Photo courtesy of: www.treehugger.com

From the makers of COP 15 and Kyoto, the UNFCCC brings you the third UNFCCC intersessional of climate talks at the Maritim Hotel in Bonn, Germany. For those of us who have no idea that ‘BONN‘ is a city, and that there were intersessional climate talks above and beyond the major international negotiations each winter; here is a brief update on the sessions’ developments.

The small group of young people incorporated as YOUNGOs have staged interventions and many activities to share the youth voice and play a role in the progress of the text for COP 16 in Mexico. A group called ‘Adopt A Negotiator’ has been tracking lead negotiators from mainly Annex 1 countries (That’s us!) and sharing their trials and tribulations in addition to small successes HERE.

So what exactly is an intervention anyway? It’s where these young civil society delegates stage actions to publicly raise awareness through creative means, all to push the progressive climate change agenda.
The first intervention of the conference had a lot to do with LOVE and COMMITTMENT. This may seem like a bizarre thing at a dry intersessional climate conference, however, these climate trackers really did bring some brightness to the proceedings. Dressed in ‘ I heart KP’ Tshirts, the message was loud and clear that these delegates love the Kyoto Protocol and want Annex 1 Countries to adhere to it. In fact, they want to see countries like Canada married to it and sticking to the vows that were made.
While Kyoto has its own flaws and significance for Canada, these trackers are clear about their message and are pushing for an overall concept in an overall movement that is entirely important as climate change ensues.

From receptions with the German Government and a meeting between all NGOs and the new Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC: Christina Figueres, Bonn 3 is in full swing. It’s difficult to gauge whether the talks will be successful or not, however, many are already speaking out that these intersessionals are not setting up the proper outlines for an effective, fair, ambitious, and legally binding treaty in Mexico 2010.

To find out more about Bonn 3 and follow the youth civil society that are tracking the proceedings, visit http://adoptanegotiator.org

Here in BC we now have a Harmonized Sales Tax, brought in by your governing Conservative Party of Canada in close cooperation with the local BC Libs. Yeah, it’s a consumption tax which appears to be decent policy, and yeah, some claim it will increase the business sector’s competitiveness, but at the end of the day the overall tax is higher and that can’t be a good thing. You have to compliment them on the clever way in which they implemented, paying the provincial government $1.6 billion in two installments to soften the political blow. Miraculously, they have almost escaped without any blame despite enabling the tax and then rewarding those provincial governments that implemented it. Clever indeed.

Over a month ago now, I was exposed in a lot more detail to Michelle Nickerson’s Ripple Effect. Michelle did the 2009 Sustainable Living Leadership Program, as I did in 2008,This organization, still in its infancy, aims to kick-start salmon restoration projects by using repeat and widespread acts of physical endurance to raise funds for a range of projects, on a variety of levels from small local watershed, to large system watersheds, Riversheds if you will. This was to be accomplished through a multiple person length of the Fraser River swim this year by Michelle and other swimmers. The unexpected challenges of fundraising and trip organization prevented that plan from proceeding fully this year; instead we planned a length of the Fraser River cycle project; a much less capital intensive undertaking, if still a challenging physical feat. This will be the Ripple Effect kick-off for 2010 – a 3 000 to 4 000 km. cycle trip through all communities within the Fraser River Watershed, if not entirely by Michelle and I, by other riders who join the trip.

The trip will lay the groundwork for a 2011 Fraser swim, and has virtually unlimited potential to morph into various fundraising and awareness initiatives, involving acts of physical stamina such as swimming, cycling, and hiking.

Lastly, as a Dutchman I can’t help but follow the Dutch squad’s ascent to the World Cup final. Through no effort of mine, I ended up watching the game on the big screen at Sumas Mountain Coffee Roasters on George Ferguson when I stopped in there after a ride this morning. I’m disappointed at the Dutch squad’s seeming focus on brute strength and aggression – they applied force that wasn’t necessary in far too many fights for the ball, and didn’t show a great deal of offensive creativity. This incarnation of the Dutch squad isn’t really I can support…much as it pains me to say that.

Even more so however, I resent how this World Cup in Johannesburg, a display of primarily physical strength with little true importance has garnered far more headlines than the Earth Summit on Sustainable Development, a discussion on the very future of humanity by some of the world’s brightest minds. That imbalance needs to change if human behaviour is ever to change.

Metro Vancouver’s new solid waste management plan has ignited controversy everywhere it has gone for public consultation. The regional district is leaning towards a new and effective way to manage solid waste. At first glance it appears to be a significant step forward in regards to environmental sustainability. Chair of the Fraser Valley Regional District Patricia Ross recently said: “We are happy to support the initiatives in the Metro Vancouver plan to divert waste and increase reduction, reuse and recycling.” By increasing the amount of waste diverted away from landfills through recycling and composting, from 55% to 70%, Metro Vancouver has made a forward-thinking decision that puts more focus on waste reduction. The controversy is over what to do with the remaining 30% of our garbage. The Draft Plan includes three possible options for the leftover waste. Metro’s favoured option is the construction of a new incinerator, followed by incineration in another location, or continued landfilling.

The Metro Board must determine a solution to an issue that is growing, literally, every year. Developing a solid waste management plan that is sustainable, cost effective, and environmentally conscious is not an easy task. The current program of landfilling is admittedly not the optimal solution – based on emissions of methane gas that are released from that landfill, in addition to chemical leeching of products. In a day and age where the provincial government is looking to reduce GHG emissions, it is more than clear that there has to be a better way.

Interestingly enough, environmentalists concerned about climate change have formed their own type of opposition to incineration because the science says that waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities like the one Metro Has proposed, emit more C02 per unit of energy produced than a coal-fired power plant. Ben West of the Wilderness Committee calls emissions from energy production the “low hanging fruit” of reducing our carbon footprint. West explains that, “According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, waste incineration releases 1355 g of carbon per KWh vs. 1020 g per KWh for a coal fired power plant. To put that in perspective natural gas creates 515 g per KWh.” This is information that certainly can’t be ignored in all of the “public consultations” that are being presented around all the communities Metro has visited. In fact, a recent UBC study says “Any new source of combustion in the Lower Mainland, including mass burn waste incineration, is simply not advisable.”

Residents across the Fraser Valley have begun to band together to raise their voice against incineration. I myself have toured a waste to energy facility in Denmark, similar to many of those all over Europe that Metro advisors cite as successful. My experience resulted in skepticism on the topics of emissions, health risks, and economic costs and impacts. My skepticism only grew as I investigated Metro’s draft plan. FVRD Chair Patricia Ross calls the claim of success all over Europe as a “farce.” She says: “There have been bans, calls for bans, and shutdowns. One company Covanta has been fined. People are realizing that incinerators haven’t lived up to their promise, but this technology is new to Canada and we are easy targets for the pro incinerator lobby.”

In many cases, opponents here aren’t even arguing against the case for WTE’s success in Europe. They are saying it’s not right for this air shed, being one of the most sensitive in the world. A new website, Air Quality Matters, explains that: “Coastal wind patterns and the nature of our geography create a sensitive air shed in the Fraser Valley, particularly susceptible to the build up of air-borne contaminants.”

Whether it is the Irish Doctors Association highlighting health concerns over the dioxins and nanoparticles that are produced through the incineration process, or the increased threat to the air shed, garbage in Metro Vancouver has been getting heat from Fraser Valley Residents. The crisis with DDT is something to think about when we utilize technologies and products without knowing the possible risks. Do we want to wait 20 years to find out that the new particles that we have been breathing in have caused mutations and serious health issues? These particles will also contaminate our prime agricultural land, an important aspect of industry and community in the Fraser Valley. So how beneficial will the Hundred Mile Diet be then? Even Chilliwack school trustees have chosen to openly oppose the plan and write a letter to Metro Vancouver.

At the same time, it isn’t just the health and environmental case that causes a stir with opponents. A recent KPMG study questioned the economics of Metro’s business plan, adding to the chorus of concerns over financial estimates as stated by Abbotsford South MLA John Van Dongen: “I am not convinced by the business case. People at the Vancouver Board of Trade and Surrey Board of Trade do not agree with Metro’s estimates.” Chilliwack MLA John Les spoke at a recent public meeting: “The more I listen, the more I hear, the more sceptical I am becoming.” He criticized Metro in regards to Douw Steyn of UBC, a well known expert on air quality who was fired by the GVRD after opposing incineration. “It seems to me that if you propose a certain solution you ought not to be afraid of a wide ranging and open debate” said Les.

Who is paying for this massive capital investment? The plan includes building a new public utility, and my mother says there are no free lunches. If we actually do reduce our waste beyond the 70% number that Metro has decided on – because the market is already starting to drive change, whether it be biodegradable chip bags or otherwise – we stop using the incinerator once we are dependant on the power? Who, at the end of the day will really profit?  John Les ended by saying: “Be very afraid. This could really hit you in the pocketbook.’…………..

Read the rest on the Commonsense Canadian with Rafe Mair and Damien Gillis: ARTICLE

What do you think?  Leave a comment below!

Of noteworthy importance are the many questions being posed now that world leaders have left Toronto and the streets have been swept clear of broken glass and trash. From all NGOs being excluded from the media center, (the one with the famous fake lake), the violence on Queen Street in Canada’s largest city, to the reluctant inclusion of topics like climate change; the G8/G20′s legitimacy as effective bodies on global affairs have been called into question.

The concept of an overly expensive summit, which has always been a popular talking point for federal opposition parties, has flourished throughout the last week making the price tag of $1 billion dollars on security a popular buzz word for taxpayers and activists alike. The price tag becomes even more of a black mark on Harper’s government and the entire G20 body when past summit’s security costs have been significantly less.

The knives have come out, whether it be from Toronto Mayor David Miller, asking why negotiations were held in such a large city center, to apparent restrictions on journalists and reporters. Even the “big-city mayors caucus “ is challenging Ottawa to pay up and compensate the businesses affected by protests and civil disobedience.
Public opinion, may heat up one more level as concerns of what The Guardian journalist John Hilary calls `skulduggery` in Toronto this weekend. International media filmed police cruisers going up in smoke while Toronto Police have since been accused of playing public relations. Cruisers were allegedly driven into crowds, and left to be enveloped by flames while TV cameras around the world captured footage of the proclaimed anarchist’s handiwork. Whether there is any legitimacy to these claims of `skullduggery` is irrelevant. The damage has in essence been done.

All of these popular media headlines do little to explain real problems that have developed within the ranks of civil society. Furthermore, they entirely neglected to share with Canadians what actually happened at the summit. Only now have we begun to hear echoes of what happened in regards to the controversial bank tax, climate change, and national debts.

Most problematic is the fact that people have lost faith in the Canadian government, corporations, law enforcement and other relevant institutions. This G8 and G20 illuminated the holes in Canadian accountability, security costs being only the tip of the iceberg in reference to broader issues.

Ideas on conceptualizing what to do to effectively change this situation appear sparse. Perhaps this is the reason why 10,000 people felt they needed to flood the streets of Toronto to yell out their frustrations to what seemed like deaf ears within the summit.

At the Copenhagen Climate Conference last December, the world saw a shift in the so called environmental movement with social justice groups like Oxfam merging with traditionally environmental organizations like Greenpeace on the issue of climate change.

Now, Canada and the global community is looking at a broader problem, one of which determines who gets the say in what direction the world takes economically and otherwise.

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been dispensed on a meeting of the worlds noblesse, while small nations were excluded from discussions on how to handle the global economy. Being that economic institutions and national governments are entirely interdependent, the decisions made at the G8 and G20 will significantly effect the nations that didn’t have a voice at the negotiating table. The significance of this is made increasingly important by the fact that the G20 is a fairly recent creation originally meant for finance ministers that has now extended into a `Leader`s Summit`. The result is a ‘special club’ in which countries like Canada and the USA have a developed aversion to utilizing the far less expensive and already quality controlled United Nations that gives a voice to small countries while allowing effective debate and discussion.

As Toronto returns to normalcy, my view of the G8 and G20 Summits has shifted dramatically. If the real problems of the world are ever to be solved, a more cohesive method of dialogue and debate must be used. Now more than ever it seems necessary to try and unite advocates on the variety of causes people are currently campaigning for. The United Nations, an able body of unity and cooperation is ready for us, let’s use it.

Read it on the Commonsense Canadian, a new multimedia journal with RAFE MAIR and DAMIEN GILLIS

Check out these interviews at the Draft Solid Waste Management Plan Public Consultation by Metro Vancouver in Chilliwack BC.

All on the new video page: VIDEO TUNE IN

It seems like there is some strong affinity for delay when it comes to climate change. The Bonn 2 UNFCCC Climate meeting had seemed no different. Until it progressed a little further. The last press conference of Bonn 2 featured Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Yvo De Boer stating that the conference: “Has made significant progress” and “Elements of the Copenhagen Accord are now fully integrated as the beginnings of a formula that links national pledges to cuts or limiting emissions with the minus 25-40% goal that science indicated as being required if we are to have a 50% chance of staying below a 2 degree temperature increase.”

Although all of this ‘progress’ probably isn’t even close to enough, it’s a political step forward.

The most inspiring aspect of all recent climate talks have been the presence of youth and their fresh approach to politics and global accountability.
From numerous ‘actions’ and personal meetings with people like Yvo de Boer, Christiana Figueres and Mexican Ambassador Carlos García de Alba, these young members of civil society have been able to constructively engage with the whole UNFCCC process.

One source inside the talks explained how Figueres (the new executive secretary of the UNFCCC) suggested that those in the YOUNGOs should aim to become ‘resource people’ to really impact on the negotiations by finding out as much possible about one issue to become an expert!

Some interesting advice for sure. I can only hope that the movement for action on climate change will build enough to secure a fair and legally binding treaty on climate change this December in Cancun. Conclusively, Bonn 2 provided some steps forward. In the words of Mr de Boer, “The work here opens way for Cancun to deliver a full package of operational measures allowing developing countries to take fast and stronger action across all areas of climate change.” De Boer also mentioned a very important aspect of any future treaty: “For Cancun to succeed, governments, negotiators, but also civil society and the press need to get their head around two major issues. The concept of ‘legally binding’ is not an icon of faith but a practical feature of international agreements.” He brings up an important aspect of accountability that the international community criticized Canada for its ignorance of at COP 15 when reviewing Canada’s performance according to Kyoto. In this way, De Boer is quite right when he says (of accountability) : “You don’t get it by simply repeating the words, it’s [legally binding] an essential ingredient.

I will be on Country 107.1 Radio: The Morning Show with Steve Fanning between 830-930 tomorrow morning talking on the subject of WTE and the Zero Waste BC that will be taking place at 630 in the evening before the Public Consultation. You can also view a video presentation of the interview later in the day HERE.

Come out to the rally and make your voice heard to advocate clean air in the Fraser Valley!

Zero Waste BC’s demonstration outside the venue will run from 6:30 to 7 p.m. Best Western Rainbow Country Inn, 43971 Industrial Way.

Personally, I don’t think I can argue the possible merits and issues of incinerators internationally, but I will say that this form of ‘waste management’ is wrong for this area. We are in one of the most sensitive airsheds in the world. Metro Vancouver realizes there is money to be made on the power, and even though incinerators according to the Western Canada WIlderness Committee, emit more CO2 than a coal fired power plant, Metro is still pushing for their draft plan. At Abbey Arts on May 15th, they presented a sales pitch-like talk, one of which a citizen speaker commented on, saying he was getting ready for them to bring out steaknives because of the blatant sales pitch nature of what was supposed to be a public consultation.

At the end of the day, WTE in this region will mean endangered air quality, in addition to a huge capital investment of which the Fraser Valley will likely have to contribute to significantly while bearing the brunt of the emissions. I urge all of you to find out more about this issue on ZERO WASTE BC and email Waste.Incinerators@WriteWild.net . This correspondence will go to Metro and also Environment Minister Barry Penner who will be presented will all information by July 14th.

Local Canadian idol and Abbotsford resident Shane Wiebe has just joined the campaign against Waste to Energy by recording the new song LandFill in the Sky. Let’s ensure that the Fraser Valley doesn’t have to “SUCK IT UP SO THEY CAN POWER UP!”
On June 16th at 6:00, Metro Vancouver will be doing their last presentation in the Fraser Valley. Mayor Sharon Gaetz and other leaders in opposition to WTE will be hosting a rally before the start of the event. Come on out and share you voice!

Here is a video from Metro’s presentation in Abbotsford:
Abbotsford News Article and Video

Incineration…A recent UBC study says “Any new sources of combustion in the Lower Mainland, including mass burn waste incineration, is simply not advisable.” So what are we waiting for? Lets ensure clean air in the Fraser Valley.

Saturday May 15 (tomorrow) is Metro Vancouver’s public meeting at Abbey Arts starting at noon. They will present a one sided arguement on how combusting garbage means no emissions and great environmental benefits.
We know better.
Remember SE2 when we all rallied together to ensure that our air quality wasn’t harmed by activities in ANOTHER country? Now its time to stand up for clean air that is in danger by a plan from our neighbour, METRO VANCOUVER.

Lets make it clear that incineration in this airshed, is NOT a good waste management option.

MAY 15, at 11:45 there will be a rally outside the Abbey Arts Center : 2329 Crescent Way to share the other side on garbage burning in the Valley. Please be there. Bring your families, your friends, your coworkers and remember that the air we breathe matters.

More information on solid waste incineration is available HERE.
Lets do this Abbotsford.

According to recent reports: The top of the list of objectives is to: “Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change.” It also talks of “managing expectations” of the outcome of the Cancun meeting using podcasts and “intimate meetings” with the chief US negotiator to disarm the US’s harsher critics. “

There seem to be many issues with US environmental policies.  Sorry to state the obvious.  Whether you agree or disagree with their positions is another issue in and of itself, however, there seems to be such a degree of vagueness in intentions that it is difficult to determine whether leadership on any front is being taken. 

Thus far, I’ve heard a lot about developing and investing in search for clean coal technology .  This seems like a bit of an issue considering considering, according to Alternet, Clean Coal’s ‘False Promise’.

So what to do about all this vagueness? I say that for now we just make sure to keep informed and up on the issues. It’s time for some Plugging Out and Tuning In on this one.