NY Gov. Cuomo Joins Calls to Retire Troubled Indian Point Nuclear Plant

A transformer at Indian Point nuclear power station caught fire on Saturday sending plumes of smoke up into the air, but not only. It is just 40 miles north of New York City. The operator says it supplies an estimated 25 percent of New York City's and Westchester's electricity. Of the 61 commercially-operated nuclear power plants in the U.S., Indian Point is located near the most densely populated city in the country. With us to discuss the recent accident, as well as ongoing issues with Indian Point and other nuclear power plants is Paul DeRienzo. He's a freelance journalist and regular contributor to The Villager and WhoWhatWhy.org, and Pacifica National Radio.Thank you so much for joining us today, Paul.PAUL DERIENZO, FREELANCE JOURNALIST: Thank you.PERIES: Paul, now, we are three days into this accident. Most media has moved on, it appears. But what can you tell us about the accident and the oil slick coating the Hudson River at the moment?DERIENZO: It was a fire and an explosion at a transformer in the non-nuclear section of the plant. At least, that's how it's been described. About 300 feet from one of the two operating nuclear power generators, or nuclear reactors that are operating at Indian Point. And the fire was very difficult to put out. It took a lot of foam. There was a re-starting of the fire from the heat after they thought it was out, so they had to return and put it out again a second time.Underneath the transformer was a moat that was supposed to gather up up to 80,000 gallons of the coolant oil, which is really not the oil that you think of in the form of diesel, but actually a mineral oil substance that's used to cool these transformers, very large devices for stepping up or down the electrical, the electrical current. And that, some of that oil apparently has leaked into the Hudson River. The amount is not, I think the governor has said maybe 3,000 gallons. But it's not for sure. And people saw what they called a sheen of oil on the water, and that was reported across the entire Hudson River. And that's never good, that signifies damage to the environment and to the Hudson River watershed. So there was some concern about that.And I think more of a concern, there was never really any direct threat as far as a radiation release. But there, this is the third time in eight years that we've had a major explosion and fire at a transformer. And in 2011, the last time that this happened, there was a leak of PCBs, which are called polychlorinated biphenols from the oil into the groundwater in Buchanan, New York, along the Hudson River where the plant is located. That's never a good thing.And the Governor was very--Governor Andrew Cuomo is very concerned that this, he's an opponent of Indian Point, that this pattern of errors and accidents which seem to be quickening in pace over the years signifies that these plants are way too old and shouldn't be [inaud.]PERIES: Now Paul, this plant was built in 1962, I understand. And the owner and operator says that it is perfectly safe and that they have replaced and maintained old parts. Should we really be concerned here?DERIENZO: Oh yeah, sure. It was--that's when the license, the construction began after the license was approved in 1962. The plants were actually built in the 1970s. They're a little bit over 40 years old. And they're--at least one is beyond its license, and there's some sort, it's really unclear, some sort of extended license that's going on. The other one is near, Indian Point 3 is near the end of its license and would have to be re-licensed if it was to operate.And this is true of many American, United States nuclear power plants that were built in the 1970s. It was sort of the highlight or the golden age of commercial nuclear power plants. But after Three Mile Island and particularly after Chernobyl you've seen no new plants come online. I think one recently was completed, but it was in the pipeline years before.The problem is nobody wants to live near one, and the biggest problem for Indian Point has been, it's only 40 miles from New York City, the largest population, the largest concentration in the United States. So within 50 miles radius, which Fukushima, if you recognize--you know, the United States has advised Americans not to go within 50 miles of Fukushima. So that same 50-mile radius around Indian Point would have--.PERIES: Would cover New York City. Now, I understand that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission carries out inspections and there are long--but this long length of time between them, which is one of the major concerns. What are the officials saying about this plant and its safety?DERIENZO: Well, they--you know, on one level I don't, I have no problems with the engineers and with the scientists and the people who work on these plants. I believe that they, in the bottom of their heart, want to do the best and want a plant the best they can. And they want to design and build them as best and as safely as they can.But the problem is, the error--you're not allowed much in the way of a margin of error here. The distinction between a level 4 accident and a level 2, which is what occurred this weekend, the lowest level of accident, and a level 2 and a level 1 is, you know, the difference between 80,000 gallons potentially of oil going into the river and a million people having to be evacuated. So you're taking on a very dangerous circumstance with nuclear power. It's something that when it, it may not go wrong, but if it does, boy you're paying the price for a long, long time.PERIES: So as someone who works on this issue, what needs to happen in terms of securing these sites, and Indian Point in particular? Should it be closed down?DERIENZO: The governor of New York State, who is way to the right of me, is demanding that it be closed down. And I would agree with him on this issue. It's way too close to New York City. And also, there's an earthquake risk. They just discovered a new earthquake fault, two earthquake faults cross right near Indian Point. So the potential of an earthquake, which Indian Point is not prepared for in the same way California nuclear plants are, is a real potential problem there. You saw what happened with an earthquake in Fukushima. And the potential of a terrorist attack has always been in the back of people's minds, despite the fact that it's a four-foot-thick concrete containment vessel around these plants. We've seen what happens when an airplane is flown into a plant or a big enough bomb is floated next to a plant. With all their security, who knows what could happen.So it's way too close to a large city to be operated. We don't see, really, there's another plant, Oyster Creek has operated longer than any in America, over 40 years. It's been extended to 2019, but it'll be closed down then. I think it's time to close down plants that are so close to large population centers.

NOAA Warns Record High Levels of CO2 in the Atmosphere

On Wednesday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, announced that the world has hit a grim benchmark. March was the first month to surpass global carbon dioxide levels of 400 parts per million for the first time since measurements began. With us to discuss the significance of the milestone is Jamie Henn. Jamie is strategy and communications director and co-founder of 350.org.Jamie, thank you so much for joining us.JAMIE HENN, CO-FOUNDER, 350.ORG: Well, it's good to be with you.PERIES: So Jamie, I understand that this level of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere had already been hit in 2012. But tell us about the significance of this most recent report from NOAA.HENN: Well, it's certainly significant, and it's rather ominous, I'm afraid. What happens is around the world, various weather stations take measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So last year in the Arctic, we passed 400 parts per million. But this reading is the global average. And for the first time in the month of March, global averages of carbon dioxide concentrations passed 400 parts per million.This is significant not just because it's a round number, but because it's higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than we've seen for millions upon millions of years. 350.org is named after what scientists say is the safe upper limit of carbon dioxide concentrations, which is 350 parts per million. 400 is far into the danger zone. So it's another clear warning, and serious warning, that we need to quickly move in a different direction.PERIES: So Jamie, clarify for us, we often talk about 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise as being one of the benchmarks. Why, what's the comparison, and why is this particular measurement we should be looking out for?HENN: Yeah, leave it to environmentalists and scientists to come out with many confusing numbers to explain a problem. Carbon dioxide concentrations correspond with temperatures in the atmosphere. And so we see a correlation between the two, although there are many different factors that go into the exact temperature reading. Most scientists say that 450 parts per million roughly corresponds with the 2 degrees temperature rise. There's some debate about that. Some people think that the climate system is more sensitive. But what we're seeing is that we really need to begin to take this serious action, or temperatures will continue to grow.So this is a benchmark that says we're getting close to that 2 degrees threshold, but we're already seeing real dangers from climate change happening around the world.PERIES: Jamie, I know you are a big fan and a supporter, as 350 is, of divesting from fossil fuels. And I understand that the Bank of America just made an announcement about that. Can you tell us more?HENN: Yeah. Well, just this week Bank of America committed, after many years of campaigning from a variety of groups really led by a group called the Rainforest Action Network, that they'd be pulling out their direct funding of coal mining. This isn't all the investments they have in dirty energy. Bank of America certainly needs to do more. But it's a very significant step forward for that bank.I think the logic of climate change and the need for divestment is beginning to sink in. From the Church of England that just recently announced they would be divesting from coal and tar sands, to Syracuse University here in New York State that just divested from all fossil fuels, institutions are beginning to realize that with the science on the table, with these benchmarks like 400 parts per million coming out, something more drastic needs to be done. So it's promising to see these signs. It's certainly not enough. There's much more that governments in particular need to be doing. But it's good to see this movement really rising to the occasion.PERIES: Now, what I have noticed in the last couple of years that we have been almost daily reporting on the climate change issue, almost every week there's a significant report that comes out. You know, just alarm bells are ringing, trying to call the attention of the [world's], and of those who have decision-making power. One study after another telling us that we've reached a peak. And so in terms of this finding today in NOAA, and of course a government agency like NOAA coming out with this, what can we--first of all, is NOAA doing anything with the private sector, or are we to take up these studies and do the advocacy necessary? Is NOAA actually doing anything within government about this?HENN: Well, that's a good question, actually. I mean, I think that we've seen various arms of the U.S. government, and especially scientists and research institutions begin to really be much more vocal about the need for action, not just putting out research and saying take it or leave it. Do what you will. But saying this is a clarion call, this is a clear marker for action.So I think we're seeing that more and more from scientists. Really pushing within their institutions, within government, to urge for much more. We were speaking about divestment. Just recently a very large association of scientists came out in favor of divestment, and wrote to the Guardian newspaper, which has been doing quite a bit of coverage about this, supporting the campaign that the Guardian's been doing to get large foundations to divest.So we are seeing more action. But you're exactly right. Ultimately it's up to citizens and up to groups like 350 and others to try and really take this research and turn it into action. We've known about the climate threat for decades and haven't taken the steps necessary. We don't really lack scientific research or lack the solutions for that. We need, what we lack is the political will. So the real test of this 400 parts per million benchmark is not whether it gets the scientific community up in arms, but whether it actually translates into the type of public pressure that's needed to make some real progress.

President Obama Makes Earth Day Proclamation in the Everglades

In the state where there was some controversy a few weeks ago, and humorous exchanges over whether Governor Rick Scott of Florida had banned the use of the word climate change from the state's official lexicon, somewhat raggingly President Obama gave his Earth Day address in the state of Florida Everglades National Park. There he reiterated that the effect of climate change is grave, saying it can no longer be denied or ignored. Let's have a look.U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I'm going to keep doing everything I can to prepare and protect America from the worst effects of climate change, including fighting for clean air, clean water. Because in places like this folks don't have time, we don't have time, you do not have time to deny the effects of climate change. Folks are already busy dealing with it. And nowhere is it going to have a bigger impact than here in South Florida. No place else has to be paying closer attention to this and acknowledging it, and understanding that if we take action now we can do something about it.PERIES: President Obama proclaimed that his administration is taking steps to combat the ever-growing signs of extreme climate change. But is he doing all that he can to contain fossil fuel extraction where most scientists are saying that what is in the ground must stay in the ground if we are to seriously contain the harmful effects of climate change?With us to discuss the President's Earth Day speech and his proclamation, as well as unpack his energy policies, is Janet Redman and Steve Horn. Janet is joining us from Washington D.C. She is the director of Climate Policy Program at the Institute for Policy Studies. And joining us from Madison, Wisconsin, is Steve Horn. Steve is research fellow for DeSmog Blog, and a freelance investigative journalist.Thank you both for joining us today.JANET REDMAN, DIRECTOR OF CLIMATE POLICY PROGRAM, IPS: Thank you for having us on.STEVE HORN, RESEARCH FELLOW, DESMOG BLOG: Thank you.PERIES: So let me begin by first getting your take on the President's speech, and let me start with you, Janet, first.REDMAN: Sure. I really appreciated the speech. I think it's important that the President is sending signals that climate change is important. I think it was really fun that it happened in Florida and I appreciated the dig at Governor Scott there. And the dig at Inhofe, Senator Inhofe and the idea that just because we've had a colder winter this year in the United States that climate change doesn't exist.So I thought he did an interesting job of raising the science of climate change. I thought he did an interesting job of connecting our energy economy to climate change, and underlining the fact that we need to address climate change if we want a stable economy.Unfortunately I think he missed an opportunity to really talk about the underlying cause of climate change, which of course is burning fossil fuels and altering our landscape in a way that releases greenhouse gas emissions. And he didn't outline a serious attempt for the U.S. government to combat climate change, and the tools that they have available right now without a particularly helpful Congress. So I was still a bit disappointed.PERIES: Steve, your take?HORN: My take is not that different than Janet's. I think it's also important to note that we've entered election cycle 2016. This speech was of course part of, and it might not be seen this way by many, but I think it should be seen as sort of a first step towards Hillary Clinton's campaign, Florida being a battleground state.And you know, it's important to note that at least one person on Hillary Clinton's campaign team, John Podesta, is a major, has been for a long time a major supporter of natural gas as a bridge fuel, or fracking as a bridge fuel. And one thing that I discovered in my own reporting recently is that his brother Tony Podesta, who is the principal of the Podesta Group, he lobbies on behalf of a very powerful, looming LNG export terminal owned by ExxonMobil and Qatar Petroleum called Golden Pass LNG. And so that may go, that's just one piece of the puzzle of many.But I think that things like this outline maybe explanations for as to why the President does not really talk too much about fossil fuels or about what we should be doing in terms of energy solutions going forward, except for once in a while saying that he believes in an all of the above energy strategy. And so coming full circle, I do see this as a first step of many, of the Hillary Clinton for 2016 campaign. And I expect more of this, more talking about the deniers without actually talking about solutions to climate change that basically are false solutions, like fracking and other things.PERIES: Steve and Janet, while it is really good to see President Obama taking and making such proclamations on Earth Day, the President actually this week also announced a new agenda to modernize energy infrastructure.They say that the electrical grid needs to be updated to accommodate for more renewable energy use, such as wind power and solar energy, but also talks about gas and oil pipelines that need to be re-enhanced to prevent leaks. Isn't this a bit of a contradiction?REDMAN: I mean, this is exactly what you were just speaking to. This is part of the Obama all of the above energy agenda, and this is why it's incredibly problematic if we want to actually address climate change.In looking through, briefly looking through a bit of that agenda, what's surprisingly missing is actually much mention of renewable energy. There's a lot of mention about infrastructure around natural gas, there's a lot of mention of different kinds of energy transport via rail, expanding and modernizing ports.There's a tiny bit of a mention about the environmental impacts of this expanded and modernized energy infrastructure. But it's things like, wow, we really need to measure the fugitive emissions when we do fracking. That's great, and we really need to think about an entire new set of pipeline networks to capture carbon dioxide, CO2, and pump it back into the ground. That's a technology called carbon capture and storage, it's a favorite of the United States. We're working really hard to develop it with China. But basically what that says is we're not going to stop doing coal, we're not going to stop doing oil. We just want to capture the pollution, stick it in the ground, and call the problem over.So I really take issue with the idea that this modernization of energy infrastructure has much of anything to do with renewable energy. There's no mention of distributed energy, off-grid, minigrid, bringing that, bringing new kinds of renewable energy onto the grid. So we're seeing some pretty major gaps if this is in fact one of Obama's shining star in his energy policy as it relates to climate change.PERIES: And Steve, did you note similar gaps?HORN: What I noticed is that this sounds a lot like something that he already announced a few years ago in the executive order in March 2012 which expedites and quote-unquote, cuts the red tape on permitting for things like oil and gas pipelines, things like the southern half of the Keystone XL, which is also part, another piece of that executive order. And so in some ways this is more of the same. Of course there's probably additional things to it, I will admit I haven't sat and read through the whole thing.But I think as Janet pointed out, the dirt is always in the details. It's really important to read things like this and not only read the press releases that various government agencies, or in this case the White House, issue, and actually read the policy, and look at what is continuation of the already existing policy and what is actually new. And so I think that that's an important thing to keep in mind for anyone who does happen to come across this press release. Go beyond the press release and actually read the policy itself.PERIES: Now, President Obama is in a very tough place, between a rock and a hard place in a sense, with the Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate. There's very little maneuverability here. What could he be doing that also gives way to a national discussion in the upcoming election, or what could he really do to antagonize the discussion more than he's doing by way of just going to Florida and making these statements in the Everglades?HORN: I think that there's, I can think of two things right off the top of my head. Both of them have to do with pipelines, but doing some things a little bit differently than it seems like's being outlined in his current energy policy. And that is one, there's something called the Keystone XL, I guess the northern leg of it, that he still has the final decision on that. If he's serious about climate change at all, of course the tar sands are carbon-intensive, [incompr.] heavy, diluted bitumen, or as they're called, tar sands, that James Hansen has called a fuse to light a carbon bomb. So the first thing he can do is nix that.Second of all is, I think something that's kind of flown under the radar, a different pipeline. It's called Line 67, that also crosses the border. And unfortunately his State Department has approved of this pipeline behind the scenes, or behind closed doors. It hasn't gone through any of the process the Keystone XL has. That is, it hasn't had any public hearings, it hasn't had any environmental impact statement. And basically just through private emails that were, came out, arose of a--in a lawsuit right now, it's going on in the U.S., there's a court in Minnesota that's--those emails are the way that Enbridge got this permit approval through the State Department.So this lawsuit is really important, and still I guess the lawsuit could end today, and it would just, a judge would say okay, it's over. If the--so maybe there would have to be a new lawsuit if Enbridge filed suit. But long story short, if the Obama administration said, actually, we're nixing this pipeline, then it would kind of just be the same as Keystone XL. Both of these things would be signals that this administration is more serious, or getting more serious, about climate change. But for now, those still hang in the balance.PERIES: Janet, what do you think he could be doing?REDMAN: Yeah, I think there's a--I'll just pivot a little bit to the international world. He mentions this in his speech, this is actually the year that we are joining 195 other countries to negotiate the next climate deal. The next global climate deal that would follow on from the Kyoto Protocol. It's happened--that negotiation is happening in Paris at the end of this year.And right now Obama's talking tough and saying, you know, the U.S. will show leadership in these international spaces. But the reality is that the U.S. is pushing a model that would tear apart the kind of regulation we've had in place since 1997. He's basically saying, let's do this idea of a pledge in review. Every country will come with a number they think is great. We'll put it on the table, we'll look in 20 years and hope that we've actually saved the planet. Instead of what many countries are calling for, which is let's look at the science, let's decide how much we have to reduce emissions, let's divvy that up, and then let's have an enforcement process that enables us to say you have to do what you said.So Obama could stop pushing a pledge in review process, could talk about legally binding action that actually reflects the science that folks like James Hansen are saying, the kinds of reductions that we need to have country by country level.The other piece that Obama is not doing a good job of signaling or bringing to the table is about climate finance. The money that the U.S. morally and legally owes developing countries to help them both adapt to climate change, largely a problem they're not responsible for. Many of the, especially the least-developed countries. But also helping folks move to low-carbon development pathways. This is the idea that in many countries there are people who don't have access to modern electricity, the kinds of things we enjoy here in the United States. It doesn't mean they have to go without, but it means that they'll need support to move past the cheap coal era that we were able to develop our roads, hospitals, schools, on the back of.So both climate finance and delivering much more aggressive targets in a process by which we're looking at a real climate deal, not a kind of collection of a, decentralized proposals for action that people think they might want to do, as opposed to what the science dictates. Obama can push that.PERIES: Right. And then the other issue is really public lands being used for fracking. I mean, it was ironic the President in his speech was really appealing to people's sentiments, talking about the next generation, providing passes for public parks for children so that they get to enjoy the natural wonders of the United States. But at the same time he's making all sorts of leases and deals with the private sector to do fracking in public lands, and this is an issue you followed very closely, Steve. Can you give us some examples of the contradiction here?HORN: Well, I think we have to look at the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015, in which first of all both chambers of Congress on a bipartisan basis and then the President signed off--of course it's a much broader bill than just this issue. But one of the sections dealt with expedited permitting and public lands for oil and gas extraction. So in the case of the United States since 90% of that is fracking, that means fracking.And so that's what we're dealing with. This is now part of law in the United States. And that's what will dictate what happens going forward, unless a bill arises to reverse that. And in this case there actually is a bill being proposed to reverse that. It was announced first of all back then and during the previous session of Congress by U.S. Representative Mark Pocan, who's actually in my district in Madison, Wisconsin. And then he just announced it again, with Jan Schakowsky of Illinois. Both of them have announced a bill that would undo that and basically ban fracking on public lands.And so unless something like that happens or some, something in between what exists now, which is expedited fracking in public lands. What we have now is a regime that expedites for permitting fracking on public lands. That definitely, obviously contradicts Obama's high-minded talk about taking care of public lands in his speech today down in the Everglades.PERIES: And let me give both of you a last comment, and that is in relation to both John Kerry and President Obama. Do you think that these two people who really want to spearhead and do something about climate change is being impeded by any issues related to power, money, and electoral politics these days? And I'll start with you, Janet.REDMAN: Yeah, sure. Certainly. I think we all are pretty aware that with Citizens United, even before Citizens United, the private sector has unprecedented access to the decision makers and influence our decision makers through their dollars. It's no secret that the oil, coal, and gas industry, that the fossil fuel sector is incredibly profitable and is able to continue pushing rule rigging that is in their benefit, and continues to rig the rules in their benefit. That's part of why Keith Ellison and Bernie Sanders today introduced a bill to cut about $135 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the fossil fuel industries over the next 10 years.So I think absolutely, Obama, Kerry, Jack Lew are in some ways very constrained by the fossil fuel industry. They're constrained by thought leaders in the right like the Koch brothers, who are also advocating for a greater role of private sector, for expansion of the fossil fuel energy economy.Those things all being true I think Obama--I think politicians would be smart to also listen to the groundswell of voices that are saying we want a clean environment, we want a healthy economy. We want a legacy from our leaders that actually recognizes that future generations are going to be holding leaders to account over years, and that this problem is unfolding today in our communities. It's actually been, climate change has been impacting our communities for quite some time. We're maybe just naming it as climate change. But people are getting way more savvy to the impacts in their own personal lives and their families' lives. I'm hoping that this will help politicians be a little bit braver in their ability to stand by what they say is their dedication to the American public and to our environment.PERIES: Steve, last word to you.HORN: Last word for me is that I think that Exhibit A of the stranglehold that multinational corporations have over the U.S. and global system right now is the deal being negotiated right now and sadly spearheaded by the President. That is, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And basically once again, if this thing passes, all bets are off.And almost everything he talked about down in the Everglades would be null and void, in that this deal in particular gives so much power to multinational corporations over basically every nation-state, it makes multinational corporations akin to a global arbiter. And the global, sort of the global hegemon over all nation-states, and the power—and the legal power it gives. Even though there are sections of it that pay homage to environment, they're all contradicted by other sections that say that multinational corporations have a right to sue if X, Y, Z happens.So I think that that's just yet another thing that is a troubling sign of the President, of President Obama's, the Obama administration at large's dedication to environmentalism, of tackling climate change in a serious way. I think that that's probably one of the top grassroots environmental battles going on right now in the United States. Even though it's not always talked about in terms of being an environmental battle, it definitely is in the terms of what its consequences will be if it does go through and if fast-track authority goes through, et cetera.

Chevron Back in Court for Worst Case of Oil Pollution on the Planet

In February 2011, an Ecuadorean court found Chevron guilty of one of the largest environmental disasters on the planet and ordered the oil giant to pay $18 billion dollars. And then later, it was reduced to $9.5 billion in environmental damages for dumping nearly 16 billion gallons of toxic oil drilling water waste into the rivers in the Amazon, the water supply that thousands of people rely on each day. Let's have a look at what some of the people living in the area had to say.~SPEAKER: [Speaking Spanish] I've had three children die. Three daughters. My little girls died. They would run around barefoot. They would be covered in crude. And then later they started dying.~PERIES: The civil society group Amazonwatch recently released some secret tapes sent to their organization by a Chevron whistleblower. Let's have a look at what that is all about.~- Nice job, Dave. I give you one simple task.- Who picked the spot, Rene?- Don't find petroleum.- Who picked the spot, Rene? Who told them where to drill, Rene?- So it's my fault? I'm the customer, I'm always right.~Chevron called the ruling illegitimate, and vowed to fight it. In 2014 a U.S. Federal court judge sided with Chevron and threw out the environmental damages ruling altogether, arguing that it was obtained through corrupt means.Well, on Monday, April 20th, the Federal appellate court in Manhattan heard oral argument in the appeal of those charges. Joining us now from New York to discuss all of this is Paul Paz y Mino. Paul has been a professional human rights advocate with expertise in Latin America for more than 20 years. He's a director of outreach and online strategy at Amazonwatch and has overseen the Clean Up Ecuador campaign for the past eight years.Thank you so much for joining us, Paul.PAUL PAZ Y MINO, DIRECTOR OF OUTREACH, AMAZONWATCH: Thank you.PERIES: So Paul, give us a sense of what happened in court.PAZ Y MINO: Well, today we heard the appeal arguments for Chevron's retaliatory RICO attack against the Ecuadoreans and their lawyers. And what's important to note is that the decision that's under appeal doesn't in any way stop the Ecuadoreans from enforcing their legitimate verdict in Ecuador or anywhere else in the world. The appeal that--the decision that was appealed today was an injunction preventing the Ecuadoreans and their lawyers from benefiting from that verdict in the United States, which is of course the only place they actually have jurisdiction.Nonetheless, the appeal was brought forth. And in court I and many others were quite surprised to see the vehemence with which some of the justices questioned the Chevron attorneys. Most amazingly, at one point the, one of the justices simply asked Chevron's lawyer Ted Olson, when is this going to end? And emphatically asked again, when is this going to end? They berated them for trying, bringing similar allegations up at an international tribunal at the Hague, at the same time as pursuing RICO trials here. Because essentially, Chevron has been playing a legal shell game, forum shopping wherever it can, trying to get verdicts in its favor, and trying to find a venue where it can defend itself without resorting to discussing the actual facts in Ecuador.And then most surprisingly of all, one of the justices said, offered to Chevron, why don't you re-try the case right now in New York? This, you--you tried it in Ecuador and lost. If you want to try it again, can we force you to try it here? And of course this caught Chevron's lawyers and entire legal team completely off guard. The last thing they want to do is have to defend themselves based on the facts of what happened in Ecuador in any court, which they've actually publicly said. That they don't think this case belongs in any court.But most importantly, this would essentially be a trial about enforcing the verdict in Ecuador. And there, they would call it a re-trial, but it's essentially the same thing the Ecuadoreans are pushing for now in Canada. To enforce their legitimate verdict, to force Chevron to pay the $9.5 billion dollars that it owes to clean up and help the Ecuadoreans with the health costs for the wave of cancers and other health-related illnesses--or oil-related illnesses that they have suffered.PERIES: So Paul, even Bloomberg Business said that Chevron used the racketeering act inappropriately, that it influenced the court and disrupted the court organization and boundaries of RICO. What does all of this mean?PAZ Y MINO: Well, that's the--that's the ironic thing. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, and I know there were plenty of legal experts in the room right there. And the legal ground for their case is paper-thin, at best. Because these actions that they're alleging didn't even take place in the United States. The only reason they've been able to find a way to use the RICO hook is because one of the lawyers working on the case, Steven Donzinger, resides in New York. And so by the longest stretch of a hook, they've decided that because he's located here, they can try to invalidate the legitimate judgment of the nation of Ecuador, which has been upheld by eight justices, it's gone to their highest courts. And before they've even sought to enforce it in the United States, Chevron hit them preemptively with a RICO suit.Which, frankly, is nothing more than a slap suit. And unfortunate reality is because Chevron can hire 60 law firms and 2,000 legal professionals and four PR firms and spend close to $2 billion dollars fighting this fight, they've been able to push it to this level where they're actually taking a slap suit all the way through to this level of Federal court and it has to be appealed.The other telling factor about this RICO case is that no evidence of the contamination in Ecuador was actually permitted in court. And that can't be overstated. The whole reason that Chevron is fighting this is because they claim the allegations against them are not valid. And yet the judge didn't look at the actual evidence or allegations against them, including the videos that you mentioned in your opening that were turned over to Amazonwatch by a whistleblower. They were suppressed by the same judge that issued the RICO verdict in favor of Chevron.PERIES: And what rationale was used to suppress these tapes?PAZ Y MINO: All evidence of contamination was struck from the record. And these tapes show evidence of Chevron's own employees and contractors finding toxic contamination in areas that they swore, and still swear to this day, are fully remediated and nontoxic. So from the very beginning Chevron argued successfully with Judge Kaplan to prevent any discussion of actual contamination, and these videos show that. So he blocked it.Although interestingly enough, he did allow Chevron to enter into evidence edited outtakes from a documentary made about the toxic contamination in Ecuador called Crude, by Joe Berlinger. Those clips were allowed, and they were actually edited. And the defense in the RICO case showed how they were edited to mis--to mislead the judge into believing that there was something nefarious going on that wasn't. And yet he still permitted them.The amount of bias that went on in Judge Kaplan's RICO case would make the layman on the street with even a rudimentary understanding of our judicial system gasp. The entire case is founded on the testimony of a corrupt witness, who is admittedly receiving up to $2 million dollars from Chevron in order to testify, which is a clear violation of ethics, and in our view it should invalidate his entire testimony because it's been bought and paid for by Chevron.But time and again, the only cases you'll find of anyone defending them are people that they've either intimidated, threatened with legal action, or paid off in this case.PERIES: And just so that we set the record straight here, how do we know Chevron is absolutely responsible for the spill, particularly given that there's been some reports of the Ecuadorean state company itself was also drilling in the same place?PAZ Y MINO: Sure. It's important to note Chevron and Texaco admitted during the first stage of this trial to deliberately discharging almost 16 billion gallons of toxic foundation water into the Ecuadorean Amazon over the course of their time as the sole operator there. There's no doubt whatsoever, and they don't contest, that they made the actual financial decision to dump toxic pollutants into what was the pristine Amazonian rainforest. Texaco was the first company to drill for oil in the rainforest in history, and they created 916 open-air waste pits to dump their toxic waste. The normal practice everywhere else in the world, and by law in the United States, was to re-inject the foundation waters, because they're toxic and the only safe thing you can do with them is return them into the ground.But rather than do that, as a cost-cutting measure, they dumped it. And they admitted dumping it. What they have said is that after they left in 1992, the responsibility from that point forward is Petroecuador's, the state oil company of Ecuador. Nobody is absolving Petroecuador of its responsibility for any environmental damage that happened subsequently. But unfortunately for Chevron, 18 billion gallons of toxic waste, that doesn't just disappear, even after decades.So the initial crime that they created is still polluting to this day, still sits there. And there's no way for them to hide it. Which is exactly why they've resorted to a legal campaign of vilifying their critics and trying to destroy the careers of the human rights lawyers who are holding them to account. They simply can't defend themselves on the evidence.And again, in 1992 when they left, Chevron claims that Texaco signed an agreement with the government of Ecuador to remediate a portion of the 916 pits and well sites left behind. The evidence of these tapes that have been leaked show that even the small portion that they claim to have remediated are toxic. So there's nowhere left for Chevron to hide. First they're responsible wholly for the things they did as sole operator. Second, even the feeble defense that they had of remediating a small portion is completely blown out of the water when you see their own tapes showing the toxic contamination's still there more than a decade after they claimed it was cleaned up.PERIES: And Paul, just also give us a headline on what's going on in the Hague right now. I understand that Chevron is seeking to hold the Republic of Ecuador accountable for their role in denying Chevron's justice through an international arbitration. What is all that?PAZ Y MINO: Well, there's no dearth of creativity in Chevron's schemes to try to find someone else to be responsible for their crimes. And in this case, they're essentially trying to make the Ecuadorean taxpayer cover their burden for what they did in Ecuador. They're trying to sue Ecuador under a bilateral trade agreement which is completely undemocratic. It doesn't allow the Ecuadorean plaintiffs to even be in the room, let alone present evidence in their case. So we consider it to be completely invalid and inappropriate. But their argument is that they weren't afforded due process in Ecuador, and therefore Ecuador's government needs to be responsible.The irony of course is this is the most litigated case in the history of Ecuador. It's been reviewed by eight judges there, and evidence against them, the evidence that was used to determine their liability was almost overwhelmingly Chevron's own evidence submitted to the court. And yet they're still able to push this through this trade agreement at the Hague. It appoints three justices, or members of the tribunal, who are paid. They've already profited quite a lot of money just over hearing this case. And it doesn't allow the actual affected people to have a voice in their venue. So we don't consider that a legitimate method for Chevron to respond.Ironically, it [inaud.] them quite hard today in the second circuit when one of the justices continually asked why they were seeking this case in the Hague at the same time as they launched their RICO attack, because you had a totally separate body with different evidence, more access to Ecuador, who might come to a completely different verdict about the Ecuadorean judiciary and the decision. So the Justice Wesley continued to ask, what would you do if you got a different verdict there versus here? How do you reconcile that? Why were you doing that?And the reason, of course, is that Chevron has been forum shopping ever since it knew it was going to get a negative verdict against it in Ecuador. That's why their RICO case is here, that's why it's in the Hague. What they want to do is find as many forums as they can to listen to their case without considering the evidence presented by the actual people harmed in the Amazon. That's what they've done in those two cases.In Canada, however, where the Ecuadoreans are pursuing enforcement of their verdict, presuming a trial there, Chevron will have to defend itself based on the evidence of what happened in Ecuador, and that's a completely different ball of wax. Because there's absolutely nowhere for them to hide. Whenever the evidence is actually considered, Chevron loses. And it will lose in Canada, as well.

The Fragmentation of Canadian Climate Policies

On Monday just before leaving for a meeting of the First Ministers, that is the premiers of the provinces in Canada, for a climate change summit in Quebec City, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne made an announcement that Ontario would be joining the province of Quebec's carbon cap and trade program. Let's have a look at what she had to say.KATHLEEN WYNNE, PREMIER OF ONTARIO: Our changing climate has devastated communities, it's damaged homes, businesses and crops. It's increased insurance costs. It endangers our air, it endangers our water, and the health of our children and our grandchildren.PERIES: The question is, how much will this really limit Ontario's greenhouse gas emissions, and is cap and trade the most effective way to combat climate change? With us to discuss all of this is Keith Stewart. He leads Greenpeace Canada's Climate and Energy Campaign, and is also a part-time faculty member at the University of Toronto where he teaches a course on energy policy and the environment.Thank you so much for joining us and welcome back, Keith.KEITH STEWART, RESEARCHER GREENPEACE CANADA: Thanks for having me on.PERIES: So Keith, let's unpack this a little bit. Quebec introduced cap and trade two years ago, and how effective has that been in combating greenhouse gas emissions? Do we have any measurements?STEWART: So Quebec is actually joining with California. They have an integrated system through something called the Western Climate Initiative. Ontario first said they were going to join the system back in 2008, but then kind of got cold feet when the recession hit. So Quebec's system is already integrated with California and now with Ontario.The idea of cap and trade is you set an overall limit on pollution. That limit comes down over time. People who can reduce cheaply get to sell credits to people who have more trouble doing it, the idea being that you then have the lowest cost reductions. But the key thing here is you're putting a price on pollution and that that price is going to go up over time as the pollution, allowable pollution levels come down.You know, in theory it's a great system. In practice it depends on how exactly it's implemented. And you know, the Western Climate Initiative has learned a lot from things that went wrong with some of the earlier systems. They've brought in some systems which are--so parts of it are actually a little bit more like a carbon tax. But overall, we think this is a great move by Ontario. We of course will be in there with all the corporate lobbyists fighting over the details. But you know, it's a big step forward.PERIES: When you say how it's implemented, what do you mean by that?STEWART: Well, the big questions are how much pollution's going to be allowed? How high is the cap? Because if it's really high, then no one really has to change anything. If it--it's how much of overall greenhouse gas emissions are covered. So in Quebec and in California it's actually about 85% of total greenhouse gas emissions which are caught by this cap and trade system. That's pretty good. You compare that a place like Alberta where they have, they are very proud of the fact they have this carbon price. Well, it's only actually pricing about 3% of the actual tonnes emitted.Then the other big question is what are the loopholes built into this? Is there a way for people to avoid paying it? You know, in Quebec and California some of the permits are given out for free. We'd like to see them all auctioned, but that's supposed to be moved to 100% auction as time goes on. People get used to the system. But also what kind of offsets are there? Can you buy credits from people who aren't part of the system? We would like to see that severely limited, because those are often--end up being dodgy, at best.PERIES: Now, the premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, has skipped the premiers' climate change summit. Is that because she doesn't agree with what's being discussed at the summit?STEWART: I'm not quite sure why she's not there. I mean, her--BC actually has a carbon tax, which in many ways is a simpler, more elegant solution to this problem of putting a price on pollution that's actually stronger than what Quebec has right now, or California, or what's being contemplated by Ontario. I mean, that might change over time, but certainly right now she's got the best carbon pricing system in the country.She said that she's not going to this because she's going to be going to another event later this week where she's going to talk to the UN, actually, about--or no, sorry, the World Bank, about how BC's put a price on carbon. I mean, I don't quite understand why she's not there.The other person of course who isn't there is the Alberta premier, and Alberta puts out more greenhouse gas emissions than Ontario and Quebec combined, even though Ontario and Quebec are actually the largest provinces by population. And he's not there because he's in the middle of an election campaign he just called, but also I think because Alberta doesn't actually have a plan to reduce pollution.PERIES: And Alberta being largely an oil economy.STEWART; Yeah. I mean, the reason their emissions are so high is because oil is at the heart of their economy right now. Particularly tar sands, which is very carbon-intensive. One of the reasons environmental groups like mine are saying we need to stop digging up that stuff, because it's the dirtiest oil on the planet. But Alberta, the emissions there are really, really high and they're growing quickly.So all the work that actually Ontario and Quebec have done over the last year is Ontario, my home province, has actually closed all of its coal plants in an effort to reduce pollution. All of those measures have actually been offset by increases in Alberta. So until we get Alberta part of this national, some kind of a national system, Canada's going to have trouble making big cuts overall. And certainly the projections going forward is all the work that's being done by Ontario, Quebec, and BC is being undone by the increases in the tar sands.PERIES: So the cap and trade plan is perhaps a better one when it comes to these kinds of situations.STEWART: Well, what we really--I mean, part of the problem in Canada is we're developing a national energy strategy. That's actually what the premiers are meeting on in Quebec today, and they're trying to look at how they can integrate climate change into that. We're doing all this without any involvement from the federal government. The federal government is hands-off, isn't doing anything they're just asking the provinces, you know, tell us what you're doing and we'll report that to the UN as our climate action.That's fine if everyone is pulling their weight, but right now we have some provinces that aren't. We really need the federal government to be a part of the solution, and not just a bystander or even--they actually attack the idea of putting a price on carbon. So until--well, we're having an election this year in Canada and we're hoping this will be a big part of the election, and that after the election we'll have a government that is interested in being part of the solution.PERIES: And do I take it from your reference to the carbon tax being a cleaner process, easier to administer that you favor that over the cap and trade policy?STEWART: Either one can work. You can have good carbon taxes, bad carbon taxes, good cap and trade, bad carbon trade--cap and trade. It's in the details. It's just easier to do a good carbon tax. It's simpler. Governments--if there's something governments know how to do well, it's tax things. With a cap and trade system it's quite complicated, it's not as transparent. There's all sorts of technical reasons why policy experts might say it's actually preferable for a variety of reasons, you know.If it was up to me I would have gone with a carbon tax, but I do think we can make this work. And I think actually the basic architecture that Ontario is buying into by signing this deal with Quebec is pretty good, and as long as corporate lobbyists don't get to insert a bunch of loopholes this is going to be a big part of the solution. Not least because it'll be generating about $2 billion a year, and the province has said, we will be investing that in things like public transit. In green energy. In energy efficiency. That's going to probably have a much, an even larger impact in terms of bringing down emissions.PERIES: And do you think in terms of Quebec having practiced cap and trade for the last two years, again, is there any measurable outcome from that practice?STEWART: So I mean, Quebec--the cap and trade system is two years old, it really sort of started taking effect last year. So you can't really say after one year it's had a huge impact. But certainly it's going to affect decisions for businesses going forward in terms of they're going to be saying, okay, I have to do something to reduce. And right now we're still kind of setting the baseline.But the--this is sending an economic signal to companies, to consumers, that you're better going with the cleaner option. And when the cleaner option also happens to be cheaper, which is what making polluters pay for their pollution does, that is--that's a good thing. Because otherwise we end up paying the price in polluted air, in floods and extreme weather caused from climate change. I think people would much rather have that investment in great public transit, in more efficient vehicles, and in helping people make the switch to a low-carbon economy.

Will Canadian Provinces Block Pipeline Expansion?

Critics say Canada's climate record is abysmal, ranking last among 58 countries in a 2014 performance index survey, despite the fact that Canada bears some of the worst effects of climate change. A new report published Monday in Nature Geoscience finds that Canada faces 70% glacier loss by the end of the century. This could have devastating impact on natural ecosystems and access to drinking water.Next week on April 14th, Canada's provincial premiers are meeting in Quebec City for the First Ministers' conference. They will discuss energy and the environment, which may result in a possible national energy strategy.A large coalition of environmental organizations and activists have called for a national day of action this Saturday, April 11th, with events taking place across the country. Thousands are expected at the Act on Climate march in Quebec City to demand the premiers act on climate change and stop building pipelines to transport the tar sands from Alberta.Well now joining us to discuss all of this first of all is Keith Stewart. Keith leads Greenpeace Canada's Climate and Energy campaign and is also a part-time faculty member at the University of Toronto, where he teaches a course on energy policy and the environment.Carol Linnitt is managing editor and director of research for DeSmog Canada, and is a doctoral candidate at the University of Victoria.Thanks very much for joining us.CAROL LINNITT, MANAGING EDITOR, DESMOG CANADA: Thanks.JAY: Carol, given how draconian, dramatic the data keeps getting -- the glacier loss, if I understand it correctly, I think the Arctic ice shield is the thinnest it's ever been in recorded history. We're getting temperature readings that are the hottest in recorded history. Why do you think Canadians aren't demanding more action on climate change? And why is the Harper government, which seems barely to believe in the science of climate change, able to ignore all this?LINNITT: Well, I think the Harper government is less and less able to ignore this issue. And I think we're going to really see that on Saturday as projected maybe even 10,000 people come out to the Act on Climate march in Quebec City. Traditionally we have been at something of an impasse politically when it comes to climate. The fact that our federal government isn't acting on climate isn't always exactly representative of what Canadians themselves want, but there's certainly been some disconnect between what Canadians want and what we see our politicians doing. And in previous polling in previous years we've seen some really low levels of faith or trust in politicians, in our federal leaders, to actually do what Canadians feel is necessary, to actually be serious about climate change.The most recent polling that I've seen come out from the Canadian Climate Action Network just this past week shows that the majority of Canadians across the political spectrum actually feel climate change is extremely important. They believe it's a moral imperative, they believe federal leaders have a duty and an obligation to act. And probably what is most at the crux of the issue for Canadians, they believe that acting on climate is more important than expanding our major petroleum reserves and building pipelines.When it comes to expanding our oil development and natural gas and building pipelines, I think we're seeing something of a catalyst for a lot of climate activists in the country. People who had proposed pipelines perhaps coming into their communities are finding themselves looking at climate change as an issue that actually has really, really critical bearing for where they live and their daily lives and ways of being.JAY: Right. Keith, is there a difference amongst any of the premiers? Is there any more activity happening at the provincial level, and is there any, you know, conflict or contradictions between any of the premiers and the federal government on climate change policy?KEITH STEWART, RESEARCHER, GREENPEACE CANADA: Yeah. Well, we have this really interesting dynamic in Canada that I've tried to explain to my international colleagues within Greenpeace, and they think I'm crazy. Because I talk about how we're developing a national energy strategy in Canada, but the federal government isn't actually involved in the discussions. They won't come to the meetings. So it's being developed by the provinces.And this, actually, idea originally came out of Alberta. It was proposed by Alberta, because they basically wanted to have a national pipeline strategy. This got some pushback from other provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec, who said, well, if we're going to talk about energy, then we should talk about all forms of energy, not just oil. And we should also talk about climate change, because our energy plan is actually our climate plan. They're one and the same. How we use -- how we get, where we get our energy from, how we use it, that is how we're going to, that's going to basically define what our climate impact is.So we've seen in Canada there's been this battle the last few years between, amongst the provinces … it's kind of a friendly thing. Their discussion [ongoing]. But last year, Ontario and Quebec really put their foot down together, and they jointly said, okay, look. We want to go ahead with a national energy strategy. We're not going to do it unless climate is part of that discussion. And they called a special meeting that's happening next Tuesday. A meeting on climate change. How does this fit into the national energy strategy. Bringing together all the provincial premiers.So that's one of the reasons there's this big rally on the weekend, it's to sort of send a message to the premiers that if you guys are willing to stand up to big oil, we're here for you. You know, we want this kind of action. We're going to have people out in the streets. There's this new kind of –JAY: But Harper is not attending. The prime minister's not attending.STEWART: No. The federal government won't come. They haven't come to any of these meetings. They really don't even like the idea, I think because -- they knew that climate would become part of this discussion, and they really just want to talk about pipelines. They're all about how can we build pipelines. They changed almost every environmental law at the federal level in Canada to make it easier to build pipelines.This just created a backlash. Because when people see their government basically acting as a cheerleader for industry rather than as kind of a referee amongst competing interests , [which is what] I think most people expect, then they lose faith in the process.And so the National Energy Board now can put out a verdict like they did in the case of the Northern Gateway Pipeline in British Columbia, saying okay, you can go ahead and build this. And the company can't build it because they just don't have any kind of social license, any popular support.We're seeing the same thing on every pipeline in the country. And I think the pipeline battles have really catalyzed this discussion, because it's a very concrete thing. If we build this pipeline, it means we're expanding the tar sands. It means we're contributing to climate change. It would be [inaud.] here or somewhere else.JAY: And has, and are any -- have any of the premiers, Carol, come out against, on the pipeline issue? About expanding pipelines?LINNITT: We've seen some really interesting dynamics in the provinces and also these interdynamics between the premiers themselves. Recently with the Energy East pipeline, there was some discussion in Ontario that the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the pipeline, not just the pipeline itself but the fuel source that it was actually reaching into, would be considered for the province in terms of its standing on the pipeline. About a week later you see the premier of Alberta traveling to Ontario, and then Ontario's gently backtracking on that position.So these interdynamics are really interesting, and there's such dissonance among the provinces that it's going to be really interesting to see what comes out of these meetings. But despite that dissonance, it's really encouraging to see them get together to actually talk about these issues. That's something that we just don't have happening at the federal level at all. So people are really relying on these sub-national conversations to get things moving.JAY: Now there's, Keith, there's been some suggestion I understand from Quebec, perhaps some of the other premiers, about a cap and trade scheme. Which sounds like it's something that's better than nothing, except there's been a lot of critique of cap and trade, that it's really just a financialization of the problem and doesn't really lead to overall really lower carbon emissions. I mean, is that -- if they're going to do something, and if that's the something, is that really something?STEWART: So you know, we have in Canada, British Columbia actually has a carbon tax. It covers any fossil fuel that is burnt in the province. At $30 a tonne, which is by international standards pretty good. You know, obviously a lot more needs to happen there, but they've actually got a good base. Quebec is just joining -- JAY: But that's carbon taxes. That, are premiers, other premiers talking carbon tax? Or is it more cap and trade?STEWART: Other premiers are talking putting a price on carbon. So Quebec is doing it through cap and trade jointly with California. Ontario has committed to introducing some kind of a price on carbon. It probably will be cap and trade. And cap and trade basically, the devil's in the details. If you do it well, it can be effective. If you let the polluters build in all sorts of loopholes, it will be ineffective.JAY: It seems like if you can confine it to, like California, then they can actually regulate and keep control of that the trade actually is a meaningful trade. It seems when cap and trade is international, it's virtually really uncontrollable and most of it is smoke and mirrors.STEWART: Yeah. For instance what Greenpeace has said is we don't want to see any offsets in the system, where you can [buy] credits somewhere else to sort of not have to reduce at home, because that's one of the big loopholes. Because how do you verify whether those reductions wouldn't have happened otherwise? Or were they real?We also would like to see, rather than giving away the permits for the cap and trade system for free, to put, just auction them all. To sell them all. Because then basically a cap and trade system, if you auction all the permits and you don't allow these loopholes called offsets, then it's pretty much a type of carbon tax. It functions basically the same from an economic perspective.So you know, we'll wait to see the details. But putting a price on carbon is a part of the solution. It's not going to solve all the problems, but it's a big part of the solution because it builds it into the -- polluters are having to pay. And you know, that will get passed on to consumers, it will make highly polluting products more expensive. It will make -- it in particular makes them more expensive relative to less-polluting products.JAY: But Carol, the IPCC is saying 80% of the fossil fuels that are in the ground need to stay in the ground, or we're going to hit temperatures that are going to be catastrophic. I mean, take that meaning 80% of the tar sands needs to stay in the ground. That's, you would think unacceptable to large sections of the Canadian political elite, and I would say lots of ordinary people whose incomes are connected to the oil industry.LINNITT: Yeah, presumably that will be the case. One of the things that we need to do is, as Keith said, making it more expensive to produce this carbon in the first place is one step in the right direction. Canada certainly needs to take other steps in the right direction, like putting regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector. This is something that our prime minister Stephen Harper said would be crazy to do and that no one else is doing anywhere else. Which isn't at all the case.So I think it's going to be a blend of things that will eventually lead to slowing down the pace and scale of production in the Alberta oil sands. I mean, it's just, it's running off the rails at this point, and that's because there's nothing. There are no limits in place to actually rein it in. and that's what we need to see happen.I feel like carbon tax, cap and trade, all these schemes have a role to play in that.JAY: Keith, how much power do the provinces actually have? I mean, can they create a national energy strategy without the prime minister?STEWART: Well, the Canadian constitution is an odd thing. It was designed in 1867 when no one imagined that there would be a problem called climate change. And actually most of the legal powers to control the polluting industries is actually in the hands of the provinces. So what I would say is we need a federal government to actually help them come together, build a plan that's going to work overall, and avoid having some provinces skip out on their responsibilities.But a lot of the legal authority is with the provinces, and they're going to have to take action, because they control the electricity sector, they control mining … but you know, the feds also have a role.Greenpeace today actually put out a report in advance of the meeting next week, where we just crunched the numbers from Environment Canada data and sort of showed that the biggest single thing we could do to make sure Canada [meets] its carbon taxes is to say no to pipelines. Not build new pipelines, because when you build new pipelines you expand the tar sands.Right now, Alberta has emissions …. Alberta, 11% of the population, has emissions that are higher than Ontario and Quebec, which are the two largest provinces. According to Environment Canada's current projections, by 2020 Alberta will have emissions higher than Alberta, Quebec, and BC, which holds 75% of the Canadian population. So until we do something about the tar sands, which is what's driving that increase, to hold back that growth. Because -- JAY: Well, to do that you need the federal government. Because there's no way the other provinces can impose that on Alberta. I mean, even if they say you can't -- STEWART: But they can say no to the pipelines. Which is actually one of the [inaud.]JAY: Well, they can say no to the pipelines going east or west. They can't say much to a pipeline going south.STEWART: Yeah. They've tried that pipeline going south, and it's been eight years that we've managed to hold it up. And I think it's going to get canceled this year. So you know, they can tweak some of the [southern] pipelines, but when you look at the growth projections that they have, which is to triple the production. You know, this isn't like a little bit of growth. They don't need one pipeline or two pipelines or three. They need all five pipelines currently proposed and more if they're going to grow the industry the way the government thinks they will, the way the industry thinks they will, and the way that the government has actually already handed out the permits to allow them to do.JAY: So right now you think it's possible you could have British Columbia say no, you can't put your pipeline and get to a port in Vancouver. Or Ontario will say, you can't get your pipeline entering our province. I mean, is that really a possibility?STEWART: Yes. If you look at the politics in BC, BC has put five conditions on allowing any pipeline to go through. And basically, those pipeline -- those conditions can be interpreted politically to mean they can say yes or no, and they basically are looking at public opinion. And what they've said so far is no, because the public is, in BC, is firmly against.Similarly in Quebec, where you'd have to build a thousand kilometers of new pipeline for Energy East, there's only 30% support for this pipeline in Quebec. The Quebec government's looking at that, and saying why would we take a big political hit for Alberta? And also, for Quebec it's, they get all the risk of oil spills, the conflict that's going to come around the pipeline, they don't actually get any of the economic benefit.This is why it's so fascinating having this meeting between the provinces, because the other provinces actually hold a lot of cards vis-a-vis Alberta. And they've been saying to Alberta, okay, you've got to come to the table with something [significant] if you want to … us to actually have a kind of a national energy strategy.And what we've been saying is there's no room in any kind of climate strategy for new pipelines. Let's talk about how we're going to make the investments in the alternatives. We know we're not going to end … we're not going to get off oil tomorrow. We're not going to shut down the tar sands tomorrow. But for God's sakes we can stop making them bigger.JAY: And just one quickly, just a final, to finish off, Carol. The price of oil right now, is that taking some of the interest out of new pipelines in terms of investment interest in expanding anything to do with the tar sands? I mean, I would think at the current levels of oil prices, tar sands oil's not all that attractive to investors, anyway.LINNITT: Absolutely. And it's really interesting to see what market forces have done to the production of oil in Canada. I mean, we've seen some major developers back out of projects in the tar sands, and that's been quite interesting. What it does is it takes away the incentive to produce more oil, and that takes away the need for these pipelines. And at the same time, we're seeing such tremendous gains being made in renewables. They're so much cheaper to produce than ever before, and they're getting cheaper at exponential rates.So we're seeing these really dramatic shifts happen in the fossil fuel market, or in the energy market, and I think that that is going to be a critical part of changing the tide, along with this lack of social license, concern about climate change, international pressure to regulate emissions.I think all of these things are happening in tandem, and Canadians are getting more serious about leveraging their power when and where they can. Even if the federal government is stubborn on these issues.

UN Target of 2 Degree Limit for Temperature Rise 'Utterly Inadequate'

The United Nations Framework on Climate Change has set an official target for the global rise of temperature at 2 degrees Celsius. The limit, which has been presented as a universally accepted goal, will guide the upcoming agreements at COP21 in Paris this December. But according to our next guest's recent report, 70% of all the countries signed on to this UN Framework find this limit too high. Instead, they're calling for the limit to be set at 1.5 degrees Celsius.So without further ado, now joining us is Petra Tschakert. Petra is a human environment geographer who works on climate change adaptation, livelihood resistance, and social and environmental justice all around the world. She was the coordinating lead author on the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Record, [working group two] on a new chapter entitled Livelihoods and Poverty. Thank you so much for joining us today, Petra.So Petra, why is the 1.5 degrees Celsius an important and better goal than 2 degrees? I mean, I think a lot of folks would hear that and say, does that half a degree really make a difference?PETRA TSCHAKERT, ASSOC. PROFESSOR, GEOGRAPHY AND THE EARTH ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS INSTITUTE, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: That's a really good question. Think about it in the following way. First of all, let's clarify that we're talking about Celsius, here. So 2 degrees Celsius as a global warming record above pre-industrial time, so end of the 18th century. And if you think about it in Fahrenheit, that would be 3.6 Fahrenheit roughly, 1.5 indeed doesn't seem like a whole lot of a difference.But think about this temperature target as a global average. It's not the temperature you or I would experience on a daily basis. It's really a mathematical construct. It's a collection of all the temperature targets around the world including thousands of temperature stations, climate stations in general, on land. But as well temperature records on the ocean, so sea surface temperature. Also including temperatures that come from satellites and temperatures that come from the Arctic. So it's an aggregate. It's a global average, that of course we can calculate in an Excel sheet, for example. But no real person experiences this global average on a daily basis.You know, I've heard Desmond Tutu, the Archbishop from South Africa, say at the Copenhagen meeting in 2009 that a 2 degree target, global target, as kind of the upper limit of safety by the end of the century would mean 3 degrees, or 3.5, or even 4 degrees Celsius for Africa. For the African continent. And that would mean cooking the African continent.So let's understand that an aggregate does not mean that this temperature is actually perceived, experienced. We do know that in many places the actual temperatures perceived are much higher. We also know that the temperature target, 2 degrees, in a sense really summarizes or signals a whole bunch of climate effects that are not necessarily just related to temperature. Expressions of climate change, and the temperature target summarizes those simply because we have a lot more data on temperature records going back 100, 120, 130 years than we have records on extreme events.So let's understand that this temperature target really encapsulates the various climate changes we're experiencing. Think about, also, the winter we have experienced in the Northeast this year. Really, really cold.NOOR: Sure.TSCHAKERT: At the same time, we have drought and very high temperatures in California, for example. So it's an aggregate measure. Now if you think about it as an aggregate, it becomes much clearer that a 0.5 degree difference actually has real implications for people on the ground. Right?NOOR: I guess I'm wondering where that 2 degree limit came from. Who is that that's insisting on that 2 degrees Celsius target?TSCHAKERT: Yes. So this 2 degree has been floating around for quite some time. It was first really introduced in the scientific community in the '60s, in the '70s. One of the first attempts was to use some kind of temperature threshold to calculate the limit of emissions and then emission reductions. It was later circulated to think about differences between moderate and acceptable climate change, and dangerous and really disturbing climate change. But really just as an orientation.Twenty years ago, the European Union used it as kind of the threshold for maintaining the health of coral reefs. And you know, it just got anchored in people's minds, and it's easy to grasp because it's a round number, so people kind of rallied behind it.More recently in 2009, at the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen, the 2 degree target was accepted as the threshold between safe and potentially dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. And that's when it became really contested, especially from countries who are small island states, but also many of the African countries. And many of these countries, as a matter of fact as you said, roughly 70% of all the countries who are part of the UN, said 1.5 would be much more appropriate.NOOR: And so you've mentioned that some countries will be affected differently than others by these increases in temperatures, that some might have more to lose than others. Who will be affected the most by rises in temperatures beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius?TSCHAKERT: Well, let's -- I would say let's think about it that way. There is absolutely nobody who is immune to the negative impact of climate change. You're right, there are certain countries that are more vulnerable simply because of their exposure. That includes all the small island states given the fact that sea level rise is already threatening some of their land, their livelihoods. But also questions of [identity] [inaud.]. Deltas like in Bangladesh, again, exposed to sea level rise are certainly vulnerable simply because of their location.But the way we understand vulnerability today is not just limited to countries. It's really about being potentially exposed to harm, having a propensity of predisposition to be negatively affected and be harmed, and that has to do with inequalities that are baked into any society. They exist in any society independent of climate change. And very often these inequalities are linked to categories like gender, age, race, class, ethnicity, and so on.You know, think about the heatwaves. 70,000 people died. That's an astonishing and completely unacceptable, unacceptably high number. So who are these people who died? Actually, very similar to the heatwave in Chicago in the '90s. These are people who are disadvantaged in their own societies. Chicago it was particularly black men, single men, isolated without a social network, living in places that didn't have access to air conditioning. This is what we're talking about when we think about [vulnerability] [inaud.].So yes there are countries that are more vulnerable than other countries, but we are particularly concerned with people. Individuals in their own society who are disadvantaged, who experience multiple vulnerabilities. But of course we all realize that we have poor and disadvantaged people in our own country, in many countries in Europe, and these are the ones who are most vulnerable. These are the ones who experience climate change already significantly.NOOR: I guess in the news we've been seeing so many signs of this in industrialized countries. I mean, as you've mentioned we've had the long-term drought in California, there's an increase in the sea level rise, there's been flooding, record storms. I guess some scientists seem reticent to link these things to climate change, these extreme weather events. But would you say that these things would be expected outcomes of increased temperatures?TSCHAKERT: I think climate scientists are right. You know, you do not want to link every single hurricane and every single drought and every single wildfire to climate change. But I think what the science has shown--and this is one of the most important outcomes from this Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. So if you think about a particular place that has a record of an extreme drought every 20 years, well, this frequency is very likely to increase four-fold, for example, having a drought every 5 years, by the end of the century. And most likely that drought also being longer. More severe. And this is what we definitely have to expect.NOOR: And do you think that adaptation to climate change is possible? Can those who are vulnerable develop response strategies?TSCHAKERT: Adaptation exists around the world. There are fantastic records, and again the IPCC has a really detailed list of adaptation strategies. Many of them are already in place. Many of them are functioning, and many of them have shown significant results. What is lacking is sufficient funding to support these adaptation structures and strategies, and really link them from the local level to the national and the global level.So more funding for adaptation is certainly needed. But we also realize, and that's something that comes from, again, from the [Fifth Assessment Report], we also realize that there are limits to adaptation. And you know, sometimes we think that we can just adapt our way out of the climate crisis, and that will not work. It will not work for everybody. Not every person, not every individual will have the capacity to do so, and that of course is true for ecosystems and species as well.So the science does tell us that limits to adaptation exist at any temperature target. Whether that's 1, 1.5. What we realize is it will become much more difficult to adapt with every single notch in the temperature scale, and it will become much more hostile.NOOR: Well Petra, I hope that we hear from you again before COP21 in December. Thank you so much for joining us today, again.