Council of Canadians debunks Fraser Institute water report | The Council of Canadians

Council of Canadians debunks Fraser Institute water report | The Council of Canadians: The Fraser Institute recently released the report, Evaluating the State of Fresh Water in Canada. The report concludes that “...there is no shortage of freshwater in Canada as a whole. Despite concerns about water usage and the unequal distribution of freshwater across the country, freshwater resources in Canada are abundant and Canadians consume only small fraction of the water supply.”  
 The information in the report and its conclusions paint an inaccurate and dangerous picture of water security in Canada. Information about long-standing drinking water advisories in First Nations, droughts and other climate events, and extreme energy projects like the tar sands is missing from the report. This gives a skewed view of water quantity and quality in Canada.  
 Drinking water advisories in First Nations   Council of Canadians chapters flagged the lack of information on Drinking Water Advisories (DWAs) in First Nations. Nowhere in the report are DWAs in First Nations (or municipalities for that matter) mentioned.

A War on Science, Morals, and Law (US)

A War on Science, Morals, and Law: new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists accuses Trump’s Interior Department of “relentless attacks on science ranging from suppressing and sidelining the work of the department’s scientists to systematically refusing to act on climate change.” To put it mildly, this is concerning.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is an advocacy group whose words are chosen to advance their viewpoint. They refer often to “science,” which we assume to be non ideological, universal, and true. In this sense, science is the highest guiding principle that all should follow, as it is in the best interest of our nation and planet. In practice, the power dynamics and other social divisions within our society don’t go away when one does “science.”

 Yale sociologist Justin Farrell points out that disputes over the management of nature can be more moral than scientific in nature. Science can tell us how many wolves or grizzly bears live in Wyoming, or how much habitat and genetic diversity they need to survive as a species. But the belief that humans should manage nature to preserve intact ecosystems is a moral one. Economics and politics matter too, as we determine whose interests and opinions matter most. What’s it worth to us to protect Bears Ears National Monument, which encompasses land sacred to Native Americans? To Native Americans and those who support them, the land is priceless. The mining industries can put a specific price tag on the minerals in the ground. Whether it’s worth banning mining on land that is beautiful, ecologically valuable, and sacred to Native Americans is a moral question, not a scientific one.

 That said, science is needed to help us make sound decisions that compromise between groups with competing values and interests. The government needs to produce, believe, and disseminate science that will allow it to act in the best interests of the American people, and to help the people hold the government accountable. The Trump administration clearly isn’t doing that. According to the LA Times, “Interior isn’t the only science agency that has been turned into a billboard for political and ideological propaganda. The Environmental Protection Agency has been similarly hollowed out, and the Department of Health and Human Services has all but abandoned its duty to advance Americans’ access to affordable healthcare.” There’s another reason why we need solid science within the government: to enable the government to follow its own laws. Trump’s administration is taking a see no evil, hear no evil approach. Without information about how a mining project might impact an endangered species, or human health, or water quality, they’re going to end up enabling projects that violate existing laws. Which is probably the point. It’s understandable that some people disagree with our laws or don’t wish to follow them.

However, we have a democratic process for changing those laws. When it comes to public safety regulations, industries and politicians have no business going around voters by suppressing the science needed to uphold the laws that protect them.

#HumanRightsDay: I have to be the voice to the powerless - Michelle Bachelet | IOL News

#HumanRightsDay: I have to be the voice to the powerless - Michelle Bachelet | IOL News

Exclusive: Today marks 70 years since the signing of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights. Noni Mokati chats to former Chilean President and now United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet about the status quo of human rights across the world.

Before she relinquished her position in government in March this year, Michelle Bachelet had a myriad of responsibilities. One of these, which she was vehemently determined to see through, was to ensure that the dignity and rights of fellow Chilean men, women and children were upheld. Now in her new position, she maintains that her mandate is very clear.

“I have to be the voice to the powerless,” she said. On Friday, Bachalet joined South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at Constitution Hill in Johannesburg where both leaders spoke on the important role the declaration of human rights has played post World War 2.

Indifference to sexual violence eats away at us all, say Nobel pair | World news | The Guardian

Indifference to sexual violence eats away at us all, say Nobel pair | World news | The Guardian

Nobel laureates Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad have called on the world to protect victims of wartime sexual violence as they angrily criticised indifference to the plight of women and children in conflict in their peace prize acceptance speeches.

Mukwege, a Congolese gynaecologist and world expert on rape in conflict, and Murad, a Yazidi activist and survivor of Isis sexual slavery, said victims were sometimes valued less than commercial interests.

In a ceremony in which the laureates were cheered and given standing ovations, Mukwege and Murad called on the world to do more.

“If there is a war to be waged, it is the war against the indifference which is eating away at our societies,” Mukwege said at the ceremony in Oslo. His Panzi hospital in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s war-torn east has treated the wounds of tens of thousands of women and children for sexual assaults that have become a “new reality” in the country. He said the violence “shames our common humanity”.

In her speech, Murad implored the global community to help to free hundreds of women and girls still held by jihadis, saying the world must protect her people and other vulnerable communities.

“It is my view that all victims deserve a safe haven until justice is done for them,” she said, pausing briefly, seemingly overcome with emotion.

Write on your own | Amnesty Canada, Dec 10

Write on your own | Amnesty Canada

This event registration is for those who are not attending a letter writing event, but are writing on their own.

Join Amnesty International on December 10th to Write for Rights on Human Rights Day! On or around December 10th millions of people across the world use the power of letter writing to protect individuals or communities whose human rights have been denied.

Everyone can participate! You don`t need to have any previous letter writing or Amnesty International experience. Amnesty welcomes all those who are keen to keep shining the light on human rights. Whether you plan to participate as a letter-writer, event organizer, event attendee or donor, you'll be making a difference.

Does letter writing work? It sure does! Check out our success stories page to learn more about previous Write for Rights cases that have been freed from prison or seen victory in their struggle: http://writeathon.ca/successes/

Write for Rights - Amnesty INternational, Human Rights Day

Write for Rights

WRITE4RIGHTS EVENTS
When thousands of people from around the world speak out at the same time, our voices united cannot be ignored. By participating in Write for Rights, you’re challenging systemic human rights abuses like torture and the death penalty. You’re standing up for women’s rights, LGBTI rights and corporate accountability. Each letter you write can change a life.

Use the link to find an event, or create one in your area.

#

Apocalyptic Climate Reporting Completely Misses the Point

Apocalyptic Climate Reporting Completely Misses the Point | Portside
(read the entire report - this is a very good analysis)
Are we doomed? It’s the most common thing people ask me when they learn that I study climate politics. Fair enough. The science is grim, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just reminded us with a report on how hard it will be to keep average global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. But it’s the wrong question. Yes, the path we’re on is ruinous. It’s just as true that other, plausible pathways are not. That’s the real, widely ignored, and surprisingly detailed message of the IPCC report. We’re only doomed if we change nothing. The IPCC report makes it clear that if we make the political choice of bankrupting the fossil-fuel industry and sharing the burden of transition fairly, most humans can live in a world better than the one we have now...

Reporting on the IPCC, and climate change more broadly, is unbalanced. It’s fixated on the predictions of climate science and the opinions of climate scientists, with cursory gestures to the social, economic, and political causes of the problem. Yet analysis of these causes is as important to climate scholarship as modeling ice-sheet dynamics and sea-level rise. Reductionist climate reporting misses this. Many references to policy are framed in terms of carbon pricing. This endorses the prevailing contempt in establishment circles for people’s capacity to govern themselves beyond the restrictions of market rule. Meanwhile, the IPCC report is overflowing with analyses showing that we can avoid runaway climate change, improve most people’s lives, and prioritize equality through a broad set of interventions.

It remains physically possible to keep global warming at a relatively safe 1.5 degrees Celsius, and certainly a less safe—but not apocalyptic—2 degrees. This would require dramatic changes in economic policy and doubling down on the powers of public planning. Taxing carbon is essential, but is just one of many complementary tools. Using “command and control” regulatory methods, the Clean Air Act cleaned up much of the United States years before “market mechanisms” became famous. Indeed, “command and control” is the centerpiece of the best climate policies in the United States. Take California: There, the state’s regulatory mandates forcing utilities to source more renewable energy are the main reason emissions have gone down. In contrast, the market-mechanism piece of California’s climate policy, a “cap and trade” program, has failed to slash emissions; it may even have facilitated a moderate increase in carbon pollution in the state’s poorest neighborhoods.

Despite the framing of most news coverage about it, the latest IPCC report is innovative precisely because it uses new social science to highlight the climate implications of a range of political choices. But you have to read beyond the “Summary for Policymakers” to see it. The IPCC has embraced an approach developed by climate scholars called “Shared Socioeconomic Pathways,” or SSPs. Prior to the latest report, the IPCC projected future scenarios based on skeletal, technocratic models of energy, land use, and climate. They represented climate politics as being like a dashboard with a few dials that engineers could turn—a little more renewable energy here, a touch less deforestation there. In contrast, the SSPs imagine different possible climate futures in terms of realistic clusters of policy decisions, which in turn affect emissions, land use, and how the impacts of extreme weather are felt.

In the current report, there are five SSPs, which illustrate the huge differences between possible paths forward. Each pathway represents a different set of approaches for slashing emissions and coping with climate change. The first three strike me as most plausible. SSP 1, called “Sustainability,” imagines a world where policies increasingly favor sustainability, equity, education, and health care (which all reduces population growth), technological progress, and energy efficiency. This pathway also includes major cuts to fossil-fuel investment, which combined with public policy drive a hard, fast shift to clean energy and increased efficiency.

Compared to this rosy scenario, SSP 3, “Regional rivalry,” is terrifying: It projects low technological progress, few advances in health and education, high energy use, low international cooperation, and a booming population. Thanks to Donald Trump and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, it’s depressingly easy to imagine this world, though we’re not there yet. SSP 2, a “middle of the road” scenario, feels closest to our current reality; it projects only moderate amounts of technological progress, cooperation, and social investment. While SSP 2’s climate implications are also scary—limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius on this path is hard—the scenario is flexible enough for a turn to 1 or 3, better or worse. SSP 4, “Inequality,” and SSP 5, “Fossil-fuelled development” explore other unsettling options. The next report will have nine of these.

The scenarios do a nice job of tying together disparate social science about drivers of greenhouse-gas emissions beyond crude energy accounting. For instance, women’s improved education, job prospects, and smaller families in SSP 1 are a key reason climate models find that it is the easiest path to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees. Keywan Riahi, one of the architects of this new modeling approach, told me that some of the numbers glossed in the IPCC report’s “Summary for Policymakers” miss crucial takeaways, like the social-impact analysis buried deeper in the report’s third chapter. For instance, at two degrees Celsius warming, in an SSP 3 world, between 750 million and 1.2 billion people would be severely exposed to climate-linked extreme weather, according to a 2018 study discussed in the IPCC report. In contrast, the IPCC reports, under the SSP 1 scenario, well under 100 million people would be hard hit by extreme weather at the same level of warming.

Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN |

Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN | Environment | The Guardian
The world must thrash out a new deal for nature in the next two years or humanity could be the first species to document our own extinction, warns the United Nation’s biodiversity chief.

Ahead of a key international conference to discuss the collapse of ecosystems, Cristiana Pașca Palmer said people in all countries need to put pressure on their governments to draw up ambitious global targets by 2020 to protect the insects, birds, plants and mammals that are vital for global food production, clean water and carbon sequestration.

Petition: No milk from BGH-injected cows in Canada

Petition: No milk from BGH-injected cows in Canada!
In January 1998, the Health Canada internal review team found evidence that rBST is not broken down in digestion. They noted the effects of the drug on test animals in a 90-day rat study conducted in the late 1980s for Monsanto and contained in the manufacturer's New Drug Submission. The Gaps Analysis Report noted that 20 to 30% of test animals that received high doses of the drug orally for 90 days produced antibodies to it. Some also showed evidence of cysts and other early effects. Some studies suggest an increase of IGF-1 levels in rBST milk, and evidence that IGF-1 is not broken down in digestion but survives in the presence of casein, a milk protein. Recent articles in scientific journals suggest that elevated IGF-1 levels are associated with a higher incidence of breast and prostate cancer, showing that IGF-1 may have local effects.

Dear Prime Minister Trudeau,

Twenty years ago, Canada made the wise and responsible decision to keep genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) out of our dairy supply, protecting the health of cows and consumers across the country.

Now, the pending USMCA and CPTPP trade agreements threaten to bring imported dairy to Canadian grocery stores in unprecedented levels - and rBGH along with it.

I call on you to uphold Canada's higher standard and keep this harmful genetically engineered hormone out of Canada.

Forests Emerge as a Major Overlooked Climate Factor

Forests Emerge as a Major Overlooked Climate Factor | Portside\...
Very interesting article - here's a taste:

The key features of this molecular wizardry are pores, called stomata, in plant leaves. A single leaf can contain more than 1 million of these specialized structures. Stomata are essentially microscopic mouths that simultaneously take in carbon dioxide from the air and let out water. As Swann notes, the gas exchange from each stoma — and indeed from each leaf — is, on its own, tiny. But with billions of stomata acting in concert, a single tree can evaporate hundreds of liters of water per day — enough to fill several bathtubs. The world’s major forests, which contain hundreds of billions of trees, can move water on almost inconceivably large scales. Antonio Nobre, a climate scientist at Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, has estimated, for example, that the Amazon rainforest discharges around 20 trillion liters of water per day — roughly 17 percent more than even the mighty Amazon River.

New UN report demands immediate urgent action on climate change | The Council of Canadians

New UN report demands immediate urgent action on climate change | The Council of Canadians: The the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report that says governments must make "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society" to avoid disastrous levels of climate change. The panel’s report, released earlier this week, says the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, increasing the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people. According to CNN, “the planet is already two-thirds of the way there, with global temperatures having warmed about 1 degree C. Avoiding going even higher will require significant action in the next few years.” "This is concerning because we know there are so many more problems if we exceed 1.5 degrees C global warming, including more heatwaves and hot summers, greater sea level rise, and, for many parts of the world, worse droughts and rainfall extremes," Andrew King, a lecturer in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement.
 CNN reports that global net emissions of carbon dioxide would need to fall by 45 per cent from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach "net zero" around 2050 in order to keep the warming around 1.5 degrees C. Lowering emissions to this degree, while technically possible, would require widespread changes in energy, industry, buildings, transportation and cities, the report says. "The window on keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees C is closing rapidly and the current emissions pledges made by signatories to the Paris Agreement do not add up to us achieving that goal," added King. The report makes it clear that climate change is already happening – and what comes next could be even worse unless urgent international political action is taken.

Zero Hunger: Our Actions Today Are Our Future Tomorrow

Zero Hunger: Our Actions Today Are Our Future Tomorrow | Inter Press Service

ROME, Oct 15 2018 (IPS) - Just three years ago, in September 2015, all United Nations Member States approved the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The eradication of hunger and all forms of malnutrition (Sustainable Development Goal number 2) was defined by world leaders as a cardinal objective of the Agenda, a sine qua non condition for a safer, fairer and more peaceful world.

Paradoxically, global hunger has only grown since then. According to the latest estimates, the number of undernourished people in the world increased in 2017, for the third consecutive year. Last year, 821 million people suffered from hunger (11 percent of the world population – one in nine people on the planet), most of them family and subsistence farmers living in poor rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia.

However, the growing rate of undernourished people is not the only big challenge we are facing. Other forms of malnutrition have also increased. In 2017, at least 1.5 billion people suffered from micronutrient deficiencies that undermine their health and lives, At the same time, the proportion of adult obesity continues to rise , from 11.7 percent in 2012 to 13.3 percent in 2016 (or 672.3 million people).