The Curse Of News Literacy

There are some days I almost wish I weren't a newspaper reader. That way I wouldn't be confronted  daily with the world's stupidity and perhaps not constantly haunted by a jaundiced view of humanity.

In my previous post I wrote at some length about the buffoonery that defines the Doug Ford government here in Ontario; while I briefly return to that subject now, I shall also take a look at my disappointment over Jagmeet Singh's recent pronouncements. Just bear with me, if you are so inclined.

First, a peek at our Pavlovian premier, Mr. Ford. The previous government, under Kathleen Wynne, mandated charging plugs for all new house and condo builds in 2018. Mr. Ford, in 2019, stripped that provision out of the building code. Despite his heavily investing in EV battery plants for Ontario, he will not reverse that decision.

... after lobbying from developers who said the plugs added $500 to the cost of a new house, Ford stripped them from the code. He also ended rebates of up to $14,000 for buyers of EVs and scrapped chargers from GO Transit stations and other public locations.

Why, when EV investment is so important to the Ontario economy, would he continue to hang tough?

Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Paul Calandra, who tabled legislation modernizing the building code on Wednesday, warned that keeping new home costs low is more important than mandating EV chargers.

“Look, I think homeowners can make that decision on their own. If you’re wanting to buy a EV, we encourage you to do it — that’s why we’re making massive investments in that,” Calandra told reporters at Queen’s Park.

“But if that’s something that you want to do, then the homeowner themselves can undertake that. We want to keep costs of building new homes down,” he said.

The price of installing an EV charger in an existing home can be between $1,000 and $3,000 — much more than putting one in during construction.

 Green Leader Mike Schreiner said the Tories “are ideologically opposed to building the infrastructure we need for electric vehicles” and that has economic consequences.

“Is Ford Motor Company delaying the building of their plant and retooling their plant in Oakville because they know we don’t have the infrastructure in Ontario to facilitate the adoption of electric vehicles?” said Schreiner.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to the 'soundness' of the government's 'thinking'. 

Things are not much better on the federal scene. I must confess to my surprise and disappointment with NDP leader Jagment Singh, who now seems to be waffling on the carbon levy and thereby succumbing to the siren call of populism.

The federal New Democrats no longer believe a consumer carbon price is necessary to fight climate change, Jagmeet Singh suggested Thursday.

The new position, which appears to break with the NDP’s previous support for the policy, was outlined in a speech Singh delivered at the Broadbent Institute’s annual policy conference in Ottawa on Thursday. In it, he distanced his party from the federal Liberals’ flagship climate policy, which has drawn criticism from across the country as the levy and its accompanying rebates increased this April.

Singh condemned the approaches of both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to the climate crisis, and said tackling it “can’t be done by letting working families bear the cost of climate change while big polluters make bigger and bigger profits.”

Sadly, this move lends legitimacy to the prattle of PP and the provincial premiers, who seem to speak as one in denouncing the levy as a burden on all of us, despite the fact that most come out ahead with the feds' quarterly rebate checks. 

I will give Singh credit for one assertion, however.

Referring to a March report that concluded industrial carbon pricing systems were far more effective than the consumer levy on fuel, Singh told reporters that the New Democrats “want more attention on the policies that are the biggest drivers of lowering emissions,” such as the industrial price on pollution and methane regulations. 

Industrial carbon pricing systems would be a reference to such protocols as cap and trade. Yes, the very same system that Doug Ford dismantled when he came to power, a move that led to Trudeau imposing the carbon levy on all of us. Interestingly, even as Mr. Ford and others rail against the levy, no one seems to have any interest in bringing back cap and trade. Why not? You would have to ask Mr. Ford and his friends in high places for the answer.

I also don't have a direct answer as to why the electorate cannot make the journey from A to B and connect the dots that would show the arrant hypocrisy of people like Ford when they indulge in the political theatre of fed-bashing.

Hence my jaundiced view of humanity.

Bread And Circuses

 

No, I am not one of those who begrudge rich people their pleasures and pursuits. Content in my own life, I harbour no ill-will toward those who are better off than me.

I do become bothered, however, when those pursuits both distract us from, and add to, the existential crises our world faces. In that, the billionaires have much to answer for.

Take the recent 'groundbreaking' flights of Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos into near-space and the breathless reporting that followed it.

Start at the 9:40 mark of the following to catch Stephanie Ruhle's  breathless, (star struck?) interview with the Bezos boys:

Similar gushing interlocutions can be found online following Branson's Virgin Galactic foray, but I hope the above serves to illustrate that this kind of gushing, lionizing coverage serves merely as a bread-and-circuses diversion away from the many problems we face in our terrestrial sphere.

Now, were you to watch earlier in this broadcast, you would hear how Bezos also talks about seeing our planet from above and how fragile it really is. He opines we must do everything we can to protect our world, as if  his space trip offered a transcendent experience.

And Branson, after his trip, said he wants to spend the rest of his life helping to solve our many problems here.

Apparently, those problems do not include our biggest threat, climate change.

Despite these intrepid innovators' claim that the greenhouse gas emissions from their excursions are no different from those from a jet flight, the truth is otherwise. First of all, both of their business models call for more and more of these inner-space trips, and as they scale up, the price will come down, making them more accessible to more people. Hence, more trips, more greenhouse gas emissions.

Secondly, the nature of these emissions is different from jet trips. Katherine Gammon explains:

Eloise Marais, an associate professor of physical geography at University College London... studies the impact of fuels and industries on the atmosphere.

The carbon emissions from rockets are small compared with the aircraft industry, she says. But they are increasing at nearly 5.6% a year, and Marais has been running a simulation for a decade, to figure out at what point will they compete with traditional sources we are familiar with.

“For one long-haul plane flight it’s one to three tons of carbon dioxide [per passenger],” says Marais. For one rocket launch it’s 200-300 tonnes of carbon dioxide carrying 4 or so passengers – close on two orders of magnitude more, according to Marais. “So it doesn’t need to grow that much more to compete with other sources.”

But the problem is more than simply the amount of carbon spewed, because 

emissions from rockets are emitted right into the upper atmosphere, which means they stay there for a long time: two to three years. Even water injected into the upper atmosphere – where it can form clouds – can have warming impacts, says Marais. “Even something as seemingly innocuous as water can have an impact.”

Closer to the ground, all fuels emit huge amounts of heat, which can add ozone to the troposphere, where it acts like a greenhouse gas and retains heat. In addition to carbon dioxide, fuels like kerosene and methane also produce soot. And in the upper atmosphere, the ozone layer can be destroyed by the combination of elements from burning fuels.

When I was a boy, I imagined a future of endless possibilities. Each liftoff of the Mercury and Apollo missions served only to whet that imagination. But I grew up and saw an increasingly fractured world with no simple remedies. 

Perhaps it is now time for these 'boys of space' to do a bit of growing up as well.

 

 

A New Horrifying High Our Leaders Will Ignore

News that Antarctica just reached new horrifyingly high temperatures, forerunner of the deluge to come, once more reinforces the perilous state our world is in. Despite that, it seems likely that the Trudeau government will approve the massive tarsands project known as the Teck mine, which I posted about the other day.

Indeed, the most startling fact about the development is that it will add to our-already massive greenhouse gas emissions which, despite the pious rhetoric of the Trudeau government, means our country, with a mere 0.5% of the planet’s population, will use up one-third of the world's remaining carbon budget.

A new petition opposing the development is available to sign at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Still not sure that this development flies in the face of ecological sanity? Perhaps the following thoughtful missives from the Toronto Star will help convince you:

I oppose the expansion of tar sands production and call on Liberal cabinet ministers to reject the Teck Frontier mine.

The Trudeau cabinet’s decision is due at the end of February. It’s the first real climate test for this government.

I am one of the two thirds of voters who voted for increased climate action in last year’s federal election. We have less than 10 years to limit climate catastrophe and must act quickly to cut carbon emissions.

The Frontier mine is incompatible with our climate targets. It will produce about four million tonnes of carbon emissions per year.

It would result in significant adverse effects on Indigenous rights and cause irreversible environmental damage. The mine would result in a loss of habitat for local species including wood bison and whooping cranes.

And it will never be financially viable due to its reliance on unrealistically high oil prices.

Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg, Toronto

Can any of us really afford to wait another 30 years for Teck Resources to become carbon neutral? Canada’s federal cabinet ministers are deciding whether to reject or approve the Teck Frontier Mine, slated to be developed 110 kilometres north of Fort McMurray, Alta. — a mine that would become Canada’s largest tar sands project.

This mine would produce 260,000 barrels of oil per day. It would cover 290 square kilometres, almost the combined area of Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond, and have a lifespan of 41 years. During those years, this mega-mine would add 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year to Canada’s emissions, singlehandedly guaranteeing we will not meet our Paris Accord targets.

A federal-provincial joint review panel found that the mine would not only cause permanent and irreversible damage to our environment, but it would also cause “significant adverse effects” on the rights, land use and culture of local Indigenous peoples.

So I ask again: Can Canada, my grandchildren and your grandchildren afford to wait 30 years for Teck to become carbon neutral? The answer from the future is a resounding and imploring cry of “no!”

Patricia Smith, Barrie

As author of “Hawk,” a novel about the oil sands being used in many Canadian schools, I want to raise awareness about the Teck Frontier mine proposal currently up for approval by our federal government.

This mega-mine, the biggest yet, will add an area twice the size of Vancouver to an already questionable tarsands industry and is undoubtedly incompatible with our climate targets.

Canadians are doing their part to cut back on emissions, but our efforts to eat less meat or use public transport pale in comparison to the harm that will be done by this proposed project.

We pray for Australia and send money to help burned koalas, we criticize others for cutting down the Amazon forest, depriving orangutans of their habitat, and we judge the U.S. for its climate-denying leadership.

But here in Canada, with scientists telling us we have less than 10 years to limit climate catastrophe, we are poised to eradicate more boreal forest and add more greenhouse gases to an already beleaguered atmosphere.

I saw former U.S. president Barack Obama on his recent visit to Toronto. He praised Canada for listening to the science. Have we stopped doing that?

Jennifer Dance, Stouffville

Despite the bellicose rhetoric emanating from Alberta over this development, which you can view with this link, in a sane world, there really would be no debate over this ill-conceived and very, very dangerous project.

More Evidence That The Emperor Has No Clothes

The Mound notified me that he is having problems accessing his blog, and so directed me to the following story. Given the stellar job he has been doing on the climate file and other issues relating to the earth's viability, I know my post will be a mere shadow of the quality and depth he brings to bear, but here goes anyway.

The Guardian reports a truth about Justin Trudeau that his supporters are loathe to acknowledge: despite his election pledge, he is leading us farther away from any chance of meeting Canada's promised greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

... Justin Trudeau’s newly re-elected government will decide whether to throw more fuel on the fires of climate change by giving the go-ahead to construction of the largest open-pit oil sands mine in Canadian history.

Approving Teck Resources’ Frontier mine would effectively signal Canada’s abandonment of its international climate goals. The mega mine would operate until 2067, adding a whopping 6 megatonnes of climate pollution every year. That’s on top of the increasing amount of carbon that Canada’s petroleum producers are already pumping out every year.

Approving Teck Resources’ Frontier mine would effectively signal Canada’s abandonment of its international climate goals. The mega mine would operate until 2067, adding a whopping 6 megatonnes of climate pollution every year. That’s on top of the increasing amount of carbon that Canada’s petroleum producers are already pumping out every year.

And despite Trudeau's repeated and lofty rhetoric about consulting Indigenous people, this project has grave implications for them:

The Teck mega mine would be on Dene and Cree territory, close to Indigenous communities. The area is home to one of the last free-roaming herds of wood bison, it’s along the migration route for the only wild population of endangered whooping cranes, and is just 30km from the boundary of Wood Buffalo national park – a Unesco world heritage site because of its cultural importance and biodiversity.

Most Canadians are aware of the filthy nature of tar sand development, but even if this project does not go ahead, much further damage is being planned:

Even without Teck Frontier, there are 131 megatonnes per year in approved tar sands projects just waiting for companies to begin construction. No wonder the industry is on track to take up 53% of Canada’s emissions budget within the next 10 years.

And the signs that Trudeau is giving little more than lip service to emission-reduction is becoming very evident:

Less than two months ago, two-thirds of Canadians voted for parties vowing to do more to fight climate change. Trudeau promised during the campaign to introduce legally binding targets for Canada to reach net zero emissions by 2050. But all the current national climate policies, including a carbon tax and coal phase-out, would be overwhelmed by this carbon juggernaut and Canada would radically fail to meet its climate commitments.

There are alternatives:

By rejecting the Teck mega mine, the Canadian government could signal that it is committed to stopping this runaway train. That it does represent the two-thirds of Canadians who voted for increased action against climate breakdown. It could launch a serious program to help the oil and gas workers of Alberta, the people who are out of work and need a future to believe in, by redirecting the many billions of dollars for pipelines and fossil fuel infrastructure into diversifying and decarbonizing Alberta’s economy.

In rejecting the Teck mega mine, Canada would be joining France, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Norway and recently California – all jurisdictions that have recently constrained expansion of oil and gas due to the urgent need to build cleaner safer energy systems and fight climate change.

Based on the Trudeau government's past performance, I would say the odds of the Teck project being approved are great. But I would very much welcome being proven wrong.

Air Travel And Climate Change

Having recently returned from Newfoundland to attend my son's wedding, I can claim no green virtue when it comes to flying. Indeed, I know there will be more flights in the future when we visit him and his wife in Edmonton. So I really am a hypocrite when it comes to this mode of transportation, the one with the highest carbon footprint, especially on short-haul flights.

Indisputably, we all need to be more aware of the impact of our choices, as the following short report makes abundantly clear:



You can read more about this issue here, and you can complete a questionaire that will help assess your carbon footprint here.

The Ball Is In Our Court

I am well past the age when I feel any real hope for the future of our species. Far too many of us are content to define our lives by the ease and conveniences afforded by technology, technology that is leaving us with an increasingly unstable environment and climate. And now, of course, we are beginning to see the effects, worldwide, of our self-indulgence. Hurricanes, tornadoes, unseasonable weather, fire and rain are but a foretaste of what is to come.

Nonetheless, like many others, I believe that we cannot abandon hope completely and must fight the good fight no matter its ultimate outcome. I read an article the other day which suggests a way that we can substantially reduce our collective carbon footprint. Unlike the ignoble lies told by people like Donald Trump, Justin Trudeau and, here in Ontario, Doug Ford, there may be a way to have our environmental cake while we more or less continue to consume as our prodigal lifestyles dictate.

Patrick Brown offers a partial solution to our woes:

Massive savings in carbon emissions are possible worldwide if governments adopt the highest energy efficiency standards for lighting and household appliances such as fridges, freezers and washing machines, researchers say.

Unlike the hot air Mr.Trudeau is happy to regularly release, this could go a long way toward the Paris agreement goal of keeping the global rise in temperatures as close as possible to the 1.5°C maximum world leaders agreed upon.

Many countries have already adopted higher energy efficiency standards, including the entire European Union (EU). But if the best standards were applied globally, more than 1,100 average-sized coal-powered generating plants, each producing about 600 MW, could be closed.

If low carbon electricity production were used to generate the remaining electricity needed, and fossil fuel plants were closed, then a reduction of 60% of all emissions from buildings would be possible by 2030, CAT [Climate Action Tracker]says. This is 5.2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, more than the EU’s entire current emissions.

Since we seem inextricably wedded to our convenience and comfort, this approach yields much and demands little. A good example is to be found in India, where efforts to boost the use of LED lights has led to dramatic reductions in energy use:

It meant at peak times that India needed 6,000 megawatts less electricity to satisfy demand than if ordinary bulbs had been used. The government was able to negotiate for better prices for mass orders of LEDs from the manufacturers, lowering prices and increasing jobs at the same time.

The trend to government intervention to cut energy use is catching on:

Other countries are also producing excellent results with different policies. In France lighting installations in non-residential buildings must be switched off at night, to reduce both energy waste and light pollution. The resulting energy savings are comparable to the annual electricity consumption of 750,000 households, lowering CO2 emissions by 250 kilotonnes and saving French businesses €200m in energy costs.

Professor Niklas Höhne of NewClimate Institute, one of the three members of the CAT consortium, said: “We found examples around the world where people are reaping the benefits by switching off lights in cities at night, switching to LEDs, smart lighting and smart metering, apps provided by energy companies to encourage customers to save energy or to use appliances at off-peak hours.”

As a species, we are very good at playing the victim, embracing a willful ignorance and helplessness, seeming to prefer that to an active participation in dealing with our self-made problems. It doesn't have to be that way.

The ball is now in our court.

Facing Hypocrisy

Last month, I read an article by the redoubtable George Monbiot that left me both shaken and, for a period of time, quite depressed. It forced me to face some unpleasant and inconvenient truths about people like me, and left me with the realization that when all is said and done, I am a hypocrite.

Entitled Too right it's Black Friday: our relentless consumption is trashing the planet, the article took away what little comfort I felt about my own 'green' practices. Hardly a rampant consumerist, I believed I was doing my part by respecting the earth's limited resources, buying only when necessary, being prudent about my water usage, driving only when walking is impractical, and being mindful of the overall environment.

In the overall scheme of things, it turns out those efforts are largely illusory in impact:

The ancillary promise is that, through green consumerism, we can reconcile perpetual growth with planetary survival. But a series of research papers reveal there is no significant difference between the ecological footprints of people who care and people who don’t. One recent article, published in the journal Environment and Behaviour, says those who identify themselves as conscious consumers use more energy and carbon than those who do not.

How can that be, I asked myself. Monbiot has the answer:

Because environmental awareness tends to be higher among wealthy people. It is not attitudes that govern our impact on the planet but income. The richer we are, the bigger our footprint, regardless of our good intentions. Those who see themselves as green consumers, the research found, mainly focused on behaviours that had “relatively small benefits”.

I know people who recycle meticulously, save their plastic bags, carefully measure the water in their kettles, then take their holidays in the Caribbean, cancelling any environmental savings a hundredfold. I’ve come to believe that the recycling licences their long-haul flights. It persuades people they’ve gone green, enabling them to overlook their greater impacts.

While I am hardly one of the wealthy Monbiot identifies, that last paragraph gets to the heart of the matter as it pertains to me. Air travel is the poster child for greenhouse gas emissions.

Back in 2013, The New York Times put it this way explained it this way:

One round-trip flight from New York to Europe or to San Francisco creates a warming effect equivalent to 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person. The average American generates about 19 tons of carbon dioxide a year; the average European, 10.

Though air travel emissions now account for only about 5 percent of warming, that fraction is projected to rise significantly, since the volume of air travel is increasing much faster than gains in flight fuel efficiency.

David Suzuki explains it this way:

...since 1990, CO2 emissions from international aviation have increased 83 per cent. The aviation industry is expanding rapidly in part due to regulatory and taxing policies that do not reflect the true environmental costs of flying. “Cheap” fares may turn out to be costly in terms of climate change.

And even more alarmingly:

A special characteristic of aircraft emissions is that most of them are produced at cruising altitudes high in the atmosphere. Scientific studies have shown that these high-altitude emissions have a more harmful climate impact because they trigger a series of chemical reactions and atmospheric effects that have a net warming effect. The IPCC, for example, has estimated that the climate impact of aircraft is two to four times greater than the effect of their carbon dioxide emissions alone.

In 2017 I had, in total, four air trips: two to Cuba (one last January and one at the start of December, one to England, and one to Edmonton, where my son lives).

Here's the thing: I want to have at least one escape from winter each year. I want to visit my son out West. I want to see more of the world before I depart from it.

Of course, the problem here is obvious. Each of the above sentences begins with the same subject and predicate, and that gets to the heart of the problem (elevating my wants over the needs of the collective) and hence, my own hypocrisy (take a look at how many post I have under the climate change rubric), doesn't it?

Note To Justin And Rachel

Please explain again why your insistence that we need to build more pipelines is valid, given these facts:

A new world record price for electricity set earlier this month signals a radical disruption in global energy markets — and Canada, whose economy was once powered by some of the world's cheapest electricity, will not escape the effects.

The new price, described by the news site Electrek as the cheapest electricity on the planet, was less than 2 cents per kilowatt hour, "part of a pattern marching to 1 cent per kWh bids that are coming in 2019 (or sooner)," the site declared.

The record was not set in a place where energy is traditionally cheap. Nor is it from a traditional electricity source.

But the fact the power will come from solar is only one part of a series of profound changes, including mass battery storage, that is in the process of shaking up the world energy market.

[The University of Calgary's Blake] Shaffer says that in order to be effective in an integrated power network with backup systems like gas and hydro, intermittent power sources like wind only have to fall below the price of the of the cheapest alternative. Carbon pricing gives wind an even greater advantage over gas.

"It seems like at these prices, and that's what's really amazing about how low we're getting in solar, is that, yeah, it can compete, even though battery technology is expensive these days," says Shaffer. "You can out-compete coal and natural gas at these levels."

Given that 65% of the world's electrical power is currently generated by fossil fuels but is destined to fall with this new reality, I guess I just don't understand your pipeline passion, Justin and Rachel, especially given your seemingly contradictory position that we must move away from fossil fuels to mitigate climate change.

I await being enlightened on this issue.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis Of Air Travel, Or Am I Just Another Hypocrite?

Having just returned from a 10-day visit to England, my first and my wife's third, the hypocrisy of my use of air travel is not lost on me. Well-known as the worst carbon-emitting form of transportation, jets pose a moral dilemma for all of us who claim to care about the environment. However, despite recognizing how personally and environmentally compromising such travel is, I doubt that this will be my last trip abroad.

I could argue that my infrequent use of airplanes is compensated by the measured steps I take in my daily life to reduce my carbon footprint, but they hardly balance the equation. In many ways, I guess I am no different from those who refuse to use their cars sparingly, who profligately and heedlessly make discretionary energy-intensive purchases, and who put their own comforts, conveniences and wishes above all others.

Ah, but the benefits and perspectives conferred by travel are ones that I cannot resist. I will likely address some of them in the future.

Perhaps to assuage my conscience, I would like to direct you to Star ethicist Ken Gallinger's column in today's paper.

A reader writes:

I lie awake thinking about climate change and air travel. As a means of transport, planes create the worst carbon footprint, yet no one cares. Carbon emissions are destroying the earth, yet friends feel entitled to warm vacations or unnecessary business travel. Years ago I committed to flying as rarely as possible, but it’s hard. For Canada’s 150th, we want to visit the new Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg. Is it ever ethically defensible to fly?

Gallinger attempts to put the question into a wider perspective, one that may not actually fully address the morality of optional travel:

Sometimes this column puts me in a conflict of interest. Since “retiring,” my wife and I travel a lot, so I won’t pretend this is a disinterested response.

Having confessed to frequent flying, I invite you to join me on a “fantasy flight,” perhaps from Toronto to London, England. Let me introduce our fellow travellers.

See those 30 teenagers in the front rows? They’re small-town high school kids, on their way to Vimy Ridge. They’ll be stunned by the monument, but more to the point, they’ll be brought to tears by the sacrifice, dignity and sheer valour of Canadian kids not much older than themselves.

Observe the couple in 33B and C. His arm’s wrapped around her? Well, her mum is dying over in Jolly Ol’, and she’s praying to arrive in time for a final goodbye. It’s a particularly long flight, though she’s made it many times.

Look over there: 24F. He’s a worldfamous cellist, returning to Vienna after a sold-out performance at Roy Thomson. The thunderous ovation still rings in his ears — or maybe that’s just pressure at 33,000 feet. 18G? The nervous-looking young woman? She’s a nurse from Yellowknife, working with Médecins Sans Frontières and heading for her first assignment in Pakistan. She’s never been away from home before.

The quiet man in 27C? He’s connecting at Heathrow, flying to his ancestral home in Kenya. He’s Canadian, but he returns regularly to this tiny community, helping build a school for girls. A Scarborough church helps out financially; others do, too. But he’s the one who goes, and without his journey of hope, the project would die.

Can the broadening effects of travel be an ample justification and an effective counterbalance to the ignorance that so many seem to embrace today?

Is it ever ethically defensibly to fly? Of course it is. We live in an interconnected world.

Our stories, our families, our hopes and fears are interlaced with faraway places, and despite the occasional backwash of parochialism such as south of the border, there’s no turning back. The globe is our workshop, playground, farm — our heritage and our home.

That doesn’t mean we can ignore environmental implications of air travel, any more than the costs of recreational boating, going for a Sunday drive, bearing children or eating a steak. Air travel is costly, so we need to weigh decisions carefully, avoid flying when feasible and support attempts to mitigate environmental damage. But history shows that living in silos of national, ethnic or religious isolation has a cost too — a cost that is, perhaps, even greater.

Fly to Winnipeg. See the museum. Walk the Forks. Wave to the Golden Boy. Eat Real Perogies.

Just wait till the ice melts, the Jets have again missed the playoffs, the floods recede and the mosquitoes die. There are three or four days in August when the ’Peg is a lovely city.

This Sounds Promising

Whether this will turn out to be another idea that holds great promise but then comes to nothing will only be known, I guess, in the future, but it does sound promising:

The danger of the ever-increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has become one of the most pressing issues of our age. As such, much research has been conducted to find ways not only to reduce it, but also in ways to remove it. This has led to many schemes that simply sequester CO2 underground, or store it in volcanic rocks. More ambitious schemes even aim to not only remove this gas, but to usefully employ it to create usable products, such as plastics and foam, or even to produce hydrocarbon fuels. Now scientists from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) claim to have produced one of the most usable of all chemicals – ethanol – in a process that is not only cheap, efficient, and scalable, but also conducted at room temperature.

We Can't Have It Both Ways

Despite Justin Trudeau's sunny assurances that meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and pipeline expansion are not mutually exclusive, most people, if they think about it at all, will see such a position as both risible and impossible.

That is certainly the assessment of J. David Hughes, who writes that we can't have it both ways:

In 2014 (the most recent year for which we have data), Canada’s emissions were 28 per cent above the 2030 target. Meaning, even with existing levels of oil and gas production, we have our work cut out for us.

But Alberta’s new Climate Leadership Plan allows for a 47 per cent increase in oilsands emissions from 2014 levels (up to a maximum cap of 100 million tonnes per year). And B.C. plans to develop a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export industry, aiming for five large LNG terminals to export fracked gas from province’s northeast. This means a large ramp up of emissions from natural gas production as well.

Under a scenario where Alberta’s oilsands emissions grow to its cap, and B.C.’s LNG industry is developed to the level planned, economic sectors outside of oil and gas would have to shrink emissions by more than half (55 per cent) in order for Canada to meet the Paris commitment. This is simply not feasible, barring an economic collapse.

Hughes, an earth scientist who recently authored a report on the issue, says, in fact, that no new pipelines are needed, as the existing infrastructure is more than capable of moving our fossil fuels.

Detractors of rail should note that bitumen in its undiluted form is highly viscous and much less volatile than the light oil “Bakken bombs” that resulted in conflagrations at Lac Mégantic and in Oregon recently and therefore is unlikely to have such serious consequences in the event of an accident.

Furthermore, the economics of constructing more pipelines make no sense, despite the arguments that getting oil to tidewater will net a price premium on international markets:

Although oil is a globally priced commodity, between 2011 and 2014 the international price (“Brent”) was considerably higher than the North American price (“WTI”). In September 2011 the differential reached $25.26 per barrel. However, the average differential in the six months ending May 2016 was 88 cents per barrel and recently Brent has been trading below WTI.

Not only has the international price advantage evaporated, but Canada’s primary oil export, Western Canada Select, sells at a discount to WTI. That’s because it is a lower grade heavy oil and will sell at a discount whether sold internationally or to North American markets.

There are some very compelling reasons to dampen enthusiasm for new pipelines. However, in the world of high-stakes politics, reason often has but a peripheral role to play in decision-making. Only very strong and principled leadership can promote wise choices.

To say the least, I am not especially optimistic that will play a role here.