Excited Delirium

Stories about Excited Delirium, the Shock Economy and a little fiction here and there.

Breaking: Israel Attacks Aid Flotilla

Israel has attacked a massive aid flotilla off the Mediterranean Coast this morning, killing dozens and potentially destroying an effort to bring aid to people in the Gaza Strip and Palestine.

The Israeli response seems largely premeditated, accusing the aid workers of being terrorists and criminals, despite the fact that most were members of European Parliament, peace prize winners, a Holocaust survivor, and aid organizations.

People:  we have to actively boycott anything from Israel.  We have to lobby all of our politicians to bring on harsh punishment to the state of Israel for their crimes against humanity.

Our Prime Minister will no doubt condemn the aid workers in favour of the Israeli action, even as he meets with Benjamin Netanyahu (or should I say Netan-yahoo?) later today.

Give Peace a Chance: The Course

William Bruneau of UBC is hosting a series of brief lectures titled ‘Give Peace a Chance: Peacemakers and Peaceniks, Canadian and Otherwise.’

His lectures will be during the week of June 21-25 and are part of the ‘Ageless Pursuits’ program that takes place at UBC.

So … for those of you on the west coast that might be looking for a little something to do in the first few weeks of summer, this might be the place.

Do you know of other similar programs committed to sharing the message of peace as part of a school program or curriculum?  I’d like to know, so please share your thoughts below.

The Cost of Carbon and the Canadian Economic Action Plan

This article reminded me of the conditions applied to Canadian Economic Action Plan programs:  no environmental review.

This will cost us all.

My hope is that sooner rather than later Canadians will have the ability to audit these programs, not just economically but also with respect to their impact on the environment.  And when we do, we’ll likely realize that Canada’s Economic (In)Action Plan will be much more costly than originally thought.

Stay tuned.

Ava-Tar Sands

This …

AvatarTruck

Or this …

TarSandsTruck

Would you believe that the Tar Sands in Alberta could pose a greater environmental risk than the drilling rigs off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico?

Certainly, if you have time to read this 96 page report from this Ceres-commissioned report authored by RiskMetrics Group.

A brief review of the document was provided on the Ceres website, including the following observations:

  • Alberta’s oil sands are already the world’s largest energy project—with $200 billion in funds committed from the world’s leading oil producers, including BP, ExxonMobil and Shell.  However, these producers face numerous environmental, production and distribution challenges that will grow as the oil sands industry pushes to boost production amid tighter regulations and resource constraints
  • Oil sands companies in Alberta are already producing 1.3 million barrels a day, and their goal is to triple production by 2030.
  • Ceres president Mindy Lubber:  “The energy-and water-intensive nature of oil sands, combined with climate change regulations, permitting obstacles and other challenges, are a recipe for diminishing revenues and returns if not properly managed.”
  • Investors have already filed shareholder resolutions on the oil sands topic with Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, BP and ConocoPhillips. The Shell resolution will be voted on at tomorrow’s annual corporate meeting in London.  ExxonMobil’s shareholder resolution is up for a vote on May 26.
  • While just over half of U.S. oil comes from overseas countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, the fastest growing source is from two North American regions – the Gulf of Mexico and Canada’s vast oil sands region. Oil production from these two areas has grown to three million barrels a day in recent years, supplying more than 15 percent of total U.S. oil needs.
  • Long-term risks from development in Canada’s oil sands region are arguably greater. Many of these risks stem from already-high financial costs and the environmental impacts of transforming highly viscous bitumen into synthetic crude oil – a process that requires vast amounts of energy and water.
  • “Investors need to question whether this is a wise use of resources,” says Doug Cogan, a report co-author and director of climate risk management for RiskMetrics Group.  “The oil sands process takes natural gas—the cleanest-burning and lowest-carbon fossil fuel—to turn one of the dirtiest and highest-carbon fuels into a saleable product.  Large volumes of freshwater are also consumed in the process, and end up in toxic tailings ponds.  It’s like the Gulf of Mexico spill, but playing out in slow motion.  From a climate and ecological perspective, we’re really no better off.”
  • “This report makes clear that oil sands companies must do more to analyze the far-reaching risks from current and future production in Alberta,” said Jack Ehnes, chief executive officer of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), the nation’s second largest public pension fund. “With nearly $1.9 billion invested in the equity securities of BP, Shell, Exxon and ConocoPhillips combined, we have quite of teachers’ money at stake here. We need to ensure these companies are properly recognizing and managing oil sand risks.”

Among the report’s key findings:

Shrinking profit margin: The costs of producing oil sands – already the world’s most expensive source of new oil -  are rising and will continue to do so due to the onset of carbon pricing, higher input commodity prices, and rising costs for water treatment and land reclamation. As a result, global oil prices will need to remain high – possibly approaching $100 per barrel – to ensure a competitive rate of return on $120 billion in planned expansion projects. Oil sand operators must also be mindful that if global oil prices get too high, between $120 and $150 a barrel, it will likely reduce global oil demand and shift markets in favor of alternative fuels.

Vulnerability to changes in U.S. Markets: Presently, the vast majority of of the 1.3 million barrels being produced every day flows to the United States. Long-term access to this market is jeopardized, however, by emerging low-carbon fuel standards in the U.S. that will require a lower carbon intensity in transportation fuels. These fuel standards, already adopted in California, will put carbon-intensive oil sands fuel at a distinct disadvantage because oil sands output will likely have to be mixed with next-generation biofuels that are not yet being produced on a commercial scale.

Other Distribution Obstacles: Transporting expanded oil sands production west to China and other Asian markets is another alternative. However, there is strong opposition to building pipelines to Canada’s West Coast from Aboriginal communities who have significant rights under the Canadian constitution.

Water and Other Resource Constraints: Oil sands production is highly water intensive, with up to four barrels of freshwater consumed for every barrel of oil produced from surface mining extraction. Water withdrawals from the Athabasca River watershed are already restricted during winter months to protect fish habitat. If oil sands production volume grows according to companies’ estimates, some oil sands mining operations could exceed their wintertime allowances as early as 2014, causing possible production interruptions. Climate change may also exacerbate this situation; glaciers feeding into the Athabasca River watershed are already shrinking.

Growing Land Reclamation Costs/Liability: After 40 years of production, no oil sand companies have yet fully reclaimed the extensive tailings ponds used for holding polluted wastewater. This is because the fine tailings in these ponds take decades to settle out. These tailing ponds, already covering an area the size of Washington D.C., pose risks of contaminating adjoining lands and water resources, and present health problems in downstream communities. Alberta’s Directive 74 requires oil sands miners to speed up remediation of existing ponds – an order that creates especially large liabilities for the industry’s legacy miners such as Suncor and Syncrude.

The report specifically recommends that oil sands producers:

  • Review the lasting impact of their proposed development plans and pursue more pro-active, incremental strategies to manage environmental and social risks;
  • Provide guidance for assumed oil, natural gas and carbon prices in future production forecasts.
  • Do a better job of articulating to community groups and other stakeholders their strategies for land use planning, water management and carbon mitigation;
  • Disclose information from these more detailed evaluations to investors;
  • Develop stronger ties with the U.S. biofuels industry both for speeding up development of advanced biofuel capacity and sharing existing infrastructure, such as oil sands pipelines that already feed into the U.S. Midwest.

“All oil is getting dirtier and harder to produce,” said Bob Walker, vice president of sustainability at Northwest and Ethical Investment in Canada. “With Chinese investment and demand set to grow outside the U.S., oil sands production is likely to grow. Investors need to be aware of the environmental and social risks and engage oil sands companies to improve disclosure, operational performance and to make technological investments to reduce environmental and social impacts.”

“We recognize that oil companies will continue to invest in the oil sands,” continued Lubber, “but they shouldn’t do so blindly. Investors need assurances that the risks outlined in this report are being taken into account.  This includes the fact that carbon will be regulated, that water will be increasingly scarce, that tailings ponds need to be cleaned up, and that doing all this will be expensive. Companies need to build solutions in up front or they shouldn’t be building these projects at all.”

The full report is available at http://www.ceres.org/oilsandsreport and http://riskmetrics.com

About Ceres
Ceres is leading coalition of investors, environmental groups and other public interest groups working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as climate change. Ceres also directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk, a network of 90 institutional investors with $10 trillion of collective assets focused on the business impacts of climate change.

About RiskMetrics Group
RiskMetrics is a leading provider of risk management and corporate governance services.  Its ESG Analytics Group analyzes cutting edge issues like climate change, water and ecosystem services that support the global economy.

Tony Clement in a Blatant Conflict of Interest?

Tony Clement Caught ‘Selling’ for Someone Other Than Canada

It’s like the famous ‘Ichiban’ ad by Joey in Friends.  It’s the ad that no one was supposed to see.

Tony Clement’s original YouTube video can be found here.  Watch around the two-minute point for our famous minister-for-hire, previously made famous by being at the wheel when people were dying from Listeria and when Walkertonians were dropping like flies.

Once again, another Conservative minister seems to be caught in the act, with his hands in the cookie jar, promoting something other than the Government of Canada.

A blatant conflict of interest?

This is good timing, as Tony Clement is preparing to introduce the most draconian set of copyright laws since the term itself came into existence.  If you want to fight the ACTA laws, visit this site and join any of the groups listed.

This potential for a conflict of interest begs questions about other potential conflicts that he and other Conservative ministers might be involved with.

So what can we do?  Lobby to get Tony Clement fired.  It would be a severe blow to the ACTA regulations that they want to bring in.

Critical Notions in Marci McDonald’s Armageddon Factor”

I watched the Agenda last night as Steve Paikin interviewed Marci McDonald and subsequently met with a panel to discuss religion and politics and two central points were missed:

  1. Why we must separate politics and religion
  2. Why Marci McDonald called her book ‘the Armageddon Factor’

In the discussion, there was Steve, Marci and the following politicians or ex-politicians:

  • John McKay, Liberal MP for Scarborough – Guildwood
  • Chris Stockwell, former Conservative Ontario MPP
  • Cheri DiNovo, NDP MPP for Parkdale – High Park

All of them admitted to being members of some kind of Christian organized religion.  Of course, I think that was the plan with the Agenda organizers, but it creates the impression that faith-based politics are the only option in this country.  What of the atheists or Hindus or Muslims or Jews or other denominations?  Do they not matter when talking about ‘religion and politics’?

It also reinforces this seemingly lost notion that politicians really aren’t entitled to their own opinion.  The only opinion they should have should be based on the opinion and direction of their constituents.  Forgetting this exhibits the most profound level of hubris and it’s no wonder Canadians are pissed with ALL of the political parties right now.

Which addresses the first question:  why we must separate politics and religion.

Although the concept is older than the American revolution, Americans were the first to really pull away from religious influence by ‘separating church and state’.  This was done because the church had become so corrupt in Europe and elsewhere that it became impossible to do anything proactive for the population at large without the church digging its claws into said actions.  Whether it was the tithe (where 10% of your income had to fund religion) or mandatory legislation that benefited Christian institutions (eg. no Sunday shopping), they couldn’t resist the temptation of influence and control.

This is at the core of the message being delivered by Marci McDonald (and others) when it comes to Canadian politics.

Imagine a world today in which the church would have influence over security issues?  What happens if you’re looking at good old porn and the church decides that you can’t and cuts off your internet?  Of course, that’s coming, isn’t it with the ACTA laws being discussed behind our backs, isn’t it?

And what happens if fundamentalists take over our daily lives and your position or philosophy is different from theirs?

Intolerance is the first of many unsavoury words that come to mind when religious fundamentalists are involved and it’s intolerance that CANNOT be the cornerstone of any legislative assembly, particularly when that assembly must be focused on balance, equality and liberty.

And what of the Armageddon Factor?

This is the second crucial question being raised in this discussion.

It has everything to do with environmental stewardship and greed.

  • Why save your money when you can donate it to my cause (and so I can live in opulence and you continue in squalor)?
  • Why sacrifice our outrageous level of gluttony in the western world so that the rest of the world can elevate itself to a hint beyond abject poverty?
  • Why pretend that we should save our environment when the end of the world is nigh?

Nihilism is at the centre of the Armageddon Factor.  McDonald does her best to identify that many of the groups that hold substantial sway over our politicians and many of the politicians themselves are nihilists.

They see no future except one of death, doom and despair.

The end of the world is coming and there’s nothing we can or should do about it!

What’s even more frightening is that this level of fundamentalism could easily support a rise in tensions between countries like Israel, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan because these countries are at the centre of ‘The End Times’, a fictional idea foisted by a drug-induced prophet in Rhodes and monetized by the likes of Tim LeHaye (the author of the ‘Left Behind’ series).

And THAT is the core of why these people cannot be trusted, why religion must be separated from politics and why we cannot allow matters of faith to guide matters of respect.

The end of the world is not coming, your religion is myth and we MUST take control of our situation on this planet because we’re about to lose it.

The Big G Spree

The Big G – the G8 and G20 countries – are subjects of a massive spending spree.

So what’s the big deal?

Would you rather spend a billion dollars to protect 20 guests or spend a billion dollars to protect every single Canadian.

D’uh.

Somehow, the Conservatives will find a way to make this Michael Ignatieff’s fault.  Or mine.  Whoever.  It just won’t be their fault because they’re slippery eels.

It’s time for an investigation of the Big G Spree, before the Cons waste any more taxpayer dollars on trumped up expenses.

The first question we should ask:  who received all the money?  Odds are, it’s someone connected to the Cons.

The Opportunity for A Cycling Public Awareness Campaign

I’ve read the news.  A tragedy occurred involving some high ups and a bike courier.  A decision was made yesterday that many don’t agree with.

I understand that a lot of people are frustrated and they’re thinking this is a massive conspiracy.  Maybe it is.  The way I saw it, the driver was attached by a person, but maybe that’s the way it’s supposed to look.  I don’t know.

But before you put on the tinfoil hat, consider ways that this can lead to more productive outcomes for all of us.

Let’s turn that frustration into something positive.

More than ever, we need a public awareness campaign concerning cyclists, pedestrians, the road and drivers.

Here are some simple messages for cyclists that I would love to see materialize from this campaign:

  • WEAR A HELMET and learn how to ride a bike.  If you’re on the road, learn the rules of the road.  If you want the respect of drivers, follow the rules.  As a cyclist, nothing annoys me more than seeing other cyclists flaunting the law (or lack of laws), taking their life into their own hands and acting like buffoons.
  • Demand more bike lanes.
  • Demand unique trails that don’t involve urban transit locations.
  • Exchange respect.  You get what you give.

And for the drivers out there?

  • Demand more bike lanes.
  • Demand that cyclists be treated like vehicles on the road and insist that existing and new laws apply to them.  For their own sake.
  • Until there are more lanes, you don’t own the road.  Cyclists are taxpayers too.  In fact, as a driver, you’re at the bottom of the commuter food chain (starting with pedestrians, pedestrians walking sideways on the road, pedestrians walking on their hands on the road, cyclists, animals, street cars, and so on).  Accept it and get used to it.
  • You are conducting a vehicle that can kill.  A person on a bicycle cannot kill you unless they’re some freaky futuristic distopian death machine armed with submachine guns, but even then, you can outrun a cyclist.
  • PAY ATTENTION.  You’re driving a machine that crush just about anything besides a hippo or a bulldozer.  Understand that!  Get off the phone, put down your latte, stop yelling at your kids, don’t fiddle with your GPS.  Drive.
  • Exchange respect.  You get what you give.

Tragedy happens on the road nearly every day in this country and it’s time we all started to figure out ways to get along.  In urban areas, things are getting way too crowded for hot tempers and short fuses.

Thank you.

Liam.

Ladies and Gentlemen: The Gulf of Mexicoil! (Brought to you by BP)

That’s right, ladies and gentlemen!  The Gulf of Mexicoil awaits you!

Imagine a future where you can simply go to the coast and dip your bucket into the Gulf waters and scoop out a pile of lovely, black goop, thick with the goodness of the end of earth and only with a few minor inconveniences like fish bones, turtles shells and dead birds.

You too can have a scoop of the future and see what we’re all in for!

Believe the spin.  We did nothing wrong and we had no idea it would be this big!  Honestly.

Just whatever you do, no matches, OK?  We’d hate to ignite the world’s biggest roman candle in waiting!

OK.  Seriously:  the only thing that we should be figuring out is how we can strip BP (and any other companies that let this disaster happen) of their corporate status.

What’s that?

Yeah … they should cease to exist.  Corporate armageddon.

Why worry about a boycott when there should be nothing to boycott?

Why Federal MPs Should be Running Scared

Federal MPs (with the exception of the Bloc) recently decided that they were going to continue to pork out at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, but following the judgement and decision by Nova Scotia Auditor General to call in the RCMP, they should be running scared.

While there are only about 1,400 members of this Facebook group, there’s a growing effort to make MP expenses public.

The question is ‘to what end’?  We all know they’re all morally and ethically bankrupt, so what’s the point of another online petition, something that will generate loads of traffic for Facebook, but do nothing for democracy and responsibility in this country?

I’m at a loss.  Someone tell me what the options are here.