Category Archives: climate politics

Episode 5 of the Clean Break Podcast

In Episode 5 of the Clean Break podcast, host Tyler Hamilton, returning after a long break (hey, it’s cottage time), discusses Ontario’s heat wave, applauds record Chevy Volt sales in Canada, and wonders why a small slice of EV purchase incentives don’t go to the auto dealerships that sell the cars. This shorter-than-usual podcast concludes with an interview with Phil Abrary, president and CEO of Vancouver-based Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies, one of Canada’s most successful pure-play cleantech companies.

 

Play

Climate and Mental Health Series in the Toronto Star

Earlier this week — Sunday and Monday — the Toronto Star ran several stories of mine that draw a direct link between climate change and mental health.

OuchterlonyThe first story, which to my pleasant surprise was run above the fold on A1 on Sunday, starts with Ontario coroner and former palliative care physician David Ouchterlony, who says his anxiety and despair over the growing climate threat has affected him more deeply — emotionally and psychologically — than the years he spent caring for dying patients or investigating causes of death. But Ouchterlony isn’t alone. The mental health impacts of climate change, particularly on those most vulnerable to it, is expected to grow and could become a serious public health crisis that we’re not prepared for and which, in Canada, is not even on the radar. This article provides an overview of the issue, how the American Psychological Association is taking it seriously, and how its Canadian counterpart and public healthy agencies in Canada aren’t really paying attention to this sleeper of an issue. Be sure to also read Ouchterlony’s own words in this thoughtful response to an e-mail I sent him last month asking: How is something like concern over climate change different from the kinds of feelings you have as a coroner, or had as a palliative care physician?

The same day the Star also ran a story focused on farmers, and how crazy and more extreme weather events linked to climate instability are making an already tough job more difficult. Farmers are a group with some of the highest rates of depression and suicide, and the fear is that climate change is going to make the situation worse for their mental health. Again, there’s not a lot of research in Canada looking at this issue, so these people are largely struggling silently.

Prof_Ashlee_Cunsolo_WilloxFinally, on Monday the Star ran my article focused on climate change and its psychological impacts on northern and remote aboriginal communities. The story leans heavily on the pioneering research of Cape Breton University professor Ashlee Cunsolo Willox, who has spent considerable time over the past few years visiting Inuit communities in Nunatsiavut, Labrador, and documenting how populations there are coping mentally with the changes around them and how it’s impacting their way of life. Canada’s north is being disproportionately affected by climate change and these indigenous communities are on the front lines. They need our attention and our help.

The package touches on other vulnerable groups, such as scientists/environmentalists, the poor and elderly, and those directly affected by extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts and hurricanes. This last group I would categorize as sufferers of post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. The other groups are struggling with a more anticipatory, existential kind of anxiety about climate change that can fuel hopelessness, despair, guilt and depression. Some might group this as “pre-traumatic stress disorder,” which I think is a useful term. A person quoted in one of my stories called it “the slow drip of climate change.”

Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 6.23.37 PMAs expected, some have commented that the series is alarmist and will only serve to feed anxieties. If telling the truth is alarmist, then so be it. Others will say I dwelled only on the problem and didn’t get deep enough into the discussion of how to bolster mental resilience. I should have focused more on positive developments, emerging new technologies, and adaptation as a way to short-circuit anxieties. I agree, that discussion is needed and that discussion will come. But first I had to identify that the mental health challenge is real — that it exists and has the potential to grow much worse as evidence of climate change becomes more apparent in our daily lives.

The first step to finding solutions is admitting we have a problem, and while only a small slice of the population suffers psychologically from what might flippantly be called the climate blues, I would argue that it’s a process we all have to go through if we are to become — emerge — more mentally resilient to the changes in our surrounding environment and how they affect our lives.

So let’s have the discussion. Let’s recognize the problem. Let’s devote resources to research. Let’s create a plan and the necessary support as part of municipal, provincial and federal adaptation measures. Both the Mental Health Commission of Canada and the Canadian Psychological Association need to develop a position, remembering it’s both a public health concern and something that can affect the country’s economic productivity.

Finally, feel free to reach out if you have a story to share.

Canada’s clean electricity exports to triple under U.S. Clean Power Plan

Originally published in the Toronto Star tablet edition, Star Touch.

By Tyler Hamilton

As Canada’s petroleum sector struggles with the reality that sub-$30 (U.S.) oil could be here for some time, the country’s power sector is prepping for a dramatic increase in U.S. demand for clean electricity.

Call it a shift from pipelines to power lines.

Action on climate change is the reason — more specifically, U.S. President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which aims to slash carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by a third by 2030.

The plan is expected to triple the flow of Canadian electricity into Midwestern and northeastern border states, part of a broader U.S. effort to comply with the international climate obligations that 196 countries agreed to in Paris.

Stakeholders from the Canadian power sector are calling it a breakthrough. “We are very pleased with the outcome,” said Patrick Brown, director of U.S. affairs with the Canadian Electricity Association (CEA).

Screen Shot 2016-01-18 at 11.04.21 AMClean electricity imports from Canada are a multibillion-dollar opportunity, but have typically not counted toward state-level renewable energy mandates. After being heavily lobbied, however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognized imported power, including hydroelectricity, as an important way for states to comply with the new federal emission rules.

Brown said 80 per cent of electricity generated in Canada is emission-free, versus about 20 per cent south of the border. “That’s a real competitive advantage that we believe the Canadian government and provinces need to leverage,” said Brown, adding that an education effort is underway to make state officials more aware of the import option.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which monitors and regulates grid stability in Canada and the U.S., estimated in a report last April that net Canadian electricity exports under the Clean Power Plan could grow three-fold between 2020 and 2030 as demand for renewable power grows in states such as Ohio, Michigan, New York and jurisdictions in New England.

In 2014, such exports represented $3 billion in cross-border trade, meaning the market could be worth $9 billion annually within the next 15 years. The projections are consistent with the preliminary findings of a new high-level report prepared by Boston-based consultancy London Economics International.

“States could decide they don’t want Canadian power, as there’s nothing in the plan that says they should use it. But it does encourage states to look in that direction,” said Andrew Finn, an associate of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.

Finn has spent the past few years pointing to Canada as something more than just the oil sands and pipeline projects, both of which have overshadowed the hydro import option.

“Frankly, the Keystone XL pipeline project took so much oxygen out of the room, but with that out of the way this idea has more room to breath,” he added.

Longer term, some observers say the size of the export market has potential to reach $40 billion a year. Jatin Nathwani, a professor of engineering and environment at the University of Waterloo, estimates that clean electricity trade to the U.S. could soar 10- to 20-fold over the next few decades as part of a continental-wide effort to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

“Such an epochal change is conceivable over a 30- to 50-year timeframe consistent with the timelines for achieving a low-carbon economy,” Nathwani argued in a 2014 analysis that was featured in a report from the Canadian Academy of Engineering.

But the transition from pipelines to power lines comes with its own set of challenges, not unlike those experienced by Keystone XL proponents. Long distances and sometimes rough geography make for high upfront infrastructure costs and considerable risk, especially in the face of any political or public opposition to transmission infrastructure routes.

The fact that the constitution gives the provinces authority over electricity generation and transmission has historically been a sticking point.

“Support for expansion of electricity generation and transmission facilities — on a vastly increased scale — as part of a deliberate national ‘export driven’ strategy is either limited or all too often met with derision or outright hostility,” Nathwani wrote.

Still, the opportunity could prove irresistible. As more sub-national jurisdictions move to price carbon, and as more vehicles and industrial activities switch to running on electricity, power consumption is expected to rise in the United States faster than domestic developers can keep up.

The International Energy Agency, meanwhile, has warned in one scenario that the accelerated retirement of aging U.S. nuclear reactors could see nuclear power supply drop by as much as 70 per cent by 2040.

“The demand for electricity is going to keep going up,” said Dan Woynillowicz, policy director at Clean Energy Canada. He added that in a post-Paris world it will need to be low-carbon electricity, which bodes well for Canada.

“We need to get that message out in the same way we’ve had that full offensive championing the oil sands,” Woynillowicz said. “Imagine if we took that same level of effort to promote clean electricity exports?”

That’s exactly what some observers expect Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will do when he visits the White House for a state dinner with Obama. The two leaders have already indicated that closer co-operation on climate action and energy policy will be part of their discussion.

As for what Trudeau should do to stimulate investment on the Canadian side, Woynillowicz said it comes down to reducing risk and creating market certainty. That means creating political and financial supports, such as federal loan guarantees, and rallying the Canadian public behind the idea.

“Hopefully the Canadian government has learned some lessons in light of its experience on the pipeline side,” he said.

This article was part of a series produced in partnership by the Toronto Star and Tides Canada to address a range of pressing climate issues in Canada leading up to and following the UN Paris climate summit. Tides Canada is supporting this partnership to increase public awareness and dialogue around the impacts of climate change on Canada’s economy and communities. The Toronto Star had full editorial control and responsibility to ensure stories are rigorously edited in order to meet its editorial standards.

After Paris, it’s time for Canada to finally join IRENA

IRENA is the International Renewable Energy Agency, a UN-affiliated organization established in 2009 to promote awareness and growth of renewable energy technologies on the global stage. It’s a kind of counter-balance to existing agencies that have long represented the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. The idea for IRENA goes as far back as 1981, but it took a quarter century to get the political traction it needed.

Today, 145 countries have officially joined IRENA and another 30 are in the process of becoming members. That would bring the total to 175. By comparison, the 42-year-old International Energy Agency has only 29 members, while the 59-year-old International Atomic Energy Agency has 167 members.

Canada is a founding member of the IEA and IAEA, yet Canada is the only G8 countries not part of IRENA. In fact, all other G8 countries were founding members of IRENA. Canada isn’t even in the process of joining, yet China, India, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Iran are already members. Even Syria is signing up. The only other large country that sits with Canada outside of this massive international group is Brazil.

The Harper government avoided it like the plague. Not joining made a statement that even like-minded governments in Australia refused to make. But times have changed. Canada has a new government that says it’s serious about taking climate action. Canada played an important role in reaching a binding international climate agreement in Paris last month. Canada’s provinces have set ambitious emission-reduction targets that will require accelerated deployment of renewable energy. The country simply can’t afford to remain on the outside of IRENA.

So what’s the government’s position? Here’s the answer I got back after posing the question:

Screen Shot 2016-01-14 at 10.52.53 AM“‎The Government of Canada was recently asked to join the International Renewable Energy Agency. This request is still under review,” said Caitlin Workman, press secretary for Catherine McKenna, Canada’s federal minister of environment and climate change.

It’s safe to say that since IRENA was founded the invitation for Canada to join has been a standing one.

Some might say: Who cares? It’s just another international agency that costs money to join and doesn’t offer much in return. I’d argue it does offer value. It will keep Canadian officials more abreast of global trends in renewable energy, but more important, it will give Canada a seat at a table filled with dozens of countries looking for the skills, knowledge and technology required to transition their economies away from fossil fuels.

The export opportunities for Canada are immense. The World Bank, in a report released in September 2014, estimated that investment in clean technologies in developing countries over the next decade will exceeded $6.4 trillion (U.S.). Of that, $1.9 trillion will be focused on renewable energy technologies, with a significant chunk of that creating an opportunity for small- and medium-sized businesses. In my opinion, that number is likely low-balling the opportunity, especially in the wake of the Paris climate summit.

IRENA is an opportunity for Canada to identify the needs of others, and the role it can play in meeting those needs.

Already, representatives from its 145 members are gathering in Abu Dhabi for IRENA’s sixth-annual assembly to discuss the role of renewables just one month after the Paris summit. There will be much to discuss as they tease out the details of the Paris agreement, and much back room dealmaking that Canada will not be a part of.

Canada should be there showing leadership.