Wind has the power to change the world

Wind has the power to change the world (and even Prince Edward County)

Image result for global wind day

Saturday June 15 is Global Wind Day. Join us from 10 til 4 at ‘Live Laugh Eat in Milford (3020 County Rd 10) as we celebrate the power of wind.

Tour the County’s very own White Pines Wind Farm.

Learn about the environmental benefits of clean, renewable wind energy. Get ideas and share your own thoughts on how to do your part in helping with the climate emergency declared in Prince Edward County.

Complimentary coffee, cold drinks and our special potato doughnuts. Bubbles and pin wheels for the kids to blow in the wind.

ALSO BIG YARD SALE happening at the same time, come browse through some great treasures.

For more information contact Jen at 613-922-3510.

Did You Know

    • Wind energy generates electicity without emitting air pollutants and uses virtually no water compared to conventional electricity generating stations.
    • Ontario’s wind industry has created thousands of well paying much-needed jobs in manufacturing, construction and local services.
    • It will cost Ontario taxpayers $100 million or more to cancel the White Pines Wind Farm contract.
    • The nine wind turbines that make up the White Pines Wind Farm would generate enough electricity to power more than half of the homes in Prince Edward County over the next 20 years.
    • Four of the nine White Pines wind turbines are up and ready to start generating clean electricity for Ontario’s power grid.
    • Wind power is the most responsible way of replacing old 20th century sources of energy in Ontario.
    • Canada is the world leader in wind electricity generation per capita and Ontario leads all Canadian provinces with wind energy production. The cancellation of White Pines and other similar projects will put us behind Quebec and Alberta.

 

The next asbestos? What do the Monsanto trials mean for the future of Roundup

Protest march against Monsanto Co in Paris, France, May 23, 2015.Monsanto is facing thousands of lawsuits claiming its product Roundup causes cancer.

It’s been touted as the next asbestos and compared to the cover-ups by big tobacco companies last century, but agribusiness giant Monsanto insists Roundup doesn’t cause cancer.

Three US juries disagree, and the company is facing 13,400 plaintiffs who claim the most commonly used herbicide in the world is the reason they have non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

It’s what’s called a mass tort litigation, with lawsuits involving multiple plaintiffs against one defendant, in this case Monsanto, and involves multiple trials in different jurisdictions.

Unlike a class action, injuries suffered by the plaintiffs in mass torts aren’t always the same; they are usually similar but can be wider ranging and individualised.

In the US, mass torts against pharmaceutical companies are the most common, but other well-known mass torts include cases like asbestos.

Key points:
  • Roundup is the most commonly used herbicide in the world and its active ingredient is glyphosate
  • Agribusiness giant Monsanto has lost three trials in the US over links between cancer and glyphosate
  • It’s been ordered to pay out billions of dollars in damages to four cancer patients, with thousands more plaintiffs awaiting trial

MORE

David Suzuki, prominent environmentalists launch cross-country tour warnings of global crisis

David Suzuki
David Suzuki makes an appearance at United Church on Bloor Street on June 10, 2019.

Some of Canada’s leading environmentalists are trekking across the country to illustrate what they are calling global climate crisis.

Toronto marked the first stop on a seven-city tour for The Leap, a collective of prominent activists who are backing a Green New Deal, an ambitious U.S. plan to curb climate change and transform the economy by investing in clean energy jobs.

The movement is gaining traction among members of the Democratic Party in the United States.

Among those who were touting its virtues in front of a sold out crowd at United Church, located near Tuesday night were author and activist Naomi Klein and environmentalist-turned-broadcaster David Suzuki, who blamed the media for not properly highlighting the perils of planet-wide climate change.

“In May, the United Nations released a study saying we are causing a catastrophic rate of extinction threatening a million species of plants and animals,” Suzuki said. “The next day, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had a baby and pushed everything out of the news.”

“Fundamental changes are urgent,” he warned, saying consequences to ecosystems, food supplies and economies will be dire by the year 2100 if global temperature increases aren’t capped to within 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial era averages.

His sentiments were echoed by Pam Palmater, who works as a professor, lawyer and aboriginal rights activist.

“What will it take for people to wake up and realize we don’t need to just change things around the edges? Stop using plastic straws, yes! But that won’t save the world. This isn’t about who you vote for. The most irresponsible a citizen can do is vote and then call it a day.”

The next stop on The Leap’s cross country tour is Thursday in Montreal, with appearances scheduled to follow in Ottawa, Halifax, Edmonton, Vancouver and Winnipeg.  MORE

RELATED:

A GREEN NEW DEAL FOR ALL

Get tickets here

Inside the Race to Unify Progressives Behind a Canadian Green New Deal
Climate Activists Hold Town Hall for Green New Deal

CBC isn’t taking the climate crisis seriously

On Monday, the leadership of the CBC rejected using the term “crisis” to describe climate change. Their head honcho’s reasoning? Apparently words like crisis and emergency might “sort of imply, you know, something more serious” is happening.

When I read it, I couldn’t help but wonder — has this CBC director actually been following the news?

Earlier this year, where I live in Ottawa, we faced “100 year floods” for the second time in three years. At the same time in Vietnam, the country where I grew up, record breaking summer heat filled up hospitals across the country. Children and elders were treated for heat stroke in record numbers, and tens of thousands of others had to work through the extreme conditions.

Climate change is a crisis, and we need media and our politicians to treat it like one. That’s why over 5000 people are calling for Canada’s Leaders’ Debate Commission to step in and organize a climate debate ahead of this fall’s federal election. Add your name to the petition and help us mount pressure on the Leaders’ Debate Commission.

When the Ottawa river started to swell, I was there filling sandbags. Thousands of people from all across Ottawa joined in to help their neighbours in need. And, while it was a beautiful moment of solidarity and community, it’s also the sort of thing that happens in a crisis.

The IPCC report released last fall gave us 12 years to cut global emissions in half to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis. To do that, we’re going to need an emergency level response like a Green New Deal. But, knowledge is power, and to win we need to make sure that people across the country know that climate change is a clear and present danger. That means our public broadcaster can’t shy away from calling climate change what it is – a crisis.

Sign the petition demanding Canada’s first federal leaders’ debate on climate change.

In solidarity,

Vi Bui, Our Time organizer in Ottawa

Senate committee passes UNDRIP bill, Tories warn of an Indigenous ‘veto’

Senators debate what exactly ‘free, prior and informed consent’ means for natural resource projects


Liberal Saskatchewan Sen. Lillian Dyck, left, and Conservative Alberta Sen. Scott Tannas, right. Dyck pushed a bill that will implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), against objections by Conservative senators. (CBC News)

The Senate’s Aboriginal peoples committee has passed a bill that will implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Canada — over the objections of Conservative senators who say they fear adopting the legislation will give Indigenous peoples a veto over future natural resource development.

The legislation, introduced as a private member’s bill by NDP MP Roméo Saganash, will now go back to the Senate chamber for the last legislative phase of debate and a final vote.

During this morning’s raucous committee meeting, Conservative senators accused committee chair Liberal Sen. Lillian Dyck of — with the support of Independent senators — unfairly “railroading” opposition to the legislation by refusing to allow some Tory senators to fully speak to their concerns.

The Conservative contingent also has been accused of unfairly stalling the bill, which passed by a large majority in the House of Commons.

“My freedom of speech has been arbitrarily limited and all I was trying to offer was a balanced view,” Conservative Nunavut Sen. Dennis Patterson said as he was prevented from reading remarks on one of his proposed amendments to the bill. Other senators did not have a chance to speak to Patterson’s proposed amendments.

“There hasn’t been sufficient clarity on how the legislation will apply in the Canadian context. To rush through a private member’s bill, with so many open questions and so few answers forthcoming from the government of Canada, and on the eve of a federal election, would be reckless and unprecedented,” Patterson said.

Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Perry Bellegarde, who has called Tory procedural tactics on the bill “shameful” and “undemocratic,” praised Dyck in statement Tuesday for her “strong, principled and tenacious leadership when dealing with legislation as important as this.”

UNDRIP recognizes the rights of Indigenous peoples to be free from racial discrimination, to self-determination, to autonomy with regard to their “internal and local affairs” and to financial compensation for confiscated lands. MORE

TAKE ACTION!

This week has been a rollercoaster; due to some very quick thinking on the part of Senator Sinclair and the persistence and patience of Senator Dyck and the independent senators, the Aboriginal committee was able to complete the clause by clause consideration of C-262. The bill will be referred back to the Senate for third reading now.

Can we ask you to do two things today?

  1. Email the Conservative national caucus members and express concern with what the Senate is doing, and speak in favour of Indigenous Rights (don’t have their email address? Don’t know what to write? Click here!)
  2. Call Andrew Scheer’s office with the same message (Don’t know what to say? Click here!)

Is Ontario really doing its fair share on climate change?

ANALYSIS: The Tories often point out how well Ontario stacks up against other provinces when it comes to reducing emissions — but look beyond the national average, and the comparisons are less flattering

a smoke stack
Under the Liberals, Ontario was supposed to have 37 per cent fewer greenhouse-gas emissions in 2030 than it did in 1990; under the Tories, the 2030 target has been reduced to 30 per cent below 2005 levels. (Stephen C. Host/CP)

Last month, Ontario’s environment minister, Rod Phillips, stepped up to a podium at a convenience store in north Toronto and delivered an attack on the federal carbon tax.

His argument was one that the Tories have used many times before: the province is doing its “fair share” — more than its fair share, in fact — to fight climate change.

“While Ontario has reduced its carbon emissions by 22 per cent since 2005,” he said, “the rest of Canada has increased emissions by 6 per cent.”

The implication is that the province has done so much already that it can afford to step back from the climate-change targets set by the previous government. Under Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals, Ontario was supposed to have 37 per cent fewer greenhouse-gas emissions in 2030 than it did in 1990. Under the Progressive Conservatives, the 2030 target has been reduced to 30 per cent below 2005 levels.

But why insist that Ontarians need to do more than that when they’ve already done so much compared to the rest of the country? It seems like a fair and straightforward question.

In-depth Q&A: The UK Becomes First Major Economy to Set Net-Zero Climate Goal

The UK is to raise its ambition on climate change by setting a legally binding target to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to “net-zero” by 2050, prime minister Theresa May has announced today.

No.10 Downing Street at night, London, UK. Credit: Jeff Gilbert / Alamy Stock Photo.
No.10 Downing Street at night, London, UK. Credit: Jeff Gilbert / Alamy Stock Photo.

The 2050 net-zero goal was recommended by the government’s official adviser, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), last month. The CCC’s advice was requested following the 2015 Paris Agreement, which raised global ambition with a target to limit warming since the pre-industrial period to “well below” 2C and to make efforts to stay below 1.5C.

In a letter confirming the decision, May says: “Ending our contribution to global warming by 2050 can be the defining decision of this generation in fulfilling our responsibility to the next.” The UK would be the first member of the G7 group of major economies to legislate for net-zero. It joins others having set net-zero targets, including Sweden, New Zealand and Japan.

May’s announcement diverges from the CCC advice on some details, including the use of international “offsets”. It does not explicitly mention emissions from international aviation and shipping, but responding to questions from Carbon Brief the prime minister’s office says: “This is a whole economy target…and we intend for it to apply to international aviation and shipping.”

Draft legislation implementing the new goal must now be approved by both houses of parliament, in a process that could be finalised in a matter of days. The government says it will review the target within five years “to confirm that other countries are taking similarly ambitious action”.

Why is the UK setting a net-zero target for 2050?

The UK’s 2008 Climate Change Act includes a legally binding target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This was set in the context of international ambition to limit warming to no more than 2C above pre-industrial temperatures.

In 2015, the Paris Agreement changed the rules of the game by raising global ambition to “well below” 2C and adding an aspirational goal of limiting warming to 1.5C. The Paris deal also commits signatories to “balance” greenhouse gas emissions and sinks “in the second half of this century” MORE

RELATED:

Is Ontario doing its fair share on climate change?