- Original Content
- Environmental Disaster
- Life Styles
- Party TIme
- MBN LIVE
- Our Projects
- Thunder Dome
- Other News
- Site RSS Map
In its largest capital project in history, Enbridge plans to do what Transcanada so far can't — ship more than half a million barrels of heavy oil across the U.S. border without President Barack Obama's direct approval.
Late Monday evening, Enbridge announced plans for its largest capital project in history— a $7 billion replacement of its Line 3 pipeline.
The existing Line 3 pipeline is part of Enbridge’s extensive Mainline system. The 34-inch pipe was installed in 1968 and currently carries light oil 1,660 km from Edmonton to Superior, Wis.
While the Line 3 pipeline currently has a maximum shipping capacity of 390,000 barrels of light crude oil per day, pumping stations along the line have a much larger capacity (and can accommodate heavier oils). Enbridge plans to take advantage of this. Under the company's replacement plans, the new Line 3 pipeline will be widened by two inches, and built "using the latest available high-strength steel and coating technology." By the time it goes into service in 2017, Line 3 will ship 760,000 barrels of oil across the border every day, nearly double what it currently moves.
At the same time, the new Line 3 will be designated as ‘mixed service,’ allowing it to carry a variety of different types of oil from heavy to light. Speaking on a conference call with investors and media this morning, Enbridge CEO Al Monaco said "my lean would be more towards the heavier side, but it will carry both."
Line 3 will continue to operate at full current capacity during the construction period. All construction is expected to occur within the existing pipeline corridor.
No presidential permit required (because it already has one)
Unlike the Keystone XL pipeline or its predecessor Line 67 (also known by its more jovial name ‘Alberta Clipper’), this project is classified as "replacement" or "maintenance," meaning it operates under an existing presidential permit and does not require a new one. Enbridge proponents made a point of repeatedly affirming this during Tuesday's call with investors and media.
Construction will be managed by two separate companies. The Edmonton to Hardisty segment and the Hardisty, Alta., to Gretna, Man., segments will be managed by Enbridge’s wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. will take responsibility for approvals and construction of the segment between Neche, N.D., and Superior, Wis.
Notably, both projects omit discussion of the tiny — but crucial — 3 km pipeline segment that crosses the Canada/U.S. border and links Gretna, Man., to Neche, N.D. On the U.S. webpage for the Line 3 project, Enbridge states:
"Segments of Line 3 from the Canadian border to Neche, N.D., and near the Minnesota/Wisconsin border to the Superior terminal are being replaced under separate segment replacement projects." The Canadian webpage has a similar message.
At the moment, it is not clear what those replacement projects are, or what stage of approval they are in. Enbridge did not return a call to clarify details.
Two Keystone XL pipelines per day
With its announcement, the Line 3 replacement joins three other large-scale expansion projects by Enbridge in varying stages of development or approval.
- The 525,000 barrels per day Northern Gateway pipeline connecting Edmonton with Kitimat, B.C., has received a positive recommendation from the National Energy Board and will see a decision from the federal cabinet in the next three months.
- Within the next few weeks, a decision is expected on the proposed reversal of Ontario and Quebec’s Line 9B pipeline. Currently the pipeline ships oil received via tankers from a Montreal terminal to Sarnia, Ont. If approved, the reversed pipeline would ship 300,000 barrel per dday of Canadian-sourced oil from Sarnia to Montreal for international export.
- Enbridge has already completed Phase 1 of its planned expansion to the Alberta Clipper pipeline, increasing its capacity from 450,000 to 570,000 barrels per day. On Feb. 10, Canada’s National Energy Board approved Phase 2 of the pipeline expansion, allowing it to ship at its maximum capacity of 800,000 barrels per dday. Approval of the project on the U.S. side is currently delayed while the State Department updates its environmental regulations.
- Applications for the Line 3 replacement project will be filed in late 2014.
Should all four of these projects go ahead, they will collectively increase Enbridge’s daily shipping volume by approximately 1.5 million barrels per day, or the equivalent of nearly two Keystone XL pipelines. The Keystone XL pipeline is expected to transport 830,000 bpd.
Addendum: Here's the math behind the projected Enbridge shipping volume.
CURRENT SHIPPING VOLUMES: (Barrels Per Day)
- Line 9: 0 (its current 240,000 barrel per day capacity does not include Canadian-sourced oil, and flows in the opposite direction)
- Northern Gateway: 0
- Line 3: 390,000
- Alberta Clipper: 450,000
- TOTAL: 840,000 barrels per day
FUTURE SHIPPING VOLUMES (BPD):
- Line 9: 300,000
- Northern Gateway: 525,000
- Line 3: 760,000
- Alberta Clipper: 800,000
- TOTAL: 2, 385,000 barrels per day
For a difference of 1,545,000 barrels per day or the equivalent of 1.86 Keystone XLs.
Image Credit: Mack Male via FlickrTags: Line 3EnbridgepipelineKeystone XLcrudeAlbertaalberta clipper
One of the consequences when schools close for a day or two because of weather or other reasons is that some kids don't eat. Sometimes meals at school are the only time they can access nutritious meals that keep them alert and ready to learn. Here's one organization that is trying to help kids both when they're at school and when they're not.
Location El Patio Maravillas Madrid Pez 21. 28004 Spain
Ha llegado la hora de tejer juntos una nueva realidad social alineada con nuestros valores. Ha llegado la hora de crear un sistema económico que nos beneficie a todas – un sistema que acabe con las consecuencias de la austeridad y el consumo.
Event Date & Time:
Saturday, 15 March 2014 - 10:00am - Sunday, 16 March 2014 - 6:00pm
Point of contact:
Business & Economics
Ha llegado la hora de tejer juntos una nueva realidad social alineada con nuestros valores. Ha llegado la hora de crear un sistema económico que nos beneficie a todas – un sistema que acabe con las consecuencias de la austeridad y el consumo.
Basado en el trabajo del economista Manfred Max-Neef y en su Escala de necesidades humanas, y nutrido de nuestra experiencia en economía local, permacultura, Transición, facilitación e impro, este taller ofrece una nueva perspectiva sobre lo que es posible.
Vamos a explorar un nuevo enfoque para crear un cambio económico basado en las necesidades de la vida real que aumente el bienestar y coja fuerza en la acción colectiva. Este taller está diseñado para activistas y , responsables de políticas, los trabajadores de desarrollo, los defensores de la 'nueva economía.'
• Maneras de integrar 'Necesidades humanas fundamentales' en diseño de proyectos
• Cómo identificar nuevas vías para satisfacer las necesidades locales
• Técnicas de mapeo para involucrar a la comunidad y construir redes
• Un nuevo lenguaje con el que crear nuevas narrativas para liderar el cambio
• Una gama de herramientas prácticas y metodologías para la catalización de e innovación
Facilitadores: Inez Aponte y Jay Tompt son facilitadores experimentados. Están profundamente involucrados en una serie de proyectos de educación y comunidad regeneración con Transition Town Totnes y trabajar con grupos en Grecia, Países Bajos, Portugal, España y Engleterra.
Mas info: http://patiomaravillas.net/
If the extreme drought in the Western United States keeps going, our nation’s food supply could be in for some serious trouble. In fact, trouble may already be brewing.
I used to think thousands of animals were killed every year for the fur industry. Now I know it's actually MILLIONS of animals — killed only for their fur. (Though, for the record, thousands is also too many.)
Shaking my head.
Warning: This is the censored version of the song for people like me who want to be informed but can’t always handle the graphic nature of these images, but there are still some pretty graphic images of animal cruelty.
If you really want to see the whole truth, you can click on the uncensored version at the end of this video. Just be prepared for what you will see.
Click "show transcript" for the lyrics.
The fracking boom has progressed at breakneck speed across the U.S., with roughly one in 20 Americans now living within a mile of a well drilled since 2000.
So, how much has the economy benefitted from this drilling surge?
Not much, according to a report presented to the European Union Parliament last month, which found "no evidence that shale gas is driving an overall manufacturing renaissance in the US.”
The shale boom’s economic contributions are very narrow, inflating local economies in places where drilling is intense but generating little impact on the country’s overall economic growth, the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, a French think tank, concluded.
Although natural gas prices have fallen from their highs in 2008, benefitting consumers, those low levels are unlikely to be sustained and the U.S. is still expected to remain heavily reliant on importing crude oil, the researchers found.
Even using very optimistic assumptions, the report said, the industry’s cumulative long term effect on America’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will be less than one percent. “Despite very low and ultimately unsustainable short-term prices of natural gas, the unconventional oil and gas revolution has had a minimal impact on the US macro-economy,”
That’s not the amount that shale gas will add to the economy each year, the researchers said. Instead, the industry will make up no more than 0.84 percent of total GDP between 2012 and 2035 -- the years when the shale boom is projected to be at its height. To put that in context, the personal care products industry – hair styling, cosmetics and the like – contributed 1.4 percent of GDP in 2010 – nearly double the impact that the EU report found the shale gas rush could have.
Although shale gas promoters have promised a rebirth of American manufacturing thanks to the drilling frenzy, the European analysts found that the benefits have mostly been felt by a small slice of the chemical industry, the petrochemicals industry.
The analysis also threw cold water on the idea that natural gas will help decrease America’s carbon dioxide emissions or help combat climate change. “Absent further policies, the US shale revolution will not lead to a significant, sustained decarbonisation of the US energy mix nor will it assure US energy security,” the researchers wrote.
Although projections showed that policy change could potentially drive a shift from coal to natural gas, such a plan also “locks the U.S. in” to a carbon-intensive infrastructure. And if current policies remain in place, emissions will be “stagnant at current levels out to 2040, clearly insufficient for a reasonable US contribution to global climate change mitigation.”
The costs of the drilling boom have been well documented. State regulators have struggled to keep pace with the oil and gas industry, and the country is now dotted with sites where land or water were contaminated by spills and other accidents, where gas wells, trains or pipelines have exploded, or where locals say air and water pollution has left them with a range of health problems.
Even the CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, has objected to the industry’s arrival in his own neighborhood, citing traffic jams and harm to property values.
But the new and woefully under-reported European study undermines the two major upshots that proponents of drilling have put forward — economic gains and a lower carbon footprint.
The European report only focuses on one greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, and does not touch on the impacts of a second, more potent greenhouse gas: methane.
Although natural gas produces carbon dioxide when it burns (about 50 to 60 percent as much as coal), scientists have warned that the harm to the climate done when unburned natural gas, which is primarily methane, leaks out into the atmosphere could decimate climate benefits from switching away from other fossil fuels and burning natural gas instead — especially when the effects that will be felt within our lifetimes are concerned, since methane’s global warming effects are at their strongest during the first few decades after it leaks to the atmosphere.
The shale boom’s marginal economic benefits come as little surprise to some analysts. “[D]ue to the size of the US economy, it has always been unrealistic to expect shale gas to move the needle much,” said Bill Powers, energy investor, analyst, and author of the book, Cold, Hungry and in the Dark. “Since so much of our economy is service-related, tech, finance, healthcare and education, I have always been very skeptical of the claims of large economic impact.”
There are profound policy implications if the shale gas rush can generate only small economic benefits. The hope that the fuel could help bring back factory jobs to the U.S. has fed the Obama administration’s support for the shale gas rush. “Businesses plan to invest almost a hundred billion dollars in new factories that use natural gas,” President Obama said in his State of the Union address as he praised shale’s contributions to the economy.
But researchers from the International Monetary Fund say that chemical company investment plans have less to do with the shale gas rush, and more to do with a bounce-back from the 2008 market crash, dropping currency exchange rates, and the downwards pressure on American wages. "You had so much slack in the labor market in the recession," Prakash Loungoni, head of commodities research at the IMF told National Geographic. "Work wage demands are pretty moderate in the [United States.]"
In other words, even if shale gas does help bring back some manufacturing jobs, don’t expect those jobs to be high-paying.
Shale industry supporters often cite the sheer number of jobs created by the boom. But the estimates that politicians cite often turn out to be overblown. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett recently found himself in hot water for his claim that drilling has created 200,000 jobs in his state. A recent analysis found that only 30,000 jobs could be directly linked to his state’s Marcellus shale rush, and that despite Corbett’s drill-baby-drill policies, job growth from Marcellus development has fallen roughly a third between 2010 and 2013.
“The amount of jobs created by the gas boom has been grossly overstated,” explained Mr. Powers.
The impacts are even less striking when the ripple effects from drilling are taken into account. “[E]very gas-related job that was created in Texas, Louisiana and Pennsylvania and other states has probably resulted in a coal-related job that has been lost,” Mr. Powers added. “More importantly, the shale gas boom has greatly hampered job growth in the renewable sector.”
Prospects for shale gas in the European Union look even bleaker, the European researchers concluded.
The researchers honed in on the uncertainty surrounding exactly how much shale gas lays beneath European countries, noting that the continent has seen little drilling compared to North America, and so oil and gas companies know relatively little about Europe’s shale formations.
Using middle-of-the-road assumptions, the researchers concluded that shale gas could potentially supply between 3 and ten percent of Europe’s natural gas, meaning that the continent would still be heavily dependent on imports.
This means that shale gas will be no panacea for Europe. “To solve its energy, climate and manufacturing competitiveness challenges, the EU thus needs a broad strategy of energy efficiency, innovation, low carbon energy sources, and a stronger internal market.”
That may prove to be a much more reliable plan than staking the future on shale gas, whose promised benefits increasingly seem like mostly smoke and mirrors.
Photo Credit: Stressed Businessman with low Financial Graph, via Shutterstock.Tags: shale gasfrackinghydraulic fracturingshale oiloil and gasboomfrenzyrushland rushclimate changeeconomic benefitsbooneconomyfracingeconomicsDrillingsurgenatural gas wellsoil wellseuropean unionBill Powersgross domestic productGDPchemicals industrymanufacturing rennaisancepetrochemicals
This month our theme is "living with climate change". We'll be exploring that from a variety of angles, speaking to climate scientists, hearing contrasting opinions as to what it could mean in practice, looking at the inner impacts it has on us. We'll hear from Transition folks around the world as to what climate change looks like where they are, starting today with Joanne Poyourow in Los Angeles. It has been an extraordinary few weeks in the life of climate change here in the UK. I realise that any readers in Australia, Thailand, parts of the US, the Philippines, Alaska etc. will be thinking "welcome to our world", but this felt like the moment climate change reached these shores, made its presence felt in a way that it never has before.
Much has been written about the floods and extreme weather, but for this piece I want to turn to a commentator on such things who I haven't seen referenced in recent coverage, William Shakespeare. In Shakespeare's King Lear, Lear has foolishly divided his kingdom between his three daughters on the narcissistic basis of which of them loves him the most. Cordelia, the one daughter who really loves him, tells him she thinks it's a ridiculous process, for which he banishes her and divides everything between his other two daughters.
Eventually they cast him out, destitute, heartbroken and losing his reason, onto a heath in a storm. There then follows one of the most powerful passages in the English language as he hurls his anger and deluded self-pity into the face of the deluge:
Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!
You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout
Till you have drench’d our steeples, drown’d the cocks!
You sulphurous and thought-executing fires,
Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts,
Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder,
Strike flat the thick rotundity o’ the world!
Crack nature’s moulds, all germens spill at once
That make ingrateful man!
Here is Sir Ian McKellen performing it:
While an extraordinary piece of writing, it also, unfortunately, seems increasingly to reflect the reaction of a substantial number of people to the recent storms. All manner of people and organisations have been, metaphorically at least, stood on the top of the nearest hill, screaming into the face the most extraordinary storms in living memory, believing that somehow their indignation, their sheer belief, their rightness, their complete absolution from any responsibility for what is occurring, can subdue and overcome nature’s fury and return everything to "normal".
First there’s the government. Driven, in part, by the need to appease the UKIP elements of their own party, discussions about the storms have rarely mentioned climate change. When David Cameron initially suggested the two may be linked, at Prime Ministers Questions, he was booed ... by his own party.
Although he has subsequently stated that climate change is "one of the most serious threats that this country and this world faces", this is hard to reconcile with his acting as though the opposite were the case: pledging to somehow defy physics and revive the North Sea oil and gas industry (have you seen the production decline graph?), giving tax breaks for fracking, pledging to increase airport capacity and re-open some coal mines, planning for a fourfold increase in shipping by 2050, and so on.
This, remember, is a government whose Environment Secretary recently stated that climate change "is something we can adapt to over time and we are very good as a race at adapting". Try telling that to people in Somerset whose living room is three feet deep in silt and sewage. It is also a government whose Energy Minister Michael Fallon, argues that "unthinking climate change worship" has damaged British industry.
Nigel Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor and now director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and whose views on climate change represent those of many rank-and-file Conservative MPs, made a highly controversial appearance on Radio 4's Today Programme (which we complained about here). "This is a wake up call", he announced, but not to do anything about the causes, rather to "focus on making sure this country is really resilient and robust to whatever nature throws at us, flood defences, sea defences and so on". He may just as well have climbed onto the table and recited "blow wind and crack your cheeks".
The deluded belief is that we are so clever, so powerful, so brilliant, that all we need to do is to spend enough money and flex our technological muscle and we can overcome anything. It runs deep. King Lear would have recognised a kindred spirit, similarly trying to hang on to a world view whose time has passed, to a sense of control that is no longer appropriate.
Our media have been quite happy to join the politicians, hurling insults and indignation at the squall. According to Carbon Brief, just 206 of 3,064 press articles on the UK's recent floods mentioned climate change (see right). Virtually everything that I heard or read was about how we needed better defences, the need to build better dams and drains, to dredge the rivers to get rid of the water faster.
Some economists are also joining in with this approach of sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la". The Telegraph recently reported that the flooding of prime farmland in the UK and droughts and other extreme weather episodes in other parts of the world, are leading to rises in food prices. For example, droughts in Brazil, which grows 40% of the world's coffee beans, have led to a 50% rise in coffee prices. Economist Kona Haque, head of agricultural commodities research at Macquarie, is quoted as saying:
"Suddenly, out of nowhere, we have have seen weather risk creep back into the market".
"Out of nowhere"?! This metaphorical hilltop has become an increasingly crowded place of late. Those government ministers and the press have been joined, among the sodden bracken and wind-lashed trees, by the very small but highly influential band of climate sceptics, who one had hoped these floods would have inspired to crawl off under a rock somewhere to rethink things in the light of the bleedin' obvious.
Lord Lawson has been the most prominent one of late, but the BBC’s commitment to ‘balance’ meant not just that Lawson was featured prominently on the Today Programme alongside respected climate scientist Sir Brian Hoskins, but also Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Delusion (yawn) was brought in to debate with Kevin Anderson. Montford's "we've dealt with these things in the past, we can deal with them in the future" wins our Idiotic Statement of the Month award, echoing the even stupider statement by arch climate sceptic William Nierenberg in 1983:
"Not only have people moved, but they have taken with them their horses, dogs, children, technologies, crops, livestock and hobbies. It is extraordinary how adaptable people can be".
Of course in the same way that debates on evolution no longer require the input of Creationists for ‘balance’, discussions on climate change now should be achieving balance by having guests who accept that climate change is happening, but disagree on what to do about it. For example, Kevin Anderson and Sir Brian Hoskins might have been interesting ... just a thought.
About once a month on Twitter, climate sceptics round on me for a few hours before going off to have a pop at someone else. During one exchange, as a way of proving his point once and for all, one of them posted the following graphic which captures the sceptic position beautifully:
His point was that "10's of 1000's of deaths (erm, caused by substandard housing, not by responses to climate change), higher taxes (a tiny proportion of taxes go to doing anything about climate change), etc, versus a few °C". "A few °C?" We haven't seen one degree rise yet and the Arctic ice is in its death spiral (as captured in this chilling animation), parts of Austalia are becoming uninhabitable, typhoons are acquiring a previously unseen potency, Alaska is sinking into the permafrost and so on. Yet the sceptics continue to argue that there are flaws in the consensus.
There’s a beautiful encounter on YouTube between Naomi Oreskes (co-author of Merchants of Doubt, who we'll be interviewing later this month) and Nick Minchin, a prominent Australian climate sceptic. In it she puts her finger on where such people are coming from:
“It makes me wonder if the reason you want to reject the science is that it has consequences. It has consequences for us about how we live our lives, how we run our economy, what our taxation policies are. I think what you don’t like are the implications, the political, social and economic implications. But what you’ve done, along with a lot of other people, is say “let’s shift the debate, let’s argue about the science, let’s keep the debate about the science going, because as long as we argue about the science, we don’t get to the question of what it means for us politically, socially and economically”.
This makes more sense again in the context of who many of these sceptics are. As Henry Porter put it in the Guardian recently, “Lawson, Lord Monckton, Christopher Booker, Samuel Brittan and Viscount Ridley – names that begin to give you some idea of the demographic”. And all the time the “debate” rumbles on, those “few °C” become an increasing inevitability.
For me though, I’ve found the experience of the storms of recent weeks far more deeply unsettling. Rather than trying to shout down the storms, I’ve experienced them on a visceral level in a way I never have before. What has arrived on these shores is a deep sense of uncertainty, of loss of control, a trauma over not just the scale of what happened but the intensity of it. Here are a few snapshots:
About 15 minutes before I leave work to cycle home, I note the ominous colour of the sky, take a photo from the office window (right) and tweet it, writing "Another wave of dark dark clouds moving into Totnes. Whatever's in those clouds is what I have to cycle home through". As I step out of the door the hail starts. During the journey home, it comes down in pulses of varying intensity. In all my 25 years as a cyclist, I have never ridden a bike in such conditions. It’s like trying to cycle in a car wash while a frenzied maniac throws icy cold gravel in my face from close range. Three times I have to get off the bike, stand with my hood held pulled down over my face, until that pulse passes. I eventually arrive home, sodden, freezing, the tops of my legs bright scarlet, and traumatised by the whole experience.
I’m in Dawlish, a seaside town close to Totnes, where 2 weeks previously, the beautiful, and precarious, stretch of trainline that links the South West to London and the rest of the country, crumbled into the sea at the height of the storms. John Clatworthy, Devon county councillor for Dawlish, was quoted in The Guardian as saying "I have been here for 44 years and we haven't had storm damage like we have now. The storm last night was unbelievable". I’ve travelled to Dawlish to see it for myself, although Network Rail and a security firm are ensuring that you can’t actually get anywhere near the damaged section of rail.
My son and I are up on the cliff path, the only place you can see the breached sea wall in the distance. We get talking to an old man on a bench, who tells us how it was a storm unlike anything he had ever seen before. After a while I ask him if he attributes it in any way to climate change. Not at all, he tells me, he doesn’t believe in climate change. He does however, he tells me, believe that it is inevitable that all the gases and pollution we have put into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution have had an impact on the global climate, but no, he doesn’t believe in climate change. Go figure. [We'll be picking up on what the psychology of this might be later this month in an interview with George Marshall].
I’m lying in bed trying to get to sleep, and outside a wild wind is raging. The mental picture that comes to mind is of the Wild Things from ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ all leaping around in the trees. The noise being generated is incredible, like something from a Hollywood action movie. I’ve never known a gale like it. This all feels like I'm experiencing an intensity in the weather where I live which I've never felt before, and it's deeply unsettling.
Near the end of Lear's speech, he exclaims, as he begins to sink into heart-breaking self pity:
"I am a man more sinned against than sinning".
This has been a strong strand over recent weeks, that we are more sinned against than sinning. The very idea that our actions might be in any way to blame in any way for what we experienced is considered ridiculous. For Lawson, we should be blaming a "crazy and costly policy of littering the countryside with wind turbines and solar panels". The Daily Mail blamed the foreign aid programme, arguing that it was crazy to be sending money to help people overseas when people in the UK were being affected by flooding. A UKIP councillor, David Silvester, blamed gay marriage. Christopher Brooker in the Spectator (see right), blamed environmentalists, the EU, the Environment Agency, anyone who places value on biodiversity and nature conservation.
Yet it is clear that our sins, our foolishness, like Lear’s, are coming home to roost. It’s not entirely our doing though, as the recent paper that pointed out that two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions were produced by just 90 companies made clear. As Dame Julia Slingo of the Met Office put it recently in relation to the UK storms:
"All the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change. There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events."
It is clear that we are now, indeed, living with climate change. It’s a new world. That’s a given. But what do we do, how to we act, how do we live with climate change? Do we decide, as Paul Kingsnorth will argue in an interview we’ll publish here in a couple of days, that:
“We have no control over the direction our climate’s now going in. And yet we labour under this illusion that if we can come up with the right plan we can sort things out, and we can’t. Once you accept that, you sort of walk off into this strange wilderness in which you’re not in control of things”
Or do we go with Kevin Anderson’s statement in his presentation to December’s Radical Emissions Reduction Conference that:
“Avoiding dangerous climate change remains a feasible goal of the international community. Just”.
I know where I’ll be directing my energy. This is no time to hurl our rage at the storm, to fall prey to self pity. For so long as Kevin Anderson’s “just” exists, these recent tempests have redoubled my motivation. They have refocused, for many people, attention on the link to climate change and the urgent need for action. They have given us a dose of what climate change will look like (i.e. not all sitting around in tshirts in our own vineyards topping up our tans). But perhaps the most important thing we can do right now is to find some space in our busy lives to sit with how the events of the last few weeks have impacted on us personally. How did those storms feel? How did they affect you? It's a question we hope you might find time to sit with this month.
We hope you will enjoy this month's theme, and look forward to your comments and to any thoughts you might have of what else we might cover this month.
The Energy Department plans to put the MOX fuel facility in South Carolina on "cold standby" while it figures out how to dispose of surplus plutonium.
President Obama’s call for a billion-dollar climate resilience fund in his latest budget demonstrates how our national debate about climate change is shifting, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists
Ever wonder how people manage to get by on minimum wage? Oftentimes, they don't...
From Prison Books
Hello Friends and Comrades,
1) Here is the political prisoner birthday poster for March. As always, please post this poster publicly and/or use it to start a card writing night of your own.
2) Be sure to check out the latest Political Prisoner/Prisoner Of War every-other week update by the NYC-Anarchist Black Cross. There are lots of important updates on many political prisoners.
Until Every Cage Is Empty,hugo pinellJaan LaamanKevin Olliffletter writingMI CATS 3political prisoners' birthdaysposterssolidaritytinley park 5Category: Projects
Creative, ambitious, independent-yet-also-community-minded, oh my! This "Girl's Guide to Detroit" might make anyone who isn't a Detroit resident or a woman mighty jealous. In fact, if you're a man in Tampa, I'm not sure it's even safe to see this.
Best parts? The women you'll meet at 3:00 reveal one of the secrets to all this magic starting at 5:30. The rad girl in the opening minute comes back at 8:00 with some pretty profound thoughts on being female.
OK, let's give college bulletins and glossy magazines the benefit of the doubt: They're probably seriously concerned with stopping rapes on campuses (and elsewhere). And maybe they sincerely believe that a good way to do that is to suggest some of the steps you'll see below.
The problem is that when you focus on controlling how women behave to avoid rape, however well-meaning that advice is, you're missing a pretty big piece of the reason rape is so prevalent: namely, rapists. I'd much rather see a discussion about how we get men to understand consent and stop being creepers than the bizarre, contradictory wardrobe suggestions brilliantly parodied in this video.
TRIGGER WARNING: Nothing graphic, but this video features fictionalized rape scenarios and at least one incredibly skeevy-looking dude.
Made by artist and filmmaker Cat Del Buono. Follow her on Twitter and check out her other work. Also, this is satire so please don't be one of those people who rage in the comments without taking that into account. Seriously, it's the worst.
For the lead-up to the U.N. Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, the new immersive digital campaign Unlock Iran is designed to amass awareness around Iran’s “prisoners of rights” — people jailed for their beliefs, profession, or lifestyle.
The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC) made this infographic to amass awareness and dialogue around Iran’s prisoners of rights for their new digital campaign, Unlock Iran. You can also follow them on Twitter and on their Facebook page. Used with permission.
For what it's worth, I kind of admire her seeming earnestness in asking why the anti-gay bill vetoed in Arizona is so bad. At face value, maybe it doesn't seem so bad. After all, you could (as she says) just find a business owner who is more accepting of your lifestyle. As her guest (tries to) explain, this logic is dangerous.
There are a lot of things we can do to save our resources (like water) and conserve energy that are actually pretty painless. I won't even mention yellow being "mellow." *ahem*
Here are five to start with. :)
I will forever feel the following way about Lupita Nyong’o winning an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for "12 Years a Slave":
But a few days before her historic Oscar win (for the first movie she's ever been in!) Lupita accepted an award for Best Breakthrough Performance at the seventh annual Black Women in Hollywood Luncheon hosted by Essence magazine. It was there she delivered a speech on beauty that every little girl should hear.
Share this (if you think she is an inspiration, like I do, or if you just like what she had to say) by clicking the Facebook and Twitter buttons below.
Event Date & Time: Sunday, 27 April 2014 - 9:00am - 3:00pm Event Type: Training event Stage: Deepening Connecting Daring to dream Location Bielefeld, Hamburg Germany 52° 1' 16.6692" N, 8° 31' 49.0692" E See map: Google Maps Point of contact: Gerd Wessling
Join Charles Eisenstein in a day-long intensive for leaders, healers, and social activists.
Join Charles Eisenstein in a day-long intensive for leaders, healers, and social activists.
Charles will be assisted by Gerd Wessling (Transition Trainer & co-founder of the Transition Netzwerk D/A/CH).
Our society is entering a time of profound transformation. Crises in the economy, the ecosystem, health, education, water, energy, and more are propelling our civilization toward a radically different way of living on planet earth. Such conditions call for a new kind of leader, and even a whole new paradigm of leadership. At stake are the deep questions: "Who are we?" "What are we here to create?" "What is the role of humanity on earth, and how may I contribute to it?"
In this gathering we will explore, in concept and in practice:
- Our unique historical moment: from separation to connection.
- The psychodynamics of transition (personal, organizational, planetary).
- The rebirth of community.
- Leadership in an age of social and ecological healing.
- A leader: "One who creates opportunities for others to express their gifts."
- A leader: "One who holds the story of what-is-to-be."
- What does leadership mean in a non-hierarchical setting?
For more information and to book go to: http://www.transition-initiativen.de/events/charles-eisenstein-workshop-...
Themes: Business & Economics Education Inner Transition
Some of us have it better than others based purely on where we were born. Like, a lot better.