Archives 2019

We are, without a doubt, at a point at which hope, without action, is meaningless to our children. We need action. That includes the kinds that are easy (like remembering to bring a grocery bag.) However, it also includes significant steps that will not be convenient or easy. It requires radical changes to our lives – not just once, but every year, for the foreseeable future. It requires changes to how we eat, how we live, how we get around and who we elect to government.

There are various numbers being put out – and I’m not going to focus on all of the specifics here, just the overview.

The Green Party believes Canada should commit to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% below 2005 levels by 2025. Our long-term target should be to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, with further cuts to greenhouse gas emissions of at least 80% to 90%, compared to 1990

https://www.greenparty.ca/en/backgrounder/2015-06-14/green-party%E2%80%99s-climate-change-plan (from 2015)

The plan targets 60 per cent GHG reductions against 2005 levels by 2030 and zero emissions by 2050. (Green Party, Canada, 2019)

https://www.greenparty.ca/en/media-release/2019-05-16/elizabeth-may-unveils-mission-possible-%E2%80%93-green-climate-action-plan (2019)

This is a call that we must take seriously. A reduction of over 50% in only a few years is what we are being asked to do. Thinking about that practically that means:

• radically overhauling transportation and other sectors
• electing governments with exceptionally strong climate action plans (Greens, in Canada – in my opinion)
• changing our own personal choices
  • If our house is 50% bigger than it needs to be, for example, downsizing is a way to reduce our emissions – a smaller, equally efficient house is less space to heat and cool.
  • Making a variety of changes to how we eat (plant-based, local, organic as much as possible.)
  • Transitioning away from gas-powered items as quickly as possible (vehicles, lawn mowers etc).
• Realizing that we don’t have the luxury to pick and choose anymore. We all have to do our best, in every sector, knowing that some changes will be easier, and others will be harder. Some we might be able to make a lot of progress on right away and others might take a bit more planning, but we can get there, and we need to try.

I believe that we can do this – if we genuinely work together to make the changes that are needed. Let’s do this together! 🙂

Sometimes, in conversations around making the changes that are necessary for a cleaner, better environment, I hear people talk about any given change and, referring either to themselves or society generally, say “Well, maybe people could make that change, but it would take decades. Nobody can make that change fast, like the science is asking us to do.”

Here is my response: We have all had decades – starting back before I was born, and decades before my kids were born. Like a student who procrastinates all term and then has to do all of their work in the last week of the term, the opportunity to do things more gradually was there, and it wasn’t taken. Now, we have decades of work to do and we have to get it done. There are no extensions available.

It’s time to act – removing fossil fuel subsidies, adding major subsidies to renewables to speed the transition, switching to a local and heavily plant-based diet, living in smaller and more energy efficient homes, getting gas guzzling vehicles off the roads, flying less, reducing emissions in all areas, electing leaders (like Elizabeth May and the Green Party) who will put climate action at the top of the agenda, knowing that some changes will be relatively easy and some will be harder. We need to meet (and exceed) the major climate agreement targets – and we need to do it fast. I believe that it can be done – all it requires is the will to step out of our comfort zone, make the changes and do the right thing.

Toronto Star: Elizabeth May: We have had decades to stop the climate crisis. The era of procrastination must end.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2019/09/03/elizabeth-may-we-have-had-decades-to-stop-the-climate-crisis-the-era-of-procrastination-must-end.html

https://www.change.org/p/doug-ford-end-discriminatory-funding-for-catholic-public-private-schools-in-ontario

As we start a new school year, this petition has now reached over 2,500 signatures. That is a significant milestone, but we still have a long ways to go to bring about a long past-due change. Please help me, by signing and sharing this petition in your circles. Thank you! 🙂

Please sign this Change.org petition to support EV’s in Canada – and share widely. Thank you! 🙂

How much destruction is needed for us to take climate change seriously?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/03/how-much-destruction-is-needed-for-us-to-take-climate-change-seriously?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_WordPress

Great video on the importance of making sure that teens get enough sleep. Fairly short, and very informative. Well worth watching. 🙂

Fortunately, personally, we don’t have any really early start times in our family (school starts shortly after 8 for our teens) – but nudging things later would still be of benefit, I think. It’s still before the 8:30 start that she suggests for the earliest recommended start time. Worth taking a serious look at how to adjust our systems to help our teens stay healthy and well-rested.

Recently published on BBC, this is an excellent food emissions calculator. For the record, I am not verifying the data – I trust BBC and the scientists that they work with to do the work, and do it well. 🙂

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46459714

Entering in a food item (not all are there, but there is a reasonably representative list), gives the carbon emissions, and compares both to

• other items with a similar footprint (eg eating tofu 2/week for one year = driving xx km or showering xx times/week) and to
• other similar food items (eg eating tofu has xx emissions, compared to xx for eggs/chicken/beef etc.)

Hint: Tofu, along with other whole foods, plant-based options (eg beans and nuts), has much lower emissions than animal products. 🙂

In light of the ongoing gun-related violence in the US, Amnesty International has issued a travel advisory for the US. (See details below.) I have traveled in places with travel advisories, and have done so with a clear sense of the dangers, along with safety plans etc, as needed. In the US, however, despite rampant gun ownership and violence, most countries still do not have travel advisories against travel into the US.
Until that gap is reconciled, advisories recognize the extent of the problem, and there are meaningful safety plans in place for travelers into the US (as there would be if such levels of random gun violence were taking place anywhere else, for example), I do not plan on entering the US. I encourage others to do the same. 🙂
Thoughts?
…………..
Amnesty International today issued a travel warning calling for possible travelers and visitors to the United States to exercise extreme caution when traveling throughout the country due t
Source: Global Human Rights Movement Issues Travel Warning for the U.S. Due to Rampant Gun Violence

Hi all,

I have just added a new section on NGO Program Assessments and Organizational Sustainability: https://sustainabledevelopmentresources.wpcomstaging.com/ngo-program-project-assessements-and-sustainability/ I will be adding more over time, and cleaning up some of the other pages that need updating. Happy Reading! 🙂

SJM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/06/gun-violence-america-prompts-growing-list-countries-issue-travel-warnings/?noredirect=on

I have seen some discussion over the last number of years around the question of a travel boycott to the US – specifically in relation to their high rates of gun ownership, assault weapons, gun violence etc.

While I, as a Canadian, would like to be able to travel across the border, as I have many times in the past, I am becoming increasingly concerned – and very close to the point where I am not willing to enter the US any more.

I have been involved a little bit in discussions related to travel advisories for Canada to other places and have learned a little bit about how they work – but it’s still quite unclear to me exactly what the parameters are for each level etc.

However, in my personal experience, it seems to me that if a country in the Middle East, for example, had the rates of personal ownership of high capacity assault weapons as the US does, there would be much stronger travel advisories from Western countries than any of them have for the US at this point.

That suggests that the US advisory is unfairly low – and creates a level of disconnect that is misleading. It suggests that the US is safer than it actually is, particularly in relation to other countries which have higher advisories (which they may or may not deserve.) What might a Canadian (or other) travel advisory look like if the true extent of the gun situation was truly being accounted for?

As a Canadian (and we are generally pretty peaceful types) and a Mennonite/pacifist, I have very strong concerns about the highly weaponized nature of life in the US. I think that the time has come to think more carefully about how to respond to this issue. Is it time for people to start actively avoiding trips into the US until they enact significant gun control laws and get their assault weapons off the streets and out of the hands of civilians?

Thoughts?