The first episode is titled ‘The Sooner the Better’. It starts with Blanchett describing her commute to London to record the podcast, in her electric car of course! She goes on to say this podcast is about “thing’s I’ve been thinking about”. She then moves on to talk about the range anxiety she is currently feeling on this commute as she forgot to charge her car, and not wanting to listen to the news as it feels like a constant barrage of bad news, both notions that almost all environmentalists can easily relate to, especially the anxiety-driven feelings of ‘what can we do’. As a quick aside, these feelings are known as eco-anxiety, and were covered in our Earth Day series! Blanchett then introduces Kennedy as the one she calls when feeling this climate, or eco-anxiety, saying that his optimism and solution-focused strategy for the future help with these feelings.  

I appreciate the optimism that Kennedy brings, stating that this is an ‘anti-cynical’ podcast that is all about the positives – I can relate to much of the pessimism that Blanchett feels, so it is great to listen to a podcast focused on ‘hope in a hopeless world’. As Kennedy says, there are tens of thousands of entrepreneurs, scientists, and innovators, all working to solve this same problem of climate change – a thought I found very reassuring. As Blanchett, the optimist in training says though, it’s not all good. There are a myriad of people who are already suffering the effects of climate disasters and can seem a daunting, and at times impossible problem to solve. Kennedy’s optimism doesn’t blind him to the realities of climate change, stating that a crime has occurred, how we need to confront the injustice of climate change, and how setting realistic goals is the key to making these tasks seem more possible. 

The first guest is introduced as climate action leader Mary Robinson – the former president of Ireland, and the first woman to hold that position, a UN envoy on climate change, and also a host of a climate change podcast of her own. Immediately, Robinson says a quote that stuck with me, quoting Desmond Tutu “I am not an optimist, I am a prisoner of hope.” As she says, if you have hope, you have the energy to make things happen. Within just a few seconds I already knew that I was going to love her time as the guest on the podcast. Robinson then brings up the earlier mentioned notion of eco-anxiety, which Blanchett realises she suffers from, saying that it often manifests itself as despondence, where an individual doesn’t know what to do, or does the opposite and acts as a motivator to create change. I will also be adopting her approach of asking environmentalists how they are doing, and how their self-care is, as eco-anxiety is something that I think impacts every single one of us in some form or fashion. I really enjoy the approach that Blanchett and Kennedy have, as it is apparent that Blanchett really cares about the environment, but isn’t quite as entrenched in some of the jargon, or language that most environmentalists have heard, so it is refreshing to hear a unique perspective, and curiosity as Kennedy explains some of these terms. 

Robinson goes on to explain a three-step plan that I think most of us should follow. This includes making the climate crisis personal by making individual changes in your own life, such as eating less meat, getting angry with those who aren’t doing enough, such as the government, investors, and cities, and joining organisations to use your voice. The final way she suggests is to envision the world we want, and through that understand how fast we need to change, understanding that this is a crisis, and we should be in crisis mode. I love Kennedy’s take on this, saying she has given us a cheat sheet for eco-anxiety. 

The relationship between Blanchett and Kennedy also makes this a great listen, they’ve known each other for years and it’s really easy to tell through the chemistry that they share. Even recounting marches that they went to years ago, and how Blanchett used her fame to bring more attention to those rallies. I was unaware of her climate activism, and really appreciate the work she has done throughout her life. Despite all of this, she still feels the same guilt that many do about not doing enough for climate change, even saying she feels guilty using the hairdryer, or when her family leaves the lights on. The relatability of statements like these really makes the podcast a great listen. This, coupled with Kennedy’s optimism, saying that what’s important is we know what to do and that we are doing it, even if it needs to be faster, makes the podcast a gripping, yet also inspiring listen. As he says, yes the climate is changing, but so is the world of energy, as we shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy more quickly every year. Optimism. What a breath of fresh air.

Kennedy’s optimism and hope for the future continue as Blanchett describes feeling trapped in society’s use of fossil fuels. Here, Kennedy states that he believes by 2040 we need to reach not net-zero, but true zero carbon emissions. He goes on to say that we are currently in the clean energy revolution and believes that the large drivers of carbon emissions, such as transport, are en route to being more sustainable. When Blanchett says she has been ignoring the news, Kennedy sounds surprised, going on to say that the constant ‘doom and gloom’ is part of our problem with our communications, and language surrounding climate change. As he says, believing in climate action and change, is the only way we can make it in the world. 

The notion of humans being special due to not our intelligence, but our friendliness, and willingness to cooperate is very interesting, and one I had not heard discussed before. The words of the second guest, Rutger Bregman really resonate with me, especially when he goes on to say that humans are the stories we tell ourselves, and how our future story must be one of hope and the possibility of change. Messages like this make the podcast both inspiring, but also a powerful listen. Only through collaboration can solutions be properly integrated, an idea echoed by Kennedy, and one to think about as we move forward with our renewable energy initiatives. 

Kennedy then highlights how his company works with innovators and entrepreneurs to revolutionise energy, with Jeraiza Molina, co-founder of SHIFTECH Marine who aims to give fisherfolk clean energy, as opposed to the conventional batteries they currently use. This is used to attract fish when night fishing and is powered by clean energy, through solar energy. Not only is this more sustainable, but also results in fisherfolk being able to spend less money on fuel. The guests really make this podcast shine with some of their quotes, here Molina says one of the best ways to combat climate change on an individual level is to look at the small problems in your community that contribute to climate change. This change can then be catalytic, and inspire those around the globe to follow suit. “To go Global, you have to go small”. I also must say, Blanchett provides such great insights and asks great questions to Kennedy. Here, she asks whether this initiative will contribute to overfishing and a question that popped into my head almost immediately. As Kennedy says, the real issue is with industrial, unregulated fishing, not the local fisherman. They may have a local impact, but not on the global scale that the fishing industry does. By saving money it also allows these fisherfolk to take more care and has resulted in a finer sorting of bycatch. 

I love the way this podcast ends, echoing back to Mary Robinson, with Kennedy asking Blanchett how she is feeling. Here, I can relate to Blanchett where she says she often hyper focuses on the negative and is grateful for Kennedy’s optimism to balance it out. Overall, I found this podcast to be a refreshing, and energising listen, especially when compared to the often (understandably) despondent discourse around climate change. The contrast between Blanchett’s relatable pessimism, and Kennedy’s optimism and solution-based focus for the future make this a podcast worth listening to. I am greatly looking forward to reviewing the rest of it!

The post Climate of Change Episode 1 Review appeared first on A\J.

We all feel anxious at times so I’m sure you’re wondering what symptoms are associated with eco-anxiety other than this fear of the destruction of our environment. According to Healthline, one of the main feelings associated with eco-anxiety is that of hopelessness about the future. I’m sure every single one of you reading this has felt that feeling at some point, I think it might be a requirement to become an environmentalist. Other symptoms they’ve listed include frustration, especially towards climate deniers, existential dread, guilt surrounding your own carbon footprint, and obsessive thoughts about the climate. Physical symptoms observed have included sleep problems, appetite changes and difficulty concentrating. 

You may be wondering why eco-anxiety seems to be on such a sharp rise in recent years. There are a variety of reasons for this. Firstly, no matter how much you try, it is pretty impossible to ignore the fact that without the earth we would not be able to exist. Even the starkest climate deniers can agree that we need earth, and as such, it is only natural to feel a sense of loss and to grieve for the earth as we become more aware of the rapidly accelerating changes taking place. The second reason is through lived experiences – while hearing about climate change is one thing, living through it is another. For people who have had to experience increased instances of extreme weather events such as hurricanes or drought, the realities of climate change are quite apparent. As someone from the Caribbean, I can attest that this lived experience makes it near impossible to not feel eco-anxiety at times. Gradual changes can also impact people of course, and rising temperatures can also lead to adverse effects. Another reason for the increased instance of eco-anxiety in the population is due to increased media coverage. I’m sure you’ve all felt like you can’t escape the news, and like it is a constant stream of negativity. Reporting on climate change and disasters, while incredibly important, also results in people feeling as though they can’t escape, causing them to feel demotivated. Constant news coverage also results in doomscrolling on social media, leading to people feeling trapped under a constant barrage of doom and gloom. The final reason for an increase in eco-anxiety is due to regret for one’s own individual actions. We now know the extent of our impacts on the climate, and it is hard to not feel guilty about these actions. For example, feeling guilty about using your air conditioner too much, or for all the flights you have taken over your life, or even for just not recycling that piece of paper yesterday. These feelings of guilt can also lead to feeling powerless due to being just one individual. 

When looking at eco-anxiety it is clear that this is an issue that will be felt around the world, however, there are groups of people who face a higher chance of climate-related stress due to, in part, their greater vulnerability to climate change. Groups who are higher at risk include Indigenous communities, people living in coastal or island regions, children and older adults, and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. There are many complex factors that play into this increased instance of risk. Inuit communities face the loss of sea ice which plays a crucial role in not only their way of life but also their culture and identity. Indigenous and other communities that rely on hunting, fishing and farming as their way of life are also at risk due to decreasing availability of fish and other wild animals, as well as increased instances of drought causing crops to be unable to grow. Communities that rely on tourism are also at risk. Travel destinations often rely on the beauty of their natural environment to attract visitors, however, the destruction of natural environments due to climate change will result in fewer tourists and as a result, less income for these communities

Now that you know what eco-anxiety is, why it is on the rise, and who is most at risk, I would like to share my own experience with it. I have studied environmental science since my undergraduate degree, following that with a Masters of Environment and Sustainability. Due to this, I have been surrounded by environmental news, and what sometimes feels like a constant downpour of new climate crises. As a result, in my third year of university to be completely honest, I was rather depressed. Going to class every day was a constant reminder that we, and I, were not doing enough to combat climate change and that even if I did change, I felt it was too late. This resulted in me feeling hopeless and apathetic about the future, often wondering to myself what the point of it all was. This was also at a time when it was quite apparent that the reefs back in my home of Barbados were dying, and we were also experiencing one of our worst droughts ever. I say this all to let you know that if you ever feel this way, you really aren’t alone. I spent the first semester of that year pessimistic and apathetic. If you asked me what I thought of the future, I would’ve probably (annoyingly) said ‘What future?’, if you asked me what we could do I would have replied with a quick ‘nothing.’ Now, do I still feel eco-anxiety? Of course! I honestly think that if you are in tune with the environment it is impossible to avoid. However, apathy doesn’t lead to change, and change is something that we desperately need. I was privileged to be able to go to therapy during this time which helped me understand what I was feeling and identify ways to better cope with these feelings. This coupled with changes in my life, such as becoming vegetarian, spending more time in nature, and living an all-around more eco-friendly lifestyle have helped me deal with my own feelings greatly.

At this point, I’m sure you’re wondering how to address eco-anxiety. MedicalNewsToday has some great tips, as well as a few of my own. The first, and one I can say from personal experience helped me greatly, is by taking action. Action can be taken by volunteering with environmental groups, spreading environmental awareness, and making greener choices in your lifestyle, such as by reducing your meat intake. For me, taking action was done in the form of going vegetarian, attending more rallies, and volunteering – all of which helped relieve a sense of hopelessness about my future. Another way to help alleviate eco-anxiety is by spending time in nature and fostering a better personal connection with the environment. Some professionals recommend keeping a rock, dried flower, or other natural objects to look at or touch as a grounding technique when feeling overwhelmed. Refusing to be in denial is another important, but difficult way to deal with these feelings. Despite wanting to push these feelings away or bury your head in the sand, dealing with them and acknowledging them is incredibly important. Allow yourself to understand why you are feeling this way, and if you feel guilt, forgive yourself for your past actions and commit to doing better moving forward. That is not to say however that you need to be engaged in climate change discourse at all times. It is important to know when to disengage and allow yourself to rest, and also important to ensure that the information causing you this anxiety is accurate and trustworthy. Finally, if possible, speaking to a professional can always help with any feelings of anxiety, and eco-anxiety is no different. If you don’t want to, or can’t speak to a professional, try speaking to someone you trust about these feelings, and always remember, you really aren’t alone. Eco-anxiety is something that we will all probably feel at some point, however, I hope that these feelings can be turned into ones of action and will help us to create a better, less stressful future.

The post Addressing Eco-Anxiety appeared first on A\J.

The MaddAddam Trilogy by Margaret Atwood

Reviewed by Mimi Shaftoe

The first time I read Oryx and Crake, it was like putting on a reverse version of rose-coloured glasses; I couldn’t stop drawing dark dystopian comparisons between the world on the page and the real one. I finished the book while on a road trip with my family the summer after grade 10. I remember feeling existential as I stared out the window at the landscape of concrete, billboards, industrial buildings and strip malls, probably muttering something dramatic under my breath like “Look out the window, we are literally living in Oryx and Crake.” The proximity, the almost-real-ness, of the imagined future in which the MaddAddam trilogy is set is what enthralled me and left me aghast when I first read these books as a teenager, and is what I think makes these books so powerful.

The MaddAddam trilogy is set in a future that is way too close for comfort, in which human intervention has irrevocably transformed the natural world, and a man-made catastrophe has wiped out a huge segment of the earth’s population. The series tackles a wide range of interconnected themes, from environmental destruction and the relationship between humans and the natural world, to unrestrained capitalism and consumerism, to patriarchy and sexism. To me, the books embody the idea that “It’s not Climate Change, it’s Everything Change” (which also happens to be the title of an essay Atwood wrote). In other words, the ecological crisis is a result of deeply unjust and destructive systems we’ve built, which affect every part of our daily lives. And getting ourselves out of this mess will require deep societal transformation.

Margaret Atwood famously prefers to refer to her work as ‘speculative fiction’ rather than science fiction, because she looks at issues and problems that already exist in the real world and simply extrapolates them to imagine a possible future. She illuminates the ways in which we are already in crisis and creates an unsettling sense that we could be barreling head on into the dystopian world she writes about… or that we may already be living in it! It really doesn’t seem far-fetched at all to imagine, for example, the Church of PetrOleum, where oil is worshipped and the bible is interpreted to mean that it is our divine right and holy obligation to extract oil.

The world of the MaddAddam trilogy is dark, but it’s also satirical and darkly funny, and it offers glimmers of hope which suggest that no matter how dark things get there is always the possibility of human goodness. The most hopeful element in this series, to me, is what Atwood has to say about the power of stories. If the entire trilogy is an allegory about climate change and humanity’s relationship with nature, then Atwood is suggesting that the stories we tell play an important part of the solution. I love some of the hymns she wrote for her fictional religion the God’s Gardeners, like ‘The Earth Forgives’ (which she actually recorded and released as part of the book promotion!) and the environmentally conscious, hopeful alternative they try to build in the midst of the rest of her dystopian world.

Throughout the books, she explores the stories we tell ourselves to create meaning in our lives, and the way these stories shape the way we relate to the world and the people around us. And while Atwood speculates about a grim future in this series, she also makes it clear that no future is set in stone, everything depends on what we do now.

So, let’s tell ourselves the kinds of stories that repair our relationship with the planet, and help us envision and create a just future.

“We have a choice to make now. We can return to our former path of destruction of the natural world…or we can change direction and build nature-based and community-based recovery strategies.” – Margaret Atwood

“Improvisation on a First Line by Yeats” by Margaret Atwood

Reviewed by Ishani Dasgupta

I sometimes take for granted the love I have received in this world and I most definitely have not considered that those who I love might not know it.

Let me be clear, I consider myself an admirer of Mother Nature and all of the complex, wonderful, and nice aspects of the biosphere. I do, after all, work in the environmental space and at times find myself in a unique position to write about one climate related issue or another. However, I never considered if the planet I am working so hard to protect actually knew that I cared for it, until I read Margaret Atwood’s poem “Improvisation on a First Line by Yeats”.

Rather, I was acutely stunned by the fact that I have loved nature quite selfishly.

In Atwood’s poem, which is inspired (as the name suggests) following a line from W. B. Yeats’ Hound Voice, she details a trip to a barren and mountainous landscape. When arriving near the landscape, the speaker finds herself lost in a serious thought about the history of change that may have occurred due to human activities.

“Because we love bare hills and stunted trees / we head north when we can, / past taiga, tundra, rocky shoreline, ice.” – Margaret Atwood, “Improvisation on a First Line by Yeats”

The speaker laments on whether the earliest human settlers shared a deep connection with the land. Whether they chose to “partner” with the elements and other animals to progress or carved the spirit of the landscape into their hearts. Importantly, the speaker assumes that it was at this point of time, when the first fires were being forged and guarded, that the soul of nature thrived.

“Everything once had a soul, / even this clam, this pebble. / Each had a secret name. / Everything listened. / Everything was real” – Margaret Atwood, “Improvisation on a First Line by Yeats”

It is explained that nature at this point did not always love you and therefore human patrons treaded the world with caution and perhaps fear; perhaps worrying if the next great natural disaster would completely wipe their civilization out. Although, with this fear came a connection to the land that we could not dream to recreate in the present.

“Everything once had a soul” and  “everything was real”, which meant that if you caused harm against the land you were on, you were hurting a conscious being. One with feelings and a spirit that could shake the centre that you grounded yourself on. How would it be to live in this time, when the very environment you lived in communicated to you on a daily basis and perhaps carried you through your life, as though it was a parent teaching and protecting its child?

“We long to pay that much attention. / But we’ve lost the knack… / All we hear in the wind’s plainsong / is the wind.” Margaret Atwood, “Improvisation on a First Line by Yeats”

And there it stands, as bleak as it can be stated: the greatest threat we have presented to nature is that “we have lost the knack” to pay it the close attention that we used to in the past.

I have been selfish with my love for nature. I loved it for its beauty, its complexity, and its purpose in my life. But have I truly loved it for its soul, its spirit, or the sacrifices it has made for me to live? Have I ever revered it and cared for it, as my ancestors did long before me?

Now, I can promise that I will try to raise my own attentiveness towards how I care for nature. I will love her as though she is my friend and my mother, as closely as I can to how they did in the past.

Hoping that one day I will finally understand that she has always, from the moment I was born to the and to the day I pass, loved me selflessly.

The Bedside Book of Birds – An Avian Miscellany by Graeme Gibson

Reviewed by Alex Goddard

Graeme Gibson’s The Bedside Book of Birds – An Avian Miscellany is a stunning collection of words and images expertly collected and curated to explore the longstanding relationship we have had with birds. As Gibson says, this book isn’t about birds themselves but about the varied and intimate relationship we have formed with them over the hundreds of millennia we have shared this earth. When reading this book, one of the immediate things that struck me was early in the book wherein Gibson describes that he came to birdwatching late in his life, not understanding it for a whole thirty seven years. I found this of particular interest as Gibson is someone who is synonymous with bird conservation in Canada and I would have assumed it to be a lifelong interest. I especially found this interesting as I myself can relate to these feelings shared by Gibson. Growing up in Barbados, we only have a few common species – blackbirds, doves, and sparrows, and while there are a few migratory birds, our wetlands are hard to reach and diminishing. As such, I had little interest in ornithology until I came to Canada, made friends with an avid birdwatcher, and began to go birdwatching with them. Now I take note of the birds around me much more, and enjoy birdwatching by myself from time to time. This was at the age of twenty three, and knowing that Gibson began his ornithological journey later in his life has been a huge source of inspiration to me, as it acted as a reminder that it really is never too late to pursue what you love, and certainly never too late to be the change you want to see.

The Bedside Book of Birds is a collection of factual accounts, poems, folklore, tales and myths divided into nine distinct sections, described by Gibson as different habitats – a wonderful way to divide the book. The majority of these sections are written by other authors, ranging from real experiences seen through Darwin’s accounts of tame birds in Voyage of the Beagle, to fictional pieces, such as an excerpt from Haurki Murakami’s The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. From ancient text written by the Mayans about the plumed serpent, to Bible excerpts about doves representing holiness, this book contains excerpts dating all the way back to B.C.

The beginning of each new ‘habitat’ starts with a piece written by Gibson himself. These passages often offer a glimpse into Gibson’s life, experiences and thoughts as an ornithologist, and the ways birdwatching has evolved over the years. In these excerpts Gibson allows us to feel the same thrill he did when seeing some amazing birds, with accounts of the Gundlach Hawk in Cuba which only a handful have seen in the wild, to unknowingly profound discoveries, such as his encounter with the Black-backed Woodpecker. In these passages we also are offered a glimpse into Gibson’s thoughts on birdwatching, ones I found very interesting. Throughout these passages Gibson often speaks of why we birdwatch, and the ways that humans imbue their own traits into birds, allowing for us to feel connected with nature. In one excerpt, Gibson explains that birdwatching can encourage a state similar to that of rapture – causing the forgetfulness that allows individual consciousness to blend with something other than itself. It is excerpts like this that really convey the passion that Gibson felt about birds and birdwatching, and it is hard not to feel the same passion he does when reading such vividly written passages accompanied by the stunning imagery throughout the book. Gibson, of course, was a champion of bird conservation, and themes surrounding this are found within these introductory passages. These are explored through a guilt that Gibson seems to feel about birdwatching, touching on the ‘possessive’ nature of humans to feel as though they own these birds by naming and seeing them, as well as touching on old birding techniques of killing the bird prior to identification. Themes of extinction and conservation are also found within many of the other passages included, however I found it pertinent that the only work Gibson included that was of his own was an excerpt from his novel Perpetual Motion where Gibson describes the way the passenger pigeon was hunted to its extinction as it was just assumed that the millions of birds would return each year, and were an endless supply.

So little does Gibson crave the spotlight for himself that the editorial section of the book ends with a poem by Siegfried Sassoon, rather than choosing to end the book with a few of his own words. It is this desire to let other authors speak for the birds in the best way possible that truly shows Gibson’s love for the avian species and made it an exceptional read by allowing us to be struck by the same wonder and awe that he and the medley of authors were. The different habitats make the book easy to pick up and put down at any point, or to peck at – like a bird if you will. As a testament to his conservation efforts, the last pages of the book direct readers to different conservation organisations in their respective countries, as well as pointing out half of the after-tax royalties of sales are donated to the Pelee Island Bird Observatory. This book has something for anyone even remotely interested in our relationship with the avian species as it is hard not to find yourself feeling the same enthusiasm Gibson does as you flip through the beautifully written and illustrated tales throughout.

***

“It’s we who have made the cages. It’s we who must open them” – Graeme Gibson

Stay tuned for next week’s FOR THE LOVE OF NATURE piece.

And don’t forget to register for Nature Canada’s Pimlott Award Celebration happening on March 2, 2022, where Margaret Atwood and the late Graeme Gibson will be honoured and recognized as champions for birds and nature. Check it out here!

The post ReViewed appeared first on A\J.

The effects of climate change are beginning to emerge through constant changing temperatures, water supply fluctuations, and increased average global temperatures. It can be felt all around the world in little ways.

In Toretsk, Ukraine, a local coal mine supplying 67 000 workers is on the road to catastrophe. Not because of the effect of coal being used in the industrial sector, rather  it has more to do with how they begin to harvest the coal from the deep bedrock in the ground.

 Abandoned mines, that are now harvested to their capacity, are being filled with toxic groundwater filled consisting of heavy metals and external pollutants. Because they are located stories underground it is close to groundwater aquifers. This puts freshwater resources at harm’s way for the tens of thousands of workers living in the area.  The toxic water can contaminate the ground by seeping into the soil which will then make the area unusable for farming and agriculture. If the water leaked by accident, it would migrate down the Kryvyi Torets and the Siverskyi Donets river where the whole area receives drinking water. On top of unavailable water, methane gas is being released to the surface that has the ability to cause earthquakes that are a  9.0 magnitude on the seismic scale and explosions on the surface that is surrounded by broken up bedrock.

According to the head of the Toretsk’s Civil Military Administration, Vasyl Chynchyk, only two of the mines are still in operation and the rest are abandoned. Their only solution is to remove the water and put it in safe containers away from freshwater resources.

“You can’t just close a mine and forget about it, because the risks are too high,” said Yevhen Yakovlev, a hydrogeologist who works at the natural resources department of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. “Mine waters will rise, pollute the drinking water and destroy the soil.”

Due to the constant war in Donbas’ no investments will be made to have better solutions. There is too much raised tension.Moreover, the solutions in place are not effective enough for the coal mines to continue to be in operation.

“According to our measurements of the water levels in the region, the pumping stations there [in occupied parts of the Donbas] are out of order,” said Viktor Yermakov, an environmental scientist, and a member of the Trilateral Contact Group.

Although the disaster may not be immediate, it will happen in the next 5 to 10 years. The effects are already being seen by experts in the field, and not giving the public enough information to make informed decisions to where their liability aligns.The first sign was the closing of an abandoned mine, and now it’s time to sign up to make serious changes to mitigate fossil fuel effects. 

A Fish Species Has Evolved Due to Climate Change

Source: McGill University

A species of fish has been shown to adapt its genetic traits due to seasonal shifts caused by climate change. This week, a team of lead scientists at  McGill University discussed their findings on the adaptation of the threespine stickleback fish due to persistent “climatic changes” observed over a period of time.

The research group suggested that specific genetic adaptations being more frequent in populations, were directly related to natural selection—described as the process in which populations of organisms randomly change (genetically or otherwise) to be more or less advantageous overtime. In which those adaptations that are more favourable to the environment will survive the longest, while the other traits will likely die out.

In the case of this species, natural selection pertaining to adaptation in response to temperature change was observed. Specifically, only individuals which had genome sequencing that aided in the construction of different habitats during (unprecedented) wet winters and dry summers, were able to survive into the next season. The scientists believed that such habitat shifts similarly occurred 10 000 years ago, when the species first arrived in California due to alternative temporal conditions.

Experts at the university suggest that such rapid genetic changes speaks to how rapidly natural selection is occurring in the present. Moreover, it is a significant case in understanding how nature might adapt to changing environmental metrics caused by climate change.

Ford Government faces Lawsuit over changes to Ontario Environmental Assessment, Bill 197

Source: London Free Press

Bill 197  was passed last July in Ontario as part of the Covid Recovery Act. Included in the bill were sweeping changes to the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) aimed at shortening the Environmental Assessment (EA) process and getting rid of “red tape”. These changes were the first major changes to the Ontario EAA in over 30 years. 

Environmentalists, however, have questioned the legality of the changes. This week environmental groups and various first nations groups will be in court challenging the Ford government’s changes to the Ontario EAA. The 2 major issues environmentalists have raised are that the government did not have the authority to cancel public consultations on the changes to the EAA and that the fast tracked EAA process will have detrimental environmental effects. 

One argument made this week was by Canadian Environmental Law Association Lawyer (CELA) Castrilli. Castrilli is contesting the government claim that the bill was urgent and is in violation of the Ontario Environment Bill of Rights. The Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights gives an ordinance that the Government must consult the public for 30 days for human changes to the environment.  During the COVID-19 pandemic the government suspended several environmental protection rules but lifted them a month before introducing the bill. The government passed the bill arguing that it was too “urgent” to wait for a full consultation due to COVID-19. Castriilli argues that the government still has to follow the rules, even during a pandemic. 

Also according to Castrilli, the bill will have earth shattering impacts on the environment. Bill 197 expanded the controversial practice of minister zoning orders (MZO’s). 

The court will hear arguments later this week from First Nations groups: the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, Attawapiskat First Nation, Chapleau Cree First Nation, Eagle Lake First Nation, Fort Albany First Nation, Magnetawan First Nation, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, Temagami First Nation and the Teme-Augama Anishnabai community. 

The outcome of the court hearing will be monitored closely and the outcome will have substantial effect on environmental issues in Ontario and Canada more broadly. 

International Energy Agency Report: Fossil Fuel Investment Must End Now

Source: CBC News

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report Tuesday that stated fossil fuel investments must be stopped for global climate goals to be met by 2050. The International Energy Agency is the most authoritative energy group in the world. This global climate goal is in line with several countries including Canada and the U.S goal to reach net zero emissions energy sector. 

The report outlines over 400 steps on how to achieve a net zero global energy sector by 2050. Examples may include an increased investment in solar and wind power by 2030.  It has been understood that the end to investing in fossil fuels are the key steps to reaching a net zero global energy sector. Another key takeaway from the report is that no internal combustion vehicles should be sold after 2035 to meet these goals. 

The report outlines how transforming the energy sector would bring tremendous economic benefits and create millions of new jobs. The investment in renewable energy would most importantly eventually have lower energy costs and prevent a “climate catastrophe” according to Greenpeace activist Keith Stewart.

However, there has been push back to the report from groups in the Canadian energy sector. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) labeled the report as “unrealistic”. The director of the CAPP Tim McMillan stated that solutions need to be “grounded in the real world”. 

Despite countries’ ambitious and bold goals for greenhouse gas reductions, emissions are expected to grow in the near future. Current demand for fossil fuels is predicted to increase over the next few years. The IEA stated that 2021 will have the second-largest annual increase in emissions since 2010. Some have argued that what the IEA says should be done like in the second largest producing country of North America.  a

If countries like Canada are to meet their bold climate change targets, emissions for 2021 and 2022 must be reduced drastically. The changes outlined by the IEA should be taken into consideration and implemented immediately for the targets to be met. Actions always speak louder than words.

A Sustainable Look at Cryptocurrencies

Source: CNBC

As a young individual getting into the working world, I am being encouraged to invest and “let my money work for me, …to build your wealth, you should invest your money.” Investing provides an avenue for one to expend money in such a way that there is potential to earn strong rates of return. I am very new to the investment world and have spent the last few months researching and subscribing to newsletters on why I should invest, what I should invest in, and how to invest. 

 This week, investment platforms have been buzzing over cryptocurrency- a digital or virtual asset based on a network that is distributed across many computers. This comes after Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, said he wouldn’t use or accept Bitcoin until he is sure it’s produced sustainably as he was “concerned about the rapidly increasing use of fossil fuels for Bitcoin mining and transactions.” Bitcoin has been receiving a lot of attention on its negative environmental impacts, and some of its investors have been reapportioning their digital assets to more sustainable investments; even though attempts have been made to reduce Bitcoin’s impact. 

 Mining cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin, requires a lot of electricity to keep the computers running as well as air conditioning needed to prevent them from overheating. Bitcoin mining is performed by high-powered computers that solve complex computational puzzles. This process of solving problems, referred to as “Proof of Work”,  is necessary to maintain the ledger of transactions and verifies the legitimacy of Bitcoin transactions, and thus, a lot of processing power to produce one single token. As a result, this process consumes a lot of energy. 

Research has shown that in 2019, Bitcoin was responsible for approximately 22-22.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The journal Nature suggests that emissions from Bitcoin mining alone could increase global warming by 2 degrees before 2050. For a better visual, emissions from Bitcoin are comparable to the total emissions from cities such as Hamburg or Las Vegas.  

Musk has suggested that the company will move towards a more sustainable cryptocurrency, Dogecoin. Dogecoin, although a more sustainable option than Bitcoin, does have its pitfalls as well. 

 There are over 4500 mineable coins and tokens in the cryptocurrency world, with a variety of parameters. This makes it difficult to highlight which currency is greener than the other. However, there are cryptocurrencies that are inherently more energy efficient than Bitcoin and Dogecoin. These cryptocurrencies use a “Proof of Storage” (or “Proof of Stake”) systems that use significantly less energy, and in some cases currencies that use a “block lattice” technology that does not require any mining. 

So, if you are a new or experienced investor consider allocating your assets in sustainable investments as well as eco-friendly cryptocurrencies that you (may) hold. Do your research and if you are not sure where to start, there are a plethora of blogs out there that list the most eco-friendly cryptocurrencies. Good luck with your sustainable investment adventures! 

The post The Week This Friday Vol. 49 appeared first on A\J.

Due to this strict lockdown, it is projected that the world’s CO2 emissions will drop 8% in 2020 (although at the time of this article, they are already projected to increase again). With this global pandemic being top of mind, there is another looming threat: climate change. In recent years, we have consistently seen record-breaking environmental disasters that have been made worse by the climate crisis. According to the UN, over 7,300 extreme weather events have been recorded since 2000. Simultaneously, nine of the ten warmest years on record occurred between 2005 and 2019, with the world’s five warmest years occurring from 2015 to 2019.

…this is our chance to get on top of climate change. The question is, how do we do that, and will we be able to rise to the challenge?

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, Australia and California have experienced their worst wildfire seasons on record. Increasingly severe droughts in South America and Africa resulted in widespread famine this summer. Flooding in Europe and North America has continued consistently breaking the previous years’ records as storms continue getting bigger, more dangerous and more common around the world. Evidently, the short-term emissions decrease from the COVID-19 pandemic will not be enough to impact the very real threat the climate crisis poses. COVID-19 has been hailed as humanity’s chance to “click the reset button” to “build back better”, with the idea that this is our chance to get on top of climate change. The question is, how do we do that, and will we be able to rise to the challenge?

Man at a climate protest. Sign reads, “Now is not the time for business as usual. Climate action NOW”. // Source: Unsplash

Now is the time for governments to push ambitious climate policy when restarting economies

Although energy-related CO2 was expected to drop in 2020, what matters is what we do next. During the initial phases of the pandemic, government relief packages around the world have focused on sustaining livelihoods and providing immediate relief. Stimulus packages will now be focused on global economic recovery. From the last economic crash in 2008, many stimulus packages focused on propping up fossil fuel-based companies, and in 2010 global emissions saw the largest increase ever recorded.

To learn from our mistakes, and continue this trend of declining emissions, governments should consider three main policy strategies according to the International Energy Agency (IEA):  

1. Governments should ensure policy predictability and reassure investors of their energy and climate commitments. This will be crucial for industries to establish business plans focused on sustainability.
2. Governments should reduce administrative barriers to renewable energy projects by streamlining permits and other administrative tasks.
3. Renewables should be a key part of stimulus packages. Investments should prioritize industries that have high job creation and are building infrastructure that supports efficient, resilient energy systems that will lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. There should be a focus on the labor-intensive building sector, prioritizing renovation programs to increase energy efficiency and installation of renewable heat sources. In addition to labor intensive jobs, the government should focus on stimulating companies in the smart, digital, and resilient energy infrastructure industries.

Overall, short term policy actions should relate to ambitious medium- and long-term visions for emissions reductions.

There are additional measures that governments can take according to Dr. Fatih Birol, executive director with IEA. Incentives can be put in place to encourage consumers to upgrade large purchases to more energy efficient ones, such as cars and washing machines. With an increase in people working from home, emphasis can be put on upgrading electricity and internet infrastructure, basing these networks on clean, renewable power. Investment can be made in industries that will be vital in the clean energy transition such as batteries, hydrogen, and carbon capture to name a few. This can help scale up these technologies, so they become competitive in the current energy market. Governments can also bring in more private investment by providing clarity in the market. Investments may come in the form of carbon pricing, removing fossil fuel subsidies, and offering loans on renewable energy projects. These measures are crucial because governments drive more than 70% of global energy investments according to the IEA.

Divestment in Fossil Fuel is Trending

Source: Shuttershock 

This push for sustainability as a priority in rebuilding the economy comes at a time when many large institutions are pulling their money out of fossil fuels. BlackRock, the world’s biggest financial investment firm, announced in January that it would be pulling investments from coal. The CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink, said that “climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects.” BlackRock states that it will make sustainability one of its key investment factors and will offer investment portfolios that exclude fossil fuels. Fink also stated that “in the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital” citing the transition of investments away from fossil fuels, towards sustainable alternatives. This came after a 2019 report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found that BlackRock lost an estimated $90 billion over the past decade by ignoring the financial risk of investing in fossil fuels. BlackRock’s multi-billion-dollar investments in oil companies – such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP – were among the reasons for the losses in the $6.5 trillion assets that they manage. Also, BlackRock was the biggest investor in the coal industry and one of the top three investors in big oil companies.

BlackRock joins a growing movement of divestment of fossil fuels. The approximated value of institutions who have committed to divest from fossil fuels is at $14.48 trillion worldwide, with 1248 institutions divesting. These institutions cover almost every aspect of society. There are huge banks, faith groups, countries, cities, non-for-profits, retirement funds, and the list is expected to grow continuously. This clearly shows a trend in society to stop funding fossil fuel projects, and COVID-19 has accelerated the clear need for divestment from fossil fuels.

How Governments are Faring in their Recovery Packages

Some governments are watching market trends and prioritizing sustainability in their recovery packages. On May 27th, the European Union unveiled their new economic recovery plan in response to COVID-19, which highlighted a €750 billion ($1.163 trillion CAD) economic stimulus package and featured a considerable investment in Green initiatives. EU representatives earmarked 30% of total expenditure for spending to effectively achieve climate-oriented goals outlined in both the Paris Agreement and UN Sustainable Development Goals. Green spending laid out in the stimulus package is comprised of five main elements including: building efficiency, clean technology investment, low-carbon vehicles, agriculture & land, and a category for miscellaneous investments to foster a ‘just transition’. Each of the five elements aim to create and maintain thousands of jobs while improving the carbon footprint of each nation and establishing a foundation for future green industries.

Compared to the intensive COVID-19 response plan of the EU, Canada has failed to establish a defined response plan or actively fund green industries. The Canadian government has reportedly spent $18.12 billion CAD in supporting the fossil fuel industry since the beginning of the pandemic in the form of supporting fossil fuel infrastructure, suspending requirements for environmental reporting, and tax relief for petroleum producers. This spending comes despite many banks and insurers pulling out of Canadian oil and tar sands projects, and BP oil forecasting that oil demand peaked last year. Additionally, the United Nations Environment Program has stated that current national government plans would lock the world into 120 times more emissions than what is needed to stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius global temperature increase, and that 85 percent of planned oil and gas development is in North America.

This fossil fuel spending is in contrast with $15 billion CAD in supporting sustainability projects. A total of $2.5 billion CAD has been provided to fund two separate energy related initiatives. $1.72 billion CAD was allocated to clean up retired oil and gas wells, maintaining some 5,200 jobs in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Alberta. Another $750 million CAD was allotted to launch the emissions reduction fund that aims to support workers and reduce emissions in Canada’s oil and gas sector. On November 19th, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act was presented by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and outlines a system for which future Canadian governments must establish 5-year targets and reviews moving forward to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Despite the creation of this system requiring future governments to create emission targets and reviews, there are no binding rules or penalties for failure to meet targets.

Canada’s COVID-19 response creates a framework for a review system but fails to define a plan of action and set into motion specific goals and projects. The Net-Zero Emissions Act creates a framework for future governments but does not address current industry issues during the pandemic the way the EU COVID-19 response stimulus package does. Advocacy groups have criticized the Prime Minister’s new bill, claiming it is an empty plan that fails to spur immediate action or create penalties for missed targets. Comparatively, the EU’s stimulus package illustrated an organized and structured plan with specific goals moving beyond the pandemic. The recovery plan and stimulus package presented by the EU should serve as a model upon which Canada could immediately begin to construct a sustainable economic future.

This article is part of our March 2021 Western Student Editorial Series – a series that showcases the works of students in the Collaborative Specialization in Environment and Sustainability program. Read more articles from this series here!

The post “Now is the Time” appeared first on A\J.

Many people believe that growing our fuel will improve energy security and independence, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote rural development. The Biofuel Delusion contends that such perceived advantages are quite simply not the case.

Authors Mario Giampietro and Kozo Mayumi dedicate much of this book to energetics – an area of study that considers the feasibility and desirability of energy sources, and how they may affect the structure of society. To determine the feasibility of a new energy supply, for example, researchers use the Output- Input (OI) ratio, which determines how much net energy the new source provides society, once we have subtracted the energy spent to obtain it. An OI of 1.0 indicates an energy supply that uses up all its energy to produce itself, and therefore has no surplus energy. Giampietro and Mayumi suggest that an OI below 3.0 is not worth the effort in energetic terms. Most fossil fuels range from an OI of 13 to 20, while US corn ethanol is often calculated at roughly 1.1 (ouch!) and Brazilian sugarcane ethanol at about 7.

Energetics also involves the study of the amount of energy produced by an energy supply for every hour of human labour devoted to its production. Developed societies are predicated on obtaining fantastically high labour productivity from the energy and agricultural sectors. The US, for example, requires 47,000 megajoules (MJ) of net energy for every hour of labour in the energy sector. By contrast, the energy-labour productivity of US corn-ethanol and Brazilian sugarcane-ethanol are both below 400 MJ per hour. To produce three per cent of US fuel needs from ethanol would require an unbelievable 48 per cent of the country’s workforce, after absorbing all the unemployed. If only producing energy was as much fun as consuming it.

After providing a crash course in energetics, the authors set their sights on agro-biofuels directly. They suggest that biofuels cannot possibly produce energy in sufficient quantity, nor with sufficiently high labour productivity, to meet the requirements of complex society. Given the low OI ratio of biofuels, there is simply not enough land for it.

The post Fool’s Fuel appeared first on A\J.

Recently I have had the pleasure of receiving a magazine published by Alternatives Journal in the summer of 1978. Within this magazine was an article which immediately caught my eye entitled “Solar Energy: One Union’s Viewpoint” – immediately I wondered what kind of strides had been made with respect to the solar energy field within the past four decades.

Photo by Andreas Gücklhorn on Unsplash

The first thing interesting in this article was the immediate mention of nuclear energy as an alternate energy source, being cited as the preferable choice. It is surprising that 42 years ago we were having the same energy conversations, though it seems as though nuclear was less controversial back then, as within the article it is being mentioned as the more favourable renewable energy. Maybe that is because the disaster at Chernobyl hasn’t struck anti-nuclear paranoia into the minds of the public yet.

The purpose of this article is to promote another source of energy, meaning that this was a moment in time when solar was right about to enter the fold of energy production. Interestingly enough, there was an energy crisis going on in these times as well, as well as “spiraling fuel costs which have demonstrated the need for energy conservation and solar energy”. Am I dreaming or does any of this sound strangely familiar? Spiraling oil costs and the need for energy diversification have been popping up in the news very often recently. Seems like we have made a lot of progress!

The article goes on to talk about the potential for solar energy providing jobs for, in this case, sheet metal workers – noting that they have skills that are transferrable to solar energy installation. Again – sound familiar? The potential for renewable energy providing jobs is often spoken about at present, and even 42 years ago the potential for job creation was outlined. Finally, the article outlines what Canada is currently doing and what needs to be done. This is largely seen through suggestions based around tax breaks and levies which would help incentivize the installation and production of solar energy. Another frequently spoken about suggestion for the renewable industry nowadays.

After reading this article it was extremely surprising to see the same sort of language be used to describe what needs to be done with respect to boosting renewable energy. It would be easy to assume that much progress has been made within the past 42 years, however upon reading this article it’s hard to see if any progress has been made at all. Aren’t all of these problems the exact same ones we are currently facing? Maybe policy makers and government figures should reflect upon how long these issues have been present in order to hopefully spur on some form of action such as the past, and presently proposed, tax breaks and levies on renewable energy implementation.

I sincerely hope it won’t take another 42 years to implement renewable solutions – I’m not sure I have that much time.

The post Solar Energy – 42 Years Later appeared first on A\J.

To be honest, when I first started researching this article, I wasn’t 100% certain what 100% renewable energy really meant. It sounded good, but I definitely couldn’t give you a definition of it. And that’s a little surprising, given how often it’s discussed by governments, academics and the media. But after I did some research on the challenge of switching to 100% renewable energy, I realized the reason I didn’t know how to define it was because it didn’t have a world-wide, iron-clad definition. Hawaii’s definition is different than Vancouver’s, and so on. Some would say it includes heating and transportation and some would say it doesn’t and some would say it counts either way. In this article, I’ve decided to use the least-stringent definition: 100% renewable energy is electricity generated solely by renewable resources, mainly solar, wind, and hydro.

Even in 2019, 100% renewable energy still sounds a bit like a crazy dream. It reminds me of “Shoot for the moon, and you’ll land among the stars” and other cliches about ambition. When I first heard about Hawaii legally committing to it in 2015 I thought, “Wow, they’re really embracing go big or go home”. I was impressed at their nerve, I was delighted by the innovation I was sure was going to happen. But I didn’t actually believe they’d manage it.

The thing is, 100% renewable energy isn’t nearly as difficult as it might sound at first. Right now, Iceland, Norway, Costa Rica, Albania, Ethiopia, Paraguay and Zambia are already running on or close to energy from 100% renewable sources. Hundreds of countries, states, and cities – Germany, Hawaii, Vancouver – have made binding promises to reach 100% renewable energy by 2050 or earlier. Governments have found it complex but nowhere near impossible to rework their electricity systems for renewable energy.

Hawaii, motivated by both the climate crisis and their pricey reliance on imported gas, has committed to an ambitious goal of 100% renewable energy by 2045. So far they’ve been on track to meet their targets despite issues like Kilauea’s eruption sending the plants and plans for future geothermal use up in smoke. The small island of Moloka‘i has served as a testing ground for what a grid system based almost entirely on solar power would need to look like; admittedly, they’ve had more setbacks than success, but they’ve kept moving forward and their solutions give the rest of Hawaii – and the world – something to learn from and emulate.

But enough about Hawaii. Let’s talk about 100% renewable energy in Canada.

Canada is actually an ideal country for moving to 100% renewable energy by 2050. Currently, a little more than 65% of the energy Canada generates is already renewable, and around 60% of that is hydroelectricity, leaving us with plenty of room to expand solar and wind power. In fact, Canada produces the second most hydro power in the world. Provincially, over 95% of the electricity Quebec and Manitoba produce is from hydro power. B.C., Yukon, and Newfoundland and Labrador also generate large amounts of hydro power, with it ranging from 88% to 93% of the total amount of energy generated.. And PEI generates about a quarter of their energy with wind power every year.

Our reliable hydro energy gives Canada a head-start on 100% renewable energy, and also helps balance electrical grids. Due to its adjustable stream of power, we likely won’t have as many of the problems faced by grids powered by fluctuating energy sources like solar and wind. Following that, a study by Energy Watch Group and LUT University of Finland has shown that globally, solar power needs to increase by just 17% per year to reach 100% renewable energy by 2050. And that’s for 100% renewable energy across all sectors, including heat and transportation. The study also says that it will be cheaper than our current energy system, an analysis echoed by Citizens’ Climate Lobby Canada, who have projected that 100% renewable energy will cost Canadians $164 less money on energy per year.

The less inclusive definition of 100% renewable energy won’t make emissions from cars and heating go away, but it does create an easier, gentler path to removing them – a path where merely reworking something to run on electricity makes it sustainable. Electric vehicles’ batteries are useful in balancing renewable electricity grids as well and electricity will be perfectly capable of heating modern passive houses.

100% renewable energy is the world’s future. By 2050, the concept of 100% renewable energy won’t be a dream anymore; it will be reality. With Canada’s advantages, we could get there even faster. Imagine living in a country where energy is cheaper, our electronics are sleek and sustainable, and the grid of renewable energy stretches from coast to coast to coast in a web of light. Sounds good, eh?

The post Dreaming of the Future appeared first on A\J.

As climate concerns continue to rise alongside increasing energy demands, renewable power is becoming an important and much needed resource. Wind energy – an important source of renewable energy – is gaining popularity in many parts of the world. Some new research from Penn State Behrand and the University of Tabriz in Iran shows how more efficient wind farm designs can improve energy outcomes.

“Wind power is the most competitive option for adding new capacity to the grid in a growing number of markets,” said Steve Sawyer, Secretary General at the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). “If the Paris Agreement targets are to be reached, that means closing fossil fuel fired plants and replaced them with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and biomass.”

Compared to other sources of renewable energy, wind turbines are incredibly efficient—they convert around 45 percent of wind energy into electricity, versus the less than 25 percent conversion rate of solar panels. However, the efficiency of wind-energy farms depends largely on their layout.

Optimizing wind farm design

The research, published in the Journal of Cleaner Production, uses animals as a model to optimize power production. In order to generate power efficiently, turbines have to be placed to capitalize on the highest wind speeds, minimize on interference from other turbines, and account for geographical factors such as landscape and weather. Many of these details can be hard to measure and include in wind farm design; this is known as the “wind farm layout optimization problem.”

Nature is efficient, and it only makes sense that modern technologies draw on natural designs. Animal models have inspired many ways to address global concerns across various sectors. This is what’s known as biomimicry—“sustainable solutions to human challenges by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies,” according to the Biomimicry Institute.

In the study, researchers used “biogeographical-based optimization”, or BBO, to improve wind farm design and energy production. BBO is a mathematical model that explains how animals are naturally distributed to make the best use of the resources around them. By applying this model to wind farms, the researchers developed an algorithm to estimate how turbines should be distributed for the highest amount of energy production. 

“This BBO method minimizes computation and gives better results, finding the optimum solution at less computational cost,” said Mohammad Rasouli, assistant professor of electrical engineering at Penn State Behrand and corresponding author of the study.

Similar attempts using BBO to optimize wind farm layout have been used in the past, but these approaches failed to address all aspects of an optimum layout. This new model accounts for factors such as the roughness of landscape surfaces and the actual amount of wind energy received by each turbine. To improve the BBO approach, the authors proposed a more realistic model of wind wake—the result of slowing wind speeds after wind passes through a turbine. Changes to wind speed affect how much energy is received by downstream turbines.

The study also looks at real market financial data to understand the economic benefits of optimizing wind farm design, as well as how farmers can generate the most revenue while producing more renewable energy for their customers.

The future of wind energy

In Canada, there are nearly 300 wind farms across the country, and the capacity for wind power production has been steadily growing over the past decade. Wind energy supplied about 6 percent of Canada’s overall energy demand in 2017, and this is expected to increase.

According to the Global Wind Energy Council, wind power production could read 2.1 million megawatts by 2030—an amount that would supply up to 20 percent of electricity worldwide and reduce carbon emissions by more than 3.3 billion tonnes per year. Growth of the industry not only limits air pollutants and greenhouse gases, it has social and economic benefits. If 2030 targets are reached, more than 2.3 million new jobs would be created globally, attracting about $300 million in investments.

Non-renewable energy sources such as coal and other fossil fuels cause more air pollution which can be harmful to public health. This, along with international targets to meet climate goals, is incentive enough to invest in these sustainable technologies. Technologies for cleaner energy are reducing reliance on fossil fuels, paving the way to better environmental and human health.

“Now that the Paris Agreement is coming into force, countries need to get serious about what they committed to last December,” said Sawyer.“Wind power will play the major role in getting us there.”

The post More efficient wind energy appeared first on A\J.

The Green New Deal (GND) has gotten a lot of attention since legislation was proposed in the U.S. Congress in February. The term derives from Roosevelt’s New Deal policies during the Great Depression. The Green New Deal, however, addresses today’s two most urgent problems simultaneously: climate change and rising inequality. This approach may lessen the current appeal of climate denying populism for some. Canadian jurisdictions should consider a similar approach.

The inequality gap between the rich and everyone else has increased continuously since the late 1970s. Since 1978, controlling for inflation, most wages in America have only increased by 6% while executive’s incomes have gone up 937%. The upper 1% now make twice what the bottom half of the population do. Canada is slightly less unequal, but our CEOs earn 300 times the minimum wage — not enough, of course, to keep some of them from objecting to a $15 minimum hourly wage.

 The polar opposite of simultaneous progress are the policies of Trump and Ford who do all they can to increase fossil fuel consumption and the wealth gap.”

Climate change has been underway for at least 40 years. Yet global carbon emissions are still rising despite the efforts of some nations. In Europe and elsewhere, a few have achieved year over year reductions, but Canada and most others have not. The world as a whole has not even started on reducing emissions.

The GND urges rapid progress on both problems, an ambition that is wonderfully out of step with North American politics-as-usual. The norm on this continent as a whole is decades of delay (though B.C. and California have stepped up as did Ontario until recently). The polar opposite of simultaneous progress are the policies of Trump and Ford who do all they can to increase fossil fuel consumption and the wealth gap.

GND policies are labelled as radical merely because they assume that governments should, and can successfully, address both. Addressing the two jointly may actually be easier than taking them on separately. As Van Jones argued a decade ago, more good jobs are created addressing climate than are produced in continuing with a carbon intensive economy. Both America and Canada would gain more jobs building a post-carbon economy than would be lost in completely phasing out all fossil fuels. As a bonus, the jobs would be distributed geographically much more widely than fossil energy jobs. Renewable energy is also owned more broadly – often by homeowners, farmers, communities, utilities, non-energy businesses, coops and landowners.

America’s GND proposal includes an equality-building job guarantee, increased energy efficiency, regenerative soil management, energy storage research, and comprehensive retraining opportunities for those in vulnerable jobs. It even advocates a guaranteed annual income in response to the looming age of artificial intelligence and self-driving vehicles. Indeed, GND House of Representatives legislative sponsor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said ‘no one should have to fear automation, but all should instead welcome it’.

A key political strength of the GND is that it explicitly opposes blaming job losses on scapegoats (immigrants or other nations). It understands that there is more than enough worthwhile work to do on better health care and education, healthier food, improved infrastructure, new technologies and, above all, on transforming our energy systems. Underfunding these needs are, in effect, needed jobs that never happen.

We will also need to deal with carbon removal from the atmosphere and protecting biodiversity and habitat. Crucially, everything mentioned above is only affordable before we are overwhelmed by the high cost of serious climate impacts.

Finally, the most important political argument for a Green New Deal is this: it can be adopted at any level of governance – globally, nationally, provincially, municipally or regionally. This is crucial because the progress we need only rarely has all governments on side simultaneously and continuously. To succeed globally many cities and nations must relentlessly demonstrate that positive change is possible.

Those who would deny the possibility of reversing inequality and the need to stop climate change must be proven wrong continuously. With most of the world moving forward on both fronts we can decisively reject political claims of harm to the economy or the non-importance of climate change. 

The post The Green New Deal: Our Best Chance on Climate appeared first on A\J.