Archive for the 'environment' category

The Trump War on Science: Daring blindness, Denying climate change, Destroying the EPA and other daily disasters

The last one of these was in mid-June, so we're picking up all the summer stories of scientific mayhem in the Trump era. The last couple of months have seemed especially apocalyptic, with Nazis marching in the streets and nuclear war suddenly not so distant a possibility. But along with those macro-level issues, Trump and his cronies are still hammering away at climate change denial, environmental protection, research funding and public health issues. As exhausting as it seems -- and this is part of the plan -- amongst all of us opposed to Trump, we need to keep track of a wide range of issues.

If I'm missing anything important, please let me know either in the comments or at my email jdupuis at yorku dot ca. If you want to use a non-work email for me, it's dupuisj at gmail dot com.

The selections are by no means meant to represent a comprehensive account of everything written about science and science-related over the last few months. I'm not aiming for anything than complete or comprehensive. For example, there are probably hundreds of articles written about climate-change related issues over that period, but I'm just picking up what I hope is a representative sample.

The last time around was a bit more thematically organized rather than chronologically. I'm trying the later organizational method this time around to see if I can get a sense of which I prefer or which seems more useful.

This post covers from approximately mid-June, 2017 up to August 31, 2017. The fact that most days -- even in the summer -- there are multiple things to report is terrifying.

A few general resources:

And now the full list:


As usual, if there are any errors in the above list or if I've missed anything significant, please let me know in the comments. If you'd prefer not to comment, you can let me know via email at jdupuis at yorku dot ca or my non-work email dupuisj at gmail dot com.

No responses yet

Friday Fun: Scooby Doo Team Expose Climate Change Tricksters

Somehow this post from News Biscuit seems even more relevant now than when it was intially published back in August. Of course, we all shudder to think who will be under that ghostly costume, orange hair, Alaska plaid, Brietbart ball cap and all.

Scooby Doo Team Expose Climate Change Tricksters

A two-man, two-woman, one-Great Dane team of young Americans has exposed the belief that the Earth is heading towards widespread famine and ecological disaster, as the work of a scheming fraudster. Team leader Fred explained that they were passing through Central London in their VW camper van when a recent copy of the Daily Express alerted them to a mystery.

Despite increasing talk about global warming, recent winters have often been quite cold. ‘We suspected there might be something odd going on, so we split into two teams,’ Fred told reporters. ‘Me, Daphne and Velma looked in the basement at the Met Office, while Shaggy and Scooby were sent to explore the newsroom of a little-known newspaper called The Guardian which had been publishing some of these made-up stories.’

Read this whole thing and shudder.

No responses yet

Documenting the Donald Trump War on Science: Pre-Inauguration Edition

Update 2017.01.31: First post-inauguration chronology post is done, covering the first week of the Trump administration.

From the point of view of someone sitting North of the Canadian/US border, the results of this week's US Federal election are somewhat terrifying. And honestly and truly as a Canadian and a Torontonian, I say this without a bit of smugness. Been there, done that, if not quite on the same scale.

And by done that, I mean that I've often seen my mission to document important stories in the world. In the past, mostly Canadian or mostly in the library world and all basically about science.

This time around, I'm going to start a project about science in the new Donald Trump administration. I believe Trump will be terrible for science, technology, the environment and public health. And I intend to document that here. Of course, Trump won't be terrible for science in exactly the same way that Harper was in Canada. For example, he may not target research funding in the same way. On the other hand, the environment may fare much worse and ultimately muzzling may also prove to be a problem. It's only over the course of the next couple of years that we'll really and truly get a sense of the implications.

But why wait until we see the share of how exactly Trump is bad for science to start keeping track?

I like what David Kipen said today in the LA Times.

If all these experiences have taught me anything, it’s that librarians may be the only first responders holding the line between America and a raging national pandemic of absolutism. More desperately than ever, we need our libraries now, and all three of their traditional pillars: 1) education, 2) good reading and 3) the convivial refuge of a place apart. In other words, libraries may be the last coal we have left to blow on.

First Responder -- Information Division is a role I can live with.

Like Anil Dash says, "Forget “Why?”, it’s time to get to work."

Don’t waste a single moment listening to the hand-wringing of the pundit class about Why This Happened, or people on TV talking about What This Means. The most important thing is that we focus on the work that needs to be done now. While so many have been doing what it takes to protect the marginalized and to make society more just, we must increase our urgency on those efforts, even while we grieve over this formidable defeat.

It is completely understandable, and completely human, to be depressed, demoralized or overwhelmed by the enormity of this broad embrace of hateful rhetoric and divisive policy. These are battles that have always taken decades to fight, and progress has never been smooth and steady — we’ve always faced devastating setbacks. If you need to take time to mourn, then do. But it’s imperative that we use our anger, our despair, our disbelief to fuel an intense, focused and effective campaign to protect and support the marginalized.

And it has to start now.

My small contribution is focusing on the effects the Trump administration will have on science, technology, the environment and public health. (As with my Canadian project, I consider healthcare funding models outside of my scope.)

So let's get started. I have a few sections to this post. The first will focus on documenting what happened before November 8, 2016. What he said about science and the environment. The second section will focus on commentary in the past few days since the election. The third section will be similar, but focusing on the implications for Canada. The final section will begin documenting actual anti-science actions and policies (yay, we already have a couple!)

Wish me luck. As usual, everyone should feel free to suggest things I've missed, either in the comments or privately at I'm not attempting to be comprehensive or complete in the commentary I'm picking up, but I do want to attempt to be fairly representative.


Pre-Election Commentary


Post-Election Commentary


Post-Election Commentary Added November 21, 2016


Post-Election Commentary Related to Implications for Canada


And finally, the beginning of the tally of cuts, etc.


Some Meta-Commentary Related More to Activism than Directly to Science


To repeat. This initial list is quick and very preliminary. Please let me know if there's anything you think I should include, either in the comments or at I'm not attempting to be comprehensive or complete in the commentary I'm picking up, but I do want to attempt to be fairly representative.

If I've missed anything or if anything I've included probably shouldn't be included, let me know and I'll take a look and evaluate.

I will be updating this master list as time goes by.


Update 2016.11.21. Quite a bit of commentary added, as well as some general info related to activism and resistance. One incident added, related to Steve Bannon. I'm treading a fine line between "what might happen and it would be bad" and "this is a thing that we know is actually happening." Probably the announcement of the actual cabinet will bring more information on the what the Trump presidency will mean for science, the environment and public health.
Update 2016.12.06. Quite a bit added again, lots of commentary and "meta" items. In particular, as the cabinet and other appointments are fleshed out, there's more to identify as issues.

14 responses so far

Around the Web: What About the Planet?, Partisan polarization on climate change and more on the science and politics of climate change

Oct 08 2016 Published by under around the web, climate change, environment

One response so far

Around the Climate Web: Are We Feeling Collective Grief Over Climate Change? and more on the science and politics of climate change

Aug 21 2016 Published by under around the web, Canada, climate change, environment

No responses yet

Your Feedback Needed: Government of Canada Launches Review of Federal Support for Fundamental Science

Jun 22 2016 Published by under Canada, environment, Politics, Science in Canada

One of the key faults of the Harper Conservatives' science policy was their emphasis on applied research to the detriment of basic, curiosity driven research. Obviously there needs to be a balance between any government's approach to those two kinds of research, neither polar opposite is appropriate. But the Conservatives were way out of wack with their policy, significantly favouring commercially-driven, industrial-partnership-focused, applied research. The signature policy in that vein was their transformation of the National Research Council into a Concierge to Industry.

Thankfully the new Liberal government under Justin Trudeau looks to be addressing some of the issues with the NRC transformation.

And Science Minister Kirsty Duncan is launching a very significant review of federal government support of basic research! And part of that review is seeking input from interested parties, including me, you and all the other stakeholders in Canadian society.

They're set up a "panel of experts" to launch the review as well as a website with all the various relevant information about the review. The deadline for feedback is a bit nebulous but it appears that the review will continue at least into the fall.

A description of the review process from the press releaase:

There's the list of members of the panel. More information on the members at the link.

Robert Birgeneau, Chancellor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley, California
Martha Crago, Vice President (Research) and Professor, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia
Mike Lazaridis, Co-Founder and Managing Partner, Quantum Valley Investments, Waterloo, Ontario
Claudia Malacrida, Associate Vice-President, Research, University of Lethbridge
Arthur (Art) McDonald, Nobel Laureate and Professor Emeritus, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario
David Naylor (Chair), Professor of Medicine and President Emeritus, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
Martha C. Piper, Interim President and Vice Chancellor, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
Rémi Quirion, Chief Scientist Officer, Quebec Government, Montreal, Quebec
Anne Wilson, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research Successful Societies Fellow and professor of psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University

And a description of the mandate of the review.

The panel has been provided with the following overall questions to consider as part of its review:

  1. Are there any overall program gaps in Canada's fundamental research funding ecosystem that need to be addressed?
  2. Are there elements or programming features in other countries that could provide a useful example for the Government of Canada in addressing these gaps?

Funding of fundamental research

The central question regarding the effectiveness and impact of the granting councils in supporting excellence in fundamental research is whether their approach, governance and operations have kept pace with an ever-changing domestic and global research landscape. Key questions for the review:

  1. Are granting councils optimally structured and aligned to meet the needs of the current research community in Canada? Are the current programs the most effective means of delivering the objectives of these organizations? And are they keeping pace internationally? The review should take into account the several reviews and evaluations that were performed in recent years on the councils and on science and scholarly inquiry in Canada.
  2. Are students, trainees and emerging researchers, including those from diverse backgrounds, facing unique barriers within the current system and, if so, what can be done to address those barriers?
  3. Is there an appropriate balance between funding elements across the research system, i.e. between elements involving people and other direct research costs, operating costs, infrastructure and indirect costs? What are best practices for assessing and adjusting balances over time?
  4. Are existing review processes rigorous, fair and effective in supporting excellence across all disciplines? Are they rigorous, fair and effective in supporting riskier research and proposals in novel or emerging research areas or multidisciplinary/multinational areas?
  5. Are granting council programs and structures sufficiently flexible to reflect and accommodate the growing internationalization of research? Are granting council programs and structures accommodating the full range of research areas; multidisciplinary research; and new approaches ranging from traditional knowledge, including indigenous research, to more open, collaborative forms of research? If not, what steps could be taken?

Funding of facilities/equipment

  1. Is the Canada Foundation for Innovation optimally structured to meet the needs of the current research community in Canada? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current model in delivering the objectives of this organization, including its ability to work complementarily with the granting councils? What is the appropriate federal role in supporting infrastructure operating costs and how effective are current mechanisms in fulfilling that role?
  2. What are best practices (internationally/domestically) for supporting big science (including, inter alia, international facilities and international collaboration)?
  3. Many requests for government support for research are not tied to the cycles of the four major research agencies, but they have economic or competitive relevance nationally or regionally, or major non-governmental financial support, or implications for Canada's international standing as an active participant in big science projects or major multi-institutional projects. How can we ensure that the Government has access to the best advice about funding these types of projects in the future?

Funding of platform technologies

  1. What types of criteria and considerations should inform decisions regarding whether the Government should create a separate funding mechanism for emerging platform technologies and research areas of broad strategic interest and societal application? Are there any technologies that would appear to meet such criteria in the immediate term? When there is a rationale for separate funding, how to ensure alignment of funding approaches?
  2. Today's emerging platform technology may rapidly become a standard tool used tomorrow by a wide variety of researchers. If such technologies are initially given stand-alone support via a dedicated program or agency, what factors should inform decisions on when it would be appropriate to "mainstream" such funding back into the granting councils?

Additional advice

The panel will be expected to consult widely with the research community and to solicit input from relevant stakeholders—including universities, colleges and polytechnics, research hospitals, research institutes, industry, civil society—and the general public representing the diversity of views from across Canada. Those consultations and submissions may lead the panel to raise additional questions and offer additional advice to the Government. Such input will be welcomed.

There's also a Questions and Answers page and a feedback form. The Q&A page is where they discuss how the panel was formed and, in particular, that it will run through the fall but with no as yet no defined end date for the consultations.

Minister Duncan and the government have quite a job ahead of them. I haven't had a chance to really formulate my own feedback yet to either of those initiatives, but here are a few initial thoughts. I wish them all the luck and wisdom in tackling the review.

  • Open access and open data are important. The Tri-Agencies have an established Open Access Policy for Publications and a brand new Statement of Principles on Digital Data Management to frame the review of fundamental science. But one main criticism of these initiatives is that they place burdens on the research enterprise to publish more openly but without actually putting any resources into helping make that happen. I suggest that funding infrastructure for openness be considered one of the Platform Technologies that gets funded during the review. How should support for open access and digital data management plans get funded? Good question and I'm sure lots of people have lots of answers. Let's get working on it!
  • Library infrastructure is another Platform technology that needs to be properly funded. Science and other libraries were devastated under the Conservatives, as was Library and Archives Canada. Yes, I know we have the Federal Science Library project in progress and yes, we have a new head of LAC. I know that we already have three (!) reviews on going (see below). But given the devastation of the Conservative years, I think a review of Federal government library infrastructure is sorely needed.
  • The panel as constituted heavily leans towards established researchers with fancy titles and lots of experience. The review needs to make sure the voices of early career researchers are heard listened to, researchers who've come to Canada from other countries, women and other under-represented groups in STEM research. The panel also would benefit from perhaps some voices from outside Canada, like from National Science Foundation in the US, Max Planck Institutes in Germany. The Tri-Agencies could also be better represented. In other words, diversity across all axes needs to be baked into this process.
  • A detail, but the self-description fields in the feedback form are woefully inadequate to capture the feedback from all the various stakeholder groups who might wish to be heard. Sure Academic Administrator, Academic Faculty, Grad Student, Other Researcher and Other Interested Person (especially combined with sector affiliation) are a start, but I can't understand why fields such as Undergraduate Student, K-12 teacher, librarian, business person and at least a few other possibilities. I'm sure people will end up embedding it all into their comments anyway, but why not give more options in the form?


Here's the links again for the Fundamental Science Review:


And of course, the Fundamental Science review isn't the only review happening. What with a decade of Conservative mismanagement (i.e. torching) of everything even vaguely science and environment, the feds are also launching a consultation/review of their "innovation agenda," which is the flip side of the fundamental science coin. In other words, how to commercialise research and spur economic activity and jobs. That's a process that's also worth watching and you can check that out here. As we can see from the list of topic areas below, this exercise will be related to the fundamental science review. As well, we could also see this consultation as the beginning of a comprehensive national digital strategy for the new government. The topic areas have an awful lot of overlap with the Conservative's Digital Canada 150. We shall see.


And, finally, information on the various Environmental Assessment Review processes being launched.

No responses yet

Around the Web: The Fort McMurray wildfire and climate change

May 06 2016 Published by under around the web, Canada, climate change, environment

The town of Fort McMurray, Alberta and it's surrounding region are experiencing a horrific wildfire. Tens of thousands of people have been forced to evacuate.

The absolute most important thing in the short and medium term is to take care of the people of Fort McMurray. Yes, Fort McMurray is the hub of tar sands development in Canada. Yes, the tar sands and other fossil fuel development projects contribute to climate change. Yes, the tar sands in particular have been identified as a carbon source that needs to be left in the ground. But those aren't short and medium term considerations. Those are very clearly about making sure the people of Fort McMurray are safe and that they can re-start their lives in the wake of this tragedy. The issues around fossil fuel development that have gotten us into the trouble we're in are systemic and historic, not in any way directly the fault of the actual people who are caught in this situation.

But in the longer term we need to stop brushing aside what is constantly happening in the short and medium term. We need to stop saying, "This isn't the time to talk about this." We meed to stop focusing on how you can't pin each individual weather disaster on climate change. It's true but it can't be the only point we ever make.

Every time we forget about how the short and medium term turn into the long term, one day and month and year at a time, one climate-change-related disaster at a time, we are letting ourselves off the hook in using the focus and attention to build longer term solutions.

The Edmonton Journal website is a great one-stop news portal for what's happening.

The Canadian Red Cross is probably the best place to donate to the relief effort.

In the meantime, here are some of the articles and posts I've been reading, reflecting a diversity of opinion and analysis.


And some more-or-less dissenting views on whether or not we should be talking about climate change in relation to the wildfire right now.



If there's good commentary I've missed, please let me know in in the comments.

And you might also want to take a look at my recent posts on The Leap Manifesto and recent readings on climate change.

3 responses so far

Around the Web: The math the planet relies on isn’t adding up right now and more on the science and politics of climate change

One response so far

The Leap Manifesto blows up Canadian politics: The story so far

Apr 16 2016 Published by under Canada, climate change, environment, Science in Canada

Or at least a certain corner of Canadian politics. For some definitions of "blow up."

For those not followong Canadian politics, our more-or-less socialist party, The New Democratic Party, recently held a policy convention where they also held a leadership review vote. The current leader, Tom Mulcair, lost the vote and as a result the NDP will be spending the next two years or so looking for a new leader.

What's significant from our point of view here is why he lost the vote. While the results of the last Federal election certainly played a role, the more proximate cause was a battle of sorts between the pragmatists and the idealists within the party. Inspired by Bernie Sanders and his run at the Democratic nomination in the current round of presidential elections in the US, the idealists are looking for a firmer and more pronounced progressive platform compared to the more centrist platform in the last couple of election cycles.

To complicate matters, pigs flew and hell froze over last year and the current government of the Province of Alberta (i.e. the most conservative province, both large-C and small-c) is NDP. The premier of oil-sands-dependent Alberta is Rachel Notley and from her point of view, the Federal NDP embracing the anti-fossil Fuel Leap Manifesto makes it a lot harder for her and her government to maneuver in the long and medium term and hopefully shift Alberta's economy away from such radical dependence on oil and gas production.

Which brings us to The Leap Manifesto itself. Brainchild of activists Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis, it's a rather breathtaking document calling for a complete retooling of the Canadian economy. You can see the text below. It's quite breathtaking in the way it call for a complete do-over. Though when you look at it closely and get past the "demands" and manifestoiness of it all, its basically a fairly modest program for just doing what needs to be done to save the planet.

Personally, I'm still pondering exactly what I think of the situation. While it's obvious at a certain level that without the kind of action that the Manifesto recommends, we are doomed to suffer the consequences of a radically warming planet. We need to leave an awful lot of the oil that is currently in the ground right there where it belongs. On the other hand, it's also pretty obvious that actually getting climate agreements signed and concrete action taken isn't as easy as publishing a manifesto. Joining the worlds of idealistic activism with cold-hearted political calculation is never easy. Does something like the Leap Manifesto make that easier or harder? Does embracing the Manifesto sideline the NDP to the point where it can't make any practical difference or does it help them galvanize the true will of the people and build a newer more humane and environmentally responsible Canadian political culture?

The answers to those questions are above my pay grade.

The Leap Manifesto itself is here. Also worth reading is their document We Can Afford The Leap by Bruce Campbell, Seth Klein, and Marc Lee.

The text of the Manifesto follows.

We start from the premise that Canada is facing the deepest crisis in recent memory.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has acknowledged shocking details about the violence of Canada’s near past. Deepening poverty and inequality are a scar on the country’s present. And Canada’s record on climate change is a crime against humanity’s future.

These facts are all the more jarring because they depart so dramatically from our stated values: respect for Indigenous rights, internationalism, human rights, diversity, and environmental stewardship.

Canada is not this place today— but it could be.

We could live in a country powered entirely by renewable energy, woven together by accessible public transit, in which the jobs and opportunities of this transition are designed to systematically eliminate racial and gender inequality. Caring for one another and caring for the planet could be the economy’s fastest growing sectors. Many more people could have higher wage jobs with fewer work hours, leaving us ample time to enjoy our loved ones and flourish in our communities.

We know that the time for this great transition is short. Climate scientists have told us that this is the decade to take decisive action to prevent catastrophic global warming. That means small steps will no longer get us where we need to go.

So we need to leap.

This leap must begin by respecting the inherent rights and title of the original caretakers of this land. Indigenous communities have been at the forefront of protecting rivers, coasts, forests and lands from out-of-control industrial activity. We can bolster this role, and reset our relationship, by fully implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

“Small steps will no longer get us to where we need to go. So we need to leap”. Moved by the treaties that form the legal basis of this country and bind us to share the land “for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow,” we want energy sources that will last for time immemorial and never run out or poison the land. Technological breakthroughs have brought this dream within reach. The latest research shows it is feasible for Canada to get 100% of its electricity from renewable resources within two decades[1]; by 2050 we could have a 100% clean economy[2].

We demand that this shift begin now.

There is no longer an excuse for building new infrastructure projects that lock us into increased extraction decades into the future. The new iron law of energy development must be: if you wouldn’t want it in your backyard, then it doesn’t belong in anyone’s backyard. That applies equally to oil and gas pipelines; fracking in New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia; increased tanker traffic off our coasts; and to Canadian-owned mining projects the world over.

The time for energy democracy has come: we believe not just in changes to our energy sources, but that wherever possible communities should collectively control these new energy systems.
As an alternative to the profit-gouging of private companies and the remote bureaucracy of some centralized state ones, we can create innovative ownership structures: democratically run, paying living wages and keeping much-needed revenue in communities. And Indigenous Peoples should be first to receive public support for their own clean energy projects. So should communities currently dealing with heavy health impacts of polluting industrial activity.

Power generated this way will not merely light our homes but redistribute wealth, deepen our democracy, strengthen our economy and start to heal the wounds that date back to this country’s founding.

A leap to a non-polluting economy creates countless openings for similar multiple “wins.” We want a universal program to build energy efficient homes, and retrofit existing housing, ensuring that the lowest income communities and neighbourhoods will benefit first and receive job training and opportunities that reduce poverty over the long term. We want training and other resources for workers in carbon-intensive jobs, ensuring they are fully able to take part in the clean energy economy. This transition should involve the democratic participation of workers themselves. High-speed rail powered by renewables and affordable public transit can unite every community in this country – in place of more cars, pipelines and exploding trains that endanger and divide us.

And since we know this leap is beginning late, we need to invest in our decaying public infrastructure so that it can withstand increasingly frequent extreme weather events.

Moving to a far more localized and ecologically-based agricultural system would reduce reliance on fossil fuels, capture carbon in the soil, and absorb sudden shocks in the global supply – as well as produce healthier and more affordable food for everyone.

We call for an end to all trade deals that interfere with our attempts to rebuild local economies, regulate corporations and stop damaging extractive projects. Rebalancing the scales of justice, we should ensure immigration status and full protection for all workers. Recognizing Canada’s contributions to military conflicts and climate change — primary drivers of the global refugee crisis — we must welcome refugees and migrants seeking safety and a better life.

Shifting to an economy in balance with the earth’s limits also means expanding the sectors of our economy that are already low carbon: caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest media. Following on Quebec’s lead, a national childcare program is long past due. All this work, much of it performed by women, is the glue that builds humane, resilient communities – and we will need our communities to be as strong as possible in the face of the rocky future we have already locked in.

Since so much of the labour of caretaking – whether of people or the planet – is currently unpaid, we call for a vigorous debate about the introduction of a universal basic annual income. Pioneered in Manitoba in the 1970’s, this sturdy safety net could help ensure that no one is forced to take work that threatens their children’s tomorrow, just to feed those children today.

We declare that “austerity” – which has systematically attacked low-carbon sectors like education and healthcare, while starving public transit and forcing reckless energy privatizations – is a fossilized form of thinking that has become a threat to life on earth.

The money we need to pay for this great transformation is available — we just need the right policies to release it. Like an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Financial transaction taxes. Increased resource royalties. Higher income taxes on corporations and wealthy people. A progressive carbon tax. Cuts to military spending. All of these are based on a simple “polluter pays” principle and hold enormous promise.

One thing is clear: public scarcity in times of unprecedented private wealth is a manufactured crisis, designed to extinguish our dreams before they have a chance to be born.

Those dreams go well beyond this document. “We call on all those seeking political office to seize this opportunity and embrace the urgent need for transformation”. We call for town hall meetings across the country where residents can gather to democratically define what a genuine leap to the next economy means in their communities.

Inevitably, this bottom-up revival will lead to a renewal of democracy at every level of government, working swiftly towards a system in which every vote counts and corporate money is removed from political campaigns.

This is a great deal to take on all at once, but such are the times in which we live.

The drop in oil prices has temporarily relieved the pressure to dig up fossil fuels as rapidly as high-risk technologies will allow. This pause in frenetic expansion should not be viewed as a crisis, but as a gift.

It has given us a rare moment to look at what we have become – and decide to change.
And so we call on all those seeking political office to seize this opportunity and embrace the urgent need for transformation. This is our sacred duty to those this country harmed in the past, to those suffering needlessly in the present, and to all who have a right to a bright and safe future.

Now is the time for boldness.

Now is the time to leap.


[1]Sustainable Canada Dialogues. (2015). Acting on climate change: Solutions from Canadian scholars. Montreal, QC: McGill University

[2]Jacobson, M., et al. Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials. Energy Policy 39:3 (2011)

Here's the story so far, from when the Manifesto was announced during the 2015 election until today. I'm including the full range of commentary here, positive, negative, from the left, right and the whole spectrum in between. I haven't tried to be comprehensive, especially with items from the 2015 election period.


Of course, this list isn't meant to be complete. However, if I've left out anything that's particularly worth noting, please let me know in the comments.


Update 2016.04.24. Numerous items added, bringing the story up to April 24th. Some stragglers added as well.

3 responses so far

Get your climate change data here: A big list of climate change data sources & repositories

We have a Steacie Library Hackfest coming up and our there this year is Making a Difference with Data. And what better area to make a difference in than the environment and climate change?

I am far from an expert on this topic, so suggestions for additions (and deletions if I've added anything inappropriate) are welcome. In particular, deeper and more complete data sources for Canada would be nice to have. I would also very much like to improve coverage beyond the North American focus with a wider variety of targeted regional and national data sources.

This set of lists is not meant to be complete or comprehensive.

Directories of Data Sources & Repositories


Data Sources -- Canada


Data Sources -- USA


Data Sources -- International


Data Sources -- Various Individual Countries/Regions


General Data Repositories

2 responses so far

Older posts »