Podcasts about climate institute

Royal Bank's Shaz Merwat, lead author of RBC's Climate Institute report "Power Struggle: How AI is Challenging Canada's Electricity Grid," discusses with Francis Bradley the rise of AI and its impact on Canada's electricity sector. They cover AI's increasing power demand, regional differences, the economic impact of data centres, strategic policies for leveraging AI, carbon capture's role, and energy security. They conclude with Shaz's very timely book recommendation for the Flux Capacitor Book Club. Links:RBC Thought LeadershipPower Struggle: How AI is challenging Canada's electricity gridClimate Action 2025 Report Shaz Merwat on LinkedIn

Bienvenidos una vez mas al canal de audio de buscadores de la verdad que llevamos a cabo a través de los Spaces de Twitter. Esta vez queremos hablar sobre geoingenieria, armamento no convencional, inmigración de reemplazo y otros problemas a través de un informe solicitado en 1995 y expuesto en 1999 en la eurocámara. Gracias a dicho informe conoceremos hasta donde llega la hipocresía de nuestros gobernantes. Este informe fue impulsado desde la ONU a través de la política y diplomática socialdemócrata sueca Karin Maj Britt Margareta Theorin que lo expuso en 1995 y que termino tomando forma de informe en 1999 cuando la Comisión de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Política de Defensa le encargo al Sr. Olsson de la Comisión de Medio Ambiente, Salud Pública y Protección del Consumidor que crease dicho informe. Veamos el considerando E de la propuesta de resolución: “Observando que las amenazas sobre el medio ambiente, los flujos de refugiados, los antagonismos étnicos, el terrorismo y la delincuencia internacional constituyen nuevas y graves amenazas para la seguridad y que, al cambiar la situación de seguridad, cobra cada vez mayor importancia la capacidad de enfrentarse a distintas formas de conflictos y, dado que las amenazas para la seguridad son también de carácter no militar, es importante que los recursos de carácter militar se utilicen también para fines no militares;” Analicemos brevemente alguna de las frases: "Observando... [que] los flujos de refugiados, los antagonismos étnicos...constituyen nuevas y graves amenazas para la seguridad..." O sea que desde 1999 saben que importar refugiados, lo que ahora llaman migrantes, ocasionará una amenaza para la seguridad interna de la UE y que además exista un problema para asimilar su cultura. Solo los animales migran, las personas emigran, pero desde hace unos años las personas son tratadas como animales y todos hemos aceptado ese cambio en el lenguaje. Podrán descargar de la pagina oficial de la UE este informe a través de los enlaces que dejare en la descripción de este podcast y también podrán descargar en los enlaces un estudio de 177 páginas de la ONU que reconoce el reemplazo demográfico en Occidente. Lo saben...pero seguimos igual o peor que en 1999. Solo la UE absorbe este tipo de inmigración, cosa que no hacen otros países islámicos como Arabia Saudí ni hay ninguna presión para que se haga por parte de estos paises donde no tendrían ese problema para asimilar la cultura de los refugiados. Sigamos. Veamos el considerando K: “Considerando que, según resultados detallados de la investigación internacional filtrados y publicados por el Climate Institute de Washington, el número de "refugiados medioambientales" es actualmente superior al número de "refugiados tradicionales" (25 millones frente a 22 millones) y que se prevé que esta cifra se duplique para el año 2010 o que, en el peor de los casos, sea mucho mayor,” Ya no hacen falta guerras, con el cuento climático es suficiente para hacer migrar, como animales, a las personas pobres. Todo gira en torno a la guerra como pudimos comprender al leer el EL INFORME DE IRON MOUNTAIN que tiene como subtitulo “Sobre la Posibilidad y Conveniencia de la Paz”. Gracias a Gus y Katy yo conocí la existencia de dicho informe originalmente publicado en 1966 supuestamente por el Hudson Institute a petición del entonces Secretario de Defensa, Robert S. McNamara durante el mandato de Kennedy. En su apartado de sustitutos de las funciones no-militares de la guerra podemos leer: 1. Económico. (a) Un programa integral de acción social, dirigido hacia la máxima mejora de las condiciones generales de la vida humana. (b) Un programa de investigación espacial gigantesco y sin meta concreta orientado hacia objetivos no realizables. (c) Un sistema de inspección de desarme permanente, ritualizado y ultra-elaborado y variantes de semejante sistema. 2. Político. (a) Una fuerza policial internacional omnipresente y virtualmente omnipotente, (b) una amenaza extraterrestre establecida y reconocida. (c) una contaminación ambiental masiva y global. (d) enemigos ficticios alternativos. 3. Sociológico: función de control. (a) programas generalmente derivados del modelo del Peace Corps. (b) una forma moderna y sofisticada de la esclavitud. Función motivacional. (a) contaminación ambiental intensificada. (b) nuevas religiones u otras mitologías. (c) juegos de sangre socialmente orientados. (d) una combinación de estas formas. 4. Ecológico. Un programa integral de eugenesia aplicada. 5. Cultural. No se propone ninguna institución sustitutiva. 6. Científica. Los requerimientos secundarios de programas de la investigación espacial, la asistencia social y/o la eugénica. Muy posiblemente ya se estén llevando a cabo varias de las sugerencias que aparecen en dicho informe, muy posiblemente las rayas en el cielo que mas y mas personas están viendo sean parte de esa estrategia de generar una “contaminación ambiental intensificada”. En el propio informe se dice lo siguiente: “No obstante ello, un sustituto político efectivo de la guerra requeriría "enemigos alternativos" algunos de los cuales podrían parecer rebuscados dentro del contexto del actual sistema de guerra. Podría ocurrir, por ejemplo, que la fuerte contaminación del medio ambiente pudiera eventualmente reemplazar la posibilidad de destrucción masiva por armas nucleares como amenaza principal y más evidente para la supervivencia de nuestra especie. El envenenamiento del aire y de las principales fuentes de alimentos y de agua ya se encuentra bastante adelantado y a primera vista podría representar una solución a este problema; constituye una amenaza que solo puede abordarse a través de una adecuada organización social y con poder político. Pero se estima que deberá pasar entre una generación y una generación y media antes de que la contaminación ambiental, por más severa que sea, se torne lo suficientemente amenazante a nivel global como para ofrecer una posible base de solución. Es verdad que la tasa de contaminación podría incrementarse en forma selectiva para este propósito; en verdad, la mera modificación de los programas actuales para prevenir la contaminación podrían acelerar este proceso como para que se genere una amenaza creíble mucho antes. Pero el problema de la contaminación se ha visto publicitado tan ampliamente en los últimos años que parece altamente improbable que un programa gubernamental de efectos deliberadamente nocivos para el medio ambiente pudiera ser implementado de manera políticamente aceptable. Por más improbable que el posible enemigo alternativo que hemos mencionado pueda parecer, debemos enfatizar que alguno debe ser hallado, y el mismo debe ser de una calidad y magnitud creíble si una transición hacia la paz ha de llevarse a cabo algún día sin que provoque la desintegración social.” Volvamos a nuestro informe de la Union Europea donde las tres siguientes consideraciones nos hablan de que como la guerra fría ha liberado recursos militares deberíamos emplearlos en los retos medioambientales civiles: “O. Considerando que existe una urgente necesidad de movilizar recursos adecuados para hacer frente a los retos medioambientales y observando que los recursos disponibles para la protección del medio ambiente son muy limitados, lo cual obliga a una nueva forma de pensar en lo que respecta a la utilización de los recursos existentes; P. Observando que, a la vez que se liberan los recursos militares, se ofrece a los militares la oportunidad única de contribuir con su enorme capacidad a los esfuerzos civiles para enfrentarse a los crecientes problemas medioambientales; Q. Constatando que los recursos militares son recursos nacionales y que el desafío medioambiental es global; que, por consiguiente, existe la necesidad de encontrar formas de cooperación internacional para la reasignación y utilización de recursos militares en favor del medio ambiente;” En el R dicen abiertamente: “…existe una creciente necesidad de realizar un análisis de la relación coste/beneficio de las distintas estrategias medioambientales, que debería incluir potenciales reasignaciones, reorientaciones y transferencias de recursos militares;” Al loro con el considerando T porque se carga de un plumazo a todos los gilipollas que nos llaman magufos por afirmar desde siempre que el proyecto HAARP es un arma militar y no un simple proyecto científico para observar las auroras boreales: “Considerando que, pese a los convenios existentes, la investigación en el sector militar sigue basandose en la manipulación medioambiental como arma, tal y como pone, por ejemplo, de manifiesto el sistema HAARP con base en Alaska,” Y es que los militares son muy de callarse las cosas como nos explican en la siguiente consideración, la U: “Considerando que la experiencia adquirida con el desarrollo y la utilización de la energía nuclear "para fines pacíficos" constituye una advertencia contra la invocación del secreto militar para impedir una evaluación y supervisión claras de las tecnologías combinadas civil/militar cuando la transparencia se encuentra, en cualquier caso, comprometida,” La frase dice que, en el pasado, cuando se empezó a usar la energía nuclear "con fines pacíficos" (como para producir electricidad), se aprendió una lección importante: a veces, los gobiernos esconden información diciendo que es un "secreto militar". Eso puede ser peligroso porque impide que otras personas revisen y controlen bien ciertas tecnologías que tienen tanto usos civiles (como la electricidad) como militares (como las bombas nucleares). Por eso, el texto advierte que hay que tener mucho cuidado con la falta de transparencia en estos casos. Tras estas consideraciones este informe hace una serie de peticiones sobre: a) producción agrícola y alimentaria y degradación del medio ambiente; b) escasez de agua y suministro transfronterizo de agua; c) deforestación y restablecimiento de las cuencas carboníferas; d) desempleo, subempleo y pobreza absoluta; e) desarrollo sostenible y cambio climático; f) deforestación, desertización y aumento de la población; g) la relación entre estas cuestiones con el calentamiento del planeta y el impacto humanitario y medioambiental de acontecimientos climáticos cada vez más extremos; Sobre la pobreza leíamos en el informe Iron Mountain lo siguiente: “La naturaleza arbitraria de los gastos de guerra y de las demás actividades militares transforma a éstas en instrumentos ideales para controlar las relaciones esenciales entre las clases. Obviamente, si el sistema de guerra fuera descartado, se requeriría inmediatamente el uso de nuevos mecanismos políticos para cumplir esta sub-función vital. Hasta tanto se hayan desarrollado, la continuidad del sistema de guerra debe verse asegurada, aunque tan solo sea para preservar la calidad y el grado de pobreza que una sociedad requiere como un incentivo, como así también para mantener la estabilidad de su organización interna del poder.” Esta semana nos han hablado de que en marzo de 2022 atravesó España una calima, viento con polvo en suspensión, procedente de Africa que venia cargado de radioisotopos como el cesio 137. “Considera que las pruebas nucleares atmosféricas y subterráneas han diseminado, como consecuencia de la lluvia radiactiva, importantes cantidades de cesio-137 radiactivo, estroncio 90 y otros isótopos cancerígenos en todo el planeta y han ocasionado importantes perjuicios medioambientales y para la salud en las zonas en que se han realizado las pruebas;” El siguiente considerando deja en bastante mal lugar al tuitero “operador nuclear” que siempre trata de convencernos de lo segura que es la energia nuclear y lo bien que se porta la industria nuclear y lo bien que trabaja: “Considera que algunas partes del mundo se encuentran amenazadas por el almacenamiento y la inmersión incontrolados, inseguros y poco profesionales de los submarinos nucleares, así como por su combustible radiactivo y las fugas de los reactores nucleares; considera que, a causa de ello, son muchas las posibilidades de que grandes regiones puedan verse pronto contaminadas por la radiación;” Almacenamiento e inmersión incontrolada de residuos radiactivos como la que provoco que los pescadores de Etiopía decidieran hacerse piratas e impedir que les arrojaran la basura radiactiva de Europa en sus aguas cercanas. Tal y como yo explique en “UTP 44 Los piratas somalies y los depósitos radiactivos que provocaban cáncer” hace ya seis años. Europa es un almacén al aire libre de basura radiactiva y mucho más después del accidente de Chernobil tal y como han reconocido científicos como la Dra Helen Caldicott, se acumulan en las vías de países como Ucrania centenares, sino miles, de vagones cargados hasta arriba de basura radiactiva de las procedencias mas diversas, posiblemente hasta de España. Acordemonos de los miles o cientos de miles de barriles con basura radiactiva arrojados frente a las costas gallegas y otras costas europeas. Pero no solo este tipo de mierda contaminante se ha escondido en el fondo del mar como podemos leer en el sexto punto a considerar: “Considera que todavía se ha de encontrar una solución adecuada al problema de las armas químicas y convencionales sumergidas después de las dos guerras mundiales en numerosos puntos de los mares que rodean a Europa como una solución "fácil" para deshacerse de estas reservas, sin que nadie sepa todavía hoy en día cuáles pueden ser las repercusiones ecológicas a largo plazo, en particular para la fauna marina y la vida costera;” Decir aqui que toda la revolución verde que se produjo después de la segunda guerra mundial y que consistió en introducir los fitosanitarios en el campo se tradujo en sacar los remanentes químicos de las fabricas que habían servido para crear explosivos y emplearlos en las tareas de fertilización de la agricultura moderna. La Revolución Verde se basó en el uso de productos fitosanitarios derivados en gran medida de sobrantes de la industria armamentística. Muchos de los compuestos químicos desarrollados para la guerra encontraron una nueva aplicación en la agricultura, impulsando la productividad, pero también generando consecuencias ambientales y de salud. Los tres productos primarios más importantes fueron: Derivados del amoníaco (NH₃) Procedencia: Durante la guerra, el amoníaco se utilizó en la fabricación de explosivos como el nitrato de amonio, un componente clave en bombas y municiones. Aplicación en la agricultura: Al terminar el conflicto, la industria química adaptó este compuesto para la fabricación de fertilizantes nitrogenados (como el nitrato de amonio y la urea), esenciales para aumentar los rendimientos agrícolas. Compuestos organoclorados Procedencia: Originalmente investigados como posibles agentes químicos de guerra, los organoclorados se utilizaron durante la guerra por sus propiedades tóxicas. Aplicación en la agricultura: Uno de los productos más emblemáticos fue el DDT (dicloro difenil tricloroetano), utilizado como insecticida en campañas militares para controlar el paludismo y luego aplicado masivamente en la agricultura. Su persistencia en el medio ambiente lo llevó a ser prohibido en muchos países décadas después. Derivados del fósforo y organofosforados Procedencia: Los compuestos organofosforados tienen su origen en los gases nerviosos desarrollados por los nazis durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, como el sarin y el tabún, diseñados para la guerra química. Aplicación en la agricultura: Tras la guerra, estos compuestos fueron adaptados como plaguicidas (ejemplo: paratión, malatión), utilizados para el control de plagas en cultivos. A pesar de su eficacia, su toxicidad también representó riesgos para los agricultores y el medio ambiente. Estos productos marcaron el inicio de una agricultura altamente dependiente de los agroquímicos, con impactos positivos en la productividad, pero también efectos adversos en la salud humana y los ecosistemas. Pues no contentos con introducirlos en nuestra dieta a través de la comida también fueron arrojados por cientos de miles de toneladas a las aguas que rodean Europa como nos dice el considerando numero 6. En el numero 7 dice "Considera que la Unión Europea deberá contribuir a encontrar una solución al problema de que, como consecuencia de las actuales guerras en regiones enteras de África, se hayan arruinado estructuras agrícolas y humanas…”, lo que nos lleva a aceptar las políticas de aceptar inmigración africana sin pararnos a pensar en las consecuencias. Luego en la consideración numero 9 apartado d pide: “desarrollar planes para la creación de grupos de protección internacionales y europeos con utilización de personal, equipos e instalaciones del sector militar, que estén disponibles en el marco de la Asociación por la paz para su intervención en situaciones de emergencia relacionadas con el medio ambiente;” En su petición numero 17 dice: “Subraya la importancia de reforzar el trabajo medioambiental preventivo con el fin de poder enfrentarse a las catástrofes naturales y medioambientales;”. Hemos podido comprobar de primera mano en la inundación de Valencia como los militares ni estaban ni se les esperaba. Esta saliendo a la luz como recibieron ordenes concretas para no intervenir y como se impidió que incluso actuasen de motu propio los soldados fuera del ámbito militar. El punto 21 es papel mojado: “Considera que debe lucharse contra el secreto que rodea la investigación militar y que debe promoverse el derecho de transparencia y control democrático de los proyectos de investigación militar;”. Vemos como las fumigaciones ilegales de geoingeniería que con toda seguridad son llevadas a cabo por militares no termina de salir a la luz. Claramente en el punto 23 vuelve a incidir en lo peligroso de la industria nuclear diciendo: "Subraya que una de las amenazas medioambientales más graves en zonas próximas a la UE es la falta de control de los residuos de la industria nuclear, de las existencias de armas biológicas y químicas…” Los puntos 26 a 30 sobre Aspectos jurídicos de la actividad militar dicen: “26. Pide a la Unión Europea que actúe de manera que las tecnologías de armas denominadas no letales y el desarrollo de nuevas estrategias de armas estén cubiertas y reguladas por convenios internacionales; 27. Considera que el HAARP (Programa de Investigación de Alta Frecuencia Auroral Activa) es un asunto de interés mundial debido a sus considerables repercusiones sobre el medio ambiente y exige que los aspectos jurídicos, ecológicos y éticos sean investigados por un órgano internacional independiente antes de continuar la investigación y los ensayos; lamenta que el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos se haya negado reiteradamente a enviar a un representante que preste declaración, ante la audiencia pública o cualquier reunión posterior que celebre su comisión competente, sobre los riesgos medioambientales y para la población del Programa de Investigación de Alta Frecuencia Auroral Activa (HAARP) que se está financiando en la actualidad en Alaska; 28. Pide que el grupo encargado de evaluar las opciones científicas y tecnológicas (STOA) acepte examinar las pruebas científicas y técnicas disponibles en todos las conclusiones de las investigaciones que se están llevando a cabo en la actualidad sobre el programa HAARP, con el objeto de evaluar la naturaleza exacta y el grado de riesgo de este programa para el medio ambiente local y mundial, así como para la salud pública en general; 29. Pide a la Comisión que, en colaboración con los Gobiernos de Suecia, Finlandia, Noruega y la Federación Rusa, examine las repercusiones medioambientales y para la salud pública del programa HAARP para el Antártico y que le informe de sus conclusiones; 30. Pide, en particular, que se celebre un convenio internacional para la prohibición global de toda la investigación y desarrollo, ya sea militar o civil, que tenga como finalidad aplicar los conocimientos químicos, eléctricos, de vibración de sonido u otro tipo de funcionamiento del cerebro humano al desarrollo de armas que puedan permitir cualquier forma de manipulación de seres humanos, incluyendo la prohibición de cualquier despliegue actual o posible de dichos sistemas;” Hablando sobre el cambio climático se atreve a soltar esta pedazo de mentira: “La temperatura de la Tierra ha aumentado 5º en este siglo debido a un aumento de las emisiones, sobre todo de dióxido de carbono.” Sobre las armas denominadas no letales dice lo siguiente: “Las denominadas armas no letales no son un nuevo tipo de armas sino que han existido en muchos años en forma de, por ejemplo, cañones de agua, balas de goma y gas lacrimógeno. Pero actualmente se han desarrollado técnicas más avanzadas que, a pesar de que pueden causar daños graves e incluso la invalidez o la muerte, se denominan no letales. Se han desarrollado tecnologías contra material y contra personas. Un ejemplo son las armas acústicas que, al producir un ruido de bajo nivel, pueden confundir y desorientar, y de esa manera neutralizar, al enemigo. Otros ejemplos son la espuma adhesiva y el láser cegador. Los productos químicos que decoloran el agua pueden afectar tanto a la agricultura como a la población. Mediante rayos electromagnéticos se pueden destruir los sistemas de información, navegación y comunicación del enemigo. Las denominadas amas no letales también pueden utilizarse contra las infraestructuras y las autoridades de un Estado, pueden destruir el sistema de ferrocarril o producir el caos en el sector financiero de un país. La característica común de estas armas es que tienen como objetivo retrasar, obstruir y vencer a un potencial enemigo a "nivel estratégico” Sobre las armas químicas deja caer una mentira enorme: “Las medidas de las Naciones Unidas destinadas a destruir las armas químicas y otros tipos de armas de destrucción masiva en Iraq ha producido una grave preocupación sobre las repercusiones medioambientales de las actividades militares y ha subrayado la necesidad de buscar métodos ecológicos para neutralizar las armas.” Como bien sabemos a dia de hoy jamas se encontraron armas químicas en Irak por mucho que Bush hijo utilizase esa excusa para arrasar el pais. Lo que si reconoce abiertamente es la desfachatez en la salvaguarda de dichas armas químicas añadiendo: “Se ha confirmado que aproximadamente 150.000 toneladas de bombas, obuses y minas con armas químicas, principalmente gas de mostaza, fosgeno, tabun y arsénico, se depositaron en Skagerack (un estrecho marino, una de las principales rutas marítimas del norte de Europa ubicado en el norte de Europa, entre Dinamarca, Noruega y Suecia) al final de la segunda guerra mundial. En el Mar Báltico la cifra es de 40.000 toneladas. Muchos de los contenedores se encuentran completamente oxidados y las armas químicas están en contacto directo con el agua del mar. De todas formas, se ha decidido que deben permanecer en el fondo del mar ya que el riesgo de recuperarlas se considera aún mayor.” Sobre las pruebas nucleares militares dice: “La cantidad total de radiactividad liberada a la atmósfera en los ensayos atmosféricos se calcula entre 100 y 1.000 veces mayor que la producida en Chernobil.” Continua diciendo: “El plutonio es ciertamente la sustancia más peligrosa que se conoce. Muchos países poseen grandes cantidades de plutonio militar y pueden producirse armas nucleares de una forma relativamente simple a partir de plutonio "civil". Las instalaciones que actualmente tienen una función civil pueden convertirse rápidamente en fábricas de armas. En la fabricación del plutonio se producen grandes cantidades de residuos líquidos altamente radiactivos. El tratamiento de los residuos radiactivos causa problemas enormes. La producción en gran escala de armas de destrucción masiva durante las últimas décadas ha producido grandes cantidades de residuos. No existe ningún método adecuado conocido para almacenar los residuos radiactivos. Se almacenan normalmente en contenedores, pero grandes cantidades se liberan en la naturaleza. Los residuos radiactivos son extremadamente inflamables y pueden explotar si no están ventilados o refrigerados. En 1957 ocurrió un accidente en la planta nuclear Chelyabinsk-65 cerca de la ciudad de Kystym en los Urales. Un contenedor radiactivo explotó y los residuos radiactivos se extendieron en una zona de 1.000 Km2. Fue preciso evacuar a 10.000 personas. Cerca del lago Karachay, en las proximidades de Chelyabinsk-65, todavía es posible recibir, situándose simplemente en la orilla del lago, un nivel de radiactividad tal que produce la muerte instantánea. En la zona del Báltico existen extensas áreas contaminadas por antiguas actividades militares soviéticas. En Estonia, se encuentra el lago Sillanmä, también llamado el lago nuclear, que acoge residuos militares radiactivos equivalentes a miles de armas nucleares, el lago Sillanmä se encuentra a 100 metros del mar Báltico. Cualquier vertido al mar Báltico podría tener consecuencias devastadoras para el medio ambiente en toda la región del Báltico.” Luego explica sobre el HAARP y como el gobierno norteamericano se ha negado a dar ninguna explicación sobre el mismo o los usos que se le dan. “El HAARP es un proyecto de investigación que utiliza instalaciones terrestres y una red de antenas, cada una equipada con su propio transmisor, para calentar partes de la ionosfera con potentes ondas de radio. La energía generada calienta partes de la ionosfera, lo que produce agujeros en la ionosfera y "lentes" artificiales. El HAARP puede utilizarse para muchos fines. Mediante la manipulación de las características eléctricas de la ionosfera se puede controlar una gran cantidad de energía. Si se utiliza como arma militar, esta energía puede tener un impacto devastador sobre el enemigo. El HAARP puede enviar muchos millones más de energía que cualquier otro transmisor convencional. La energía también puede dirigirse a un blanco móvil, lo que podría constituir un potencial sistema antimisiles. El proyecto permite también una mejor comunicación con submarinos y la manipulación de condiciones climáticas globales. Ahora bien, también es posible hacer lo contrario e interferir las comunicaciones. Mediante la manipulación de la ionosfera se pueden bloquear las comunicaciones globales a la vez que se transmiten las propias. Otra aplicación es la penetración de la tierra (tomografía) con rayos X a una profundidad de varios kilómetros para detectar campos de petróleo y gas o instalaciones militares subterráneas.” Este punto es el que muchos consideramos se ha utilizado para crear o amplificar terremotos. Por ejemplo, yo mismo comprobé como el sistema HAARP estuvo encendido a máxima potencia el dia del terremoto que supuestamente provoco el accidente de Fukushima. “Otra aplicación es el radar sobre el horizonte, y definir objetivos a larga distancia. De esta manera, se puede detectar la aproximación de objetos más allá del horizonte. Desde la década de los cincuenta los EE.UU. han realizado explosiones de material nuclear en los cinturones Van Allen.” Esto lo contaba la monja Rosalie Bertell para explicar como la llamada anomalía del Atlantico sur fue creada por unos misiles nucleares...el proyecto Argus en 1958. Dos bombas de hidrogeno que dañaron gravemente la cubierta protectora de la Tierra. “Otra consecuencia grave de HAARP son los agujeros de la ionosfera causados por las potentes ondas de radio. La ionosfera nos protege de la radiación cósmica. Se espera que los agujeros se cierren de nuevo, pero la experiencia con la capa de ozono hace pensar lo contrario. Esto quiere decir que hay agujeros considerables en la ionosfera que nos protege. Debido a sus considerables efectos sobre el medio ambiente, HAARP es un asunto de interés mundial y debe cuestionarse si las ventajas de este sistema realmente son superiores a los riesgos. Hay que investigar los efectos ecológicos y éticos antes de proseguir con la investigación y los ensayos. HAARP es un proyecto casi desconocido y es importante que la opinión pública sepa de qué se trata. El HAARP está vinculado a 50 años de investigación espacial intensiva de marcado carácter militar, incluyendo el proyecto "guerra de las estrellas", para controlar la alta atmósfera y las comunicaciones. Este tipo de proyectos deben considerarse como una grave amenaza para el medio ambiente, con un impacto incalculable sobre la vida humana. Incluso ahora, nadie sabe el impacto que podrá tener el proyecto HAARP. Debemos luchar contra el secreto en la investigación militar. Hay que fomentar la transparencia y el acceso democrático a los proyectos de investigación militar y el control parlamentario de los mismos.” Debemos a recordar a nuestros oyentes que después de esta parrafada oficial se nos sigue llamando magufos por referirnos a este proyecto como un arma militar y esta gentuza tiene la desfachatez de decir que el proyecto HAARP infringe el Derecho internacional. Sobre lo que contamina el ámbito militar nos dicen que en un informe del año 1995 de la ONU se cita que sólo las fuerzas armadas suecas liberaron en un año 866.199 toneladas de dióxido de carbono. Tengamos en cuenta esto cuando nos piden que dejemos aparcado el coche porque contamina. Vayamos ahora a las consideraciones finales, en un informe previo de 1995 se dice textualmente: “Observando que el coste de ejecución de estas estrategias podría ascender a 774.000 millones de dólares para los próximos diez años y que esto revela la necesidad de cooperación…” 774.000 millones de dólares en 1995 equivaldrían aproximadamente a 1.610.000 millones de dólares en 2025, considerando una inflación acumulada estimada del 108%. O sea, la deuda total de España destinada a no se sabe muy bien que, aunque yo sospecho que las fumigaciones clandestinas de la geoingenieria se financian de esta manera. En sus conclusiones finales, la numero 12 dice: “Pide, en particular, que se celebre un convenio internacional para la prohibición global de toda la investigación y desarrollo, ya sea militar o civil, que tenga como finalidad aplicar los conocimientos químicos, eléctricos, de vibración de sonido u otro tipo de funcionamiento del cerebro humano al desarrollo de armas que puedan permitir cualquier forma de manipulación de seres humanos, incluyendo la prohibición de cualquier despliegue actual o posible de dichos sistemas;” Creemos que esto es papel mojado y que se sigue experimentando sin ningún control sobre esto. ………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………. Bueno, ya está claro donde realizaremos el evento para presentar mi ultimo libro La Línea, el sitio es la ermita de la Soledad en Loriguilla (el nuevo), está en la carretera de Loriguilla a Ribarroja del Turia (CV374), se ve el promontorio a la derecha de Loriguilla. No está indicada la ermita en la rotonda que lleva hacia ella, pero se ve claramente cual es la carretera. https://maps.app.goo.gl/q7arFtPoL2RsgyWv5 El dia, el sábado dia 22 de febrero. La hora, como no puede ser de otra manera, ja, ja, ja, las 11 de la mañana. Así formamos un bonito 33 junto con el dia. Mi intención es estar en las mesas de la ermita que tiene unas vistas panorámicas muy chulas hasta la hora de comer y luego irnos a comer a un asador a Cheste. Dicho asador se llena, así que sería interesante confirmar la asistencia a la comida ya que yo encargaré una mesa por anticipado. Posiblemente se puedan ampliar plazas al llegar al evento...pero no estoy 100% seguro de eso. La comida seria a la carta y cada uno se pagaría lo suyo. El sitio suele salir a la carta por unos 35 euros, una buena comida con entrecot. También llevare algunos ejemplares de mis tres libros: Blasco Ibáñez desvelado, Ojos bien abiertos y La Línea. Del segundo y el tercero solo tengo 4 unidades de cada y son de autor, sólo hay 5 ejemplares de autor, y no se pueden comprar a Amazon. Todos son tapa blanda, el primero a 18 euros, el segundo a 25 y el tercero a 22, o sea, todos mucho mas baratos que en Amazon. El evento se trataría de pasar un rato disfrutando de las vistas y conociendonos, luego os hablaría del tercer libro y sobre las líneas ley. Finalmente haríamos (el que quiera) una especie de ritual bueno para desear que se tuerzan los planes de los malos. Se trataría de aprovechando el sitio tan energético pensar en cosas que queremos que no sucedan, nunca desear el mal a nadie, pasarnos una hoja en blanco de papel e ir pensando para nuestros adentros lo que deseamos que no ocurra y escribirlo mentalmente en la hoja. Tras pasar por todos los que participemos, la hoja la rompería diciendo tres veces, nada de esto se va a cumplir, van a fracasar vuestros planes malvados. Tras esto volveríamos a disfrutar del paisaje y charlar un poco hasta la hora de comer para salir aproximadamente a las 2 hacia la comida. El que no quiera ir a comer puede quedarse a comer con lo que el mismo traiga en este sitio, esperemos que no haya gente ocupando las mesas y salga un dia soleado. Hay mucho césped alrededor y sitio suficiente para aparcar unos cuantos coches. Lo dicho, pasaremos un dia muy agradable. No hace falta comprar ningún libro para acudir. ………………………………………………………………………………………. Conductor del programa UTP Ramón Valero @tecn_preocupado Un técnico Preocupado un FP2 IVOOX UTP http://cutt.ly/dzhhGrf BLOG http://cutt.ly/dzhh2LX Ayúdame desde mi Crowfunding aquí https://cutt.ly/W0DsPVq Invitados Dra Yane #JusticiaParaUTP @ayec98_2 Médico y Buscadora de la verdad. Con Dios siempre! No permito q me dividan c/izq -derecha, raza, religión ni nada de la Creación. https://youtu.be/TXEEZUYd4c0 …. Lazaro @carlxsamo The quieter you become the more you are able to hear ………………………………………………………………………………………. Enlaces citados en el podcast: AYUDA A TRAVÉS DE LA COMPRA DE MIS LIBROS https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2024/11/16/ayuda-a-traves-de-la-compra-de-mis-libros/ Próxima quedada en Valencia (Hilo en foroconspiración.com donde ere actualizando sobre este evento) https://foroconspiracion.com/threads/proxima-quedada-en-valencia.401/#post-5000 INFORME sobre medio ambiente, seguridad y política exterior https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-4-1999-0005_ES.pdf Estudio de 177 páginas de la ONU que reconoce el reemplazo demográfico en Occidente https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd-egm_200010_un_2001_replacementmigration.pdf Tuit de marzo de 2022 donde hablábamos de que que la calima traia sustancias radiactivas https://x.com/ayec98_2/status/1503730514242510850 LA CALIMA NARANJA DEL 2022 QUE ATRAVESÓ ESPAÑA CONTENÍA RESIDUOS RADIACTIVOS https://x.com/GuillermoRocaf1/status/1886164471502041146 UTP256 No tengas miedo a sus venenos, quelación https://www.ivoox.com/utp256-no-tengas-miedo-a-sus-venenos-quelacion-audios-mp3_rf_117635817_1.html Proyecto Argus https://x.com/tecn_preocupado/status/954067885655318528 https://x.com/tecn_preocupado/status/1264563081302159360 Armas no letales https://x.com/chanadca/status/948143626072313857 NASA Y LOS PLANES DE MUERTE FUTUROS https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2024/03/23/nasa-y-los-planes-de-muerte-futuros/ TRÁFICO DE ÓRGANOS EN UNA CENTRAL NUCLEAR BRITÁNICA https://foroconspiracion.com/threads/lupa-inclinada-a-la-izquierdaglobo-con-meridianos-hilo-10-conspiraciones-confirmadas-por-documentos-desclasificados-globo-con-meridianoslupa-inclinada-a-la-izquierdala-realidad-supera-la-ficcion-y-estos-papeles-lo-demuestran.410/post-5186 ………………………………………………………………………………………. Música utilizada en este podcast: Tema inicial Heros ………………………………………………………………………………………. Epílogo Love Masacre - LOVE MASACRE O.T.A.N. https://youtu.be/0OiKq5tk1K8?feature=shared

Die heftigen Hochwasser sind Auswirkungen des Klimawandels, so Niklas Höhne vom New Climate Institute. Um die Menschen für mehr Umweltschutz zu begeistern, brauche es eine positive Vision: von einer Welt mit viel Energie und gesund lebenden Menschen. Küpper, Moritz www.deutschlandfunk.de, Interviews

About the episode: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US called last year the hottest on record “by far”. During the year we saw many climate-related catastrophes – from large scale fires to unprecedented flooding. And yet, for some, the science of climate change is controversial. Many claim that even climate scientists don't believe it can be attributed to anthropogenic actions. To understand what climate scientists really believe, we thought we'd speak with one. Professor Russchenberg leads the Climate Institute at the Technical University of Delft and is the scientific director of the national Ruisdael Observatory, both in the Netherlands, an apt choice given that roughly one third of the Netherlands lies below sea level (the lowest being 6.7 metres below) and, so, rising sea levels are an issue. In this episode, Professor Russchenberg and Toby Corballis discuss what businesses can do, the role of technology in mitigating some of the worst effects, why we're seeing recent events, the warming of the oceans, and where we're headed. Importantly, we ask what role business can play in helping to mitigate some of the worst effects of climate change. Guest Name: Professor Herman Russchenberg With decades of industry experience, Andrew Gordon-Brooks has built his career across Telco, Finance & Media with both global enterprises and early stage startups. Holding a variety of leadership & executive level positions; including building a global engineering team for a LinkedIn top 25 startup, Andrew is currently Chief Operations Officer for Secure Delivery, a firm spec, a founder member of the OWASP Education and Training Committee, and a key contributor to the OWASP Application Security Curriculum Project. Guest Profile: Professor Russchenberg is a full professor in Atmospheric Remote Sensing and head of the Department of Geoscience and Remote Sensing at the Technical University, Delft, in the Netherlands. Since 202, he is the TU Delft vice rector magnificus for climate action. As well as leading the TU Delft Climate Institute, he is the Scientific Director of the national Ruisdael Observatory. His research themes are: Climate change: the role of clouds, rainfall and aerosols in the climate system Measuring the atmosphere Climate engineering Nowcasting rainfall Links: Find out about the work that Professor Russchenberg is doing: https://www.tudelft.nl/en/ceg/about-faculty/departments/geoscience-remote-sensing https://ruisdael-observatory.nl/ Calculate your travel footprint using one of the following: https://www.goclimate.com/travel-calculator https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx https://greentripper.org/ I hope you enjoy the show and if you have any comments or suggestions please write to me at: tc@wickedproblems.fm. Enjoy, Toby Corballis

Mark Paul is an assistant professor and a member of the Climate Institute at Rutgers University. His research looks at the causes and effects of inequality, and tries to work through some of the material remedies for inequality in the context of neoliberal capitalism. He's written a great deal on the climate crisis, focusing on economic pathways to crash decarbonization that also take into account the need for economic and environmental justice. His first book, The Ends of Freedom: Reclaiming America's Lost Promise of Economic Rights was published in May of this year. This is now a moment when the existential threat of climate change is felt really intensely across the world. The remaining carbon budget for a 50% likelihood to limit global warming to 1.5, 1.7, and 2C has dwindled in the years since the first COP in 1995. Assuming that our 2023 emission levels continue at their current record-setting rate – and the Global Carbon Project has said that total CO2 emissions in 2023 reached a disturbing 40.9 gigatons – we will burn through the budget for keeping global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels by 2030. In 15 years, the carbon budget for 1.7C will be gone too. In planetary terms, that's a split second. We need crash decarbonization now because, as Paul has pointed out, “climate change is not a problem for future generations—it is a clear and present danger.” So much time has been intentionally wasted, and due to that deadly strategy of delay, Paul says that “we have four times the work to do to decarbonize the planet and dwindling time to do it in.” A lot of the work, within a capitalist economy, is going to take the form of fighting for the appropriate level of investment. It makes all kinds of economic sense to phase-out fossil fuels, and yet because the system has incubated and grown in the toxic stuff, we're stuck in it. Mark argues that if we wait just one decade more to really make the disruptive changes that are needed to decarbonize the fossil economy, we “will drive up the costs associated with decarbonization by 40-70%, which amounts to well over $3 trillion in additional costs.” One of the questions I had to ask him, though, was why is this still such a hard sell? It often feels Sisyphean to try to communicate projected losses in a system that demands and yet resists change. How to frame it in a resonant sort of way? How do we dislodge the presentist attachment to the status quo? There are some answers in this interview, and obviously some real questions remaining. Some of it centres on the question of growth, which Mark seems to feel is often the wrong question. Shrinking the economy, he suggests, needs to be taken seriously from the perspective of its social costs. I'm sympathetic to that because there is the political problem of ensuring that a mass mobilization for climate action doesn't leave people behind. So, for that reason, we also spend time talking about the divisive ways that putting a price on carbon has been tried, and some of the ways it could be done progressively. He says that “a simple carbon tax is, as a form of a consumption tax,” very regressive. It is going to unfairly hit low-income people harder when it should be a luxury tax that targets the wealthy specifically. On this, I would quote Alexis Shotwell's book Against Purity, where she writes that the world must be shared, and with the non-human parts of this world maybe especially. She says that the world, in fact, “offers finite freedom, adequate abundance, modest meaning, and limited happiness. Partial, finite, adequate, modest, limited—and yet worth working on, with, and for.”

Summer Rewind: The Canadian Climate Institute's Big Switch Reaching Canada's net zero goals is a bit like solving a national puzzle. There are many pieces that need to fit together, including doubling or tripling the amount of zero-emissions electricity Canada currently produces to meet future demand for widespread electrification. Caroline Lee, senior researcher with the Canadian Climate Institute, walks us through the Big Switch report, which highlights three crucial changes required by Canada's electricity sector in order to hit the country's net zero goals. Related links Website: https://climateinstitute.ca/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/canadianclimateinstitute/ To subscribe using Apple Podcasts:  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/thinkenergy/id1465129405 To subscribe using Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7wFz7rdR8Gq3f2WOafjxpl To subscribe on Libsyn: http://thinkenergy.libsyn.com/ --- Subscribe so you don't miss a video: https://www.youtube.com/user/hydroottawalimited Check out our cool pics on https://www.instagram.com/hydroottawa More to Learn on https://www.facebook.com/HydroOttawa Keep up with the Tweets at https://twitter.com/thinkenergypod

Good afternoon, I'm _____ with today's episode of EZ News. **Tai-Ex opening ** The Tai-Ex opened down 1-point this morning from yesterday's close, at 16,712 on turnover of 2-billion N-T. The market closed marginally higher on Monday after coming off an early high - as investors opted to lock in gains while the main board moved closer to the nearest technical resistance ahead of the 16,800 point mark. **AIT Chair 'Looking Forward to Meeting' Presidential Candidates ** American Institute in Taiwan Chair Laura Rosenberger has arrived in Taiwan for a six-day visit. According to Rosenberger, she plans to meet with the presidential candidates during her trip and is also reiterating that Washington will cooperate with whichever candidate wins January's election. It's her second visit to Taiwan since she assumed the post on March 20. Speaking to reporters, Rosenberger said she's looking forward to further "engaging (接洽) with leaders from across Taiwan's political spectrum" this week and plans to "spend time with each of the declared presidential candidates." And she went on to stress that "the United States will not take sides and we oppose outside interference or influence in Taiwan's elections." **Climate Institute Holds Plaque Unveiling Ceremony ** The newly established Climate Institute has held a plaque-unveiling ceremony. The event was attended by Vice President William Lai and the heads of several of Taiwan's leading tech companies. They included A-U-O chairman Paul Peng and Pegatron chairman Tong Zi-xian. Speaking at the ceremony, Lai reiterated the government's plans to achieve (達到) net-zero emissions by 2050 and hopes that the private and public sectors can further collaborate to reach that goal. The institute has been tasked with hosting training courses to promote sustainable development and tackle climate change and to offer assistance to private companies seeking to reduce their carbon footprint under the Taiwan Climate Partnership. **Haiti Flooding Death Toll Rises ** Authorities say the number of people killed by heavy floods that hit Haiti over the weekend has risen to 42 and that another 11 are missing. Haiti's Civil Protection Agency says at least 85 people are injured, and more than 13,600 homes were flooded. The rains pelted Haiti's western, northwestern, southeastern and central regions. The weather has since improved, but many crops were damaged amid a spike (激增) in starvation. Prime Minister Ariel Henry has said he has asked for international help. **SKorea Support for Nuclear Arsenal Falls ** Public support for South Korea to develop its own nuclear arsenal is plummeting (暴跌) according to new figures. Chris Gilbert reports. **British Princess Eugenie Welcomes Baby Boy ** Buckingham Palace says Princess Eugenie has given birth to a baby boy. Eugenie, the niece of King Charles III, and her husband, welcomed their son on May 30th. The baby is the couple's second child. The child is 13th in line to the throne (王位繼承人). That was the I.C.R.T. news, Check in again tomorrow for our simplified version of the news, uploaded every day in the afternoon. Enjoy the rest of your day, I'm _____.

NOTE: SUBSCRIBE TO UNPACKING THE NEWS TO CONTINUE RECEIVING NEW EPISODES ON YOUR FEED WHEREVER YOU GET YOUR PODCASTS!From May 8-12 don't miss UNPACKING THE NEWS' daily show broadcasting live from the 2023 Canadian Labour Congress with our friends at Quebec solidarity journalism cooperative Pivot!Every day we're releasing interviews and reports from Canada's 30th tri-annual labour summit including this episode featuring a panel from the conference floor moderated by activist Mary Shortall with a panel including the Climate Institute's Matt Waylan, the Broadbent Institute's Meg Gingrich and le Directeur syndical - Service Environnement et Transition juste at the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec Patrick RondeauSubscribe to the show wherever you get your podcasts and find more about the Congress at https://liftingeveryoneup.ca/Watch the CBC video clip 'Alberta wildfires force thousands from their homes' at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_dfrA_HSD0Theme music 'Judy is a Dick Slap' courtesy of the 2000 Belle and Sebastian EP 'Legal Man' on Jeepster Records: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-thsncxieBg

Ann Rohmer speaks with with Janet Gray – Money Coaches Canada where the discussion looks at why we are poorer now than 3 years ago, what to do and will Tuesday's federal budget help? Tina Cortese looks at the Retail Council of Canada's reaction to the federal budget and if the Federal Government couldhave done more to help Canadians by slashing credit card swipe fees, eliminating hidden taxes on consumer goods such as car seats, strollers, diapers. Ann Rohmer is with Rick Smith, President of the Canadian Climate Institute who says that Tuesday's budget accelerates clean growth in Canada. Jim Lang speaks with Toby Boulet – parent of Logan Boulet who died in in the Bronco's bus crash in 2018. April 7th is GREEN SHIRT DAY to inspire people to become organ donors. Kevin Frankish is with Bobbi Hunter to discuss Rembering Bob Hunter, a book about the environmentalist and one ofthe founders of Greenpeace Bob Hunter which will be available later this month – MR. MINDBOMB Shaliza Bacchus looks at Life at Sea, which is offering the ultimate cruising experience.  An opportunity to visit all 7continents, work remotely and live at sea for 30k.

This week on Wellbeing we speak with Dr Graeme Horton, a Lecturer and researcher from the University of Newcastle. We are discussing Climate Change's impact on our health and food. As a member of the Management Committee of Doctors for the Environment, Dr Horton co-authored the "Climate Change Health Check 2020 Report" for the Climate Institute in 2008, which he presented at the 61st United Nations Department of Public Information Conference. Graeme highlights that few of the predictions outlined in the report did not come true.   In this episode Dr Horton talks about the effects of climate change on ecosystems and in turn, how that effects our food and health, the negative impact climate change could have on food production, climate change's effect on the mental health of farmers, and how people can improve their diets to be more climate focused.      “We know that as carbon dioxide levels rise, some plants can increase the rate that they grow but that actually decreases the exact to which they incorporate nitrogen and protein, and so protein levels within plant-based foods can drop. That's a concern for people who are most at risk of protein malnutrition.”   - Dr Graeme Horton on this episode of Wellbeing Tune in in a fortnight when we discuss global health with an expert. We would love to hear from you! If you would like to suggest topics, give us feedback, or just say hi, you can contact us on wellbeing@2nurfm.com  Host: Jack Hodgins Wellbeing website: https://www.2nurfm.com.au/wellbeing See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Reaching Canada's net zero goals is a bit like solving a national puzzle. There are many pieces that need to fit together, including doubling or tripling the amount of zero-emissions electricity Canada currently produces to meet future demand for widespread electrification. Caroline Lee, senior researcher with the Canadian Climate Institute, walks us through the Big Switch report, which highlights three crucial changes required by Canada's electricity sector in order to hit the country's net zero goals.   Related links Website: https://climateinstitute.ca/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/canadianclimateinstitute/ --- To subscribe using Apple Podcasts:  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/thinkenergy/id1465129405   To subscribe using Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7wFz7rdR8Gq3f2WOafjxpl   To subscribe on Libsyn: http://thinkenergy.libsyn.com/ --- Subscribe so you don't miss a video: https://www.youtube.com/user/hydroottawalimited   Check out our cool pics on https://www.instagram.com/hydroottawa   More to Learn on https://www.facebook.com/HydroOttawa   Keep up with the Tweets at https://twitter.com/thinkenergypod   Transcript     Dan Seguin  00:06 This is thinkenergy. The podcast that helps you better understand the fast changing world of energy through conversations with game changers, industry leaders, and influencers. So join me, Dan Seguin as I explore both traditional and unconventional facets of the energy industry.  Hey everyone, welcome back. According to the Canadian Climate Institute, the country's leading climate change policy research organization, all roads to net zero pass through electricity. I know we've mentioned this many times on the show, but it bears repeating how Canada produces some of the cleanest electricity in the world. 80% of the electricity generated across Canada comes from sources completely free of greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario's electricity sector is one of the cleanest producing 94% of its electricity from non emitting sources. So there's still work to be done to make Canada's electricity sector even cleaner. But in essence, the electricity sector isn't the problem when it comes to climate change. But according to the Canadian Climate Institute's recent report called The Big Switch, it is the solution. So what does contribute to Canada's emissions, refined petroleum, primarily used for transportation, natural gas, which is used primarily to heat our homes and buildings and the energy processes involved in industries particularly steel, cement, and chemical industries. According to the big switch report, our country needs to reduce its reliance on these fossil fuels, if we hope to achieve Canada's Net Zero targets by 2050. But that's only a piece of the national puzzle. The big switch report suggests that we must double or even triple the amount of zero emissions electricity that we currently produce to meet future demand for widespread electrification. The Canadian Climate Institute highlights three critical changes to Canada's electricity sector, make it bigger, cleaner, and smarter. So here's today's big question. What are the key ways that Canada's electricity system can evolve and improve in order to replace fossil fuels and better align with net zero targets? We're going to dig into all of that on today's show. Established by Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Canadian Climate Institute provides independent and expert driven analysis to help Canada move toward clean growth in all sectors and regions of the country. Today, our guest is Caroline Lee, Senior Research Associate at the Canadian Climate Institute. Caroline holds a Master's Degree in Resource Management from Simon Fraser University and has previously held positions with International Energy Agency, the government in New Brunswick and Navius Research. Caroline, welcome to the show. Now, the Big Switch summary report is based on two other detailed reports, bigger, cleaner, smarter, and electric federalism, which we're going to discuss on the show today. But in essence, what is the premise behind your report the big switch? What are you referring to? And what does the report aimed to outline or chief?   Caroline Lee  03:57 Well, in simple terms, you know, we call this report the Big Switch, because we wanted to refer to this switch away from using fossil fuel energy, which as we know, generates greenhouse gas emissions towards using clean electricity. So the technical term for this is electrification. And this Big Switch is really important we saw because it really underpins the reductions of emissions, really across Canada's economy, and ultimately, it underpins Canada's achievement of our climate goals. So that's really why we undertook this project because we saw the importance of moving towards electricity in meeting Canada's climate goals as so central. And we wanted to understand what needs to happen at the system's level to support those changes. So when I say systems, I'm talking about the supply, the transmission, the distribution, how do those systems need to be changing, so that they can be equipped to support the shift towards electricity as we use more EVs as we use more heat pumps and so on.   Dan Seguin  04:59 Here's a follow up question for you, Caroline. Your report references unabated fossil fuels, wondering if you could explain and elaborate.   Caroline Lee  05:07 Yeah, it is a technical term. So unabated simply means that it's not equipped with technology to reduce the associated emissions. So for us that technology is carbon capture, utilization and storage, the technical acronym is CCUS. So there are ways for example, to continue burning fossil fuels, while reducing significantly the emissions associated with them if we equip that type of generation with CCUS. But what we see in our analysis is that if you're not equipping fossil fuels with CCUS, ultimately, the fate of unabated fossil fuels is very clear that significant generation associated with unabated fossil fuels, fossil fuels that don't have CCS equipped is going to have to be largely phased out. So when we looked at all of the analysis, all the studies that model netzero transitions in electricity, what we found is that at most 1%, of all generation by 2050, is associated with unabated fossil fuels. So we have to largely phase out that kind of electricity generation.   Dan Seguin  06:17 That's very interesting. Now, Caroline, what do you mean, when you say that all roads to net zero passes through electricity? Why does electricity play a central role?   Caroline Lee  06:30 It's a good question. And it's a good basic question that I'm very happy to answer. So maybe I can start with this first. First explanation around what the net zero goal actually means, you know, Canada, just recently committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. And this is an ambitious goal. And what that means is that Canada, has agreed to really zero out our emissions to get our emissions as close as we can to zero. And then whatever emissions are very expensive, or technically very difficult to get out of the economy, then we offset in some way. So again, this is an ambitious goal, there's a lot that needs to be done, especially in electricity to support that goal. And the reason why we say all roads to netzero pass through electricity is that when we looked at all the studies that model, a trajectory for Canada reaching net zero, there really was no credible path, without this switch towards electricity. And without making the generation of electricity cleaner. So we really saw tackling electricity as being critical to the achievement of Canada's net zero goals. And maybe I can just say it and in simple terms, three key reasons why that switch is so important. So first of all, electricity itself it when you use it, it doesn't burn fossil fuel, of course, so therefore, it doesn't release greenhouse gas emission. So we all know that if you're driving an Eevee, you're not generating greenhouse gas emissions directly. Now, of course, we know also that the production of electricity can generate emissions. So we can use fossil fuels like coal and natural gas to generate electricity. So that's where you can get some emissions. But what's really positive news in Canada and really around the world is that we're making quite significant progress, especially here in Canada, to reducing those emissions associated with producing electricity. And now that the federal government has a commitment to achieve net zero electricity by 2035, the country now has a clear mandate that we're going to be eliminating, by and large those emissions associated with producing electricity. So that's a really big thing is that electricity in the future could really be this conduit for using fully non emitting electricity from the beginning to the end. And then a third reason why electricity is so important is that it's just more efficient. So driving an electric vehicle is actually three to four times more efficient than using fossil fuels to drive that vehicle. And that's because you lose so much more heat. There's a lot of energy that's wasted when you're combusting fossil fuels. So because of those three reasons, electricity does seem to play a really critical role in achieving our climate goals.   Dan Seguin  09:29 Now, I've got a follow up question again. Your report also refers to electricity systems plural. Was that intentional, and what are you capturing?   Caroline Lee  09:42 It was indeed intentional. And that's because we recognize that Canada doesn't actually have a national electricity grid. We have a whole bunch of provincial regional grids and that's in large part because electricity is managed by provinces and territories. It's not directly managed by the federal government. So we wanted to to recognize the kind of regional uniqueness of all of these systems and that there isn't a single kind of unified grid across the country.   Dan Seguin  10:12 So we're really talking about transforming Canada's electricity system, and how every Canadian will use energy in the future. What is Canada doing right now right now that you feel makes this achievable?   Caroline Lee  10:28 Well, I can talk about a couple of things. One thing on the demand side, so in terms of how we're using electricity, and then another thing on the supply side, so how we're generating electricity. Now in terms of how we're using electricity, we're seeing quite favorable policies now to support the use of more electricity using technologies things like EVs. We've seen now the ban of the sale of internal combustion engines, within just about a decade, in Canada. So this is going to really accelerate I think, the shift towards electric vehicles in Canada in at least passenger vehicle fleets. So that's really promising. There are lots of other things we need to be doing in terms of driving electrification in other types of uses. So not only in cars, but for example, in how we heat our homes, in industrial processes. So there's more work to be done there. But the progress on electric vehicles I think is promising on the supply side, so how we're generating electricity. Canada has now as I said earlier, committed to achieving net zero electricity by 2035. So that's just over one decade, we've committed to having basically clean electricity across the board across the country. And that is quite an ambitious target. And it aligns with a lot of these scenarios that we looked at, for achieving broader net zero goals across Canada. So government policy actually seems in that regard to be following what's actually necessary to get us to net zero in electricity.   Dan Seguin  12:06 The report says that the switch is going to make Canadians better off. Can you expand on that? And also, how inequity could be addressed?   Caroline Lee  12:18 There are so many ways that I can answer this question, I think, from one dimension, we can think about the move towards electricity, this Big Switch, as making energy more affordable for Canadians. So our analysis actually found that overall, as a share of income, energy costs will actually decline as a result of using more electricity. And that's in part because electricity is more efficient, we're also seeing so therefore, the the operating cost over the entire lifetime, for example of an EV is going to be lower than the lifetime cost of owning an internal combustion engine, a gasoline vehicle. And we see the initial costs of these technologies also going down over time. So we know even you know, you probably know this quite well, the cost of buying an Eevee, even five years ago was significantly higher than it is today. And we expect those costs to continue to drop. And so this big switch can actually make energy overall more affordable for Canadians. And that's good news for everybody, I would say. But beyond the costs themselves to individual consumers, we see also quite significant opportunities for economic development. So one example here is that as Canada develops more clean electricity supplies, so we're we're producing electricity in cleaner ways. That gives us the opportunity to supply that clean energy to industries that traditionally use quite a lot of electricity, we think of for example, steelmaking that can increase their carbon competitiveness where consumers are increasingly thinking, okay, I want to I prefer to purchase steel, from a steel company that has a lower carbon footprint than a higher carbon footprint steel company. So using clean electricity in Canada to produce some of our industrial goods can actually give us a competitive leg up internationally. So there are some real carbon competitiveness benefits that we see. And then, thirdly, in terms of opportunities for Indigenous Reconciliation, I mean, this speaks to your question around equity. We know that Indigenous Peoples are in many ways marginalized because of historic racism, oppression, by non settler Canadians, we know that. So one way in which we think this big switch can help with the reconciliation and self determination of Indigenous Peoples is by allowing we know this already, actually, that Indigenous Peoples are already owners and co-owners of a lot of clean energy projects and we only see that trend increasing. So that allows them to be very much a part of this transition, take advantage of the economic opportunities, and also determine their own paths in terms of how they want to pursue this. This next wave of, of energy transition.   Dan Seguin  15:16 Thanks, Caroline. There was a reference to defraying the cost of electricity system investments away from customers by using public funds. Can you explain a bit about that? And why that would be favorable?   Caroline Lee  15:31 Yeah, I think this is worth digging into a little bit. So currently, the costs of generating electricity are paid for by the ratepayers. So whoever uses electricity pays for those investments, at least indirectly. What we're proposing in our report is that it's not only the rate base of the people that are using electricity, that help share the cost of electricity system investments, but that those costs get shared more broadly to taxpayers at large. And the reason why we think that could be really critical is that I'll just say three reasons here. First of all, the benefits of electricity systems investments are actually shared more broadly than across ratepayers. And that's because electricity, as I said earlier, is so essential for Canada to meet its climate change net zero targets, that the benefits are shared more widely, as well. So if the benefits are shared widely, we think there's justification for having the cost shared more widely as well. We also think of electricity really, as something like, you know, it's critical infrastructure in this day and age, you can think of it like hospitals, we need electricity, to run our lives and to, and to support Canadians day to day. And because we see electricity as such critical infrastructure, we see also that there's justification to support the maintenance and the in the kind of enhancement of that infrastructure through the tax base. And then last reason is a little bit more wonky. But when we defray these costs of the electricity systems investments through taxes, instead of the rate payer base, that can be a more progressive way of distributing that costs. And by progressive, what I mean is that it doesn't hit low income households as much as it does when you distribute those costs through rates. So overall, I think there, we think there is justification for having those costs spread out more evenly across society at large and Canada.   Dan Seguin  17:40 Now, let's move to the next big report. Bigger, cleaner, smarter pathways. Now, Caroline, I really want to tackle your report, word by word. Let's start with the word bigger. What does your evidence and research say about meeting future demand due to widespread electrification? And when you say big, how big are we talking about?   Caroline Lee  18:10 The first report is titled bigger, cleaner and smarter. And that summarizes the three critical ways in which we see electricity systems having to change and transform in order to support net zero. So in terms of that first change bigger. Yes, we see electricity systems having to grow because there is going to be increasing demand for electricity as we move into net zero world as we use more EVs, more heat pumps, and so on. And so we expect that demand when we look across all the studies that try to project how much electricity is needed, what we see is that anywhere between 1.6 to 2.1 times more demand is going to be required by 2050 compared to today. So you can think of it as an about a doubling of electricity demand by 2050, compared to today, and what that means in terms of the capacity of the electricity system. So in essence, the physical infrastructure, the size of the system that's required to produce that amount of energy that has to grow even more. So we're seeing installed capacity of electricity, more than doubling if not more than tripling by 2050 compared to today.   Dan Seguin  19:24 Okay, so let's talk about 2050. Are we on track to meet? How can we accelerate to meet the goal?   Caroline Lee  19:33 In short, I don't believe we are on track today. One stat that we have from our analysis is that if we want to be meeting these capacity needs these supply needs for 2050. Canada broadly has to be building capacity three to six times faster to 2050 than it has in the last decade. So the pace that we've been building capacity is not is falling short of the pace that's required to support all of this electrification. What do we do to get there? I mean, there are lots of things we've identified really a range of barriers that are preventing us from building clean energy at the pace that we need. There are barriers in terms of local opposition. I think sometimes community members don't feel like they're, they're consulted enough. And they don't feel like they're a part of the project approval processes. So community members can oppose local projects. We're seeing supply chain blitz right now. I mean, that is one reason why we're seeing higher renewable energy prices, because the markets are having trouble kind of keeping up with the demand for clean energy projects. So there are an array of barriers that we had identified, that we think need to be addressed in order to pick up the pace on increasing clean energy supply.   Dan Seguin  20:54 Moving on to the next word cleaner. Okay, where will the majority of cleaner electricity capacity come? Your report actually says solar wind storage, what's involved in growing these cleaner electricity sources and phasing out those that are polluting or emitting greenhouse gases.   Caroline Lee  21:16 So maybe I can divide my answer in two in terms of what's involved in growing that cleaner component, and then what's involved in phasing out the polluting sources. In terms of the clean energy sources, the sources that we saw that grew by far the fastest in any net zero scenario, as you say, We're solar and wind, if you add storage into the mix, those comprise really the majority of all new capacity that has to be built in Canada. So what we saw is that in the next decade, so from now to 2030, anywhere between 63 and 96% of capacity that's added to Canadian grids has to be from those sources in order to be compatible with net zero. So generally, whatever we're putting onto the grids, it should be wind, solar, or storage, to support netzero goals. Now, there are lots of things that stand in the way as I said in my previous answer to this rapid building, and deployment of clean energy projects. So there are lots of things that we need to be doing from a technical perspective. But also from a social and institutional perspective. I think bringing people on board, making sure the markets that are in the systems that our electricity systems operate in, are aligned with those broader netzero goals. tackling some of these really sticky challenges around enhancing the integration of grids across regions, all of these things are going to have to be tackled in order to build solar and wind in particular, as quickly as we need to know in terms of your the second component of phasing out polluting sources, the federal government already has policy in place to phase out unabated coal generation, so coal generation that's not equipped with CCUS. But the next frontier now is tackling natural gas and natural gas is a fossil fuel, it burns cleaner than coal. But currently, we don't have at least a policy that's been implemented to address natural gas that's consistent with net zero. So the federal government has now committed to what's called a clean electricity standard. They've committed to finding a way to develop a policy, essentially to meet that 2035 netzero electricity goal. We'll see how the details of that are rolled out. But it's promising that that policy is already in development. So I'm actually seeing quite a lot of progress on that front in terms of phasing out polluting sources. And I think so long as the federal government policy is robust and applies, really across the country, I think we should be in good standing to meet the target of phasing out polluting sources.   Dan Seguin  24:13 Okay. Now, what about our existing renewable energy sources like hydro, and nuclear? Will they still be vital and play a major role? What's the plan or recommendations for them?   Caroline Lee  24:28 It's a great question. I mean, oftentimes, the story is about solar and wind. And we forget about Canada's strong existing base of non emitting power, which is hydro and nuclear. And so I would say that in terms of getting cleaner, we talked about growing clean energy, we talked about phasing out polluting sources, but there's a third element that's really critical, which is maintaining what we already have that's working quite well. So the studies that we looked at for the most part, they still see large hydro and large nuclear are playing a strong, continuing strong role in Canada's netzero future. There are some studies that want to test what happens if we phase those out. What happens if we let you know at the end of their useful life, we fail to refurbish them. In most cases, what that means is you have to simply rely even more on other non emitting sources like solar and wind to grow even faster. So it puts the pressure on other sources to grow even faster. So that's, of course, a decision that has to be made by Canadians by decision makers, what is the energy future that we want? But again, if we allow our strong base of hydro nuclear to decline, then we need to be really accelerating the deployment of other types of energy.   Dan Seguin  25:47 Now, how about we address the next word- smarter? What is the smartest way to make our electricity system more flexible and supportive of variable supply from renewable sources? Can you maybe talk more about what it means to make electricity systems smarter?   Caroline Lee  26:10 By a smarter what we actually mean is more flexible. So that's what you alluded to in your question. And there isn't a single way to enhance flexibility. I think that's actually the good news story. First of all, why don't I take this take a step back to say that flexibility is so important, it's not something that we talk about a lot, but it's going to become increasingly important as we move to integrate more shares of solar and wind onto our grids. Solar and wind, as we know, produce electricity in more variable and more intermittent ways. So flexibility in electricity system is something that can help accommodate higher shares of solar and wind onto our grid. So that's important for that reason, flexibility is also really important because we're also seeing, say increased demand for electricity and changing load patterns as a result of more EV uptake. If everybody comes home and charges their EVs at the same time, that's going to change the level and the timing of electricity demand. So the ability for the system to respond to those is also really useful. And let me just say a last reason why flexibility is so important is to respond to disruptions due to extreme weather events. I think we know this extremely well here in in Ottawa, I bet you know this better than most people, the cost, and the losses that can be associated with extreme weather events, and, and the and the terrible implications, essentially, of extreme weather on electricity systems. So flexibility is another thing that can help us better respond to those things. So broadly, we see kind of four groups of measures that can help us build more flexibility into our electricity systems. And the good news is, is that different regions are going to be relying on different types of measures. And there's no single bullet that there's really a toolkit, there's an array of measures that different regions can draw on. So things like for example, on the supply side, using more dispatchable types of generation generation that can be called upon on demand to generate like hydro, like natural gas with CCS. Also, things like enhancing the integration of grids across regions, those types of things help different provinces and territories better share resources across borders, things like hydropower, that can be really valuable in helping to balance variable sources like solar and wind, a third set of measures around storage, deploying storage, including short term storage, but more emerging long term storage solutions as well. And then a last basket of measures around making demand itself more flexible. So traditionally, we have seen demand is being fixed, you know, you consume demand when you consume it. But now we're seeing all kinds of possibilities, for example, to shift demand to times when it makes more sense. So for example, to defer the charging of EVs to the middle of the night when it puts puts less stress on the system.   Dan Seguin  29:19 You've just provided me with a great segue. Given climate change and extreme weather events becoming more commonplace, what does boosting resiliency of our electricity system look like for the future?   Caroline Lee  29:33 I think resiliency is only going to become more of a priority not only in electricity systems, but broader energy systems as we see the growing incidence and magnitude of extreme weather events. So you're exactly right that this is this is a an important thing to talk about. I think traditionally when we think about building resilience in our electricity systems, we think about hardening infrastructure. So we think about measures to Do, for example, strengthen transmission and distribution lines or maybe even underground lines and poles, to withstand extreme weather to avoid those things. But what I would say is that while those buckets have met that bucket of measures is really important. The concept of resilience is broader than that. So it's not only about avoiding or withstanding extreme weather events, for instance. But it's also to the extent that we can minimize our exposure to them, but also accepting that there will be inevitably, some disruptions along the way that we can't 100% avoid them, and then shifting also to learning how to manage them, and then recover very quickly from them. So they're not as disruptive. So from that perspective, and in addition to hardening infrastructure, I think we also need to be prioritizing emergency response and recovery. So thinking about as soon as we see some anticipate a disruption, how do we respond really quickly? And how do we make sure that we're deploying, that we have the resources to deploy emergency response when those things happen. And then, another thing I would highlight is that whole bucket of measures around flexibility that I was talking about. So flexibility is really great, because it helps us achieve our climate goals. It helps us accommodate more solar and wind onto our grids. But it also helps us better respond to extreme weather events. So there's an adaptation a climate change, adaptation benefit, too. And so flexibility, for example, you know, you think about storage, if you have a solar panel, and a battery in your house, that is good for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because solar panels are a clean source of energy. But also that storage can be really beneficial as a backup source of energy when your lights go out. So you can kind of think of some of these flexibility measures as killing two birds with one stone where there's a emissions reductions benefit as well as a resilience benefit.   Dan Seguin  32:00 Okay, now, it's time to move to the next report, the Electric Federalism, that's a policy report. Now, Caroline, one of the key takeaways from your bigger cleaner, smarter report, is that in order to successfully align Canada's electricity system for net zero, both orders of government must drive change through policy. This brings us to the next report, electric federalism, what is Electric Federalism? And why is it so important?   Caroline Lee  32:34 Great question. So we think of this report as the, the how report and the first report as the what so bigger, cleaner, smarter is like what needs to happen from a technical perspective and electricity system. And electric federalism is well, how do we accelerate and support those changes? So electric federalism is this concept? Based on the fact that yes, we all we live in Canada, Canada is a decentralized Federation, which means that, as I was saying earlier, provinces and territories carry significant power and jurisdiction over many issues, including energy and electricity. So the federal government, of course, has has some power to drive, electricity systems transformation, but a lot of those levers, a lot of those policy levers actually reside within provinces and territories. So electric federalism is a way of moving forward on transforming electricity within this context, where we see multiple orders of government having complementary roles to play, we're trying to figure out how can those different orders of government work together? How can we make the most of the respective policy levers that the different orders carry?   Dan Seguin  33:44 Something fascinating in the report, is the call for greater inter regional coordination, and the integration of Canada's provincial and territorial electricity systems. Those of us in the electricity industry know that there are a lot of regulatory roadblocks, but also that folks are very territorial about their electricity system. Can you walk our listeners through the vision? And what would be required for this to become a reality?   Caroline Lee  34:20 You know, you are so right in recognizing the long entrenched barriers that exist to enhancing the integration of grids across our regions. The current state of electricity systems, as I was saying earlier, is that we really operate mostly in siloed systems. There's a little bit of trade between provinces and territories, but it's actually quite modest, even especially in relation to the trade that we have with the US. So we can think of, of Canada's electricity system as largely balkanized and siloed right now, and the reason why we wanted to really tackle this issue is that we've always known the benefits of integrating with neighboring regions. But now that we have this net zero goal, this climate change agenda that's so much more ambitious than it was before the benefits of integration have increased. So significantly. So the barriers that we identified to, for example, enhancing inter ties between Ontario and Quebec, we've got a long laundry list of what's preventing that from happening. Things like even self sufficiency, mandates from utilities, utilities, in some cases are mandated to have enough electricity within their borders to take care of themselves to be completely self sufficient. And so having too much trade or too much integration with neighboring regions would actually be going directly against that mandate. So there are some formal barriers like that. But then exactly as you touched on, there are all kinds of informal barrier. So political, social barriers, we don't really consider as electricity in the same way as other goods that can be easily traded across borders, I mean, electricity is often thought of as something that that is closely ident, closely connected to a provinces identity. So we have a harder time, I think, thinking about the trade of electricity. And then a last barrier I would mention is that because Canada's systems are so balkanized. Even market barriers and institutional barriers can be really important. So the fact that for instance, in BC, there's one type of electricity system, right next to it, Alberta has a very different type of electricity market. The the misalignment between how different provinces manage and regulate electricity can also be a barrier. So what we're saying is that we have our eyes wide open in terms of a realistic goal on enhancing integration. It's not about instantaneous integration, and a national grid tomorrow, we think that is not realistic and pragmatic. But what we do think is that there are ways of kind of testing and advancing integration and incremental ways across willing regional partners. And I would highlight in this circumstance, the Atlantic provinces, who are now pursuing this project of the Atlantic loop, they're thinking about integrating all of themselves better with Quebec, to better exploit, essentially, Quebec hydropower. So those regions that region rather those provinces have said, we are interested in taking those steps forward, there might be other provinces that are different stages of readiness. So we recognize it is ultimately up to provinces to decide yes, I want to pursue more integration or not. We think there's a few things that provinces can do, though, we think there's a lot more work that can be done to simply quantify those benefits of integration. So in an integrated resource plan, so when an electricity utility is planning for the next few years of how it's going to meet demand, having knowing how much the benefit of integration would be, and if they decide not to pursue it, having a justification for why they left that off the table, I think could be really important. Even things like collaborating on the development of those integrated resource plans with neighboring jurisdictions, not doing them formally, necessarily together. But having a little bit more consultation with neighbors can be really important. Things like sharing reserved margins across borders, those kinds of things, province provinces can do together. But then I will also mention the federal government is not without power here, the federal government has significant spending powers, they have significant convening powers. So the federal government can use the financial spending power that it has to support, even the building of transmission infrastructure between provinces. In terms of convening, the federal government has recently announced this Grid Council in its last climate plan, to be able to pursue more integration across different provinces so they can bring people together, they can bring provinces together, share best practices help organize some of these integration projects.   Dan Seguin  39:33 That's great insight, Caroline, let's continue. In the Electric Federalism Report, it's recommended that the Federal Government work with provinces and territories to negotiate climate policies and electricity agreement. Has this been done before? And what are some of the advantages for Canadians with this approach? It's probably similar to health care and the recent childcare agreement that The Federal Government just introduced with the provinces.   Caroline Lee  40:03 So this idea is really trying to, as I was saying earlier, to leverage the respective powers and policy levers of different orders of government. So it's possible that we can transform electricity systems with the federal government moving in its direction with provinces and territories moving in their own direction, that's possible. But we think that we have a greater chance of success when people work together when different orders of government collaborate and coordinate. So that's why we have this proposal of the federal government essentially tying financial support to the fulfillment of high level conditions on the part of the provincial governments. So for example, I'll give you some examples of what we think those conditions could be. So we would ask, for example, that provinces could change the mandates of key institutions in their electricity systems to align with net zero. Currently, utilities, for instance, are pursuing climate change goals, but it's not necessarily explicitly in their mandate to make investments that are consistent with net zero. So making and formalizing the netzero mandate, we think could be really important. The federal government could also ask provinces and territories to develop comprehensive energy plans. So thinking about what is the future for electrification in that province? How might we meet that demand? What is the future for integration, thinking about energy in a more holistic way across different energy sources could provide some more consistency and more foresight, essentially, for utilities as they make investments and make decisions towards net zero. And then thirdly, the federal government can ask provinces to participate in working groups essentially like to propose grid council. So the idea of this of this proposal is not to be too prescriptive in terms of the federal government requiring provinces to do XYZ. implement policies that look like this, this this, but rather simply fulfill these high level principles, fulfill them in a way that they see fit based on their provincial circumstances. And that way that would give greater assurance that we would all provinces and territories and the federal government together would be moving in the same direction towards net zero. And so as you said in your question, we've already done similar negotiating systems like this on health care, recent childcare agreements, essentially, the federal government has said, we will provide financial report, financial support, rather to provinces, if you fulfill these certain high level principles, so we're proposing a similar thing with regards to electricity.   Dan Seguin  42:49 Now, Caroline, we always end our interviews with some rapid fire questions. We've got some new ones for you. Are you ready?   Caroline Lee  42:58 I'm ready.   Dan Seguin  43:00 What are you reading right now?   Caroline Lee  43:02 It's a book called Crying in the H Mart. It's it's written by a, an American Korean pop star, and she writes about her mom struggle with cancer. So it's, it's really good so far.   Dan Seguin  43:16 Cool. Now, what would you name your boat? If you had one?   Caroline Lee  43:22 The Sweet Caroline?   Dan Seguin  43:23 Now a simple question here, Caroline. Who is someone that you really admire?   Caroline Lee  43:30 I admire my parents,   Dan Seguin  43:32 What is the closest thing to real magic that you've witnessed?   Caroline Lee  43:37 This is so cheesy, but the birth of my two children is, is the most miraculous thing I've ever witnessed.   Dan Seguin  43:44 The next one- what has been the biggest challenge to you personally, since the pandemic began?   Caroline Lee  43:51 I think the social isolation has been particularly challenging, I think, not only for me, but for lots of people.   Dan Seguin  43:58 Okay, we've all been watching a lot of Netflix and TV lately. What is your favorite show or movie? And why?   Caroline Lee  44:07 I think one show that I found that helped kind of buoy my mood was Ted Lasso. So I don't know if you've watched this show. But the positivity of the show, I really especially valued I think, during the pandemic.   Dan Seguin  44:21 Lastly, what is exciting you about your industry right now,   Caroline Lee  44:27 I think in climate policy, in the climate policy world, it's so easy to feel depressed about our prospects for succeeding in tackling this most this huge climate challenge. But I think on the positive side, we're seeing progress, like we've never seen in history of Canada or really in the world. In terms of energy transition in terms of policy implementation. We're seeing renewable energy growing faster than we've ever seen it grow and we expect it to grow even faster. We're seeing the phase out of polluting fossil fuels faster than we've ever seen. So I think there's no question a long way to go in terms of meeting our climate targets. But the progress I think that we're seeing in energy transitions is a reason for hope.   Dan Seguin  45:14 Well, Caroline, this is it. We've reached the end of another episode of The thinkenergy podcast. If our listeners want to learn more about you and your organization, how can they connect? How can they learn more,   Caroline Lee  45:26 Feel free to reach out to me directly. My email is clee, C L E E@climateinstitute.ca. And you can go to our website directly climateinstitute.ca To learn more about us and get more contact information.   Dan Seguin  45:41 Again, Caroline, thank you so much for joining me today. I hope you had a lot of fun.   Caroline Lee  45:46 It was great. Thanks so much for the invite.   Dan Seguin  45:49 Thanks for tuning in to another episode of The thinkenergy podcast. And don't forget to subscribe and leave us a review wherever you're listening. And to find out more about today's guests, or previous episodes, visit thinkenergypodcast.com. I hope you'll join us again next time as we spark even more conversations about the energy of tomorrow.  

Math professor and Canada 150 Research Chair Anita Layton discusses using computer models to modernize medicine and make it more equitable. IC3 becomes the Waterloo Climate Institute. Orientation, campus move-in, and the University's United Way Campaign seek volunteers. And registration is open for the Mental Health Literacy Certificate. Links and resources: IC3: https://uwaterloo.ca/climate-institute/about/2022-2026-strategic-plan Volunteer for move-in and orientation: https://outlook.office365.com/owa/calendar/bkg-Fall2022VolunteerSignup@uwaterloo.ca/bookings/ United Way: https://uwaterloo.ca/united-way/ Core committee registration - https://uwaterloo.ca/united-way/united-way-campaign-core-committee-members Ambassador volunteer registration - https://uwaterloo.ca/united-way/volunteer-form Orange shirt: https://wstore.uwaterloo.ca/catalogsearch/result/?q=orange+shirts+%2B+indigenous Mental Health Literacy Certificate: https://uwaterloo.ca/campus-wellness/counselling-services/mental-health-training-opportunities Beyond the Bulletin on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLawkBQ15NDEkkHnZKLer9upKt2l9edSoe Podcast listener survey: uwaterloo.ca/daily-bulletin/pod…st-listener-survey

Diplomacy may actually produce some real results on climate change. Kevin Rudd, former prime minister of Australia says addressing climate change requires the U S and China to put aside differences and collaborate on climate policy in a California China Climate Institute discussion.

The growth of electric vehicles has increased the demands on the electric grid, which can be a particular problem if EV owners charge their cars at the same time that other electricity demand is at its peak. However, EVs may be part of the solution to some of the grid's operational challenges.  Dr. Carla Peterman, chief sustainability officer at electric utility Pacific Gas and Electric and a former California energy official, spoke about the possibility of electric vehicles providing grid services.

Dr. Liz Hadly is a biologist studying how human activity and human caused climate change affect global biodiversity and ecosystem function. One policy Dr. Hadly's research supports is the so-called 30x30 pledge to conserve 30 percent of both land and oceans by 2030, which California and United States made the promise to meet the target. At a recent California China Climate Institute discussion, she discussed preserving native biodiversity as a way of building climate resilience, with former California Governor Jerry Brown.

Combating the effects of climate change requires effective policy solutions, and in democratic societies, one of the most effective climate actions citizens can take is voting for candidates that support sustainable climate solutions. Thus, climate change must be viewed as a voting issue to build public and political demand for climate solutions. This week, listen to the climate scientist Michael Mann in this California China Climate Institute discussion.

As climate change impacts rapidly increase, global leaders are working to greatly accelerate their emission reductions by 2030. They are working to reach short-term decarbonization solutions as quickly as possible. This week, listen to Christiana Figueres at a recent California China Climate Institution discussion and how investors and advocates can enhance scrutiny over international fossil fuel investments.

The European Union has recently seen a significant transformation in the market for electric vehicles. Nearly 1,325,000 electric car registrations in 2020 has been reported which is an 11% increase in registration from 2019. Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation, indicated that there are still hurdles for people who looks for switching to electric cars in a California China Climate Institute discussion. This week, listen to Tubiana about policies to boost this transformation.

To keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, countries with more financial resources need to indicate an awareness to contribute more by distributing funds for developing countries with less resources. Mary Robinson, the former and first female President of Ireland, talked about efforts to boost international climate finance, for a recent California China Climate Institute discussion.

Environmental Voter Project identified over 11 million potential environmentalists in Fall of 2020 who were “unlikely to vote in the presidential election.” Increasing environmental voter turnout could make a significant impact on climate policy through legislative action and budget provisions. This week, listen to Dr. Martin Rees in a California China Climate Institute discussion.

Cyanobacteria is a deadly toxin and is found in fresh and brackish bodies of water worldwide but it is increasing in prevalence due to climate change and urbanization therefore we need to do more to increase awareness and prevent future blooms. Episode Hosts: Angela Warner, Lauren Rush & Val Wright Course Coordinators & Podcast Ringmasters: Colleen Duncan, Molly Carpenter & Treana Mayer Audio Engineer: Ethan Fagre Special Guests: Dr. Claire Tucker & Dr. Daniel Gustafson Episode Notes: Blue/green algae (cyanobacteria) is found in fresh and brackish bodies of water and is DEADLY to animals and humans. Due to increased urbanization, water runoff and climate change these algal blooms are increasing worldwide. Join us to learn more about the biology of this toxin, what people may or may not already know about cyanobacteria, clinical signs and cases in dogs (the companion animal most likely to die from this toxin) and ways we can all help to prevent/lessen the incidence of these dangerous blooms. ASPCA Poison Control Center: 1-888-426-4435 References: Algae, cyanobacteria blooms, and climate change. Climate Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2021, from http://climate.org/algae-cyanobacteria-blooms-and-climate-change/. Anneville, O., Domaizon, I., Kerimoglu, O. et al. Blue-Green Algae in a “Greenhouse Century”? New Insights from Field Data on Climate Change Impacts on Cyanobacteria Abundance. Ecosystems 18, 441–458 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-014-9837-6 Beasley VR, Dahlem AM, Cook WO, et al. Diagnostic and Clinically Important Aspects of Cyanobacterial (Blue-Green Algae) Toxicoses. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 1989;1(4):359-365. Blue-green algae. Washington State Department of Health. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2021, from https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/Contaminants/BlueGreenAlgae. Blue-green algae and harmful algal blooms. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2021, November 8). Retrieved December 1, 2021, from https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/blue-green-algae-and-harmful-algal-blooms. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, April 19). Causes and ecosystem impacts. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved December 1, 2021, from https://www.cdc.gov/habs/environment.html#bb. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). EPA. Retrieved December 1, 2021, from https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms. Sebbag, L., Smee, N., van der Merwe, D., & Schmid, D. (2013, September 1). Liver failure in dog following suspected ingestion of blue-green algae (Microcystis spp.): A case report and review of the Toxin. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association. Retrieved December 1, 2021, from https://meridian.allenpress.com/jaaha/article/49/5/342/176787/Liver-Failure-in-a-Dog-Following-Suspected.

Three experts discuss the science of how climate change is impacting permafrost, the trends, and risk of permafrost, and how permafrost is fundamentally linked to all of us through environmental systems. Join George Sutherland, Climate Change and Sustainability Advisor in BMO's Climate Institute, Dr. Fabrice Calmels, Permafrost and Geoscience Research Chair at the Yukon University Research Center, and Paul Murchison, Executive Director, Major Transportation Programs at Government of Yukon in part two of our Impacts of a Changing Climate series.

Join George Sutherland, Climate Change and Sustainability Advisor at the BMO's Climate Institute and Blair Feltmate, Professor and Head of Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at University of Waterloo, in part one of our Impacts of a Changing Climate series as they discuss how (and why) flooding has accelerated at an increasing rate, and how it's become not only an environmental issue, but a pressing economic and humanitarian issue as well.

Welcome to the Policy People Podcast. In this conversation, I discuss the policy of decentralized finance and new blockchain technologies with Jason Hsu. We discuss the democratization of technology and finance, recent cryptocurrency market trends and the regulatory backlash, why tech and politics are becoming more tightly intertwined, how to bridge the gaps in thinking between tech entrepreneurs and policy people, Central Bank Digital Currencies and geopolitical competition, how think tanks can generate more public interest around their events, Taiwan’s approach to DeFi and the country’s new strategy for the 4th Industrial Revolution, why policy is a state of mind and how to keep cultivating it and many more topics. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the show’s feed. Alternatively, you can click the icons below to listen to it on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. If you enjoy this conversation and would like to help the show, leaving us a 5-star rating and review on Apple Podcasts is the easiest way to do so.Thank you to IndianFPGeek for leaving this review this week…To give us a review, just go to Policy People on Apple Podcasts and hit ‘Write a Review’.Jason Hsu is a visiting Research Fellow at Oxford University and a Legislator at-large for Taiwan’s Parliament where he is a member of the Advisory Committee on blockchain technology policy. He is also Head of Legislative Advocacy for the Blockchain and Climate Institute, Senior Advisor at CSCIS and Founding Chairman of FutureX, and a Venture Partner at Outliers Fund. He is the author of the blog The Third Thinking. You can connect with Jason on LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter at the handle @augama. Subscribe at policypeople.substack.com

Mark Wootton is well-known in the Australian agriculture industry as a pioneer in carbon-neutral farming. In 2011, Jigsaw Farms, his family property in south-west Victoria, achieved carbon neutrality - undergoing a process he openly admits was at the time, both “arduous and not necessarily commercially rewarding”.Yet, Mark and his wife Eve Kantor operate a very successful mixed grazing farm where they run 20,000 sheep for fine wool and prime lamb as well as 500 cows. The farm also incorporates a 600 hectare hardwood timber plantation and indigenous plantings for biodiversity.Mark was instrumental in the creation of the Climate Institute - a not-for-profit focused on climate science and policy in Australia. He remains a champion of finding new ways to lower methane emissions on farms - through both feed efficiencies and new technologies.His latest venture is a “Super Ewe” - where he’s using genetics to create a dual purpose sheep through focusing on muscle and fat in the selection process.In this episode Mark Wootton shares his insights on:Using Sheep Freeze Brand (liquid nitrogen) as an alternative to mulesing.Turning sustainable agriculture practices into a driver for productivity and profits.The importance of flexibility in farming operations.Finding the right times to make big decisions for your business.Want to know more? Check out our blog and additional resources from the episode on our website.

In today's episode, we discuss Earth System science and tipping points with Will Steffen. We often hear about tipping points in relation to climate change–the dangers of arctic ice melt, sea level rise and the 2-2.5 degrees C temperature threshold beyond which things become catastrophic. What we don't always realize is the complexity of system dynamics. Will talks about the likelihood of a tipping cascade, when one tipping point kicks off a series of others. He also draws parallels between COVID-19 and climate change, in that it's important to understand science and not just what intervention needs to take place but to plan for the amount of time it takes for it to take effect.Will Steffen has a long history in international global change research, serving from 1998 to 2004 as Executive Director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), based in Stockholm, Sweden, and before that as Executive Officer of IGBP's Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems project.Will was the Inaugural Director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, from 2008-2012. Prior to that, he was Director of the ANU Fenner School of Environment and Society. From 2004 to 2011 he served as science adviser to the Australian Government Department of Climate Change. He is currently a Climate Councillor with the Climate Institute, and from 2011 to 2013 was a Climate Commissioner on the Australian Government's Climate Commission; Chair of the Antarctic Science Advisory Committee, Co-Director of the Canberra Urban and Regional Futures (CURF) initiative and Member of the ACT Climate Change Council.Steffen's interests span a broad range within the fields of sustainability and Earth System science, with an emphasis on the science of climate change, approaches to climate change adaptation in land systems, incorporation of human processes in Earth System modelling and analysis; and the history and future of the relationship between humans and the rest of nature.The post Episode 94: Interview with Will Steffen, climate scientist appeared first on The Sustainability Agenda.

Turquoise Desert Research Bureau member Carolina Valente Pinto sits down in the basement sound studio with XR member Juul Verschuuren and scientist and director of the Climate Institute at TU Delft, Dr. Herman Russchenberg. They discussed extiction, climate activism, and the near and far future of our Planet, framed by Carolina's research project "Tales from life in a post-human planet"

On this episode of the Energy Central Power Perspectives™ Podcast, we are joined by Charles Bayless. Charles Bayless is retired after a long and esteemed career in the utility industry that took him from Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority to the Climate Institute to E Source to Pike Electric and many other stops in between. But just because he’s retired doesn’t mean Charles hasn’t stayed busy, and in fact he’s taken to the Energy Central community to share his wisdom and insights on the climate crisis and what we need to do collectively to tackle this largest of challenges. Charles shares his views on transportation, on nuclear energy, on VARS technology, and what it will take to decarbonize utilities and society generally, and his decades of experience carry much weight with them. Listen in as Charles imparts his wisdom about how it takes unreasonable people to truly change the world! Key Links: Charles Bayless’s Energy Central Profile: https://energycentral.com/member/profile/235468/about Why Economics makes it so hard to solve Climate Change: https://energycentral.com/c/cp/why-economics-makes-it-so-hard-solve-climate-change Ocean Acidification – The Evil Twin: https://energycentral.com/c/cp/ocean-acidification-evil-twin Nuclear Energy – Our best weapon against Climate Change: https://energycentral.com/c/pip/nuclear-energy-our-best-weapon-against-clliamte-change Climate Change – Physics 101: https://energycentral.com/c/cp/climate-change-physics-101 Link to register as a member of the Energy Central community: www.energycentral.com/user/register

Earth is no longer a safe operating space, according to today's guest on rabble radio. Look at the dramatic and devastating events of this year – hundreds of fires across the world, monster sized hurricanes, earth parching heat waves and drought. All but the most stubborn of climate change deniers can see this. Unfortunately, some of those climate change deniers are politicians who are making decisions which affect our very survival. It's grim. Will Steffen has a long history in international global change research, serving from 1998 to 2004 as Executive Director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), based in Stockholm, Sweden, and before that as Executive Officer of IGBP's Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems project. He was the Inaugural Director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute, from 2008-2012.   He is currently a Climate Councillor with the Climate Institute, and from 2011 to 2013 was a Climate Commissioner on the Australian Government's Climate Commission; Chair of the Antarctic Science Advisory Committee, Co-Director of the Canberra Urban and Regional Futures (CURF) initiative and Member of the ACT Climate Change Council. He is co-author of a paper called Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene.  On today's podcast he talks about that paper, written with Johan Rockström looks at the earth as a geophysical system. It presents the theory that the earth is no longer a sustainable space – we're in a transient phase. The earth is shifting and we don't have a map to see what trajectory it might take. But, Will Steffen says, it's like a domino effect. Once temperatures reach a certain level, those dominoes will start to fall to the point where nothing can be done. We're not at that tipping point yet, but the science indicates that it's coming. This interview is from the August 17, 2018 episode of The Green Blues Show, hosted and produced by David Kattenburg who is an occasional contributor to rabble radio. Listen to the Green Blues Show on CKUW Radio in Winnipeg or online by going to greenplanetmonitor.net. Thanks to  for permission to reuse this interview. Image: Wikipedia – Forest Fire in Yosemite  Help make rabble sustainable. Please consider supporting our work with a monthly donation. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

Ever been to a climate change talk or watched a documentary and felt heavy, powerless, despair? Well, this conversation is going to leave you feeling different - can do, ra ra and empowered. Sound better?   Let me tell you a bit about Professor Will…  Will Steffen has a long history in international global change research, serving from 1998 to 2004 as Executive Director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), based in Stockholm, Sweden, and before that as Executive Officer of IGBP's Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems project.  Will was the Inaugural Director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, from 2008-2012.  Prior to that, he was Director of the ANU Fenner School of Environment and Society. From 2004 to 2011 he served as science adviser to the Australian Government Department of Climate Change. He is currently a Climate Councillor with the Climate Institute, and from 2011 to 2013 was a Climate Commissioner on the Australian Government's Climate Commission; Chair of the Antarctic Science Advisory Committee, Co-Director of the Canberra Urban and Regional Futures (CURF) initiative and Member of the ACT Climate Change Council.  Steffen's interests span a broad range within the fields of sustainability and Earth System science, with an emphasis on the science of climate change, approaches to climate change adaptation in land systems, incorporation of human processes in Earth System modelling and analysis; and the history and future of the relationship between humans and the rest of nature.  So: We have a wonderful scientist with a long list of accomplishments in his career that has spanned decades and the best part is that he so passionately and simply states the issues, shares and helps us understand the science, looks at the future projections and what you and I can do to keep on the good side of mother nature. I’ve wanted to do a show on climate change for a long while and finding Will has meant the perfect show embedded with the low tox values of empowered joyful change, rather than paralysis and overwhelm in the face of the world’s biggest issue. I hope you enjoy the show as much as I enjoyed putting it together for you. As usual you can find show notes and our sponsor offers over at lowtoxlife.com/podcast Here’s to a happy planet, Alexx x 

Center for Carbon Removal co-founders Noah Deich and Giana Amador, a non-partisan, non-profit organization based in Oakland working to clean up carbon pollution from the air, discuss carbon removal solutions happening today in the U.S. and around the world, such as carbon farming and carbon capture & sequestration, profitable and sustainable ways to reverse CO2 rise.Transcript:Lisa Kiefer:Method to the Madness is next. You're listening to Method to the Madness, a public affairs show on KALX Berkeley celebrating Bay Area innovators. I'm your host, Lisa Kiefer, and today I'm interviewing the co-founders of the Center for Carbon Removal, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in Oakland. Working to clean up carbon pollution from the air. I'll be speaking with managing director Giana Amador and executive director. Noah Deich.This year the concentration of carbon in our atmosphere is up to 410 parts per million, maybe it's higher at this moment. And there's a lot more carbon baked in. This can't be a more exciting time for you guys to be doing your work. Can you tell us what the mission of your organization is? And that's the center for Carbon Removal.Noah Deich:Yeah. Thank you again for hosting us. Excited to be here. We got our start here in Berkeley, not far away from this studio. And so, it's exciting to be back on campus. But yes. Our mission is exactly that. There's too much carbon in the atmosphere. It's causing climate change. And we need to figure out how to clean up some of that carbon from the atmosphere, as well as figuring out strategies for stopping additional carbon from being added.Lisa Kiefer:How is it that you do this?Noah Deich:So, in downtown Oakland, what we do is work to catalyze the development of a whole range of different solutions for cleaning up carbon from the air.Lisa Kiefer:They call you a think and do tank.Noah Deich:Exactly. Our goal is to have a range of businesses and new enterprises flourish in this space. We look at both natural solutions, so photosynthesis.Lisa Kiefer:Carbon farming.Noah Deich:Exactly. The oldest technology in the book to take carbon out of the atmosphere, but as well as technological options. In the same way that plants use biology and photosynthesis to clean up carbon from the air, machines can do a similar type of filtering CO2 from the atmosphere, pulling it back out. And we work to create innovations in both the way that we manage land and in the technologies that we deploy to clean up carbon.Lisa Kiefer:But you are policy people, right? Am I right about that? You're not actually scientists, you're working with scientists to get this on a political agendas?Noah Deich:Exactly. So business and policy, both are critical in addition to the science. And it's those three pillars of activity that are going to help inform the smart way to clean up carbon from the atmosphere. And in a way that's not just smart on paper, but actually benefits the communities around the world that build. And then deploy these new innovations and businesses that clean up that CO2.Lisa Kiefer:I feel like it's an urgent topic and the Paris Agreements aren't going to fulfill what we need to have done by 2030. Two words that cause a lot of problems politically. Let's stop thinking about it as climate change. It's a waste product that we have to take care of.Giana Amador:I think we tried to really take on that solutions oriented frame and say, you know, carbon is something that makes up all parts of our life. It makes up plants, it makes up you and me. And so, by being able to harness that carbon and take it from the atmosphere where it doesn't belong, and turn it into our soils and make our lands more productive, and use it to make valuable products like cements and plastics, really gives us the opportunity to harness that liability and make it an asset.Lisa Kiefer:Instead of feeling bad about it or feeling guilty, it becomes a product that is recyclable.Noah Deich:Exactly. It's turning something that's a waste into something that's valued. We have to not just talk about that. We actually have to show the way. And help people understand the different ways that they can take action.Lisa Kiefer:So, what's happening right now, who's doing some demonstrable projects?Noah Deich:So, I actually got the opportunity to go to Iceland a couple months ago where there's a really groundbreaking project. A Swiss company actually has figured out how to capture CO2 directly from the air using more or less a shipping container sized box. They've teamed up with a geothermal power plant in Iceland. Iceland has all of this great volcanic activity, and they harness some of that heat to create power. They have a little bit excess power. This box is sitting at that power plant, taking that free clean energy, and capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it underground. And they are working to essentially create this new type of waste management business where they are harnessing this abundance of clean energy.Lisa Kiefer:What form is it in?Noah Deich:So, it pulls it out of the air as a gas, and then it takes that concentrated gas, and it separates out all of the other pieces of the air. So, air is made of oxygen, nitrogen. And it filters out that stuff and it is left with this pure concentrated CO2. And what it does is it just injects that CO2 underground.Lisa Kiefer:And that's still a gas?Noah Deich:In a gas form and underneath the earth, the type of rock that this power plant is situated above actually reacts with CO2 just naturally. And it turns that CO2 into a stone. To carbonate mineral. And so it's, this is a natural process that happens all the time. The catch is that this rock is buried, so it doesn't have contact with the air. Or it would just filter out that CO2. And so, if you inject this pure concentrated CO2 underground, within even a couple of months, you start to see the rock transform from this dark black solid. It turns into this light gray carbonate material and it's amazing.Lisa Kiefer:Like limestone?Noah Deich:Essentially. That's one type of carbonate. And this is a different type of chemistry in the geology, but it's the same principle. It's turning what was once a gas into a solid, and it's permanently sequestered.Lisa Kiefer:What do you do with all that rock? Where will that physical limestone go? I mean, isn't it going to be a lot?Noah Deich:So, it's actually not that much at the end of the day when it comes to weight. So, we've put 2000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, which sounds like this massive amount. But there is more capacity to store that CO2 in our geology.Lisa Kiefer:Underground.Noah Deich:Underground many times over. The capacity is not the limiting factor. It's figuring out the engineering, the business models and the policy. And I think there are actually some really interesting ways that we can do that. Not with the geology but actually with our farming and our agriculture.Giana Amador:The agriculture space is one that's really exciting and really near and dear to our hearts. The Marin Carbon Project, which is a research project that's coming out of UC Berkeley actually, that is applying compost to range lands. And I think this is a really exciting opportunity, because we always read these articles about why beef is so bad for the climate, but the Marin Carbon Project is actually able to turn that on its head a little bit.Lisa Kiefer:Oh, that's interesting.Giana Amador:And so by applying compost, which is really kind of just organic carbon to these range lands up in Marin, they're able to sequester carbon in soils. It boosts the productivity of the grasses that are growing, that are then grazed by the cattle. And those cattle can actually help sequester carbon in the soils. And so, they're producing a meat product that is more environmentally friendly. And one that again kind of turns this climate change narrative on its head where it's no longer about us doing things that are bad for the environment, but how can we turn our actions and really help fix this problem?Noah Deich:It's really exciting to me that there's such a diversity of solutions. You can go to Iceland, which feels almost like an alien landscape, or you can go to Marin. And it's the diversity of solutions that's just the tip of the iceberg. We can figure out so many ways to harness our agricultural systems, our forests, our heavy industry, our manufacturing and our consumer goods. All of that can really change the paradigm of we extract carbon from the ground to make things. And instead we work to extract carbon from the air, put it back in the ground.So, one of the companies that's really exciting, and one of the fields really, is cement. Which is a really boring topic for most people. But it turns out there are more Google searches about cement than there are climate change every year. And it's a billion ton industry. There's just a huge volume of material that gets moved every year. And it's a big contributor to climate change. But what companies are figuring out how to do is take waste CO2 from an industrial facility, eventually directly from the air, and recycle that into new formulations of cement that are actually stronger and better building materials.Lisa Kiefer:Where's this happening?Noah Deich:There are companies that are all over North America working on this. There's one called Carbon Cure that has a facility, in I believe Mississippi or Alabama. There's a company out of New Jersey called Solidia, that they have facilities around the U.S. You don't hear about this that often, because if you're in the cement industry, the idea of being a green product is not always associated with positive value for building materials. If you're building a highway, you don't want a green highway, you want highway that stands up.Lisa Kiefer:That's the reframe that you were talking about.Noah Deich:Exactly. And so, the fact that they're able to make stronger materials that happen to be green, is an amazing thing and they don't even sell the green part. They're actually just selling a better product. Over time I think we'll start to realize that you can make better products that are also green, and it's that reframing of it.Lisa Kiefer:You just quit calling it green and make $1 billion on it.Noah Deich:Exactly.Lisa Kiefer:If you're just tuning in, you're listening to Method to the Madness, a public affairs show on KALX Berkeley. Celebrating Bay Area innovators. Today I'm speaking with Noah Deich and Giana Amador, co-founders of the nonpartisan nonprofit organization Center for Carbon Removal.What have you found to be your major challenges? You have a small staff.Noah Deich:So, I think one of the biggest challenges is the chicken and egg involved in not having that many enterprises out there doing this today. The real way that we can show progress is by creating new companies that create jobs and.Lisa Kiefer:So, somebody can go and actually see what they're doing and say, I want to do that.Noah Deich:Right? So, we spent years looking into integrated assessment models that scientists were producing. And even for folks whose job it is to understand them, it's not a clear and concise thing that's easy to communicate out. But you go to Iceland and you see a machine that's pulling CO2 out of the air, and you can see the rock that has CO2 in it and the rock that doesn't, it's very clear. If you can go to Marin and see a farm and you just look at the fence and the farm that does these practices is it has more.Lisa Kiefer:It's like night and day.Noah Deich:Yeah, it's amazing. And so, having those concrete examples is critical. But in order to get those examples, we need to provide support for the pioneers. In this case.Lisa Kiefer:So capital are you talking about?Noah Deich:Capital is critical, but resources writ large. We need to enable students to explore this and create new things. We need to figure out how to get entrepreneurs the support that they need, and the training they need, and the networks they need. And then the last piece is the policy. How do we get them the supportive framework the public markets will not provide. Capital? How can government essentially bridge that gap and provide research funding as well as early risk capital, so that we can have a history of plants so the private sector feels confident scaling this up. And we work to fill that gap across those areas so that we can create this whole ecosystem. Tackling all of these amazing opportunities for carbon removal.Lisa Kiefer:I know you're a young project, but have you had any major successes yet?Noah Deich:One of the things that was most successful here at Berkeley is we marshaled a group of academics and philanthropists to encourage the national academies to write a research and development roadmap for carbon removal. Scientists were saying, we need more research, we need more activity to commercialize solutions. But nobody had gone in and done the details of, here are the 10 research projects for soils. And the 10 research projects for air capture machines. And laid out what it will take and in what sequence. And with the support of that network of scientific luminaries and philanthropists, they were able to go to DC to convince a number of the key funders for the national academies alongside us to get that study launched.And we expect that to be open to the public, the spring time of of 2018. These big national academy studies, they tend to take a little longer, and err on the side of making sure they're getting it right and have consensus before they they release. But it should be soon. And that will really help inform the conversation about where to invest from governments, from universities, and even from the foundations and investors that are really forward thinking. And then we can move on from there into policy wins and investment wins. And that's where we think we're gonna see real impact.So, I think we've already had amazing success with some policy foundations in DC, believe it or not, there is bipartisan support. That's the hope and what we see is that where some of these solutions are hopelessly polarized, this is the type of activity that can garner support from both sides of the aisle. In particular, the idea of cleaning up carbon from the air and supporting these early innovators is something that's widely acknowledged by Democrats and Republicans alike. And we've seen that reflected in some of the carbon capture legislation that has passed through the Senate and been introduced in the House.Giana Amador:Some of the great feedback that we've gotten when we've been in DC and talking to some of these Republican senators or Republican representatives from states that are in the middle of America or potentially don't always prioritize climate change as their number one political priority, they're really interested in how these farming practices or forestry practices can help revitalize rural areas. Can make their farmers more money. Can make their lands more resilient.Noah Deich:And even if climate change is a bad word, people are experiencing the impacts of it. Whether it's getting more extreme droughts, more severe, we see fires here.Lisa Kiefer:Hurricanes.Noah Deich:And what we see is that the solution is what carries the day. People don't want to quibble about whose problem it is, who created the problem, how bad is a problem going to be? They want to know how do I make my community better with a solution. That's where I'm most excited about all of these agricultural techniques is they're not being sold on, hey, we're going to pay you to clean up carbon, farmer. They're saying, hey, make your soils healthier, more resilient. Make your farming operation more profitable, and open up new markets for these climate conscious consumers. Even if you don't agree with them, they're willing to pay a premium. They're not going to turn that down.And so, that's one of the real opportunities to help farmers be on the front lines of climate change. Whereas traditionally they have not been on in that tent of climate solutions practitioners. And I think it's a huge missed opportunity from past climate action. And a huge opportunity moving forward to figure out how to harness these solutions. Because I think the signs that we do see are very positive and as we start to get more intellectual support for exactly what to do, building the policy will, and crowding in the investment dollars, will really help.Lisa Kiefer:Can you tell me about your ASU collaboration? The Initiative for a New Carbon Economy?Noah Deich:Yeah, and that's the other big win. So the New Carbon Economy is a group of universities and national labs with the shared vision that there are 2 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere that we have put there over the past hundred plus years of industrial activity. That causes a problem in the atmosphere of climate change. But if we're able to take it out and harness that and translate that 2 trillion tons into value, it's one of the biggest business opportunities that we've ever seen.That's not gonna just happen. If that was an easy thing to do, we would be doing it already. We need lots more research across the spectrum of interdisciplinary fields, as well as topics. So, we need to have the economists and the engineers and the scientists and the policy experts all working together to figure out how to unlock the value of that CO2 in the air. One institution can't do it alone. In order for this to actually get to the scale to meet that promise, we need to work across a lot of different institutions.And so, that's what we're working on with ASU right now. And it's not just ASU, it's about a dozen other research groups around the U.S. that all bring different capabilities.Lisa Kiefer:Are there any local?Noah Deich:Livermore National Lab is in the bay area, and they're one of the key participants. They've been doing pioneering work on this topic for years now.. And they're really leading the charge from a national lab space. The fact that they're sitting down at the table with institutions from across the U.S. that come from many states that are not necessarily known for their climate leadership, Arizona, Wyoming, Iowa, and Indiana that are necessarily associated with think California as climate leaders. But all of these other places are seeing the opportunity to be at the front of that new wave of industrial activity that also deals with our climate problem.And that's what's so exciting about that consortium is they're going to move forward. And with that leadership, and hopefully the work that other groups like the national academies and the the philanthropies are putting together, they'll be able to start doing that pivotal research and figuring out how to collaborate with each other, and build the types of research networks and mega science projects that we need to really understand and crack the challenge around cleaning up carbon.Giana Amador:A lot of these conversations are happening in a very siloed nature. Even in the academic community, technology developers, the people who work on climate science and the people who work on the kind of more natural versus engineered solutions, are all having these conversations separately. And we're really trying to pull that together to be a more interdisciplinary conversation. So that it's not just academic institutions who are doing the basic science and the applied science, but that they're making sure that the science that they're doing feeds into the technologies that the corporations are going to use, or the products that they're going to buy. And that the policy makers know what the research challenges are, that they know what sort of support people need to actually implement these practices. So, I think we're really trying to have an interdisciplinary, more diverse conversation that really connects all of these pieces that we'll need to be connected if we really want to make this part of our economy.Lisa Kiefer:It would be great to connect the public too. I mean, I envision being able to walk over to UC Berkeley and see a demonstration product. And as an individual resident in Berkeley, be able to invest.Noah Deich:That's what we need. And the question is how do we get there as quickly as we can and figure out ways for individuals to contribute what they can? So, if there are opportunities for people to contribute to a urban farming operation, for example, that sequesters carbon. Or if they're investors, if we can connect them to exciting new entrepreneurs in that space that needs seed capital. Or eventually are there ways for people to put their retirement in only companies that are aligned with this mission of cleaning up carbon from the atmosphere.Lisa Kiefer:Yes. And that way we can vault over the politics.Noah Deich:And in order to make that a reality, we have to create that foundation where the innovators are not just thinking about all of these ideas, but actually have the resources to go build out the things that can then get scaled up. And so, we're still in that phase of making sure we get the ideas into the market, not how we take the ideas that are in the market and really bring them to scale.And so, it's going to be a marathon. Not a sprint for sure, but.Lisa Kiefer:A short marathon, I hope.Noah Deich:Yeah. Or a fast marathon.Giana Amador:We're trying to make it as fast as possible. We think of this, the carbon removal field is something that's very analogous to the development of solar or wind. And so, we've been working on that problem since the 80s. And we're just now starting to see commercial deployment at meaningful levels. So, what we're really trying to do is accelerate that technology development curve and that solution adoption curve, so that we can help solve this problem.Noah Deich:There are clear ways that we can improve upon that. We've learned what works and what doesn't for a lot of these energy technologies and just the general advancement of relevant technologies for manufacturing things in smart and additive ways and figuring out materials that work way better than they did 40 years ago. We are farther ahead. And so, how do we stand on the shoulders of what has and has not worked and make sure that it doesn't take us 50 years to develop these solutions? It takes us much less. So, that we have the option to scale up the ones that look most promising in the areas that need them the most.We're convening universities across the U.S., and helping them identify what these key research needs are. And connecting those university researchers who are doing all this amazing work on the ground, with funders from corporates, foundations, connecting them to policy makers so policymakers know the value of this and what things that they can support when political conditions do change. That's what we mean by a platform essentially is creating that home where people can come and work together to get all of the resources that they need to succeed.Lisa Kiefer:Tell us how you came to start this wonderful project.Noah Deich:This actually started when I was in business school here. And I came to Berkeley just enamored of the energy innovation happening in the Bay Area. I was on the east coast myself doing more traditional energy consulting and passionate about climate change, but didn't see these big energy companies moving anywhere near as fast as they needed to in order to address the problem. But startups here in the Bay Area, completely different story. At the same time, the idea of cleaning up carbon from the air, it was this thing that scientists understood and had been talking about for a while. There was climate change discussion happening, but it just, it didn't incorporate this idea at all. And we said, why is that and how can we start to to change that? Is it right to leave this off the table?Lisa Kiefer:Were you on the east coast as well Giana?Giana Amador:No, I was not. I was here. So, I was an undergraduate studying environmental economics and policy.Noah Deich:And where we got connected is through the Energy and Climate Institute. It's a fantastic organization that is able to provide support for both student fellowships, as well as new startups. And so, that's how we got connected is through both a a fellowship program that brought Giana into the energy and climate orbit, and a small fund that helped new organizations launch out of Berkeley. Which is where the Center for Carbon Removal came. And we teamed up. And what we set to understand was how do we bring this conversation out of the academic halls and into business policy and civil society discussion, because everyone cares about climate change. Everyone knows that we're not doing as much as we need to be doing and we're not as solutions focused. So, how do we put this on the radar and make sure that we drive towards action and make the promise of all of these solutions a reality quickly?Lisa Kiefer:What's coming up in 2018?Noah Deich:So, a couple of really exciting things. First is figuring out how to get this university consortium, the New Carbon Economy consortium to scale. We need a lot more research, and we need to do it fast. So, there's going to be research roadmaps that come out from this consortium, as well as we'll start to see the beginning of the projects that are the fruits of this collaboration. I'm very excited to see where that goes. We're also hopeful that there's going to be activity both in the business community and the policy community. And one thing that I'm really excited about is figuring out how to get new entrepreneurs into this space, making money, cleaning up carbon and turning it into value. And so, we're thinking about how to build that entrepreneurial ecosystem, and leverage all of this Silicon Valley experience in building new companies to do that for carbon.The policy conversation actually might move quickly. What we've, what I've learned is to stop making predictions about what will happen at all when it comes to policy at this point. But we're seeing so many new opportunities for policy makers to create impacts around healthy soils programs, which are in six states across the U.S., and on the docket in many others. As well as really innovative carbon capture policies that both at the federal level and here in California. So, I expect there to be a lot of progress on both the business and policy front. Exactly where that ends up is kind of anyone's best guess. But I think this'll be a space to watch in 2018 for sure.Giana Amador:The really exciting thing is that we're seeing this almost turning point for the carbon removal field. When we started in 2015, we constantly had to explain what carbon removal was, what we're doing, and why it's important. And we're starting to see that conversation change, and we're starting to see carbon removal featured in more news publications.Lisa Kiefer:I read it in The New Yorker. The New Yorker.Noah Deich:Exactly.Giana Amador:And so, I think that turn is a really exciting point for us, because now it's not what are you talking about? But how can we help move this forward? The New Carbon Economy consortium is a really exciting place for our organization and for all of these research universities to start putting science into action and really making that business case for carbon removal solutions.Noah Deich:The resources that we see talking about this, not just The New Yorker, but other major publications aimed not just at scientific audiences but at the mainstream public and the business community and philanthropy community, that has changed dramatically even in the past year. And we have a weekly newsletter that compiles all of those resources. So, as a shameless plug to go to centerforcarbonremoval.org and sign up for that newsletter. And I think what we'll see over the next year is just a complete shift in the narrative coming out into looking at all of these different sources of action and activity. And that conversation moving to solutions, not just, hey, this is a potential problem that we weren't seeing or an opportunity that has not yet been achieved.Lisa Kiefer:Or more action oriented.Noah Deich:But yet here's what's happening and how people are seizing that opportunity and solving the problem.Lisa Kiefer:So, if listeners want to get ahold of either one of you and learn more about your organization, what was that website again?Noah Deich:Centerforcarbonremoval.org.Lisa Kiefer:And they can actually reach out to you individually from that site?Noah Deich:Yes.Giana Amador:Definitely.Noah Deich:This feels like the frontier of the climate change conversation. What we need today is pioneers who don't necessarily know what lies ahead, but are excited to go on these expeditions professionally with their volunteering, with their investing and chart new territory. And to me, this is the unexplored piece of a climate conversation that's going to be pivotal for our society going forward. And in order to make that succeed, we're going to need so many more people in this space who are pioneers in spirit, and are out there trying to navigate all of the uncertainties. But knowing that where we're headed is this incredibly important and valuable activity. For me personally, figuring out how we can get more great minds and fearless leaders into this space is the most important thing to actually achieve the potential.Giana Amador:There's so much that we can disagree about, but really what we've seen in the carbon removal space is something that unlikely allies can come together and work towards. And that's something that's been really empowering as we've done this work. Something that keeps us going. And that I see really accelerating this space at a level of progress that we need to address this issue of climate change. Moving forward, we should really work to expand the tent of people who are working on climate change, expand the tent of solutions, and really work together to address this gargantuan problem.Lisa Kiefer:Thank you so much, Noah and Giana for coming in to Method to the Madness.Giana Amador:Yeah, thank you for having us.Noah Deich:Yeah, thank you for hosting.Lisa Kiefer:You've been listening to Method to the Madness, a public affairs show on KALX Berkeley, celebrating Bay Area innovators. You can find all of our podcasts on iTunes university. We'll see you in two weeks. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Every year more people wake up to coffee or use it to fuel them day, but according to a comprehensive report recently published by the Climate Institute, this early morning ritual, and everything that goes into making it possible, face significant threats from climate change. 

WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR...?A just released Climate Institute report says limiting global warming to 1.5 C rather than letting it reach 2 degrees C could make a significant difference to the severity of extreme weather events and other environmental destruction. This week on Dirt Radio, we discuss the implications with Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, specialist in regional impacts of climate change at the Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW and Dr. Harry Jennens spokesperson and co-ordinator of Healthy Futures, an organization of health professionals taking action to address climate change.

John Connor, CEO of The Climate Institute, speaks with John Gooding about his reaction to Opposition Leader Bill Shorten's address to the Lowy Institute on Labor's climate policy.

To try and avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change, 190 countries have committed to limiting global temperature increase to below 2°C. To achieve this, 60-80% of the world’s existing carbon or fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground. Nevertheless, billions of dollars of investments in coal, oil and gas have gone ahead, resting on the speculative bubble of climate change denial or delay. If these assets become stranded by climate action, their revaluation could trigger the next (larger) global financial crisis. So, what’s at risk? Our economy and your retirement savings. Australia’s economy depends on coal exports and around 55% of your superannuation is invested in high-carbon, high-risk assets. Our political system looks chronically incapable of dealing with climate change—but can we trust our financial institutions to do better?John Hewson is the former leader of the Liberal Party of Australia and Chair of the Asset Owners Disclosure Project. He has worked as an economist for the Australian Treasury, the Reserve Bank, the International Monetary Fund and also as an advisor to two successive Federal Treasurers and the Prime Minister.John Hewson appears with the support of The Climate Institute.

Brandheart founder Glen Campbell does by wrapping his immense experience, insights and imagination around his unique, simple and highly effective ‘Brandheart Method’. In that time he played a pivotal role in helping a significant number of businesses in a vast array of industries to become remarkable brands.Over the course of his 25 year career Glen spent the last decade in Chief Executive roles at some of the world’s leading brand strategy development and communications companies. He also helped to elevate to ‘superbrand’ status many established brands like Woolworths Supermarkets, Bundaberg Rum, The Climate Institute, Gatorade and Toyota.  Glen brings an invaluable ‘magic’ to the process of brand strategy, positioning, personal branding, business planning and communications strategy. He is renowned for inspiring and uplifting business leaders so they are equipped to forge new levels of sustained success. His uncommon abilities make him an essential ally for any business leader looking to increase their personal and organisational brand power and accelerate opportunities for sustainable growth. “Glen is an executive of the very highest caliber – in my career I have seen very few that would rival him for integrity, focus, enthusiasm and determination to make things happen.” Grant OBrien, CEO. Woolworths Ltd.

University of Oklahoma comparative political scientist Charles Kenney looks at the death and legacy of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, and John Topping, the President and CEO of the Climate Institute, discusses climate change, the Arctic, and international security.

Aired 01/13/09 CHRISTOPHER FLAVIN is President of the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington-based international research organization focused on energy, resource and environmental issues. Worldwatch is recognized around the world for its pathbreaking work on the global connections between economic, social, and environmental trends. Chris has spent his career at Worldwatch where he previously served as Senior Vice President and Vice President for Research. Chris is co-author of three books on energy, including Power Surge: Guide to the Coming Energy Revolution, which anticipated many of the changes now under way in world energy markets. Chris is a regular co-author of the Institute's annual State of the World report, which has been published in 36 languages. He has participated in several historic international conferences, including the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the Climate Change Conference in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. Chris is a founding member of the Board of Directors of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy and serves as a board member of the Climate Institute and the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies in Japan. He is on the advisory boards of the American Council on Renewable Energy, and the Environmental and Energy Study Institute. He is also a member of the Greentech Innovation Network, an initiative of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. TEN KEY CHALLENGES (Excerpted from The Perfect Storm by CHRISTOPHER FLAVIN and Robert Engelman, Chapter One of STATE OF THE WORLD 2009, A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society.) Ten challenges must be met in order to create the world of zero net greenhouse gas emissions that will be needed to achieve climate stability. Thinking Long-term Human beings have evolved to be very good at focusing on an immediate threat-whether it is wild animals the first humans faced on the plains of Africa or the financial panic that gripped the world in late 2008. Climate change is a uniquely long-range problem: its effects appear gradual on a human time scale, and the worst effects will likely be visited on people not yet alive. To solve this problem, we must embrace the future as our responsibility and consider the impact of today's decisions on future generations. Just as Egyptians built pyramids and Europeans built cathedrals to last millennia, we need to start acting as if the future of the planet matters beyond our own short lives. Innovation The world needs to develop and disseminate technologies that maximize the production and use of carbon-free energy while minimizing cost and optimizing convenience. (Convenience matters: the ease of transporting, storing, and using carbon-based fuels is among their attractions, not captured in price alone.) An effective climate pact will offer incentives that accelerate technological development and ensure that renewable energy and other low-emission technologies are deployed in all countries regardless of ability to pay the costs. We need to dramatically increase the efficiency with which we use carbon-based energy and lower release into the atmosphere of land-based CO2, methane, nitrogen oxides, and greenhouse gases stemming from cooling and various industrial processes. The opportunities for quick and inexpensive emissions reductions remain vast and mostly untapped. Population It is essential to reopen the global dialogue on human population and promote policies and programs that can help slow and eventually reverse its growth by making sure that all women are able to decide for themselves whether and when to have children. A comprehensive climate agreement would acknowledge both the impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations and the long-term contribution that slower growth and a smaller world population can play in reducing future emissions under an equitable climate framework. And it should renew the commitment that the world's nations made in 1994 to address population not by pressuring parents to have fewer or more children than they want but by meeting the family planning, health, and educational needs of women. Changing Lifestyles The world's climate cannot be saved by technology alone. The way we live will have to change as well-and the longer we wait the larger the needed sacrifices will be. In the United States, the inexorable increase in the size of homes and vehicles that has marked the past few decades has been a major driver of greenhouse gas emissions and the main reason that U.S. emission are double those of other industrial countries. Lifestyle changes will be needed, some of which seem unattractive today. But in the end, the things we may need to learn to live without - oversized cars and houses, status-based consumption, easy and cheap world travel, meat with every meal, disposable everything - are not necessities or in most cases what makes people happy. The oldest among us and many of our ancestors willingly accepted such sacrifices as necessary in times of war. This is no war, but it may be such a time. Healing Land We need to reverse the flow of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from destroyed or degraded forests and land. Soil and vegetation can serve as powerful net removers of the atmosphere's carbon and greenhouse gases. Under the right management, soil alone could absorb each year an estimated 13 percent of all human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. To the extent we can make the land into a more effective "sink" for these gases we can emit modest levels essential for human development and wellbeing. Like efficiency, however, an active sink eventually faces diminishing returns. And any sink needs to be secured with "drain stoppers" to prevent easy return of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere when conditions change. Strong Institutions "Good governance" can be a cliché-until someone needs it to survive. The final months of 2008 laid painfully bare the dangerous imbalance between a freewheeling global economy and a regulatory system that is a patchwork of disparate national systems. And if there was ever a global phenomenon, the climate is it. In fact it is not hard to imagine the climate problem driving a political evolution toward global governance over the long term, but given the public resistance to that idea the next most effective climate-regulating mechanism will be the strength and effectiveness of the United Nations, multilateral banks, and major national governments. New institutions and new funds will be needed, but it could take a major public awakening or a dramatically deteriorating climate to overcome the obstacles to inventing and establishing them. The Equity Imperative A climate agreement that can endure and succeed will find mechanisms for sharing the burden of costs and potential discomforts. Per capita fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the United States are almost five times those in Mexico and more than 20 times the levels in most of sub-Sahara. An effective climate agreement will acknowledge the past co-optation of Earth's greenhouse-gas absorbing capacity by the wealthiest and most industrialized countries and the corresponding need to reserve most of what little absorbing capacity is left for countries in development. Most people live in such countries, and they bear little responsibility for causing this problem -though it is worth recalling that a small but growing share of their populations already have large carbon footprints. Economic Stability In the fall of 2008 the global economy foundered, raising the obvious question: can a world heading into hard economic times add to its burdens the costs of switching from fossil to renewable fuels or managing precious land for carbon sequestration? Any climate agreement built on an assumption of global prosperity is doomed to failure. And as growing and increasingly affluent populations demand more of the resources of a finite planet, we may have to balance the future of climate against present realities of hunger, poverty, and disease. A robust international climate regime will need to design mechanisms that will operate consistently in anemic as well as booming economic times. And a strong pact will be built on principles and innovations that acknowledge and accommodate the problem of cost - while building in monitoring techniques to ensure that efficiency is not achieved at the expense of effective and enduring emission cuts and adaptation efforts. Political Stability A world distracted by major wars or outbreaks of terrorism will not be able to stay focused on the more distant future. And just such a focus is needed to prevent future changes in climate and adapt to the ones already occurring. A climate pact could encourage preemptive action to diminish insecurity caused or exacerbated by climate change. But unless nations can find ways to defuse violent conflict and minimize the chance that terrorism will distract and disrupt societies, climate change prevention and adaptation (along with development itself) will take a back seat. On the bright side, negotiating an effective climate agreement offers countries an opportunity, if they will only seize it, to practice peace, to look beyond the narrowness of the interests within their borders at their dependence on the rest of the world, to see humanity as a single vulnerable species rather than a collection of nations locked in pointless and perpetual competition. Mobilizing for Change As fear of climate change has grown in recent years, so has political action. But opponents of action have repeatedly pointed to the vast costs of reducing emissions. At a time of serious economic problems, the power of that argument is growing, and some of those who are persuaded are going straight from denial to despair. The most effective response to both of those reactions is, in the words of Common Cause founder John Gardner, to see global warming as "breathtaking opportunities disguised as insoluble problems." Solving the climate problem will create the largest wave of new industries and jobs the world has seen in decades. Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in the United States are among those that have devoted enormous efforts to attracting new energy industries - with a glancing reference to climate change and a major focus on creating new jobs to revive "rustbelt" economies. In November 2009, the world faces a test. Will the roughly 200 national governments that meet in Copenhagen to forge a new climate agreement come up with a new protocol that provides both vision and a roadmap, accelerating action around the globe? The challenges are many: Will the global financial crisis and conflict in the Middle East distract world leaders? Will the new US president have time to bring his country back into a leadership position? Will the global North-South divide that has marked climate talks in recent years be overcome? Climate change is not a discrete issue to be addressed apart from all the others. The global economy fundamentally drives climate change, and economic strategies will need to be revised if the climate is ever to be stabilized - and if we are to satisfy the human needs that the global economy is ultimately intended to meet. We cannot afford to have the Copenhagen climate conference fail. The outcome of this meeting will be written in the world's history books - and in the lasting composition of our common atmosphere. ----------------------------------------------------- WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE delivers the insights and ideas that empower decision makers to create an environmentally sustainable society that meets human needs. Worldwatch focuses on the 21st-century challenges of climate change, resource degradation, population growth, and poverty by developing and disseminating solid data and innovative strategies for achieving a sustainable society. For more information, visit www.worldwatch.org

-This week we spoke with Nina Hall from Climate Action Coogee about the climate protection bill which will be before Parliament later this month. Info on the bill and how you can support it here! - Nick Hollins reports on Garnaut supplementary draft report and speaks with John Connor, CEO of the Climate Institute and David Spratt, the author of 'Climate Code Red' -Jessica Minshall reports on the NT intervention and the effects the land rights reforms under the scheme have had in regards to mining and communities Presenters: Libby King and James Hitchcock