SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
david suzuki
Greenpeace Says Latest Keystone Pipeline Spill Shows Why Big Oil Targets Climate Activists
"Oil companies know that protest works," said Greenpeace USA's leader.
Apr 11, 2025
With cleanup efforts still underway in rural North Dakota on Friday after yet another Keystone crude oil pipeline spill, Greenpeace USA interim executive director Sushma Raman said that the incident "shows exactly why we need to protect protest, free speech, and the right to speak up against harm."
Keystone ruptured on Tuesday, spilling an estimated 3,500 barrels of oil into an agricultural field, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). That came just weeks after a North Dakota jury awarded Energy Transfer and its subsidiary more than $660 million in a case targeting Greenpeace for protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline.
"We know fossil fuels are unhealthy at every stage of their life cycle. There is no fail-safe way to transport oil and gas, and the risks unfairly fall on the people who live near the route, while the company reaps the benefits," Raman said in a Friday statement. "Everyday people, public watchdogs, and advocacy groups have a right to raise their voices and criticize a corporation when their health and livelihoods are on the line."
"Yet this type of ordinary advocacy is exactly what is under attack in the more than $660 million jury verdict against Greenpeace entities in a lawsuit brought by pipeline company Energy Transfer," added Raman, whose group is appealing the March decision. "Oil companies know that protest works—which is why they're trying to make the stakes so high no one will be willing to take the risk."
"There is no fail-safe way to transport oil and gas, and the risks unfairly fall on the people who live near the route, while the company reaps the benefits."
Environmentalist David Suzuki and co-writer Ian Hanington similarly wrote last week that while Greenpeace argues that it assisted with the protests against Dakota Access "at the request of the Standing Rock Sioux, the environmental group is clearly seen as a threat to oil and gas interests and is a high-profile target for increasingly common efforts to silence opposition."
"From Standing Rock to Wet'suwet'en territory in British Columbia and beyond, militarized law enforcement agencies are relying more often on use of force against land and water defenders, and companies are resorting to tactics such as SLAPPs ("strategic lawsuits against public participation" designed to silence opponents through costly, time-consuming legal processes)," they noted. "Those working to protect land, air, water, plants and animals, and our future face an increasingly uphill battle."
The pair stressed that "the lawsuit against Greenpeace is an attack on the right to protest and speak freely. It won't be the last. We should all stand with Standing Rock, and with organizations such as Greenpeace that are working for people and the planet and holding the line against the destructive fossil fuel industry."
One expert detailed some of the industry's destruction in comments to The Associated Press about the Keystone spill earlier this week:
The spill is not a minor one, said Paul Blackburn, a policy analyst with Bold Alliance, an environmental and landowners group that fought the pipeline's extension, called Keystone XL.
The estimated volume of 3,500 barrels, or 147,000 gallons of crude oil, is equal to 16 tanker trucks of oil, he said. That estimate could increase over time, he added.
Blackburn said the bigger picture is what he called the Keystone pipeline's history of spills at a higher rate than other pipelines. He compared Keystone to the Dakota Access oil pipeline since the latter came online in June 2017. In that period, Keystone's system has spilled nearly 1.2 million gallons (4.5 million liters) of oil, while Dakota Access spilled 1,282 gallons (4,853 liters), Blackburn said.
PHMSA said Thursday that it "has dispatched a total of eight inspectors to investigate the pipeline rupture," and Keystone's operator is "voluntarily committing to full cooperation with our investigation and pledging a series of corrective measures," including "a commitment not to restart the pipeline without prior approval."
The federal agency added Friday that as of 1:00 am local time, "five vacuum trucks have recovered and removed 1,170 barrels of crude oil. Cleanup operations are ongoing. PHMSA will continue to provide updated information as we receive it."
While Republican President Donald Trump aims to revive the Keystone XL project and boost the fossil fuel industry in general, one climate champion on Capitol Hill pointed to the spill as further proof of the need to phase out planet-wrecking oil and gas.
U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the chamber's lead sponsor of Green New Deal legislation, said on social media this week: "The Keystone oil pipeline has ruptured and spilled—again. We must continue to fight for strong pipeline safety requirements and get rid of dirty fossil fuels once and for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Oil Should Stay in the Ground—And Get Out of Politics
Renewables are the only way forward and every smart investor knows continued use coal, oil, and gas will become increasingly costly and deadly.
Jul 08, 2023
With all the problems in the world, from massive inequality to the climate crisis, you’d think voluntary guidelines to improve corporate environmental and social practices would be a no-brainer. After all, addressing those critical issues can also boost a company’s bottom line.
But companies with business models based on activities that create greater inequalities and cause harm to the air, water, and soil, are threatened by ESG (environmental, social and governance) investor policies. ESG encourages investors to consider criteria such as environmental risk, pay equity and transparency in accounting.
That’s why Big Oil is fighting back. Much of the “anti-woke” rhetoric you hear from right-wing politicians and media is funded by fossil fuel interests.
Given what we know about the industry’s decades-long efforts to stall action on climate change, sowing doubt and confusion regarding the clear scientific evidence, it’s no surprise that the same people are putting enormous amounts of money and resources toward obstructing efforts to introduce greater corporate responsibility.
Because most moneyed people have diverse portfolios, the study found, losses would only make up about one per cent of their net wealth.
A report from U.S.-based Pleiades Strategy found that in 2023, fossil fuel money was behind 165 pieces of legislation introduced in 37 states “to weaponize government funds, contracts, and pensions to prevent companies and investors from considering commonplace risk factors in making responsible, risk-adjusted investment decisions.”
Most of the legislation, aimed at restricting the use of ESG investment criteria, was based on “model bills circulated by right-wing organizations that targeted diverse aspects of state financial regulation…”
Those organizations include four of the country’s most influential think tanks: the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Foundation for Government Accountability. All are affiliated with the State Policy Network, which receives funding from the fossil fuel billionaire Koch family, the Guardian reports.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation (which gets money from Koch-supported organizations, as well as ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron) and the American Petroleum Institute, an oil and gas lobbyist, have also been involved.
Some have worked to get laws passed to severely punish people protesting pipelines.
The Pleiades Strategy report found the groups had limited success, getting only 22 of the proposed 165 anti-ESG laws passed, thanks to opposition from business, labour and environmental advocates, but laws that did pass — even those that were watered down — could affect climate and other policies to protect people and the planet.
Report co-author Connor Gibson warned that lack of success isn’t likely to deter oil interests. “We think this is the latest iteration of climate denial and obstruction and delay,” he told the Guardian.
It’s astounding that people would put their short-term economic interests ahead of human health, well-being, and survival. But that’s what they are with all their influence over politicians, governments and media.
The fossil fuel economy is about more than just money, though. It’s also about consolidating power and wealth in a small number of people and companies, which creates greater inequality. This is far more difficult to do with energy from the sun and the wind compared to energy from coal, oil and gas.
Numerous studies show the clean energy transition would save enormous amounts of money in everything from health care to energy expenses. Continuing to use coal, oil and gas, meanwhile, will become increasingly costly and deadly.
Leaving fossil fuels behind won’t even be that hard on investors, according to a recent study published in Joule. It found that in high-income countries, the richest 10 per cent of the given country’s population would bear two-thirds of the investment losses from scaling back fossil fuel production, with the wealthiest one per cent taking half that hit. Because most moneyed people have diverse portfolios, the study found, losses would only make up about one per cent of their net wealth.
Researchers also found it would be cost-effective for governments to compensate those less well-off for any losses.
We have every reason to switch rapidly from fossil fuels to renewable sources — and to conserve energy and improve efficiency. We’re also increasingly finding that the corporate, political and media justifications for avoiding or delaying the necessary shift are brought to you by the industry itself, often clandestinely.
It’s time to get fossil fuel money out of politics and leave the oil in the ground.
Keep ReadingShow Less
There’s Still Time to Avoid Climate Catastrophe
If we fail to reach the goal of reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2030, it won’t be for lack of options
May 07, 2023
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to keep the world from heating to catastrophic levels is entirely possible and would save money. Although emissions continue to rise, there’s still time to reverse course. Ways to slash them by more than half over the next seven years are readily available and cost-effective — and necessary to keep the global average temperature from rising more than 1.5 C.
The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report includes a chart that shows how. Compiled by the world’s top scientists using the most up-to-date research, it illustrates potential emissions reductions and costs of various methods.
At the top are wind and solar power, followed by energy efficiency, stopping deforestation and reducing methane emissions. Nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage and biofuels bring much poorer results for a lot more money.
Wind and solar together can cut eight billion tons of emissions annually — “equivalent to the combined emissions of the US and European Union today” and “at lower cost than just continuing with today’s electricity systems,” the Guardian reports.
Nuclear power and carbon capture and storage each deliver only 10 percent of the results of wind and solar at far higher costs. It’s telling that those less effective, more expensive pathways are the ones touted most often by government, industry and media people who are determined to keep fossil fuels burning or are resistant to power sources that offer greater energy independence.
Making buildings, industry, lighting and appliances more energy efficient could cut 4.5 billion tons of emissions a year by 2030 — and there’s no doubt that simply reducing energy consumption could add to that.
Because forests, wetlands and other green spaces sequester carbon, stopping deforestation could cut four billion tons a year by 2030, almost “double the fossil fuel emissions from the whole of Africa and South America today,” the Guardian reports.
Cutting methane emissions, especially those that leak from fossil fuel operations, could cut three billion tons. This is especially important because methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over the short term. It also shows that fracking for fossil gas and production of so-called “liquefied natural gas” are not viable solutions.
Other ways to lower emissions include switching to sustainable diets, such as eating less meat (1.7 billion tons), shifting toward public transit and active transportation (which has more potential than electric cars) and better agricultural methods.
We’re constantly told that quickly transitioning from coal, oil and gas is not realistic and that renewables aren’t ready to replace them, and that we need expensive, often unproven or dangerous methods like nuclear and carbon capture and storage. But those claims ignore the rapid pace at which renewable energy and storage technologies have been advancing — and dropping in price.
We could get even further than this research suggests by using less energy and fewer products that require energy to produce and transport. Shifting from a consumer-based system is especially important in light of the fact that even renewable energy is not impact-free. Mining for materials, replacing aging infrastructure and making space for installations means our ultimate goal should be to use less.
Likewise with electric cars. Although electric cars are far better than fossil-fuelled, all personal vehicles waste resources, require massive infrastructure and are not efficient at moving people around, regardless of how they’re powered.
But what this chart and mountains of other research show is that even with current technologies, methods and systems, cutting emissions and avoiding catastrophic consequences of climate disruption are entirely possible and affordable.
If we fail to reach the goal of reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2030, it won’t be for lack of options.
The problem isn’t a shortage of solutions, or exorbitant costs, or any benefits of fossil fuels over renewable energy; it’s a lack of political will, and to some extent, public support. This is driven to a large degree by the efforts of industry to protect its interests in raking in huge profits and perpetuating a system that mostly benefits a small and dwindling number of people at the expense of human health, well-being and survival.
Nature is speaking, and science is confirming that we have no time to lose. We can’t afford not to change.
With contributions from Senior Editor and Writer Ian Hanington
Keep ReadingShow Less
Humanity Can No Longer Tolerate Corporations That Exist Almost Entirely to Make Money
Society must make the necessary shift from a society that prioritizes wealth accumulation and economic growth to one that puts personal and societal well-being above profits.
Feb 13, 2023
In most countries, it’s left up to business owners, CEOs and boards to decide what their purpose is, and all too often the choice is ultimately based on greed.
In many countries — most notably the U.S. — corporations are considered “persons” under law, enjoying many of the same legal rights and responsibilities as “natural” persons. Judging by the way some corporations operate, you might conclude they’re not very good people.
Defining corporations as “persons” simply means they have a legal identity separate from shareholders and owners. But what is the purpose of a business or corporation? If you look at sectors such as the fossil fuel industry, you might be led to believe the primary aim is to enrich shareholders and CEOs, and maybe create some employment, regardless of the costs to society.
Generating profits and jobs is important in an economic system that relies on those principles, but they shouldn’t be the ultimate goals. The British Academy — the U.K.’s national institution for the humanities and social sciences — concluded from its research on the future of the corporation “that the purpose of business is to solve the problems of people and planet profitably, and not profit from causing problems.”
Generating profits and jobs is important in an economic system that relies on those principles, but they shouldn’t be the ultimate goals.
In most countries, it’s left up to business owners, CEOs and boards to decide what their purpose is, and all too often the choice is ultimately based on greed. That’s why many countries, including France and the U.K., have started incorporating corporate purpose into legal frameworks.
France amended its Civil Code in 2019 to include, “The company is managed in its corporate interest, while taking into account the social and environmental issues related to its activity.” It also introduced a measure, albeit not mandatory, for companies to articulate their reason for being in their “articles of association.”
Although many Canadian companies have vision and mission statements, these often amount to little more than public relations and don’t spell out any legal duties or requirements. The Canada Business Corporations Act doesn’t require a statement of corporate purpose. It’s time to change that, for the good of society and the corporations themselves.
Research shows companies with stated purposes that take into account their impacts on people and the planet often do better than those without. They attract loyal customers willing to advocate for and promote them. And the companies enjoy better reputations and are able to attract good employees who stay longer.
Research shows companies with stated purposes that take into account their impacts on people and the planet often do better than those without
A U.S. study found 60 per cent of Americans would “choose, switch, avoid or boycott a company based on its stand on social issues.” Another found that 66 per cent of people would switch from a product they normally buy to one from a purpose-driven company.
The real bottom line, though, is that the world can no longer afford to support or sustain companies that exist almost entirely to make money. Humanity is reeling under numerous crises brought on by consumer-driven economics based on the fallacy of endless growth in a finite world — from biodiversity loss to gross inequality to climate disruption.
A new David Suzuki Foundation report offers a way for Canada to correct course. “Bringing Corporate Purpose into the Mainstream: Directions for Canadian Law” recommends major changes to the Canada Business Corporations Act to ensure that large companies prioritize people and planet over profit. It’s part of a global movement to shift the focus of economic systems from money-driven consumerism to well-being.
The real bottom line, though, is that the world can no longer afford to support or sustain companies that exist almost entirely to make money
Among its recommendations, the report — by academics from the Faculty of Law at McGill University — calls for the act to be reformed to require corporate boards to have a statement of purpose, to extend the fiduciary duty of directors and officers to pursuing the purpose of the corporation in good faith with a view to its best interests, and to broaden those best interests to include impacts on the community in which it operates.
“Part of transforming to a society that values our needs, relationships and the natural world is ensuring corporations are held accountable for their actions. Establishing a corporate purpose is one tool to help enable that shift,” said Tara Campbell, David Suzuki Foundation well-being economies specialist.
These reforms won’t transform society by themselves, and would only apply to large corporations that operate under the act, but they’re an important step in the necessary shift from a society that prioritizes wealth accumulation and economic growth to one that puts personal and societal well-being above the pursuit of profit.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trade and Investment Rules Shouldn't Undermine Climate Ambition
Above all, COP26 delegates must understand and impress upon the world and all its organizations that it’s time to leave coal, oil and gas in the ground
Oct 30, 2021
If world representatives at the UN climate conference in Glasgow put talk into action, we could forestall the worst impacts of the rapidly accelerating climate crisis. But we have to look beyond the Conference of the Parties -- COP26 this year. If agreements under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are undermined through other international structures, we could face a grim future.
Negotiations at COP26 -- from October 31 to November 12 -- are critical to building on and strengthening measures set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement. They include raising climate finance and finalizing rules on international carbon markets, agreeing on transparency and a global goal for adaptation and more.
One shortcoming of the COP process, though, is that the Paris Agreement's system of accountability doesn't allow for enforcement of "nationally determined contributions," which spell out each country's plans to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change impacts. Many countries are filling this gap through national climate laws and litigation.
But climate plans and initiatives can sometimes bring nations into dispute with other international bodies and agreements.
Rules accepted under World Trade Organization and various other trade and investment agreements often benefit destructive, extractive industries to the detriment of national and international climate goals and ambitions.
Even though the UNFCCC is the primary arena for global climate co-operation, other international instruments could play a greater role in our climate future. Rules accepted under World Trade Organization and various other trade and investment agreements often benefit destructive, extractive industries to the detriment of national and international climate goals and ambitions.
Multilateral and bilateral trade and investment agreements facilitate the flow of commodities, services, intellectual property and foreign investments between nations. Under these, private corporations and national governments have been able to sue countries, including Canada, for enacting public-interest environmental regulations that could affect the companies' monetary interests.
Citing the example of a U.K. oil company suing the Italian government for loss of "future anticipated profits" after Italy banned new oil drilling in coastal waters, Guardian writer George Monbiot says the widely adopted "investor-state dispute settlement" process "makes effective action against climate breakdown almost impossible."
Canada's approach to global trade and investment has immensely benefited extractive and petrochemical industries and worked against our national climate ambitions. Moreover, under the WTO dispute system, governments have systematically challenged one another's renewable energy subsidies. For example, in response to complaints from Japan and the European Union, the WTO ruled in 2013 that Ontario's "feed-in tariff" program for renewable energy discriminated against foreign suppliers by requiring a percentage of materials and services be from Ontario.
While trade obligations and legal action around subsidies for renewable energy slow the urgent global energy transition, subsidies for oil, gas and coal -- even some that could be considered illegal under WTO rules -- haven't been subjected to much scrutiny. G7 nations have been promising to phase out fossil fuel subsidies since 1990 but have made little progress.
As long as the world has been crafting climate rules under the UNFCCC, we've also been creating climate-destroying rules at the WTO and other spheres of economic "co-operation."
As long as the world has been crafting climate rules under the UNFCCC, we've also been creating climate-destroying rules at the WTO and other spheres of economic "co-operation."
It's not that we weren't warned. Before the 2015 Paris COP21 summit, the European Parliament seized on a solution proposed by Canadian professor and investment and trade law expert Gus Van Harten for a "legal carve-out" that could be put into the Paris Agreement to ensure investor-state dispute settlement claims against countries wouldn't apply to climate change measures. Despite a European Parliament resolution, it wasn't included.
James Bacchus, former chairman and chief judge of the WTO appellate body, has also proposed a WTO climate waiver to harmonize the international trade regime with UNFCCC commitments.
Climate diplomacy has been going on for decades. Since the Paris Agreement was adopted, it's enjoyed enormous popularity. In light of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, expectations are high for ambitious government action at COP26.
But it's crucial to ensure that progress on the climate crisis isn't being undermined by trade and investment bodies and agreements, and other international entities, that promote continuous growth, consumerism, fossil fuels and extraction at the expense of our collective health and survival.
Above all, COP26 delegates must understand and impress upon the world and all its organizations that it's time to leave coal, oil and gas in the ground and quickly transition to better energy sources, regardless of challenges from those who profit by fuelling the climate crisis.
with contributions from Quebec and Atlantic Canada Director Sabaa Khan
Keep ReadingShow Less
Avi Lewis Hoping Canadians' Climate Concerns Deliver Electoral 'Upset of Epic Proportions'
"We need to send Avi to Ottawa to shake up the entire political establishment, including his own party, and tip the scales in favor of people and the planet," said environmentalist David Suzuki.
Sep 20, 2021
As Canadians head to the polls Monday on the final day of federal elections, a journalist, documentary filmmaker, and climate activist in British Columbia is hoping his plan to take aggressive action to combat the climate emergency will resonate with enough voters to score an upset victory.
"The entire political system is failing to confront the level of emergency that we have."
--Avi Lewis,
NDP candidate
Avi Lewis, the New Democratic Party's (NDP) candidate for the House of Commons for the West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country riding, knows his is a longshot campaign. The social democratic NDP--which finished a distant fourth place there in the 2019 election--has never held the seat in the riding, one of Canada's wealthiest, and a Liberal stronghold.
"We're in an uphill battle to pull off an upset of epic proportions," Lewis told CBC News Sunday.
However, Lewis--who is the third generation of his family to enter politics--believes he can flip the riding from the Liberals, the party of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, by running on a Green New Deal platform that addresses the most pressing issues facing Canada today: the climate crisis and inequality.
"The entire political system is failing to confront the level of emergency that we have and embrace the level of opportunity in housing and health and transit and all the related systems that need changing," he added.
International climate campaigners including Canadian environmental activist David Suzuki and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben have joined activists, artists, and intellectuals such as Jane Fonda, Alexandra Morton, Mike Douglas, Yan Martel, and Sara Quin in endorsing Lewis due to his strong stance on climate action.
In 2015, Lewis, along with his wife--the author, activist, and filmmaker Naomi Klein--and others published The Leap Manifesto, a bold call to action on climate and inequality spearheaded by a coalition of Indigenous leaders, labor unions, and environmentalists that was signed by more than 50,000 Canadians and whose principles were adopted by the NDP in 2016.
However, activists have criticized what they call the NDP's vague and inadequate climate policies, including the party's support for fossil fuel projects and its refusal to condemn fracking.
Unlike NDP leadership, Lewis has been unafraid to demand a halt to destructive projects, including the government-owned Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion. Both Trudeau's government and the Conservative Party opposition staunchly support the fossil fuel industry, which accounts for more than 5% of Canada's gross domestic product. Canada is the only G7 nation whose greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the Paris climate agreement was signed in 2015, mainly due to the extraction of tar sands oil, the world's dirtiest fuel.
Mike Simpson, the Green Party candidate running for the West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country parliamentary seat, has resisted pressure to step down and support Lewis. However, Lewis' stong stance on climate action has earned him the support of many Green Party members and voters.
"We need to send Avi to Ottawa," Suzuki asserted in an endorsement video featuring prominent British Columbian Greens, "to shake up the entire political establishment, including his own party, and tip the scales in favor of people and the planet."
Lewis' candidacy comes during a summer in which British Columbians suffered some of the world's hottest temperatures, as well as devastating wildfires. Provincial authorities said extreme heat claimed 569 lives between June 20 and July 29.
After the village of Lytton recorded a Canadian record temperature of 49.6degC (121.3degF) on June 30--surpassing all-time highs in desert cities including Las Vegas and Tucson, Arizona--it was destroyed by a massive wildfire.
Keep ReadingShow Less
USDA Indefinitely Suspends Honey Bee Tracking Survey as States Get Approval to Use Bee-Killing Pesticide
"Yet another example of the Trump administration systematically undermining federal research on food safety, farm productivity, and the public interest writ large."
Jul 08, 2019
On the heels of the EPA's June approval of a bee-killing pesticide, the White House said it would stop collecting data on declining honey bee populations--potentially making it impossible to analyze the effects of the chemical and the administration's other anti-science policies on the pollinators.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cited budget cuts when it said Saturday that it would indefinitely suspend data collection for its Honey Bee Colonies report, which has been compiled every year since 2015. The report helps scientists and farmers to assess the decline of honey bees, which are responsible for pollinating one in every three bites of food taken by humans.
"We need some sort of thermometer to be able to determine, at a big scale, are we actually helping to turn around hive loses, to turn around pollinator declines. Understanding what's going on with honey bees is incredibly important to having a sense of what's impacting pollinators in general."
--Mace Vaughan, Xerxes SocietyThe number of honey bee hives in the U.S. dropped from about six million in 1947 to just 2.4 million in 2008, with 2018 being the worst year on record for hive loss. Beekeepers reported last year that 40 percent of honey bee hives had collapsed, due to a combination of factors including the use of pesticides.
Scientists say continuously monitoring the health of honey bee hives in vital to understanding why and how they are in decline.
"The value of all these surveys is its continuous use over time so you can compare trend lines," Dennis vanEngelsdorp, an entomologist at the University of Maryland, told CNN.
"We need some sort of thermometer to be able to determine, at a big scale, are we actually helping to turn around hive loses, to turn around pollinator declines," Mace Vaughan of the Pollinator Conservation Program at Xerces Society told the outlet. "Understanding what's going on with honey bees is incredibly important to having a sense of what's impacting pollinators in general."
The decision to suspend the data collection came just a few weeks after the administration approved the so-called "emergency" use of the bee-killing pesticide sulfoxaflor on nearly 14 million acres. The pesticide, sold under the brand names Closer and Transform, was banned in 2015 after a lawsuit by beekeepers and farmers, but the administration used a loophole in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, granting an exemption to 11 states for four to six years.
"This administration has been grossly abusing this exemption to allow the use of this one pesticide called sulfoxaflor on a vast acreage year after year," Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director for the Center for Biological Diversity, told EcoWatch.
Friends of the Earth called the approval of the pesticide "inexcusable."
Brianna Westbrook, a progressive candidate for U.S. Congress in 2018, sarcastically wrote on social media that it was likely "a coincidence" that the decision to stop collecting data on bee colonies came just after the sulfoxaflor approval.
The suspension of the Honey Bee Colonies report represents President Donald Trump's allegiance to the powerful corporations behind dangerous pesticides, said critics, and his refusal to institute and continue programs aimed at furthering public health.
"This is yet another example of the Trump administration systematically undermining federal research on food safety, farm productivity, and the public interest writ large," Rebecca Boehm, an economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told CNN.
"This might seem minor," said former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, "but it's another example of Trump's administration prioritizing profit over our wellbeing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Yes, We Can Resolve the Climate Crisis
We’re at a pivotal point.
Jul 05, 2019
There's no shortage of solutions to the climate crisis. Rapidly developing clean-energy technology, reducing energy consumption and waste, increasing efficiency, reforming agricultural practices and protecting and restoring forests and wetlands all put us on a path to cleaner air, water and soil, healthier biodiversity and lower climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions.
Clean-energy technologies, including energy-storage methods, are improving as costs are dropping. Exciting new inventions like artificial photosynthesis, machines that remove atmospheric carbon to create fuels and windows that convert light to electricity show what people are capable of when we put our minds to resolving challenges.
It's critical that we continue to develop, deploy and scale up solutions, so why are we still mired in outdated ways and business as usual? For decades, experts have been warning about the consequences of rapidly burning fossil fuels, yet greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise as the planet heats up faster.
Europe is in the midst of a record heat wave; Chennai, India, has run out of water; farmers in Canada and the U.S. are seeing diminishing returns after prolonged droughts; refugees are flooding borders as extreme conditions, water scarcity and failing agriculture increase conflict and displace millions -- all caused or exacerbated by climate change. Even in rainy Vancouver where I live, the city implemented early water restrictions when the usual spring showers didn't arrive.
People and organizations from the entire spectrum of society are calling for action. Students are marching in the streets, progressive decision-makers are putting climate disruption at the top of the political agenda, and Indigenous Peoples are asserting their rights to protect lands and waters from fossil fuel projects.
In the U.S., more than 70 leading health organizations -- including the American Medical Association, Lung Association, Heart Association and College of Physicians -- issued a statement urging political candidates "to recognize climate change as a health emergency." The Canadian Medical Association, Nurses Association, Public Health Association, Association of Physicians for the Environment and the Urban Public Health Network issued a similar statement.
To their credit, every major political party in Canada has a climate plan, some more detailed than others, and the current federal government has implemented many strong policies, despite its continued approval of fossil fuel projects. But we're still not on track to meet our Paris Agreement commitments.
Here and elsewhere, the fossil fuel industry still rules, enjoying massive government subsidies and tax breaks and government and media promotion. If we understand the problem and its urgency -- and mountains of scientific evidence amassed from around the world over decades confirms we do -- and we have solutions, why are we so slow to act?
Astonishingly, despite the overwhelming evidence and what people worldwide are clearly experiencing, many still refuse to believe there's a problem, or if there is, that's it's human-caused or urgent. Some may be overcome with denial in the face of such frightening prospects; others have been duped by continuing efforts of the fossil fuel industry and its media and government advocates to cast doubt on the evidence. Some may realize the problem exists but choose to elevate short-term profits and economic gains above the conditions we need for health and survival. Some people are afraid that the necessary changes will cause too much disruption -- a prospect that becomes more likely the longer we delay. Others are unwilling to admit that our prevailing economic paradigms no longer fit current conditions.
Fortunately, many people and organizations are refusing to let the barriers stop them. Many reject the propaganda and conspiracy theories and are working hard to develop and implement solutions, and to demand better of our elected representatives.
We're at a pivotal point. Fossil fuels, plastics and private automobiles have brought benefits to many parts of the world, but our wasteful, consumer-oriented ways have also created enormous challenges for humanity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns we have less than a dozen years to cut emissions so they don't build to a point that puts us on a path to climate catastrophe. Resolving the issue will offer numerous other benefits, from cleaner air and better health to greater innovation and equality.
It's time for us all to accept reality and work together to address the challenge.
Written by David Suzuki with contributions from Senior Editor and Writer Ian Hanington.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Change and Biodiversity Should Be Top Headline News
"We can't turn away from reality if we want to avoid catastrophe."
May 30, 2019
When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a special report in October warning of how quickly we're advancing toward irreversible climate chaos, it led the news--for a day. A massive study in May by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services about rapid wildlife extinction met a similar fate.
In Canada, issues like legalization of recreational cannabis pushed aside the climate report, and news about the birth of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby buried the biodiversity report everywhere.
In early April, I read front-page stories in the Vancouver Sun about Brexit and the SNC-Lavalin scandal. The third page had a single column headlined, "Grim climate report released," about an Environment and Climate Change Canada review by 43 scientists showing Canada is warming at twice the global average rate, even faster in the North.
The Globe and Mail headlined the news on page four with "Canada warming at rapid rate, study finds." It shared the page with stories about provincial and national efforts to undermine the federal government's less-than-adequate but necessary climate initiatives, such as carbon pricing.
No one likes bad news, but we can't turn away from reality if we want to avoid catastrophe. Elizabeth Bush, lead author of Canada's Changing Climate Report, echoed what experts have said in light of the IPCC report: "It's clear, the science supports the fact that adapting to climate change is an imperative. Urgent action is needed to reduce emissions."
Why aren't these reports dominating front pages, financial sections and newscasts, highlighting the enormous societal and economic implications? British Columbians know well that climate change is real. We've seen glaciers that supply much of our water retreating, mountain pine beetle outbreaks destroying billions of dollars' worth of trees, smoke from massive wildfires darkening skies for weeks, acidified oceans killing shellfish, and rising seas threatening coastlines.
In an April speech to the Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation's Covering Climate Now conference in New York, respected U.S. broadcaster Bill Moyers pointed to research showing, "The combined coverage of climate change by the three major networks and Fox fell from just 260 minutes in 2017 to a mere 142 minutes in 2018," and "about 1,300 communities across the United States have totally lost news coverage, many from newspaper mergers and closures."
Moyers, who says he learned about the consequences of rapid fossil fuel burning in early 1965, added, "many of the news outlets that are still around have ignored or misreported the climate story and failed to counter the tsunami of deceptive propaganda unleashed by fossil-fuel companies and the mercenaries, ideologues, and politicians who do their bidding."
We're facing a similar fate in Canada. One company, Postmedia, owns much of our print media (with added online presence). In Alberta, where many people seem to lack basic information about climate disruption, the company owns all major dailies in Calgary and Edmonton, and many smaller community newspapers. Despite some good coverage of climate issues, the media giant often runs opinion columns by climate science deniers.
In 2013, Postmedia--mostly owned by a U.S. hedge fund--entered into an agreement with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to "bring energy to the forefront of our national conversation." It recently hired Alberta Premier Jason Kenney's former campaign director Nick Koolsbergen to "discuss ways Postmedia could be involved in the government's energy war room"--a $20 million program to "fight fake news and share the truth about Alberta's resource sector and energy issues."
Many new and some mainstream media outlets in Canada and elsewhere are stepping up to fill the void in reporting on issues critical to our well-being and survival, but they often lack resources.
There is no shortage of solutions to the related climate and biodiversity crises. We've written about them in Just Cool It! and elsewhere, as have many others. But people need good, evidence-based news coverage on which to base their actions and voting decisions. Where and how climate change and other environmental stories are covered in news outlets and broadcasts indicates how seriously society takes them.
We need and deserve better from our news media. As Moyers said, "Reporting the truth about climate disruption, and its solutions, could be contagious."
Keep ReadingShow Less
"The Pact for a Green New Deal": Visionary Roadmap From Canadian Coalition Launched
"A #GreenNewDeal is not a radical vision. It's a rational one. It works for everyone, not just big corporations and the fossil fuel industry."
May 06, 2019
A broad Canadian coalition representing scores of groups unveiled a visionary roadmap on Monday for a Green New Deal that tackles the climate crisis as well as social and economic justice.
The unprecedented changes in society necessary to rein in global warming, according to organizers of the new effort, are also "an unprecedented opportunity to build justice and prosperity."
That opportunity is laid out in The Pact for a Green New Deal.
The effort was launched at press conferences in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver Monday--the same day a bleak report from the United Nations detailed how the human-caused climate crisis and economic activity have pushed up to a million plant and animal species to the brink of extinction.
As of Sunday, organizers say, the pact has been backed by 67 organizations, including Indigenous Climate Action, Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, The Leap, and Climate Action Network - Reseau action climat Canada.
Dozens of noted Canadian individuals are supporting the effort as well, including musicians Rufus Wainwright and Neil Young, scientists David Suzuki and Christina Hoicka, and actors Evangeline Lilly and Cobie Smulders.
The plan (pdf), organizers say, must be centered on two demands:
1. It must meet the demands of Indigenous knowledge and science and cut Canada's emissions in half in 11 years while protecting cultural and biological diversity.
2. It must leave no one behind and build a better present and future for all of us .
The newly-launched website for the pact--which draws its inspiration from a Quebecois call for a low-carbon future made last year--states, in part:
[We need] A bold and far reaching plan to cut emissions in half in 11 years in line with Indigenous knowledge and climate science, create more than a million good jobs you can support a family with, and build inclusive communities in the process.
We need a Green New Deal--for everyone. And we need everyone to be a part of building it.
To put such a plan in motion, organizers map out three stages.
First, people are urged to sign on to "pledge to take action to create a Green New Deal." Supporters will then hammer out a shared vision at town halls. Once that's developed, organizers plan on presenting the vision to political leaders--an act of laying down climate action gauntlet.
"We can build universal and far-reaching solutions that transform our economy, create dignified work, prioritize public ownership, and make our communities healthier," said Fred Hahn, president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees - Ontario. "But we have to come together with a plan to do it. That's what the Green New Deal is."
Niklas Agarwal, a student and youth organizer, praised the Green New Deal as "an opportunity to make our communities healthier and create a million good jobs in the process."
"In our lifetime," he said in a statement, "youth have seen both the degradation of our climate and any sense of stable livelihoods. We are the first generation in human history whose quality of life is predicted to be lower than our parents."
"The Green New Deal," added Agarwal, "is the first sign of hope our generation has."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy