New podcast series celebrates women fighting climate change

MothersOfInvention_PressShot_11A new, optimistic initiative called Mothers of Invention  was launched in July, led by Mary Robinson, former Prime Minister of Ireland and a well-known climate justice campaigner. Maeve Higgins, an Irish-born comedian is her  “sidekick” in a series of podcasts designed to celebrate “ amazing women doing remarkable things in pursuit of climate justice.”  Through lighthearted, informal conversations, the podcasts educate and inspire with stories of local climate activists – initially focusing on women only, but eventually planned to include men as well.  The clear purpose is to motivate individuals with positive examples, rather than a climate change “doom and gloom” message.

Episode 1, All Rise ,  explores the issue of global climate litigation through interviews with Tessa Khan, Co-Founder of the Global Climate Litigation network ; Marjan Minnesma, Director of the Urgenda Foundation which launched the world’s first climate liability lawsuit in the Netherlands; and Kelsey Juliana, Victoria Barrett & Ridhima Pandey – young plaintiffs from the U.S. and India who are supported in  lawsuits against their own governments by the Our Children’s Foundation. Each episode consists of the podcast interviews and discussion, with links for more information, more involvement, and  a chance to donate.

The line up of future “Mothers”   includes activists from around the world who have focused on land protection, zero waste, fossil fuel divestment, energy poverty, plastic pollution, and environmental racism. The initiative is profiled in The Guardian in “Mary Robinson launches new feminist fight against climate change” (July 24).

 

U.K. Committee issues recommendations for heatwaves – including workplace changes

sweating office workerOn July 26, the U.K.’s Environmental Audit Committee published Heatwaves: adapting to climate change,  which examines the developing trend of heatwaves, the responsibility for heatwave protection, how to protect human health and well-being, and effects on  productivity and the economy.  The final statement on conclusions/recommendations states:  “Heatwaves can result in overheating workplaces and lower employee productivity. In 2010, approximately five million staff days were lost due to overheating above 26°C resulting in economic losses of £770 million. Given that extreme temperature events in Europe are now 10 times more likely than they were in the early 2000s, similar losses will occur more frequently. However, some businesses, particularly smaller businesses, do not have business continuity plans in place. The Government should make businesses aware of the developing threat of heatwaves and the economic consequences. Public Health England should also issue formal guidance to employers to relax dress codes and allow flexible working when heatwave alerts are issued. The Government should consult on introducing maximum workplace temperatures, especially for work that involves significant physical effort. Procurement rules should be updated so that schools and the NHS do not spend public money on infrastructure which is not resilient to heatwaves. The Department for Education should issue guidance for head teachers about safe temperatures in schools and relaxing the school uniform policy as appropriate during hot weather. ” At present, there is no set temperature limit for indoor work, (only that buildings be kept at a “reasonable” temperature)  and the government’s 2018 Heatwave Plan makes no mention of employer responsibilities or the dangers of heat stress for workers.

tuc logoSome of the Committee recommendations echo those contained in the  Trades Union Congress publication, Cool it! Reps guide on dealing with high temperatures in the workplace .  It documents examples of heat stress in workplaces, and provides checklists for union representatives in both indoor and outdoor workplaces. The Cool it! guide  recommends that a maximum indoor  temperature be set at  30°C (27°C for those doing strenuous work), and  “ a new legal duty on employers to protect outside workers by providing sun protection, water, and to organise work so that employees are not outside during the hottest part of the day.”  The guide also takes note of the  special circumstances of drivers.

Current heat-related guides and information from the government’s Health and Safety Executive are here.

Nova Scotia environmentalists campaign for a moratorium on oil and gas drilling after BP spill

In late June, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Drilling Board  (CNSOPB) issued an incident report –  summarized in the National Observer in “ BP Canada spews thousands of litres of toxic mud during offshore drilling incident near Halifax” ; CBC reported “Mi’kmaq want answers from BP Canada after drilling mud spill off Nova Scotia coast” (June 26) .  Yet on July 23, the Board issued   a notice allowing BP to re-start operations, and describing the terms of  an investigation into the incident.  CBC summarized it all in “BP Canada restarts drilling off Nova Scotia after spill”. 

In response, the Offshore Alliance of Nova Scotia on July 19 sent  Open Letters to Prime Minister Trudeau  and to the Premier of Nova Scotia  , stating : “The inadequacies of the current regulatory and impact assessment regime, the failure to consider the latest science (on risk assessment, dispersants, impacts of seismic, added risks of deepwater drilling, ocean acidification, and recovery of the fishery, to name a few), the poor state of public awareness and involvement and the magnitude of the risk to the marine biosphere and to the present and future economic base of Nova Scotia’s coastal communities all demand an up-to-date, thorough public re-examination. We anticipate an inquiry of this nature could take up to two years. In the meantime, there should be a moratorium on all new oil and gas activity offshore respecting the established precautionary principle.”  Similar demands had been made in an  Open Letter in June to Canada’s Environment Minister, and names the members of the Offshore Alliance – approximately 20 fisher, social justice and environmental organizations, as well as concerned communities and individuals. They issued their call through the Sierra Club of Canada – the July 19 press release is here .

Nova Scotia offshore drilling signsLocal member organizations of the Offshore Alliance of Nova Scotia include the Clean Ocean Action Committee (COAC), which represents fish plant owners, processors and fishermens’ organizations in southwestern NS, and the Campaign to Protect Offshore Nova Scotia (CPONS) .  The CPONS explanatory Position Paper discusses the issues of what is at stake, and  asks “what is regulatory capture?”.  The CPONS website includes resources to “Take Action”,  including a number of petitions and addresses for a letter writing campaign.  The Council of Canadians is also monitoring offshore drilling on the East Coast here  , and maintains its own active petition  which calls  on the federal government “to stop BP from drilling up to seven exploratory wells and institute a moratorium on oil and gas exploration in offshore Nova Scotia. We further demand an end to proposed changes under Bill C-69 that would grant east coast petroleum boards more power in the environmental assessment process for Atlantic offshore drilling.”

 

 

 

Suicide and heat waves: the mental health effects related to climate change

thermometer and sunHigher temperatures increase suicide rates in the United States and Mexico”  was published in Nature Climate Change online on July 23, warning that up to 26,000 more people could die by suicide in the United States by 2050 if humans don’t reduce emissions of greenhouse gas pollution. The study has been widely reported and summarized: for example, in The Atlantic (July 23).  The authors used new statistical techniques, including analysis which correlates social media posts about depression with temperature conditions. Part of this social media analysis is based on the work of Patrick Baylis of the University of British Columbia, whose academic paper “Temperature and Temperament: Evidence from a Billion Tweets” was published by the Energy Institute at Haas, University of California at Berkeley, in November 2015.

A second article published in July 2018 is  “Associations between high ambient temperatures and heat waves with mental health outcomes: a systematic review”  appeared in the British journal  Public Health. It  reports on a literature review of 35 studies, and the authors conclude that: “High ambient temperatures have a range of mental health effects. The strongest evidence was found for increased suicide risk. Limited evidence was found for an increase in heat-related morbidity and mortality among people with known mental health problems. …. Mental health impacts should be incorporated into plans for the public health response to high temperatures, and as evidence evolves, psychological morbidity and mortality temperature thresholds should be incorporated into hot weather–warning systems.”

A 2014 article examined weekly suicide death totals and anomalies in Toronto between 1986–2009 and Jackson, Mississippi, from 1980–2006. The authors found that for both cities, warmer weeks had an increased likelihood of being associated with high-end suicide totals.  “Association of Weekly Suicide Rates with Temperature Anomalies in Two Different Climate Types” from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health is here .

The  growing literature about the impacts of climate change on mental health has been summarized in an article in Forbes magazine, “Weather And The Warm Season Are Among Factors Associated With Suicide” (June 2018) and in the  April 2018 issue of  Corporate Knights magazine. The Corporate Knights article, “Deep Impact” is by Professor Helen Berry , the inaugural Professor of Climate Change and Mental Health at the University of Sydney, in Australia.   Although her brief overview emphasizes  mental health impacts of climate-change related disasters such as floods,  it also  provides links to recent articles linking mental health with chronic climate conditions such as heat waves and drought. Some examples of Professor Berry’s research: “The importance of humidity in the relationship between heat and population mental health: Evidence from Australia” in PLoS One (2016) ; “The Effect of Extreme Heat on Mental Health – Evidence from Australia”  from the International Journal of Epidemiology (restricted access) (2015); and “Morbidity and mortality during heatwaves in Metropolitan Adelaide”  in the Medical  Journal of Australia (2007).

Professor Berry and co-author   Dominic Peel  provoked public discussion in 2015 with an article in the British Journal of Psychiatry, “Worrying about climate change: is it responsible to promote public debate?

 

Heat waves: How well are workers protected ?

construction drinking waterThe heat waves that have gripped much of the world in June and July have also been manifest in Canada, where as many as 70 people died in Quebec (mostly in Montreal), as temperatures stayed at over 40 degrees Celsius with the humidex. Many more are likely to have died, but Health Canada does not keep statistics on heat related deaths. In their July 7  press release  on the topic, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment  quote figures from the Climate Atlas of Canada  which  state:  “Before 2005, Montreal had, on average, 8 days per year with temperatures over 30 degrees C.  With climate change, it is predicted that Montreal will experience more than 50 days per year with extreme temperatures by 2050.” For Toronto, the prediction is for 55 days per year with temperatures over 30 degrees after 2050.

In general, public attention and interventions are normally directed to  the most vulnerable in the population: the aged, chronically ill, homeless and those living alone, as in “Doctors urge population to stay cool after dozens die during heat wave in Central Canada”  in the National Observer   (July 10). But what about workers, who may not have the option to “cool off”?

On July 17, the U.S. advocacy group Public Citizen published  Extreme Heat and Unprotected Workers  , describing the state of regulation in the U.S., current and historical statistics on heat-related illness and death, particularly for construction and farm workers, the likely exacerbation of the situation due to climate change, and making the case for a federal heat stress standard. One example: The report states that from 1992 to 2016, heat killed 783 workers in the U.S. and seriously injured nearly 70,000.  Based on this hard-hitting analysis, Public Citizen, along with United Farm Workers Foundation and Farmworker Justice, joined more than 130 public health and environmental groups in submitting a petition to the U.S.  Occupational Safety and Health Administration, calling for the agency to require employers to protect their workers from heat by imposing mandatory rest breaks, hydration and access to shade or cooled spaces, among other measures.  The report is summarized by  Inside Climate News in “Heat Wave Safety: 130 Groups Call for Protections for Farm, Construction Workers ” .

In a July article  in  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, published by the U.S. Centres for Disease Control (CDC) , researchers recommend using a heat index of 85 degrees F as a threshold for potentially hazardous worker heat stress, rather than the current U.S. standard of 91 degrees F (32.8C).  They base this recommendation on a review of 25 incidents of outdoor occupational heat-related illnesses, including 14 deaths, that were investigated by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) between 2011 and 2016.  They found a risk of illness at a heat index of just 29.4 C (85 F) –  and 6 deaths happened below 90 degrees F. The authors also noted: “Employers often obtain heat index information from publicly broadcasted weather reports or forecasts that do not necessarily reflect conditions at their work sites.”  Other  recommendations from the article:   “ a comprehensive heat-related illness prevention program should include an acclimatization schedule for newly hired workers and unacclimatized long-term workers (e.g., during early-season heat waves), training for workers and supervisors about symptom recognition and first aid (e.g., aggressive cooling of presumed heat stroke victims before medical professionals arrive), engineering and administrative controls to reduce heat stress, medical surveillance, and provision of fluids and shady areas for rest breaks.”

In Canada, Professor Glenn Kenny of the University of Ottawa is an expert on the effects of heat stress  on older people, and on workers.  Some of the studies on which he has collaborated: “Heat Exposure in the Canadian Workplace” (2010) in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine , in which he points out the strengths and weaknesses of the Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) based upon Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT), the standard used in most Canadian jurisdictions;  “Do the Threshold Limit Values for work in hot conditions adequately protect workers?”  (2016) ; and   “An evaluation of the physiological strain experienced by electrical utility workers in North America” (2015) in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene .

What are the existing heat standards for workers? A fact sheet from The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Temperature conditions: Legislation , provides  a summary chart of Canadian legislation, ranging from Alberta, (which has guidelines only), to Ontario, which  has the most specific standards, set out in clause 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act   .  Also useful: CCOHS Fact Sheet: Humidex and work  and Thermal Comfort for Office work.  From the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers (OHCOW) – Humidex Based Heat Response Plan (2014).

In the U.S.,  Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) maintains a web portal for working in indoor and outdoor heat  and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health portal on heat stress   is here.  NIOSH also publishes information on Hazards to Outdoor Workers   which includes heat, sun exposure, vector- borne diseases by ticks, mosquitos, and a separate fact sheet for Lyme disease(none of which have been updated since 2010) .  In February 2016, the NIOSH published  Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Heat and Hot Environments,   which updated the  previous version from 1986.

Government campaign claims Trans Mountain pipeline is a “bridge to a greener tomorrow” – economists and citizens disagree

keepcanada working

#keepcanaddaworking social media campaign

Now that the government of Canada has bought the Trans Mountain pipeline project from Texas-based Kinder Morgan,  the governments of Alberta and Canada have launched a public relations campaign to “sell” the deal to Canadians.  The  Keep Canada Working television and  social media campaign  promotes the familiar Liberal government message that  “Developing the economy and protecting the environment are two things that can happen side by side – without choosing one over the other”, and argues that “The Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion funds green investments, shifts the transportation of oil away from more carbon intensive methods like rail or truck, and provides a bridge to a greener tomorrow.”   The full “Climate Action” defense is here .

The “Jobs and the Economy” claims are here, including endorsements by politicians and includes a quote from Stephen Hunt, Director of the United Steelworkers District 3: “Members of the United Steelworkers are proud that the pipeline will be using Canadian-made USW-built pipe.”  The other positive job arguments are sourced from an April 2018 Globe and Mail article by the CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the corporate website of  Trans Mountain, which are in turn based on an unnamed  Conference Board of Canada report .

What do other economists say about the benefits of the Trans Mountain pipeline?   In February 2018, the Parkland Institute summarized and critiqued the economic arguments in a still-useful  blog “Let’s share the actual facts about the Trans Mountain Pipeline” , and Canadian economist Robyn Allan has written numerous articles critical of the Trans Mountain project for the National Observer, most recently “Premier Notley’s claimed $15 billion annual benefit from Trans Mountain exposed as false by her own budget”  (June 7 2018). Other more detailed publications since the May 2018 purchase by the government:  “Canada’s Folly: Government Purchase of Trans Mountain Pipeline Risks an Increase in National Budget Deficit by 36%, Ensures a 637% Gain by Kinder Morgan”, published by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, describes the fiscal and financial risks and calls for more public disclosure of those details before the Purchase Agreement is finalized in August.  Similarly,  The view from Taxpayer Mountain  (June 2018) from the West Coast Environmental Law Association links to  the actual Purchase Agreement and reviews Canada’s obligations and risks.  On June 26, Greenpeace USA has published  Tar Sands Tanker Superhighway Threatens Pacific Coast Waters  highlighting the dangers of a potential oil spill on the environment,  and on coastal economies.  At risk: the $60 billion coastal economy of Washington, Oregon and California, which  currently supports over 150,000 jobs in commercial fishing and over 525,000 jobs in coastal tourism, and in the British Columbia Lower Mainland, Greenpeace estimates there are  320,000 workers in industries that rely on a clean coastline.

On the issue of climate change impacts, a widely-cited discussion paper, Confronting Carbon lock-in: Canada’s oil sands (June 2018) from the Stockholm Environment Institute,  concludes that  “The continued expansion of Canada’s oil sands is likely to contribute to carbon lock-in and a long-term oversupply of oil, slowing the world’s transition to a low-carbon future.”  And still valuable reading: David Hughes’ Can Canada Expand Oil and Gas Production, Build Pipelines and Keep Its Climate Change Commitments? (June 2016) from the Corporate Mapping Project  , and from Jeff Rubin,  Evaluating the Need for
Pipelines: A False Narrative for the Canadian Economy  (September 2017).

Tanker Bridge BlockadeDemonstrations continue:   Vancouver housing activist Jean Swanson’s  argues that the billions spent on Kinder Morgan would be better used for social housing, job creation, and renewable energy in  “Why I got arrested protesting the Kinder Morgan pipeline” in The Tyee, July 11.  Twelve Greenpeace activists mounted an “aerial blockade”  for Trans Mountain oil tankers by hanging from a bridge above the water on July 3 and 4.   And on July 11, CBC reported  “Secwepemc First Nation’s ‘Tiny House Warriors’ occupy provincial park in Trans Mountain protest” .  The Tiny House Warrior movement began in 2017, near Kamloops, to block the pipeline by  re-establishing village sites and asserting authority over Secwepemc First Nations unceded Territories.

 

 

U.K. government releases strategy to reduce transportation emissions, stimulate clean vehicle manufacturing

The U.K. Committee on Climate Change (CCC) submitted its 2018 annual report to the British Parliament on June 28, marking ten years since the Climate Change Act became law in 2008.  On the plus side, the report highlights a decoupling of economic  growth:   since 1990, emissions have fallen by 43% and the economy has grown by over 70%. Since 2008, the UK has achieved a 59% reduction in emissions from electricity generation. Yet despite that progress, other sectors, notably transport, agriculture and the built environment, have not achieved reductions – transport emissions have actually grown and at  28% of total UK emissions, are now the single largest emitter.    Reducing UK emissions – 2018 Progress Report to Parliament  outlines four high-level, messages for government and calls for immediate policy action in residential energy efficiency, development of Carbon Capture and Storage, and stronger consumer  incentives for electric vehicles.

black cabsNo sooner said than done: on July 9, the British Ministry of Transport  released  a long-awaiting document, The Road to Zero Strategy , with the goal that all new cars and vans will be effectively zero emission by 2040, at which time the government will end the sale of new conventional gas and diesel cars and vans. The press release highlights and summarizes the proposals .  Some specifics: commitment to continue consumer purchase incentives for plug-in cars, vans, taxis and motorcycles; commitment that all  the central Government car fleet will be zero emissions by 2030; the  launch of a £400 million Charging Infrastructure Investment Fund and  as much as £500 incentive for  electric vehicle owners to help them install a charge point at their home; increasing the grant level of the existing incentives for Workplace Charging stations.

Stimulating the motor vehicle industry:  Notably, the strategy aims to improve emissions in road transport in the U.K. while putting the U.K.  “at the forefront of the design and manufacturing of zero emission vehicles.”  Measures announced to support industry include: public investment in auto technology R & D, including £246 million to research next generation battery technology; and  working with the industry training group,  Institute of the Motor Industry,  “to ensure the UK’s workforce of mechanics are well trained and have the skills they need to repair these vehicles safely, delivering for consumers” .

However, “Road to Zero or Road to Nowhere: Government revs up green vehicle ‘ambition’ ”  in Business Green newsletter compiles reaction from business and environmental sources, all of which agree that the 2040 target date is too late. The quote from the Policy Director of Green Alliance sums up reaction:  “It’s rare for the oil industry, mayors and environmentalists to agree on something, but we all think 2040 is far too late for a ban on conventional vehicles…Moving it to 2030 and setting a zero emissions vehicles mandate would encourage car companies to build electric cars in the UK, and give the country a head start on its competitors across Europe. While there are some welcome measures, including on charging infrastructure, the Road to Zero strategy is on cruise control. As it stands, it won’t help the UK build a world leading clean automotive industry.”

The full Road to Zero policy document is here ; the accompanying technical report,  Transport Energy Model   provides data about the GHG emissions, energy requirements, and pollution associated with cars, trucks and double decker buses using conventional fossil fuels as well as biofuels, hydrogen, and electricity.

 

Nova Scotia announces consultation for coastal protection legislation

lighthouse in nova scotia

Lighthouse at Brier Island, Nova Scotia, from Government of Canada website

Just after the Nova Scotia Minister of Energy  announced   funding for geoscience research on June 20 to support the $11.8 million Offshore Growth Project to encourage oil and gas development, the Minister of the Environment made good on an election promise from 2017 with the  launch   of a consultation process to consider coastline protection, allowing  the period from June 26 to August 17  for the public to respond to an online survey.   Discussion will focus on The  Coastal Protection Legislation: Consultation Document , which addresses the complexity of the legislative situation – both federal and provincial legislation – and  addresses three questions: 1. How to define a “Coastal Protection Zone” ?  2. How to restrict certain activities within the Coastal Protection Zone? and 3. What provisions are required for monitoring and compliance?   The document states:   “Fishing and aquaculture will be exempt, but how do we define this exemption? What other economic activities must we keep out of the way of?”

The Ecology Action Centre in Halifax announced the consultation with this neutral press release  ;  CBC News summarized it with “Nova Scotia seeks public input on legislation to protect coastlines” CBC News, and the Halifax Chronicle published an Editorial on July 3,  “Coastal construction rules needed to curtail climate calamities” , calling for the government to allow more time for public input.

New report calls on B.C. Pension Fund management to divest from fossil fuels, reinvest in renewables

ccpa-bc_fossilpensions_june2018-thumbnailThe British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (BCI) is the fourth largest pension fund manager in Canada,  and controls capital of $135.5 billion, including the pension funds of the province’s public employees.  A June report asks the question: is BCI investing funds in ways that support the shift to a two degree C global warming limit?  The answer is “no”, and in fact, fossil fuel investments have been increasing, according to the authors of  Canada’s Fossil-Fuelled Pensions: The Case of the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation   . For example, BCI boosted its investment in Kinder Morgan, owner of the Trans-Mountain pipeline, to $65.3 million in 2017 from $36.7 million in 2016.

An article in the Victoria B.C. Times Colonist newspaper  summarizes the study and includes reaction from one of  the authors, James Rowe, an associate professor at University of Victoria.  Rowe  states: “BCI claims to be a responsible investor. …But we find some hypocrisy in that we don’t find any good signs they are investing with climate change in mind.”  The article also quotes an email from BCI,  which defends the investment in Kinder Morgan, as “a passive investment held inside funds designed to track Canadian and global markets.”  Further, it states, “BCI does invest in oil and gas companies, but that particular sector accounts for a significant portion of the Canadian economy. It’s about 20 per cent of the composite index on the Toronto Stock Exchange.”  For more from BCI,  see their website which  provides their  2017 Responsible Investing Annual Report , as well as a Responsible Investing Newsletter, with the most recent issue (Oct. 2017) devoted to “Transparency and Disclosure”.

Canada’s Fossil-Fuelled Pensions: The Case of the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation   makes the following recommendations so that  BCI can align its investments with the 2°C limit:

  1. “A portfolio-wide climate change risk analysis to determine the impact of fossil fuels on BCI’s public equity investments in the context of the 2°C limit. And, subsequent disclosure of all findings to pension members.
  2. Divestment. The surest way to address the financial and moral risks associated with investing in the fossil fuel industry is to start the process of divestment: freezing any new investment and developing a plan to first remove high-risk companies from portfolios, particularly coal and oil sands producers, and then moving toward sector-wide divestment.
  3. Reinvest divested funds in more sustainable stocks. The International Energy Agency estimates that trillions of dollars of investment are needed in the renewables sector to support the transition away from fossil fuels.”

The report is part of the Corporate Mapping Project (CMP), jointly led by the University of Victoria, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and Parkland Institute. CMP is  a research and public engagement initiative investigating power dynamics within the fossil fuel industry.