National Indigenous Peoples Day — a day intended to recognize and celebrate the cultures and contributions of the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples
Some of the original calls for this day from the National Indian Brotherhood — now the Assembly of First Nations — were for a “National Indigenous Solidarity day.” As people gather to celebrate, it’s vital that this celebration is connected to the recognition of ongoing settler colonial violence and commitments to solidarity.
Limiting who public space is for and how it can be used is central to settler colonialism both in Canada and other settler colonial places. The process involves the violent removal of people from encampments.
Securing these spaces is at the expense of some people and works to perpetuate and make invisible what German philosopher Friedrich Engels called social murder (a concept that has re-emerged amid many issues, including COVID-19) — an unnatural death that occurs due to social, political or economic oppression.
Taking all of this into account, the actual cost for repairing the science centre may be closer to $350M, including a generous $100M allocation for renovations and new exhibitions, while the cost of a relocated science centre could be in the $1B range.
The government’s case for relocating the Ontario Science Centre argues that the smaller facility will attract more visitors. The estimates count on laying off 53 people—one of every six people who currently work at the Science Centre. In short, they are expecting that 50% more people will visit a facility that is 45% of the size of the current Science Centre, with a significantly reduced staff managing it all.
Let’s make no mistake: the new, enormously expensive facility wouldn’t be a beauty queen. In the preliminary plans, student spaces and classrooms are in the basement. The Ontario government plans to use a public-private partnership (P3) method to procure the building—it already put out a call for a PDC consultant last summer.
There is an imperative to change course on the shuttering and relocation of the Ontario Science Centre. While we may take it for granted, there is value in taking care of what we have: a magnificent, much-loved Ontario Science Centre that is in need of some TLC. The value of such a gem isn’t something we usually quantify, but if we did—in a neutral way—it’s clear how the business case would land.
ON TO OTTAWA PEACE CARAVAN
TORONTO FORUM
SATURDAY MAY 25, 6:30-8:30 pm
60 Lowther Ave.
Near Bedford and Bloor, 2 blocks north of St. George Station
With optional art-making from 5 – 6 pm
Refreshments 6 - 6:30 pm
With peacemakers:
LYN ADAMSON, Canadian Voice of Women for Peace
CATHY WALKER, Strong Hearted Woman
Of Mohawk & European descent Founder of Giwaabamin Street Clinic
ELLEN WOODSWORTH, Women’s Int’l League for Peace & Freedom
LORELEI WILLIAMS, Skatin and Sts'ailes First Nations
SETSUKO THURLOW, Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
JUDY REBICK, on women’s peace organizing history
RACHEL SMALL, World Beyond War organizer, Gaza arms embargo
Music by Arnd Jurgensen and Cassie Norton
Independent Science at Fisheries Canada
The world is going renewable while Ontario lags far behind.
Wind and solar are now our cleanest and lowest cost sources of new electricity supply. Off-shore wind power in the Great Lakes alone could meet all our electricity needs.
Ontario needs to embrace the targets set at the recent COP28 climate summit and triple our wind and solar electricity capacity and double our energy efficiency by 2035.
Tripling Ontario’s wind and solar energy by 2035 will:
• Lower our electricity bills • Phase-out polluting gas power • Create good jobs • Provide clean power for Ontario’s manufacturing & mining industries • Help us meet our climate commitments • Reduce the need for more costly nuclear reactors.
Let’s TRIPLE wind and solar power and double our energy efficiency in Ontario by 2035!
- Carbon dioxide emission taxes, prices and markets have been touted as key to stopping global heating. However, carbon markets have failed mainly because they favour the rich and powerful.
Market solutions better?
Mainstream economists believe the best way to check global heating is to
tax greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Equivalent ‘carbon prices’ have
been set for the other significant GHGs. But many have been revised due
to their moot, varied and unstable, arguably incomparable nature.
Positive carbon prices tax fossil fuels, GHG emissions, and products according to their energy intensity. Hence, when carbon prices fall, they deter fossil fuel use less effectively.
Developed countries have set up ‘carbon trading’ systems ostensibly to deter GHG emissions. Firms wanting to emit more than their assigned quotas must buy emission permits from others who commit to emit under quota.
Getting prices right?
Conventional economists believe carbon prices should cover the ‘social
costs’ of GHG emissions, but disagree on how to estimate them. But
policymakers believe it necessary to discount these prices to gain broad
acceptance for carbon markets.
A recent International Monetary Fund paper acknowledged, “Differences between efficient prices and retail fuel prices are large and pervasive”. But such distortions undermine the very purpose of carbon pricing.
Gro Intelligence estimated the social cost of carbon emissions at $4.08 per metric tonne in 2022, which is used by the influential Gro-Kepos Carbon Barometer. But Resources for the Future estimated it at $185/tonne, over forty times higher!
While carbon prices are meant to tax fossil fuels, low prices reduce their deterrent effect. Fossil fuel subsidies lower carbon prices, which can even become negative. Such price subsidies undermine carbon markets’ intended effects.
Whenever carbon prices are discounted or deliberately kept low, they are much less effective in deterring GHG emissions. They also distort the price system with many other unintended, but perverse consequences.
Writing in the New York Times, Peter Coy noted the carbon price rose from under $4 per metric tonne in 2012 to almost $20/tonne in 2020 before dropping sharply to around $4/tonne in 2022!
Incredibly, he still concluded carbon prices were “headed in the right direction” since 2012. How low and volatile carbon prices are supposed to discourage fossil fuel use and accelerate renewable energy investments must be self-evident to him alone?
Western fossil fuel subsidies
Carbon prices shot up when fossil fuel energy prices spiked after the
Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. But they soon collapsed as
European governments intervened to subsidise energy prices.
As the rich nations’ Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development noted, “government support for fossil fuels almost doubled in 2022” to over $1.4 trillion!
State subsidies rise with prices when governments try to mitigate rising fossil fuel prices. Such subsidies negate the purpose of carbon pricing, and can lower them so much as to become negative!
Such subsidies were deemed necessary to retain public support for NATO’s Ukraine war effort and to drive down Russian fossil fuel export prices. Thus, such ‘geopolitical’ interventions have undermined carbon taxes, prices and markets.
Carbon prices dropped sharply worldwide, from $18.97/tonne in 2021 to $4.08 in 2022. In 2022, nine of the 26 countries in the Barometer had negative prices, with only six – not the US – above $25.
Oil and natural gas prices have since fallen from their 2022 peaks, with consumer subsidies declining correspondingly. Hence, carbon prices for GHG emissions have recovered.
Such price subsidies and volatility do not help enterprises plan and invest their energy use – crucial to accelerate needed ‘carbon transitions’.
Unsurprisingly, after over a decade, there is little evidence that carbon markets have effectively cut GHG emissions to avert climate catastrophe. Clearly, they cannot be counted upon to cut them sufficiently.
The ongoing conflict in Sudan between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has left over 14,600 people killed nationwide and over 8 million people displaced including nearly 2 million of them seeking refuge in neighboring countries. Sign the petition and demand an arms embargo to contribute to the protection of civilians.
On September 18th, 2024 we invite you to walk with Grassy Narrows youth and community members to show that we are with them on their path to achieve mercury justice and freedom!
Grassy Narrows people are powerful leaders in the movement for Indigenous sovereignty and environmental justice. They have shown that together we can fight for justice against all odds and make real gains. But so much is still needed to right the wrong of mercury poisoning in Grassy Narrows.
RSVP here to say that you will show up in solidarity and walk with them in their fight for justice. RSVP is intended to help us plan for the day but is not mandatory to attend the event
Grassy Narrows First Nation Chief Rudy Turtle has said “no” to the nuclear waste storage site proposed in the Wabigoon River watershed near Ignace. This week, Turtle sent a fourth letter to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization opposing the proposed development citing fears of contamination. He said three letters of concern that he sent to the organization on July 2, 2020, and in 2022 on Feb. 7 and Oct. 7, received no response from the organization. In his latest letter this week, he said, “The water from that (repository) site flows past our reserve and into the waters where we fish, drink, and swim. The material that you want to store there will be dangerous for longer than Canada has existed, longer than Europeans have been on Turtle Island, and longer than anything that human beings have ever built has lasted.” He asked, “How can you reliably claim that this extremely dangerous waste will safely be contained for hundreds of thousands of years?” Turtle spoke to The Chronicle-Journal about the community’s concerns. “They explain that it’s deep underground, but regardless, we’re very concerned that in the future, there could be possible leaks that come down river towards our area,”
https://www.ceasefire.ca/unsc-passes-ceasefire-resolution-and-amended-ndp-motion-makes-history/
To summarize, the amended motion calls for the government to:
The vote was Yes 204, No 117
The Conservatives and three Liberals voted against the amended motion. The Liberal Cabinet and the vast majority of Liberal MPs, together with the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party, voted for the amended motion.
