Engineers declare climate responsibility

Engineering is centre stage in the transformation of our energy and transportation infrastructure to respond to the climate crisis.

Engineer climate action

"Plan A" remains tackling the problem at its source. A major UN climate science report released in South Korea makes it clear that slashing carbon pollution—even drastically—won't be enough to keep Earth from seriously overheating. Crisis management and seven ways to engineer climate are outlined with drawbacks in this article from Phys.org as a menu of "Plan B" geo-engineering solutions.

Direct CO2 capture… and prohibitively expensive and cannot operate at scale. Massive afforestation… and clash with food and biofuel crops. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage… and scheme in conflict with food crops. Ocean fertilisation… and enhanced weathering.. and expensive to mine and mill. Biochar...and the stability of biochar used as a fertiliser. Solar radiation management … and what scientists call "termination shock"—a sudden warming if the system were to fail.1 

The resolution of tension between options and outcomes is practiced daily by engineering professionals. The CBC reports that as climate change protests ramp up, Australian engineers are pushing for a zero-carbon future. More than 1,000 engineers have joined Engineers Declare, a movement that calls on its members to prioritize sustainability and push their industry toward a low-carbon future.

Jane Hadjion is one of the movement's coordinators and says her peers have a unique responsibility to address climate change.
"We're asking engineers to reassess what they do," she told Day 6 host Brent Bambury.
We're driving an inclusive movement, and we've been using [the] words "just and equitable transition."
So we don't want people to lose their jobs, and if they do lose their jobs, we would like the industry to collectively put its creativity hat on and plan a future where everybody is brought along.2 

Engineers Declare supports that engineering teams have a responsibility to actively support the transition of our economy towards a low carbon future. This begins with honestly and loudly declaring a climate and biodiversity emergency.

Meeting the needs of our society without breaching the earth’s ecological boundaries demands a paradigm shift in our activities and our behaviours. Together with our clients, we will need to design and implement systems, infrastructure and technologies that can contribute to constantly regenerating and self-sustaining economic and ecological systems.
The research and technology exist for us to begin that transformation now, but we need to work together.3 

Engineering teams, in the next decade, are the best equipped professionals in society to assess project merits “by the numbers”. Careers will be created for hundreds of thousands in support of this massive engineering undertaking.

References

1	(2018, October 8). Crisis management: Seven ways to engineer climate - Phys.org. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from https://phys.org/news/2018-10-crisis-ways-climate.html
2	(2019, October 25). As climate change protests ramp up, Australian engineers are .... Retrieved November 30, 2019, from https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/engineers-take-on-climate-change-u-s-nukes-in-turkey-raptors-uprising-spider-web-art-irl-witches-and-more-1.5333393/as-climate-change-protests-ramp-up-australian-engineers-are-pushing-for-a-zero-carbon-future-1.5333408
3	(n.d.). Australian Engineers Declare Climate and Biodiversity .... Retrieved November 30, 2019, from https://engineersdeclare.org.au/

Carbon Tax to reach climate goals

In a recent article Nicole Mortillaro of the CBC reports that the Earth is set to warm 3.2 C by 2100 unless efforts to cut emissions are tripled according to a new UN report.

Sea level rise

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its annual Emissions Gap Report on Nov 26, 2019. — 168 pages, compiled by 57 leading scientists from 33 institutions across 25 countries — calling on governments to act immediately, within the next decade, to limit global warming to 1.5 C or 2 C by 2100.

Some key highlights from the report include:

• Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) have increased 1.5 per cent annually over the past decade.

• By 2030, annual emissions need to be 15 gigatonnes of CO2 lower to reach the 2 C goal, and 32 gigatonnes lower for 1.5 C.

• GHG emissions have to drop by 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 to 2030 for the 2 C goal, and by 7.6 per cent per year for the 1.5 C target.

• To reach these goals, efforts must increase at least fivefold for the 1.5 C goal and threefold for the 2 C.

• Of the G20 nations, of which Canada is one, only five countries have committed to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) set out in the Paris Agreement, which outline each country's efforts to reduce national emissions to limit global warming to 2 C below pre-industrial levels.

Canada has not committed to a target that is in line with this scenario.1 

The Eco Fiscal Commission claims that a climate change plan without a price on carbon is like a house without a foundation. Pollution pricing works. It’s working around the world. It’s working here in Canada.

It’s working around the world. It’s working here in Canada…The fight over whether the Liberals intend to raise the carbon tax became a flashpoint during the recent election campaign, with Andrew Scheer and his Conservatives branding the measure a "job-killing tax" and promising to scrap it if elected.
"We do have options to get to 2030 but some of the options are, frankly, pretty ugly," said Chris Ragan, economist and chair of the Ecofiscal Commission.
He cited the example of the "very expensive subsidies" that some have pitched as a response to climate change — corporate or industrial subsidies to fund things like carbon-capture systems, or household subsidies to lower the cost of purchasing electric vehicles or green renovations. Such subsidies would have a lower political profile than a carbon tax. Ragan said they'd also demand personal or corporate tax increases to pay for them.
"The punchline really is, the more hidden your policy choices, the more expensive they are," he said.2 

Salimah Shivji of CBC News reports that the carbon tax must hit $210 per tonne by 2030 to meet Paris targets. The tax remains the most cost-effective tool for fighting climate change, says Ecofiscal Commission.

The report's data show a scenario combining stricter regulations (requiring companies to cut the intensity of their emissions in half, for example) and substantial subsidies for electric vehicle purchases could end up forcing an income tax hike of roughly 1.5 to 2 per cent for Canadians and corporations, depending on the province.
The report also says a scenario relying on regulations and subsidies for industries alone would cost even more — roughly a 4 to 6 per cent spike in income taxes. The commission concluded that a industry-focused regulation-only model would end up depressing Canada's GDP — and likely would fail to allow Canada to meet its current Paris target of a 30 per cent reduction in emissions below 2005 levels by 2030.3 

In its report, the Ecofiscal Commission concluded that, even though it's more visible and politically controversial, the carbon tax remains the most cost-effective approach to fighting climate change.

Options for carbon pricing

Canadians agree that we need to do more to combat climate change. We need a strong and credible plan to do so. Carbon pricing is a practical, meaningful and fair way to reduce the pollution that is destabilizing our climate and threatening our health.

In Alberta, in 2016, the government announced the elimination of coal power generation, to occur by 2030. Coal workers affected by the phase out can access financial, employment and retraining programs to support their transition.

The Coal Workforce Transition Program provides financial assistance for re-employment, retirement, relocation and education as workers prepare to start new jobs or retire.
To be eligible for financial support programs, employees must have worked for one or more of the affected coal-fired power plants or mines for at least one year immediately prior to receiving a layoff notice effective Jan 2, 2018, or later.
Employees bumped by thermal coal plant workers and apprentices in their training period may also be eligible for financial assistance.4 

The relationship between global temperature and GHG emissions is the science that mandates immediate reduction of these emissions on a global basis.

Science of increased emissions

A Carbon Tax is the most effective way to create the incentive for large polluters to transition to more responsible use of fossil fuels.

References

1	(2019, November 26). Earth set to warm 3.2 C by 2100 unless efforts are tripled, new .... Retrieved November 26, 2019, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/un-emissions-report-1.5373154
2	(2019, November 27). Carbon tax must hit $210 per tonne by 2030 to meet Paris .... Retrieved November 27, 2019, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-pricing-tax-climate-change-emissions-1.5374481
3	(2019, March 22). 3 Common Carbon Pricing Myths - YouTube. Retrieved November 27, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW1e1YxqutE
4	(n.d.). Phasing out coal | Alberta.ca. Retrieved November 27, 2019, from https://www.alberta.ca/climate-coal-electricity.aspx

Gaps in our path to mitigate climate change

The efforts to reduce GHG emissions are undertaken to decrease the rate at which the temperature of the planet is increasing.

Temperature rising

Nicole Mortillaro of the CBC reports that the Earth is set to warm 3.2 C by 2100 unless efforts to cut emissions are tripled according to a new UN report. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its annual Emissions Gap Report on Tuesday — 168 pages, compiled by 57 leading scientists from 33 institutions across 25 countries — calling on governments to act immediately, within the next decade, to limit global warming to 1.5 C or 2 C by 2100.

Some key highlights from the report include:
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) have increased 1.5 per cent annually over the past decade. By 2030, annual emissions need to be 15 gigatonnes of CO2 lower to reach the 2 C goal, and 32 gigatonnes lower for 1.5 C. GHG emissions have to drop by 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 to 2030 for the 2 C goal, and by 7.6 per cent per year for the 1.5 C target.To reach these goals, efforts must increase at least fivefold for the 1.5 C goal and threefold for the 2 C.Of the G20 nations, of which Canada is one, only five countries have committed to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) set out in the Paris Agreement, which outline each country's efforts to reduce national emissions to limit global warming to 2 C below pre-industrial levels.
Canada has not committed to a target that is in line with this scenario.1 

Another report by Climate Analytics, released for the UN Secretary General’s Climate Action Summit, shows how fast coal needs to be phased out in order to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement, in light of the latest science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

No fossil fuels 

It also assesses whether the efforts to reduce coal use in electricity generation since the adoption of the Paris Agreement put us any closer to a pathway consistent with its 1.5°C limit.

 Key messages

Although the new coal pipeline shrunk by 75% since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, cancelling new coal is nowhere near enough to meet its 1.5°C limit Phasing out coal from the electricity sector is the single most important step to get in line with 1.5°C Governments are not on track to phase coal out of the electricity sector in line with the 1.5°C in the Paris Agreement To get on a 1.5°C pathway, they will need to introduce effective regulation to shut down coal plants before the end of their technical lifetime and to significantly limit their use in the meantime, and refrain from building new coal capacity It is critical that governments significantly scale up their NDCs by 2020. The new pledges must include clear commitments to phase out coal, remove subsidies for fossil fuels, and build support for renewables and energy efficiency2

Ralph Torrie of Torrie Smith Associates has prepared a new report that provides a 'pathway' to get Nova Scotia off coal by 2030.

Nova Scotia off coal path

Jack Julian of CBC News quotes the Ecology Action Centre 'We've known that this is technically possible for a long time.'

 This would include:
"Deep-energy retrofits" for 80 per cent of homes and commercial buildings, which would help reduce power consumption by seven per cent of current levels. Forty per cent of personal vehicles being either fully electric or plug-in hybrid cars. Doubling the province's wind power capacity.Increases in solar power. Building a second transmission link to New Brunswick, which would allow greater reliance on hydro power from Quebec. Torries said the cost of making these changes and the corresponding savings would almost net out.3

Continuous improvement is an engineering and economically sound strategy to combat the climate emergency.

Transportation is the largest source of carbon pollution in the U.S., but it doesn't have to be that way.

 Carmakers have proven time and time again that they are fully capable of making their vehicles cleaner and more fuel efficient. The government just has to ask them. Energy expert Hal Harvey explains. Youtube A Plan For Zero Carbon Transportation4

The path to mitigate the effects of the climate emergency can be followed using best practices of engineering and economics.

References

1	(2019, November 26). Earth set to warm 3.2 C by 2100 unless efforts are tripled, new .... Retrieved November 26, 2019, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/un-emissions-report-1.5373154
2	(n.d.). Coal phase-out: Insights from the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 .... Retrieved November 26, 2019, from https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2019/coal-phase-out-insights-from-the-ipcc-special-report-on-15c-and-global-trends-since-2015/
3	(2019, November 26). HOLD-New report provides 'pathway' to get Nova Scotia off .... Retrieved November 26, 2019, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ecology-action-centre-report-nova-scotia-coal-free-by-2030-1.5373002
4	(2019, September 19). A Plan For Zero Carbon Transportation - YouTube. Retrieved November 26, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQzSyMnEw-o

Reorganization of social and political systems

Economic inequality and the threat of the climate emergency has inspired some thinking about fundamental reorganization of our social and political systems.

Some synthesis of ideas

The Economist has written that Elizabeth Warren wants to remake American capitalism. As remarkable as Ms Warren’s story is the sheer scope of her ambition to remake American capitalism. She has an admirably detailed plan to transform a system she believes is corrupt and fails ordinary people. Plenty of her ideas are good. She is right to try to limit giant firms’ efforts to influence politics and gobble up rivals. But at its heart, her plan reveals a systematic reliance on regulation and protectionism.

 And over time Ms Warren’s agenda would entrench two dubious philosophies about the economy that would sap its vitality. The first is her faith in government as benign and effective. Government is capable of doing great good but, like any big organisation, it is prone to incompetence, capture by powerful insiders and Kafkaesque indifference to the plight of the ordinary men and women Ms Warren most cares about. When telecoms firms and airline companies were heavily regulated in the 1970s, they were notorious for their stodginess and inefficiency. Ms Warren’s signature achievement is the creation in 2011 of a body to protect consumers of financial services. It has done good work, but has unusual powers, has at times been heavy handed and has become a political football. The other dubious philosophy is a vilification of business. She underrates the dynamic power of markets to help middle-class Americans, invisibly guiding the diverse and spontaneous actions of people and firms, moving capital and labour from dying industries to growing ones and innovating at the expense of lazy incumbents.1

Charles Eisenstein, a fascinating public speaker, author, and advocate for gift economies shares his bio.

 This is the part of a bio where one implies that one has arrived at some exalted state of success, all mistakes safely in the past. Well, I’m not the guy who has got it all figured out. I know that my books and other work comes from a deep, inspired source, but that source is not me! It is more like I’m connecting to a field of knowledge, or to a story that wants to be told. This knowledge is as much my teacher as it is anyone else’s. I’m kind of ordinary, compared to some of the amazing people I keep meeting. I’m just as much in the learning as anyone else, wandering as best I can toward “the more beautiful world my heart knows is possible,” encumbered by the programming and the wounds of our civilization2.

The conclusion of the Extraordinary Effect article in the Stories from Plummer blog (https://davmacit.blogspot.com/2019/11/extraordinary-effect.html ) opens a view of Charles Eisenstein’s philosophy by spiritual leader Richard Rohr, OFM.

A world without weapons, without McMansions in sprawling suburbs, without mountains of unnecessary packaging, without giant mechanized monofarms, without energy-hogging big-box stores, without electronic billboards, without endless piles of throw-away junk, without the overconsumption of consumer goods no one really needs is not an impoverished world. I disagree with those environmentalists who say we are going to have to make do with less. In fact, we are going to make do with more: more beauty, more community, more fulfillment, more art, more music, and material objects that are fewer in number but superior in utility and aesthetics. . . .
Part of the healing that a sacred economy represents is the healing of the divide we have created between spirit and matter. In keeping with the sacredness of all things, I advocate an embrace, not an eschewing, of materialism. I think we will love our things more and not less. We will treasure our material possessions, honor where they came from and where they will go. . . . The cheapness of our things is part of their devaluation, casting us into a cheap world where everything is generic and expendable.3 

The Resource Based Economy (a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Organization) is working on designing, testing and implementing a new socio-economic system called a Global Resource Based Economy.

Accepting that humanity's problems are global in nature, this concept is a bold proposal that seeks to provide a higher quality of life for all, through the intelligent management of Earth's resources. What is required is the redesign of our culture to operate within the carrying capacity of the Earth’s resources and in accordance with the wellbeing of people and protection of the environment. This could usher in an age of collaboration, progress, and security between people and nations.4

The synthesis of some of these ideas may form the transition to the economic and political structure best suited to the challenges of the next decades.

References

1	(2019, October 24). Elizabeth Warren wants to remake American capitalism - A .... Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/10/24/elizabeth-warren-wants-to-remake-american-capitalism
2	(n.d.). About Charles - Charles Eisenstein. Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://charleseisenstein.org/about/
3	(2019, November 25). Making Do with More — Center for Action and Contemplation. Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://cac.org/making-do-with-more-2019-11-25/
4	(n.d.). Resource Based Economy | A New Vision For Humanity. Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://www.resourcebasedeconomy.org/

Avoid stranded assets and meet GHG emission goals

Government subsidies for infrastructure in the oil and gas industry and investment in oil and gas operations by pension funds is counter to moving toward Canada’s obligation to reduce GHG emissions in accord with the Paris targets.

Divest now

Bill McKibben notes that the European Investment Bank has met to decide its policy on fossil fuels. When the world’s climate scientists declared last autumn that we would need to have fundamentally transformed our energy sector within a decade, it was clear that the first job was to stop building any new infrastructure.

Source: https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/1aea50fcba8e8afce674fc15d4d86ce6d5a8cbd1/0_53_5283_3169/master/5283.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=c48655cf220017d3bff15cd7ce1b8295

The first rule of holes is, when you’re in one, stop digging. In this case that means no more digging for gas pipelines or ports or anything else that will help lock in carbon emissions for decades to come.

And if the EIB does act, it will send a strong signal to markets and to other lenders. For almost a decade now, observers have understood that restricting the flow of money to the fossil fuel industry is a key part of the climate fight. That’s why endowments and portfolios worth more than $11tn have begun divesting their fossil fuel stocks; last month the University of California system became the latest big player to join in, scrubbing its $80bn endowment and pension fund of fossil fuel stocks. Heck, even a major American utility announced that it was divesting its pension fund because it could see where the future lay.1 

In the past week of Guardian reporting we’ve learned that the biggest oil companies plan to increase production as much as 35% in the next decade. It’s going to be hard enough to phase out the vast existing fossil fuel infrastructure in the years ahead: adding new projects at this point is insane.

The European Investment Bank has agreed to phase out its multibillion-euro financing for fossil fuels within the next two years to become the world’s first ‘“climate bank”. The bank will end its financing of oil, gas, and coal projects after 2021, a policy that will make the EU’s lending arm the first multilateral lender to rule out financing for projects that contribute to the climate crisis.

The decision to stem the flow of capital into fossil fuel projects has been welcomed by green groups as an important step towards the EU’s aim to be carbon-neutral by 2050.
The EIB, the world’s largest multilateral financial institution, described its decision as a “quantum leap” in ambition. “Climate is the top issue on the political agenda of our time,” said the bank’s president, Werner Hoyer. “We will stop financing fossil fuels and launch the most ambitious climate investment strategy of any public financial institution anywhere.”
The bank’s vice-president, Andrew McDowell, said the move was “an important first step – not the last step, but probably one of the most difficult.”
Under its new policy, the bank will end all lending to fossil fuels within two years and align all funding decisions with the Paris climate accord. Energy projects applying for EIB funding will have to show they can produce one kilowatt hour of energy while emitting less than 250 grammes of carbon dioxide.2

Laura Kane of CBC News writes that The Trans Mountain pipeline received $320 million in subsidies from the Canadian and Alberta governments in the first half of 2019,

Source: https://i.cbc.ca/1.5206171.1572992816!/cumulusImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/trans-mountain-pipeline.jpg

according to a new report by an economic institute that analyzes environmental issues.

The money included $135.8 million in direct subsidies and $183.8 million in indirect subsidies that were not clearly disclosed to taxpayers, says the report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
"This is a very large subsidy. It really does require more public discussion and public disclosure," said Tom Sanzillo, the group's director of finance.
Sanzillo and the report's co-author, institute financial analyst Kathy Hipple, analyzed the second-quarter report of the Canada Development Investment Corp., a Crown corporation that counts Trans Mountain Corp. among its subsidiaries.3 

James Rowe, Steph Glanzmann, Jessica Dempsey, and Zoë Yunker of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report that The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) manages one of the country’s largest pools of investment capital at over $400 billion. How pension funds choose to invest has significant bearing on how we collectively address the climate emergency and the needed energy transition away from fossil fuels.

This report asks if the CPPIB is investing with the 1.5-degree Celsius limit on global average temperature rise as outlined in the Paris Agreement and finds it is not.

The CPPIB has chosen to invest millions in companies with a long history of policy obstructionism…
The preceding analysis demonstrates that the CPPIB’s investments are not congruent with the1.5-degree limit. Moreover, the CPPIB has chosen to invest millions in companies with a longhistory of policy obstructionism. For example, the CPPIB has over $1.9 billion invested in fossil fuel companies that belong to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).27 CAPP haa long record of lobbying against, and seeking to neutralize the effectiveness of, needed climate policy.28 For example, CAPP has pushed to neutralize national carbon taxation by requesting that its members get back all of the revenue they pay in taxes.29 This lobbying appears to have been successful since approximately 80 per cent of the oil and gas sector’s emissions are exempted from Canada’s national carbon price, thereby greatly reducing the plan’s effectiveness.30 CAPP also actively funds and manages Canada’s Energy Citizens, a group marketed as a “grassroots” pro–oil and gas citizen initiative. Under the Energy Citizens banner, CAPP recently launched a massive advertising campaign supporting the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and encouraging policy-makers to “use the appropriate legislative, legal and financial steps to ensure the Trans Mountain Expansion project gets built.”31 Concerns have been raised that CAPP’s campaign targeted swing ridings in Ontario’s recent provincial election and was meant to tilt the balance toward Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative Party, which opposes carbon pricing.32 Finally, in January 2019, CAPP released a platform meant to influence the Alberta provincial elections, which were held in April. The platform called for the rate of Alberta’s oil supply for export to double in growth...4 

The authors of this report say this is a moral and ecological failure and also a financial risk. As energy generation shifts away from fossil fuels, investors who do not respond may find themselves left with “stranded assets”—investments that are no longer profitable—and Canada Pension Plan recipients would be collectively affected. Worse still, is that their pension investments would continue to contribute to climate change rather than supporting measures committed to finding solutions. Divestment is a strategy to reduce financial support to GHG emitters and slow down the warming of the planet.

References

1	(2019, October 13). Divestment works – and one huge bank can lead the way | Bill .... Retrieved November 9, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/13/divestment-bank-european-investment-fossil-fuels
2	(2019, November 15). European Investment Bank to phase out fossil fuel financing .... Retrieved November 20, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/15/european-investment-bank-to-phase-out-fossil-fuels-financing
3	(2019, November 19). Trans Mountain received $320M in government subsidies in .... Retrieved November 20, 2019, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-government-subsidies-2019-1.5365747
4	(2019, November 19). Fossil Futures | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Retrieved November 20, 2019, from https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/fossil-futures

Canada politics climate and capitalism

Aaron Wherry comments that for better or worse, Trudeau's next 4 years are going to be about climate change.

Canada addresses the climate

It was the sleeper issue of the election campaign - and it's driving a wedge between East and West.

Though his party's own share of the vote was reduced, Trudeau has latched on to the fact that nearly two-thirds of voters cast ballots for candidates whose parties promised a price on carbon and a concerted effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate change remains the major policy fault line between Liberals and Conservatives, and it offers Trudeau a path forward as he tries to maintain support for his government in the House of Commons. It is also, underneath all the sound and fury, the most significant point of tension between Ottawa and the West.
The Trudeau government was the first federal government to make meaningful progress toward reducing Canada's carbon emissions and the Liberals became just the second government in Canada — after Gordon Campbell's provincial Liberal government in B.C. in 2009 — to be re-elected while promising a tax on carbon emissions.
Trudeau's reward is a chance to keep pushing the transition, with all the tension and pressure that entails.
However he chooses to move forward, whoever he decides to surround himself with, he is likely to be defined by his success or failure in the pursuit of a low-carbon future.1

Cristine Russell notes that the scientists have been warning about severe global impacts from climate change for more than three decades.

A balance for life

But over the past 12 months those warnings have intensified. Reports detailing the massive environmental, economic, and human consequences of unfettered global warming have come at a fast and furious pace. And, collectively, they are far scarier than the sum of their parts.

The deluge began last October, with the release of a special report from the United Nations’ global climate science authority, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on the potential impacts of a rise in global temperature of 1.5 degrees Celsius or more. Three international IPCC working groups with 91 authors and editors from 40 countries examined 6,000-plus scientific studies and called for “global carbon dioxide emissions (to) start to decline well before 2030” to avoid the most severe consequences of global warming. It said “global warming is likely to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.”
The release of the report provided a “breakthrough” moment in public consciousness and press coverage, with countless soundbites, headlines, and images warning of a “12-year” deadline to head off “climate change catastrophe.” The “12-year” catchphrase was even more alarming than the IPCC’s already strong admonitions. The planet won’t implode in 2030, but further delays in major global actions will make it increasingly difficult to move to a low-carbon world...
In November, the United States’ Fourth National Climate Assessment, produced by government and outside experts, reinforced the gloom-and-doom message of the October IPCC report. “Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth,” it warned. The Trump administration’s attempt to minimize media coverage of America’s climate report card by releasing it on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, backfired: The congressionally mandated report got double coverage as both an environmental and a political story So, where does this leave us? I’d argue that, more than anything, we’re left with a heightened sense of urgency, as well as uncertainty, about immediate and forthcoming climate dangers. For many years, coverage of climate science reports had an implicit future tense, as in, “It’s a problem for your grandchildren.” Alas, the future came faster than science had predicted, and the world is now confronted with the reality of climate change-related extreme weather events and other threats. The frightening wildfires now racing through Southern and Northern California show what this climate-related new reality looks like for the country’s most populous state....2

A CBC Ideas presentation featuring mathematician and philosopher David Schweickart considers how rethinking capitalism may save the planet.

The political climate in Canada for the Trudeau minority government will require a rethinking of our path that currently s moving away from our commitments to reduce GHG emissions.

The warming planet

References

1	(2019, November 19). For better or worse, Trudeau's next 4 years are going ... - CBC.ca. Retrieved November 19, 2019, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-cabinet-shuffle-climate-change-1.5363232
2	(2019, November 9). COP25 will review a scary year for climate change — Quartz. Retrieved November 19, 2019, from https://qz.com/1742644/cop25-will-review-a-scary-year-for-climate-change/
3	(n.d.). CBC Player | How rethinking capitalism may save the planet. Retrieved November 20, 2019, from https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1472784451800