the educational endeavours of our children, especially in the industrialized countries.  However, we must realize that the bulk of the impacts of global warning will occur in emerging or lesser developed countries, such as threats of mass starvation, conflict, rising sea levels, deaths and species extinctions.  For this reason, we must also support the work of persons in those affected countries, of which there are many.  If we do not do more, one can expect that migration from these countries to North America and Europe will continue at even greater rates.

As for the older generation, we must do our fair share of sacrifices.  This could mean adapting new forms of green technologies to reduce our carbon footprint.  There may be some ways in which to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, including through less air and motor vehicle travel.  How we heat and cool our homes is another area where changes can be made.  Promoting more urban intensification is also something we should consider, thereby reducing single home dwellings and commuting to work.  We have already seen the impact of working from home on travel.  We need to better inform ourselves of climate- and energy-related challenges so as to better educate our children and grandchildren.  As they say, ignorance is no excuse!

As in the case of Sweden’s Greta Thunberg, we have to encourage and support young environmental activists.  At age 15, she started spending time outside the Swedish Parliament to call for stronger action on climate change and later sailed in a yacht to North America, where she attended the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit.  It took some time for her parents to eventually support her activism.  We need more young people like Ms. Thunberg to come forward and demand that more needs to be done to address climate change issues.  Happily, she has been joined by other activists around the world.

Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Blog at WordPress.com.