FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Sep 13

New Therapies Emerge To Deal With Climate Anxiety Symptoms

by bcurry

When I was a voluntary mentor to high school students as part of a community-based program, among the topics that young people wanted to discuss was that of climate change.  It was a topic for years that could not be avoided in light of existing discussion sites on the Internet and social media.  As we are seeing more and more severe weather events and their impact on people across the globe, but more importantly right here in North America, one cannot but help to wonder what the psychological impact is on youth.  Interestingly enough, there is now an emerging psychology field specializing in treating what has become referred to as ‘climate stress’ or ‘eco-anxiety’.

Recently, studies have indicated that eco-anxiety is particularly prevalent among college students.  For this reason, a number of college campuses have introduced group counselling sessions and individual therapy to allow students to talk through fears and frustrations of a world impacted by climate change.  However, it is recognized that many therapists and counsellors aren’t trained to provide students with this specific type of support, in part because of a lack of research about climate stress as a distinct phenomenon.  In addition, whether or not a therapist or counsellor believes in climate change, treating such anxiety must be done as in the case of any other anxieties.  Many leaders in mental health maintain that anxiety over climate change is no different, clinically, from anxiety caused by other societal threats, like terrorism or school shootings.  Interestingly, professional certification programs in climate psychology have recently begun to appear.  According to The New York Times, a group called the Climate Psychology Alliance now provides an online directory of climate-aware therapists.

While some will question the legitimacy of eco-anxiety, experts have come to recognize the range of feelings someone may have in response to climate change.  They point out that climate stress therapy is an effort to validate these emotions, help clients process their responses to climate change and provide coping strategies.  As for the causes of eco-anxiety, many individuals perceive that they are very real.  In January 2022, the publication Lancet in a 10-country survey of 10,000 people aged 16 to 25 reportedly found startling rates of pessimism. Forty-five percent of respondents said worry about climate negatively affected their daily life. Three-quarters said they believed “the future is frightening,” and 56 percent said “humanity is doomed.”

There is little doubt in my mind that young people, in particular, are increasingly expressing concerns about the potential impacts of climate change on their lives.  For this reason, they need to be informed and educated about the issue.  Many of its elements are complicated and not always very evident in their localities.  Understanding why they feel the way they feel is very important.  They need avenues in which to express their trepidations and fears.  Understandably, some will push to change familial and peer consumption and conservation patterns.  They may need our help, whether in schools or in communities.  Parents have to be aware of any symptoms that may be related to eco-anxiety.  Moreover, they must appreciate that this anxiety is real.  The more awareness by parents about community-based resources and accessible health-based information can prove to be invaluable. 

Cimate Change Climate Change

Leave a comment »
Aug 9

Would You Be Interested In A Four-Day Workweek?

by bcurry

Between 2015 and 2019, several large-scale trials in the public sector of a four-day workweek were carried out in Iceland.  The results showed that the trials turned out to be an “overwhelming success,” with many workers shifting to shorter hours without affecting their productivity.  Some of the trials’ key findings showed that a shorter week translated into increased well-being of employees among a range of indicators, from stress and burnout to health and work-life balance.  The idea of the four-day week has been gaining ground in countries like New Zealand, Spain and Germany.  In the U.S. and Canada, a small but growing number of firms are moving to a four-day workweek that runs from Monday to Thursday.  In addition, the pandemic created a situation where employers began to experiment with alternative working arrangements, ranging from remote work to a variety of hybrid work routines including a four-day workweek.  Employers are expected to continue offering alternative working arrangements as a means to retain existing employees and to recruit new workers, especially given the tight labour markets found in most countries.

Now, there is not really anything new about employers implementing a four-day workweek for interested employees.  Long before the pandemic, I can recall several employers, especially in the public sector, who instituted policies allowing for some employees, where applicable, to work for four days a week and with the same number of weekly hours and wages.  For certain employees, the additional day off meant that they could spend more time with their families and use the extra free time to improve work-life balance.

More recently, there are those that would argue that a four-day workweek would help to reduce our carbon footprint.  For example, one or more fewer commutes to and from work would be required each week.  Transportation is the biggest contributor to greenhouse emissions, especially for vehicles using gas or diesel.  In 2020, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the transportation sector accounted for about 27 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.  Commuting is a big part of that.  It’s noteworthy that global emissions plunged an unprecedented 17 percent during the coronavirus pandemic and the air quality in cities around the world showed a marked improvement.  In North America, the high cost of housing in urban cores has meant that many workers have bought more affordable homes in the outskirts, a trend increased during the pandemic by a significant percentage of workers working remotely from home.

In addition, Juliet Schor, an economist and sociologist at Boston College who researches work, consumption and climate change, noted that energy could also be conserved if less resources are needed to heat and cool large office buildings.  However, to reduce demands on electricity, buildings would have to be pretty well shut down entirely for a day.  According to Scientific American, when the Utah state government launched a four-day workweek trial among its employees in 2008, one report projected that shutting down buildings on Fridays would lead to a decrease of at least 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually.  However, any potential energy-saving gains hinge on how companies and individuals use resources.  At a time when many companies are looking at ways to incur cost savings, the implementation of a four-day workweek might be appealing.

As more and more white-collar workers across the country settle into hybrid work routines, one thing is becoming clear: Nobody wants to be in the office on Fridays.  This premise came up time and time again in several related articles.  With hybrid working routines becoming more of a fixture in workplaces, it’s easy to see why employers are increasingly looking for more adaptable offices with more communal spaces and gathering areas instead of traditional cubicles or walled-in offices.  Issues surrounding work-life balance and healthy workplaces will continue to surface in the post-pandemic era.  Businesses and their workers will no doubt have to be more creative in developing appropriate alternative working arrangements, including possibly a four-day workweek.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Labor Force Labour Force Reopening the Economy US

Leave a comment »
Jul 29

How ‘Denial Syndrome’ Plays Out In COVID- 19 And Climate Change Debates

by bcurry

Just what is ‘denial syndrome’?  Psychologists define denial as the psychological process by which a painful truth is pushed out of an individual’s consciousness.  We use denial as a defense mechanism, to protect ourselves from the force of a truth we imagine will be too shattering for us to cope with.  Some current issues such as climate change and the global pandemic have made us feel deeply insecure about the present and the future.  This is where denial comes into its own as a way out.  It’s a lot easier than thinking up a series of individual excuses — just simply deny the whole problem exists.  Unfortunately, despite the best scientific evidence and explanation, there are health-care professionals who claimed the pandemic was all a hoax and environmentalists who deny that climate change exists.  This has led to a barrage of misinformation being put out and the emergence of conspiracy theories.

Take for example, the fact that several physicians in Canada have had their medical licences suspended by professional bodies for providing misinformation to patients about COVID vaccines, masking and available treatments.  Without any scientific evidence or studies, some have even made public assertions such as that COVID vaccines are more dangerous than the virus itself.  Some of these doctors taken to task by their regulator have challenged the discipline actions, arguing that they violate their right to free expression.  Earlier this month, the head the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), one of the biggest U.S. licensing bodies, commented on the free speech argument for doctors.  He stressed that if physicians want to keep their credentials, the concept of free speech does not extend to communicating misinformation, especially when such information can potentially harm their patients or pose a potential risk to public health.

When it comes to climate change, despite all of the scientific evidence that climatologists and other experts have gathered over decades, there are still some who would deny that it is an actual global issue.  Climate change science has been settled for decades, yet policymakers have yet to take sweeping action, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb to record highs.  There are some politicians who still believe that humans have nothing to do with what is happening to our climate.  The resulting inaction is driving some scientists to engage in civil disobedience.  A global campaign by Scientist Rebellion (SR) has begun.  SR is a climate network of scientists of all stripes and degrees aimed at partaking in non-violent civil disobedience and demanding climate action.  This past April, the group mobilized an estimated 1,000 scientists in 26 countries in protest.

Climate change denial is all around us.  Just today, I read a letter to the local newspaper by someone commenting on the recent U.K. heat wave which got a lot of attention for reaching a “record-breaking” 40 C in July.  The writer even had to go back as far as 1936 to note that London had reached 43.7 degrees centigrade during a two-day heat wave.  On top of which, he claims that so-called ‘eco-anxiety’ is rising because of the number of media stories that focus on extreme weather and blame it on climate change.  It certainly appeared to be the use of unsubstantiated arguments about biased reporting and ‘fake news’ as a denial tool.

Among conservative groups and political parties in both the U.S. and Canada, there are plenty of deniers to go around when it comes to these two issues.  Amazingly, they can produce their own experts and conspiracy theories in defence of their positions.  Why not just ignore the facts, much as former U.S. president Donald Trump did!  Incredibly, in the name of freedom of expression, some Republican politicians in the U.S., such as in Tennessee, have even gone further by introducing legislation to prohibit state medical boards from disciplining doctors who spread COVID falsehoods or prescribe unproven treatments.  Interestingly, with just 55 percent of its population double-vaccinated, Tennessee has suffered more than four times as many COVID deaths per 100,000 as the province of Ontario.

Whether personal or organizational, denial has real consequences.  No better examples are applicable to those related to climate change and the pandemic.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change Coronavirus Mandatory Vaccination Mandatory Vaccination US

Leave a comment »
Dec 27

Biden’s Push For Solar Energy In California Contradicted By Fossil Fuel Leases in Gulf Of Mexico and on Public Lands

by bcurry

In August 2021, California regulators voted to require builders to include solar power and battery storage in many new commercial structures as well as high-rise residential projects.  It is the latest initiative in the state’s vigorous efforts to hasten a transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources.  According to the Sierra Club, many California cities have building codes that restrict or ban natural gas in new construction.  Using California’s move to reduce or eliminate a dependency on fossil fuels for electricity production, the Biden administration recently announced that it has approved the installation of two new major solar farms in the California desert.  The Biden administration has promised to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by around half of 2005 levels by 2030 and ween the electricity sector off of fossil fuels by 2035.  In the spirit of this target, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has gone on record as to its commitment for addressing climate change.  The BLM supports Congress’ direction in the Energy Act of 2020 to permit 25 gigawatts of solar, wind, and geothermal production on public lands no later than 2025.

However, while the administration moves forward with developing the renewable energy potential of public lands, it has had less success at halting fossil fuel exploration.  Last November, after a judge ruled against a moratorium on oil and gas drilling lease sales, the Biden administration oversaw the largest offshore lease sale (worth $192 million) in U.S. history in the Gulf of Mexico.  The legal challenge against Biden’s campaign promise to halt oil and gas drilling on public lands that paved the way for the lease sale was mounted by several Republican attorneys general in states bordering the Gulf.  In addition, the Biden administration has so far issued more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands than the Trump administration did during its first three years.  Environmental advocates argue that the administration could do a lot more to prevent drilling on public lands.  Unfortunately, much of the increase from more Gulf oil will also flow to markets in foreign countries, which in turn will result in increases in green house emissions overseas.

According to the organization Earthjustice, given the fact that 25% of U.S. carbon emissions come from federal oil, gas and coal, there is no way the U.S. can meet its climate obligations by continuing to operate the national program with business as usual.  At the recent COP26 conference in Scotland, President Biden promised to reduce emissions by around 50 percent of 2005 levels by 2030, but the Associated Press noted it could take years to develop the Gulf of Mexico oil and gas leases, meaning they could still contribute greenhouse gas emissions long after that date.  It appears that the U.S. has got itself into a ‘Catch-22’, whereby it shows promise in the area of increasing the sources of renewable energy, while giving in to large fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and British Petroleum when it comes to oil and gas drilling on public lands and in the Gulf of Mexico.  No matter which way one looks at these recent developments, there is now definitely a contradiction between what the current U.S. government is saying about combating climate change and what is actually being done.

Cimate Change Oil and Gas US

Leave a comment »
Dec 6

With More Extreme Weather Occurrences, Governments Will Have To Act Faster

by bcurry

With the recent forest fires, hurricanes and severe floods, both Canada and the U.S. are being forced to increasingly provide support to provinces and states for immediate assistance and longer-term recovery initiatives.  However, Canada does not have any federal agency equivalent to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the U.S.  However, recently there has been more interest in Canada to potentially creating a similar federal agency to FEMA given the recent destructive and massive flooding of regions in British Columbia.

FEMA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), initially created under President Jimmy Carter in 1978 and implemented by two Executive Orders in 1979.  FEMA’s primary purpose is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has occurred in the U.S. and that overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities. The governor of the state in which the disaster occurs must declare a state of emergency and formally request from the President that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster.  FEMA also provides funds for training of response personnel throughout the U.S. and its territories as part of the agency’s preparedness effort.  While on-the-ground support of disaster recovery efforts is a major part of FEMA’s charter, the agency provides state and local governments with experts in specialized fields and funding for rebuilding efforts and relief funds for infrastructure repair.

However, even FEMA has incurred criticism in recent years, particularly in relation to the impact of hurricanes Katrina that hit New Orleans in 2005, Harvey that hit the Houston area in 2017, Laura that hit Louisiana in 2020, and Ida that hit Louisiana this past summer.  Among the criticism about FEMA is that it takes an inordinately long time to place every displaced resident in temporary housing, sometimes months and sometimes years as in the case of Katrina.  More than three months after Hurricane Ida tore through coastal Louisiana, thousands of residents of the hardest hit bayou communities remain displaced.  This raises the question as the whether supplying temporary or replacement housing for disaster victims is an appropriate role for government?  Most people would agree that it is.

Public Safety Canada helps Canadians and their communities protect themselves from emergencies and disasters related to all kinds of hazards – natural, human-induced and technological – through national leadership in the development and implementation of policies, plans and a range of programs.  The Department maintains a loose network of partnerships with other federal government institutions, provincial and territorial emergency management organizations, first responders and voluntary organizations, and other stakeholders and communities, supporting a whole-of-society approach to emergency management that leverages resources and capacities at all levels across the country.  However, the federal government relies heavily on providing immediate assistance through the Department of National Defence and non-profit organizations such as the Canadian Red Cross as requested.

Given the nature of recent disasters often associated with the impact of climate change, the Canadian government needs to seriously rethink how it handles such future disasters in an efficient, timely and effective manner.  There is a real need for a central agency to do pre-planning in order to prepare for future emergencies.  Preventative measures to deal with climate and environmental related causes will have to be developed and implemented on a long-term basis.  National coordination of such initiatives is a must, and more than sufficient funding needs to be allotted as soon as possible.  After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  National, provincial and local infrastructure needs to be immediately assessed to determine its capacity to withstand imminent future natural disasters.  Providing the means to immediately support displaced individuals and quickly provide temporary housing is essential to the well-being of both Canadians and Americans.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change Federal Government Federal Government US

Leave a comment »
Nov 17

COP26 on Climate Change Resulted in just a Lot More Hot Air

by bcurry

Nearly 200 nations gathered at a conference in the Scottish city of Glasgow, known as COP26, and struck a deal intended to propel the world towardmore urgent climate action.  Proposals aimed at reducing methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes significantly to global warming, and to end deforestation in the coming decade were considered big achievements of COP26.  However, climate change experts noted that such promises have been made and broken before.

The hard-fought agreement doesn’t go nearly far enough.  The agreement does not achieve the most ambitious goal of the 2015 Paris accord — to limit Earth’s warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.  Instead, delegations left Glasgow with the Earth still on track to blow past that threshold, pushing toward a future of escalating weather crises and irreversible damage to the natural world.

In the streets of Glasgow, over an estimated 100,000 protesters marched to get the conference’s delegates to walk the talk and come to an agreement that included more concrete targets and specific funds to combat climate change.  Due to the objections of countries such as India, Australia and China, the agreement could not even target a phasing out of coal burning and fossil fuel subsidies.  Instead, the agreement only proposed to “phase down unabated coal”, most likely over the next fifty years.  Too little, too late.

Yes, the industrialized countries, such as the U.S., Britain and Germany, pledged funds to help the poorer, lesser developed countries cope with the environmental and economic consequences of climate change given that natural disasters are expected to escalate.  For example, President Biden has pledged to boost U.S. climate aid to poor nations to more than $11 billion a year — a promise that will require help from Congress.  However, the proposed funding amounts are nowhere near enough to effectively reduce the real impact on these developing countries, particularly from severe droughts and crop-destroying floods which could put millions of people at risk of starvation.  Then there are the environmental migrants, people who are forced to leave their home region due to sudden or long-term changes to their local environment.  For example, there is the devastating drought that has gripped Syria since 2006 and reportedly has driven more than 1.5 million people from the countryside to cities in search for food and economic normality.  The International Organisation for Migration estimates that there are now several million “environmental migrants”, and that this “number will rise to tens of millions within the next 20 years, or hundreds of millions within the next 50 years”.

The protesters, many of them representing today’s youth, shouted: “Hurry up please. It’s time.”  Unfortunately, all one what got was more “blah, blah, blah”.  Cautious optimism about the potential outcome of the talks gradually turned into overt pessimism.  Clearly, many participants, including delegates, left Glasgow with feelings of dismay and regret.  Once again, it’s now up to each individual country to sort out its “climate change” policies and the allocation of its resources.  No doubt, President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau will be discussing their plans at a joint meeting today in Washington.  It will be interesting to see if anything concrete comes out of the discussions given their shared mutual political and economic concerns about the impacts associated with climate change and fossil fuels.  We’ll just have to wait and see, but I wouldn’t hold my breath!  I’m expecting a lot more “hot air”.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change US

Leave a comment »
Oct 28

U.S. Intention to Increase Use of Electrical Vehicles Appears to be Unrealistic

by bcurry

Not long ago, President Biden declared his administration’s proposal to have electric vehicles (EV) making up half of new cars sold in the country by 2030.  While his intentions are good, the reality is that the sources of current electricity production and transmission will most likely make this proposal unrealistic.  Experts have already argued that the aging country’s electricity grid would need to have hundreds of billions of dollars invested to upgrade the grid in order to accommodate the increased electricity demands required for EVs and other domestic electricity needs.  Today, electrical grids barely function in times of ordinary stress, and fail altogether too often for comfort, as recent widespread blackouts in California, Texas, Louisiana and elsewhere have shown.  Apparently, fast chargers can replenish an EV in as little as 20 minutes but gulp huge amounts of electricity.

At the same time, the big challenge for policymakers and the utility industry is figuring out how quickly to invest in the grid while keeping the energy affordable.  While the President’s intentions are worthy because of concerns over the impact of climate change on the environment and the need to reduce harmful greenhouse emissions, there is a real question as to whether the American public is able and willing to incur the associated costs.  If one just looks at EVs, there are a number of factors to consider.  Among these, the top three reasons consumers give for not buying EVs are the lack of charging stations, the time to charge, and the cost of the vehicles.  In addition to spending on accessible charging stations across a country as large as the U.S., there is also the need for significant additional spending on long-distance transmission lines and power generating equipment like solar and wind farms.  Given the current re-charging needs of EVs, charging stations will have to be available at most if not all existing gasoline stations, hotels and motels, apartment buildings and municipal facilities.  Who is to pay for the installation and use of such charging stations?  Plug-in electric cars accounted for just under 1% of all 146 million new light-duty vehicle sales between 2011 and 2019 in the U.S.

While climate change is an obvious greater concern among Americans in light of the deadly increase in severe weather patterns and natural disasters, is their concern enough to persuade the average person that the associated costs with converting to EVs and other electrical equipment (e.g. heating, appliances, etc.) are acceptable?  Yes, many things can happen in the next ten years.  However, having almost come out of a pandemic and its economic consequences and costs, will people be ready to seriously tackle the projected negative elements surrounding our current living standards?  The answer is probably “no” at this time.

We will need major technological breakthroughs to make EVs much more reliable, energy efficient and cheaper before the average person could seriously consider the switch to EVs from combustion-engine cars.  In addition, the current electricity grids will have to be seriously upgraded in the next few years.  We must be ready to incur the associated costs with such major infrastructure upgrades.  Overall, the country’s 20th-century point-to-point grid, delivering energy over long distances, will have to become adequate enough to serve this century’s needs.  Hopefully, future electricity needs will be increasingly provided by green technology, such as that provided by hydro power, solar energy, wind power, and even nuclear power.  None of these sources alone can provide enough electricity to meet the needs of American communities and to replace the current use of fossil fuels, including natural gas.  In conclusion, plug-in cars are the future, but realistically the current grid isn’t ready.

Cimate Change Joe Biden US

Leave a comment »
Jun 3

Next to News About the Pandemic, Climate Change Remains in the Headlines

by bcurry

There is little doubt in my mind that crucial issues surrounding ‘climate change’ continue to surface.  Just look at a few of headlines over the past year from several news outlets:

  • Smoke from wildfires wiped out the United State’s pandemic-related clean air gains in 2020 (Washington Post, March 17)
  • Climate change is making big problems bigger (New York Times, May 13) 
  • How debt and climate change pose a ‘systemic risk to the global economy’ (UK Time News, April 7)
  • A 20-foot sea wall? Miami faces the hard choices of climate change (New York Times, June 2)
  • Carbon dioxide spikes to critical new record, halfway to doubling pre-industrial levels (Washington Post, April 6)
  • Swift action to cut methane emissions could slow Earth’s warming by 30 percent, study finds (Washington Post, April 27)
  • Countries must ramp up climate pledges by 80 percent to hit key Paris target, study finds (Washington Post, February 9)
  • Climate change could cut world economy by $23 Trn in 2050: Swiss Re warns (New York Times, April 22)
  • Earth is now losing 1.2 trillion tons of ice each year. And it’s going to get worse. (Washington Post, January 26)
  • Unprepared and under-insured Canada warned about escalating risk of mega-hurricanes (Bloomberg News, May 21)

These are just a sampling of the dozens of articles that I came across so far this year.  As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reiterates whenever it can, climate change is already happening around the United States.  In many cases, that change is speeding up.  Canada is no exception.  The world will see more extreme weather events and associated disasters, including wildfires, droughts, heat waves, rising sea levels, flooding, lost of permafrost in northern hemisphere, increased insect infestations, property destruction, etc., etc.  Scientists say the world needs to prevent average global temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels to avoid irreversible damage to the planet.  As in the case of dealing with the pandemic, we have no choice but to rely on the science when it comes to ascertaining the projected impact of climate change should we continue on our current course of action.  The evidence is irrefutable!

As with the pandemic, climate change is a global issue and must be tackled through the cooperation and commitment of all countries, including the U.S. and Canada.  Otherwise, we will continue to see more and more articles and discussions like those above with respect to the various impacts resulting from the failure to immediately and adequately deal with climate change.  As with the pandemic, there is also a human dimension behind all the statistics.

In the past year, I also blogged about ‘climate change’, as noted in the following blogs:

All of a Sudden, Climate Change is Back in the News | FROLITICKS (wordpress.com)

Although Climate Change Has Taken a Back Seat to the Pandemic, Today It’s Still a Major Issue | FROLITICKS (wordpress.com)

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change US

Leave a comment »
May 3

There is a Catch-22 in Pipeline Issues Between Canada and the U.S.

by bcurry

Following Joe Biden’s inauguration as U.S. president, he took the widely expected step through an executive order of cancelling the cross-border permit for the US$14.4-billion Alberta-to-Texas heavy oil pipeline, the Keystone XL pipeline. The decision marks the third time a U.S. president has blocked the construction of this pipeline.  Next occurred the decision by Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer last November which ordered Calgary-based Enbridge to shut down its nearly 70-year-old Line 5 pipeline by May 12, 2021.  Line 5 carries each day up to 540,000 barrels of crude oil and natural gas liquids across Michigan and under the Great Lakes.  Line 5 is part of Enbridge’s mainland system carrying fuel from Alberta’s oil sands to the Midwestern U.S. and Eastern Canada, especially to refineries in Sarnia, Ontario.  Not surprisingly, President Biden’s and Governor Whitmer’s decisions were applauded by environmentalists and Indigenous groups on both sides of the border.

The difficulty is that Canada is the world’s fourth-largest producer of crude oil, and the U.S. is its top customer.  While past incidents have occurred where crude oil leakages in pipelines, including those which are part of Enbridge’s mainland system, the alternative means of transportation via rail and trucking also represents serious safety issues.  This potential danger was clearly demonstrated in the fiery derailment in July 2013 in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, which killed 47 people and wiped out part of the town.  From an economic point of view, the transport of crude oil and natural gas liquids by pipeline is the most efficient and least costly option.  Realistically, any transition within the U.S. or Canada away from fossil fuels will take time.  While the elimination of fossil fuels makes good environmental sense in light of climate change, there continues to be a dependence on fossil fuels for servicing our industries, running our transportation hubs, producing electricity and heating our homes.  Both countries have to cooperatively work together towards achieving environmental goals without creating bad relations between our governments and citizens.

Back in January, Alberta’s Premier Jason Kenney asked the Canadian government to push the U.S. government to reimburse the $1.5 billion it stands to lose from the cancellation of Keystone XL and to reimburse TC Energy, the project proponent, for the money it has sunk into the project.  Alberta took an ownership stake in 2020, representing more than $1 billion in taxpayer money to fund the construction of the pipeline.  The Biden administration’s decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline has put Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a very difficult situation, one which he has raised with the President.  On the one hand he has to support Alberta’s oil and gas industry.  On the other hand the Prime Minister has agreed reduce in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 percent within the next decade.  This brings Canada in line with the Biden administration recent pledge to slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.

Critics of the decision to shut down the Line 5 pipeline note that 6,500 good-paying jobs in Sarnia, Ontario, are on the line.  A further 23,500 indirect jobs in that same region could also be impacted, and thousands more across Ontario and Quebec.  Line 5 also feeds into Line 9, which carries oil to refineries in Montreal and Lévis for Quebec’s supply needs.  According to Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan, Line 5 delivers 66 percent of the crude oil consumed in Quebec.  This means that besides Alberta, the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec are extremely unhappy with the Michigan Governor’s position.  Any decision to move crude oil and natural gas liquids by alternate means is considered less safe, more costly and realistically not viable given the vast quantities that have to be transported.  This is your Catch-22.  For this reason, both Canada and the U.S. need to work much more closely to resolve all relevant issues pertinent to their respective constituents.  Our continuing good trade and political relationships are in the balance.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Economy Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Keystone XL Oil and Gas Transport of Oil US

Leave a comment »
Mar 14

U.S. has tended to prioritize private wealth over public resources

by bcurry

Kids are sitting in front of fast food outlets trying to do their homework on their note books or lap tops because they have no access to the Internet at home.  This has been a major issue during the pandemic because of school closures and children being forced to do full-time on-line learning.  This is happening in the same country that just put another rover, fresh off its flawless landing, on the surface of Mars — an extraordinary engineering feat and once again proving that when it comes to space exploration, no one does it better than the U.S.  Yet when it comes to maintaining its public infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers earlier this month gave the country a C-minus for the overall quality of its infrastructure.  Then there was Texas’s  failure to properly weatherize and maintain power generation systems which led to the most recent massive power crisis and subsequent water crisis which lasted for weeks in some counties.

Take the American health care system which is among the most advanced in the world, but only for some.  Remember that the U.S. is the only major industrialized country that doesn’t have a universal healthcare system.  Instead, a significant proportion of the population lack sufficient health insurance and have to depend on publicly under-funded hospitals and clinics that in turn lack adequate resources to treat their patients.  Even in good times the U.S. records higher mortality rates and earlier deaths than other countries, especially among Black, Latino or Native American citizens.  Unfortunately, the pandemic highlighted this tragic situation whereby the U.S., accounting for just four percent of the world’s population, had 20 percent of worldwide coronavirus deaths.  While, American scientists, laboratories and pharmaceutical companies helped in record time to develop effective vaccines, the country has consistently lagged behind other developed nations in the more elementary tasks of coronavirus testing and prevention.

The U.S. once was at the forefront of advances in green technologies, much like it had been in computer technologies.  Unfortunately, the Trump administration ended American participation in the Paris Accord on Climate Change and set back American initiatives in tackling the causes of global climate change.  Although the Biden administration has indicated that climate change is once again a priority issue on its agenda, it will take time to repair the damage inflicted by Trump on the Department of Environment and its programs related to air, water and soil quality.  Instead, numerous federally protected lands were opened up to pipeline construction, mining and drilling by the private sector.  The negative impact on valuable non-renewable resources will no doubt take time to be reversed, much to consternation of Americans.

If anything, the pandemic has drawn attention to the need for the U.S. to adequately invest in upgrading, maintaining and expanding its existing public infrastructure.  This applies not only to energy sources, public roads and bridges, but also to Internet access and the public health care system.  Failure to do so will only further lead to great inequities among Americans at the expense of their livelihoods and health and safety.

Cimate Change Economy Health Care US

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