The environment – Page 54 – a sibilant intake of breath

October film screening and donations

In October, Toronto350.org will be putting on two 700-person showings of the film ‘Do the Math‘. Both will be on the same night, at the Bloor Cinema in central Toronto. We are in the process of lining up speakers and beginning the process of promoting the event.

In another new development, Toronto350 is now able to accept donations via PayPal. Donations will go toward our ongoing campaigns for fossil fuel divestment at the University of Toronto and against the proposed Line 9 oil sands pipeline. We are an all-volunteer group with no fixed costs, so any donations will go directly toward supporting our work.

Obama on climate – this is big

More details: The President’s Climate Action Plan

The difficulty of assessing the cost of nuclear power

This post includes some interesting information:

In the EIA’s analysis, which leaves out all incentives, the average cost of “advanced nuclear” or “next-generation nuclear” plants entering service in 2018—long lead times associated with these technologies will make it difficult to open any early—would be $108.40 per megawatt-hour (MWh), equivalent to $0.1084 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), in 2011 dollars. This seems in the right ballpark, as the estimated cost of power from the new nuclear plant under construction in the Kaliningrad region of Russia is around $0.10/kWh, a German lawmaker said in April.

For reference, the 2012 average retail price of electricity in the US was $0.1153/kWh. So the cost of new advanced nuclear power would be just barely below the retail price of electricity—power sold to you and me at home. (Commercial, industrial, and transportation customers all buy power for less than the LCOE cost for advanced nuclear power.)

In other words, it would be very difficult for a utility to make money selling power generated by advanced nuclear plants, if they had to shoulder the entire cost themselves. But they don’t.

Not included in the LCOE analysis is the cost of decommissioning nuclear plants, which is often externalized and pushed onto ratepayers through surcharges on their utility bills, or the cost of managing nuclear waste for decades, which is generally pushed onto taxpayers through the Department of Energy budget. And these are not trivial costs: Edison International estimates that decommissioning its San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Diego, which it permanently retired last week, will cost around $3 billion. So the LCOE analysis actually understates the true, all-in cost of nuclear power.

What Toronto350.org is up to

We are quite busy this summer. We are working on finalizing our brief to the University of Toronto, making the case for why they should divest from fossil fuels. We could definitely use some expert assistance for some of the legal and financial sections, so if you know any lawyers or financial professionals who would be willing to have a look for us and make some suggestions, it would be much appreciated.

We are also taking part in the National Energy Board process on the reversal of the Enbridge Line 9 pipeline to carry diluted bitumen east. We have been accepted as a commenter, and will be providing written evidence in early August.

With the sponsorship of Toronto’s Pure+ Simple spas, we are also holding a massive screening of the film Do the Math on October 9th. It will be at the Bloor Cinema, which seats 700, and there will be two shows at 6:30pm and 8:30pm respectively. We are working to line up some exciting speakers, as well as food and beverage sponsors.

Finally, we are gearing up for a big recruitment drive at the beginning of the school year in September. We will be working to get the 300 endorsements we need for the completed brief, as well as swelling our ranks of supporters and volunteers.

More on climate change and capitalism

My friend Stuart on climate change and capitalism: How to Change the Future — and Why We Need To!

Personally, I can see why the argument that capitalism and sustainability are incompatible is convincing to a lot of people. At the same time, I think we have enough of a project on our hands just in replacing the global energy system with a climate-friendly alternative. Replacing capitalism at the same time may well be impractical – and there is no way of being sure that any system with which we replace it will do any better. To me, the liberal economic solution of internalizing externalities through regulation and tools like carbon pricing seems like the most promising path for checking humanity’s more self-destructive impulses. Admittedly, success will require that governments and citizens take a longer-term view of their own interests and develop a greater ability to resist the influence of fossil fuel companies and the short-term temptations associated with excessive fossil fuel use.

Also, I think there is a critical role that capitalist finance will play in driving the global clean-energy transformation. Right now, the plan is to spend trillions of dollars during the next century extracting and processing the world’s remaining fossil fuels. If we are going to build things like country-sized renewable energy facilities (which we will need for everyone on the planet to develop or maintain lifestyles that will probably be acceptable to them), that massive investment will need to be re-directed and the capitalist mechanisms of innovation, deployment, and return-on-investment will likely be necessary.

There was a discussion about this here before: Climate change and capitalism

In one of Toronto’s glass-walled towers

Living in a building with both built-in heating and built-in air conditioning, with a thermostat in your room, is weirdly frustrating.

I don’t generally care about the temperature, within a fairly broad range, but I need to set the thermostat to something. Sometimes, I come home to find the building wastefully cooling my room; other times, to find it needlessly warming the small space.

I wish there were an ambient outdoor temperature setting that I could use as a default.

Divest McGill arguments rejected

A committee formed by the administration of McGill University has rejected the argument from Divest McGill that the school should sell its stock in “corporations involved with the production, refining, transport and sale of fossil fuels” and “financial institutions which have not adopted a policy of making no further loans to corporations that produce, refine, transport of sell fossil fuels”.

Rather startlingly, the committee concluded that: “Since the Committee is not satisfied that ‘social injury’ has occurred, no action was considered or is recommended.”

Given that climate change is the ‘greatest market failure the world has ever seen’ the case that fossil fuel companies are doing social harm is very strong. While the committee’s decision is disappointing, it is useful for Toronto350.org insofar as it shows what sort of things the committee that will eventually be formed here is likely to focus on. For instance, no discussion of science and a strong emphasis on law. Knowledge that we derive from this response will help us make our own brief stronger.

We are also calling for a different set of actions from the University of Toronto, which I think will make it easier to establish our case. Specifically:

Make an immediate statement of principle, expressing its intention to divest its holdings in fossil fuel companies within five years,
Immediately stop making new investments in the industry,
Instruct its investment managers to wind down the university’s existing holdings in the fossil fuel industry over five years, and
Divest from Royal Dutch Shell by the end of 2013.

This seems easier than asking a Canadian university to divest from all financial institutions which invest in fossil fuel companies, which probably includes all those in Canada.

The McGill committee never got to questions of practicality or financial impact on the university, since they rejected the basic claim that fossil fuel companies are doing social harm. If we are able to establish the second point to the satisfaction of the University of Toronto, we will still need to address concerns in the first two areas.

Our brief still requires a lot of work, so if you know anyone in Toronto who would be willing to help, please encourage them to get in touch with us. We could especially benefit from anyone with expertise in law or finance.

Some tidbits on the B.C. election

Some articles about the recent election in British Columbia:

I was hoping the NDP would win and immediately kill the Northern Gateway pipeline. Regardless of the outcome, the fight against fossil fuel expansion (pipelines, fossil fuel export terminals, etc) will need to continue.

One item from the first piece caught my eye: “voters 55 or older made up half of all voters” (they represent 35% of the population). These people will be dead long before the worst effects of climate change are felt. If today’s young people are going to stop serving as a punching bag for older people, they are going to need to get active politically.

Toronto350.org highlights climate risk to giant pandas

Toronto350.org visited the Toronto Zoo to raise public awareness about the threat climate change poses to pandas and other endangered species. We also circulated a petition to the Chinese Ambassador to Canada and Canada’s Prime Minister, calling on both countries to do more to combat climate change and protect endangered species.