Category: The environment

Atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, etc – everything about life and the state of this planet

The transnational nature of the climate change activist movement

One challenge in the dissertation process has been repeated entreaties to only talk about Canadian campus fossil fuel divestment (CFFD) campaigns, not those in the US and UK.

I think Karen Litfin’s 2005 article “Advocacy Coalitions Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Globalization and Canadian Climate Change Policy” may be helpful for making my case that divestment is a transnational movement and that more is lost than gained by imposing national borders on its analysis. Litfin argues that “the twin phenomena of economic globalization and the internationalization of environmental affairs are blurring the distinction between some policy subsystems and the international arena.” I would argue that this is especially true for climate change activism, for several reasons. The politics of climate change are inherently bound up in international relations, since unilateral actions can’t solve the problem in the absence of cooperation between states. Furthermore, in North America the highly integrated energy systems — and the everpresent concern about Canadian economic competitiveness compared to the US — contributes to the transnationalization of climate politics, as do influences between ideologically similar political parties in both countries.

In addition, the strategies of broker organizations which have promoted divestment — including 350.org, the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition, the US Fossil Fuel Divestment Student Network, Canada’s Divest Canada Coalition, and the UK’s People & Planet — are based around providing a “campaign in a box” with coordinated objectives, branding, and messaging. Since the CFFD movement is focused on non-government actors, governments and national policy environments have a secondary importance for the movement.

Solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en against the Royal Bank of Canada

Yesterday I photographed a rally outside RBC headquarters, protesting their financing of the Coastal Gaslink pipeline.

The measure of whether businesses and governments care about climate change is their actions, not the sympathetic statements invented for their advertising and media relations. We can never build our way out of the climate crisis with huge new long-term investments in fossil fuels.

Toronto considering a net zero target for 2040

Next week, the Toronto city council is considering a proposal to adopt a net zero target by 2040. I have written to my city councillor and the mayor supporting the idea as better than nothing, but also explaining why net zero promises risk prolonging rather than curtailing fossil fuel use:

Councillor Mike Colle and Mayor John Tory,

I am writing to you in support of the effort to establish a net zero CO2 target for Toronto by 2040, but also to warn you about the risks of the net zero concept and to advocate fossil fuel abolition as a preferable policy. Please do not be mistaken about my intent: a net zero target is better than inaction, and ought to be passed. Addressing climate change, however, will require much more.

There is a major risk that “net zero” is a delay and distraction tactic which aligns with the interests of fossil fuel producing states and corporations. It’s a way of distracting from the cause of climate change — fossil fuels — and to conjure a misleading sense that the problem can be solved without getting rid of them. By endorsing net zero targets, advocates of climate action risk playing the role of doctors advocating low-tar or filtered cigarettes: extending the life and profits of a noxious industry through the false suggestion that we can get the benefits while avoiding the consequences.

One of the clearest signals that net zero is being used to extend rather than constrain the history of the fossil fuel industry has been the enthusiasm with which such targets have been adopted by fossil fuel producers. For example, Saudi Arabia has made a net zero promise for 2060 while Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman has said: “We are still going to be the last man standing, and every molecule of hydrocarbon will come out.” This ought to be a warning sign that net zero is a Trojan horse designed to delay policies and regulations to abolish fossil fuels before we catastrophically destabilize the climate.

An examination of scale also calls into question the plausibility of achieving net zero by any means other than ending fossil fuel use. Global oil production was about 88.4 million barrels per day in 2020. That’s about 32.3 billion barrels, each with about 136 kg of oil. That adds up to about 4.3 billion metric tonnes (gigatonnes) of oil taken from the ground every year. Even with COVID-related reductions, global CO2 output in 2020 was about 34.81 gigatonnes. That means to bury all the CO2 from our fossil fuel use, we would need to replicate the global oil industry more than eight times over, except with equipment to extract, compress, and bury CO2. All of this would cost energy and money to run and would produce no profit. It has also taken a century to build that level of oil infrastructure. The idea that we can solve our CO2 problem by burying it simply doesn’t make sense physically, even before you start comparing the cost of avoiding the emissions in the first place to the cost of separating and burying them.

In addition, there are enormous non-climate co-benefits from fossil fuel abolition. A 2021 journal article estimated that just the fine particulate pollution from global fossil fuel combustion causes 10.2 million premature deaths annually. This is another demonstration of how the apparent profitability of the fossil fuel industry arises only because we do not deduct the amount of harm arising from their products. Fossil fuel abolition has the promise of saving ten million lives per year, and more when pollution beyond just particulate matter is factored in.

The other risk of a net zero as opposed to a fossil fuel abolition approach is that it will fail to incentivize the right investments. If families and businesses in Toronto knew that fossil fuel use was going to be coming to an end before mid-century, it would no longer make sense to construct new buildings heated with gas, or countless other pieces of infrastructure that reinforce and prolong our fossil fuel dependence. If we let that investment continue and only get serious about fossil fuel abolition later, it will raise the total cost because we will have wasted money on inappropriate infrastructure which we will need to scrap and because we have delayed the deployment of appropriate infrastructure compatible with a stable climate.

To repeat my main point: adopting a net zero target by 2040 would likely have some benefits and is better than inaction. At the same time, the city council must be mindful of the risk that net zero targets are a concealed fossil fuel promotion strategy, not a strategy to stabilize the climate. It is always tempting to be told that you can get the benefits of a damaging activity while avoiding the harms, but with net zero there are strong reasons to fear that it is a marketing strategy designed to keep letting fossil fuel producers profit while others absorb the costs.

Thank you for your attention,

Milan

We’re not going to bury our way out of the fossil fuel catastrophe. What needs burying is the fossil fuel industry itself.

David Brooks on Burkean conservatism

Writing in The Atlantic, David Brooks has produced a good short summary of Edmund Burke’s classical conservatism and how it relates to contemporary US politics:

This is one of the core conservative principles: epistemological modesty, or humility in the face of what we don’t know about a complex world, and a conviction that social change should be steady but cautious and incremental. Down the centuries, conservatives have always stood against the arrogance of those who believe they have the ability to plan history: the French revolutionaries who thought they could destroy a society and rebuild it from scratch, but who ended up with the guillotine; the Russian and Chinese Communists who tried to create a centrally controlled society, but who ended up with the gulag and the Cultural Revolution; the Western government planners who thought they could fine-tune an economy from the top, but who ended up with stagflation and sclerosis; the European elites who thought they could unify their continent by administrative fiat and arrogate power to unelected technocrats in Brussels, but who ended up with a monetary crisis and populist backlash.

…

Another camp, which we associate with the Scottish or British Enlightenment of David Hume and Adam Smith, did not believe that human reason is powerful enough to control human selfishness; most of the time our reason merely rationalizes our selfishness. They did not believe that individual reason is powerful enough even to comprehend the world around us, let alone enable leaders to engineer society from the top down. “We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small,” Burke wrote in Reflections on the Revolution in France.

My view is that what we need more than anything is a movement of the right demanding climate change mitigation. Otherwise we end up with an endless sea-saw between strengthening and repealing fossil fuel abolition policies, at the same time as voters are only offered climate change action as part of an intersectional agenda which they may not otherwise agree with. We need to split the right between fantasists who decide what they see based on what they believe politically and empiricists who accept evidence as the adjudicator of truth.

The progressive climate movement has been a crucial development and remains the main force pushing for action. At the same time, this perspective is conspicuously lacking in humility about re-making long-standing societal institutions, with the assumption that most of what is pernicious politically in the world will disappear once everyone is wise enough to accept their ideology. It’s a perspective that concentrates support inward with ever-greater demands for moral purity and ideological conformity, whereas what we need to produce a consensus behind fossil fuel abolition in the US, UK, and Canada is the understanding that nobody’s political project is served by radically destabilizing the climate. If we want to preserve institutions that have endured and shown value over time, we need to eliminate the fuel sources that are destabilizing the physical environment in which they have evolved. There’s nothing more conservative than that.

Related:

The Economist on fossil fuel abolition

I have written before about The Economist‘s inconsistent positions on climate change and fossil fuels. When writing about science or climate change specifically — and in most of their leading editorials — they stress the potential severity of the crisis and the need to take action. In their broader coverage, however, they tend to prioritize economic growth and to celebrate fossil fuel discoveries as potential boons.

In a recent issue, they included some strong and convincing language on how fossil fuel abolition is ultimately a means to protect human prosperity:

The UNFCCC and its COPs, for all their flaws, play a crucial part in a process that is historic and vital: the removal of the fundamental limit on human flourishing imposed by dependence on fossil fuels.

…

The main reason the UNFCCC and COP process matters is that the science, diplomacy, activism and public opinion that support it make up the best mechanism the world currently has to help it come to terms with a fundamental truth. The dream of a planet of almost 8bn people all living in material comfort will be unachievable if it is based on an economy powered by coal, oil and natural gas. The harms from the cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide would eventually pile up so rapidly that fossil-fuel-fired development would stall.

…

In the long run, therefore, the only way to keep growing is by leaving fossil fuels behind. That requires Asian countries, in most of which emissions are still surging, to forgo much more by way of future emissions than the countries of the developed world, where emissions are already declining.

…

Anyone who dreams of a reprieve for fossil fuels must be disabused. It suits Narendra Modi, prime minister of India, Scott Morrison, prime minister of Australia, and Joe Manchin, a senator from West Virginia, never to speak of an end to the fossil-fuels age. But for them to duck the responsibility of planning a transition is rank cowardice. True, oil and gas cannot vanish overnight, but their day is closing. And coal’s day must be done.

This strikes at at least three crucial points: it is acting on climate change and not ignoring it which provides the best guarantee of long-term prosperity; states will need to find a contraction and convergence solution where pollution falls rapidly in rich states which poor states find a development path where their per capita pollution never gets nearly so high; and that for the sake of equity we will need much more energy at the global level, highlighting the need to actually build climate-safe options at an unprecedented rate.

British Columbia floods and mudslides

Following up on summers with severe wildfires, BC has received an ‘atmospheric river’ of rain, in some places a month’s worth in a day.

The floods and landslides have cut off all the highways connecting Vancouver and the lower mainland to the rest of BC and Canada, and the Port of Vancouver has closed down, holding back over $400 million worth of exports per day.

In the National Observer John Woodside has a piece about how these disasters are partly climate-caused, since lost roots and ground cover would have helped hold the soil in place to prevent landslides. Of course, the clearcutting uphill of these slides is both an important cause and an activity that worsens climate change.

Maina, Murray, and McKenzie summarize the literature on campus fossil fuel divestment

From: Maina, Naomi Mumbi and Jaylene Murray and Marcia McKenzie. “Climate change and the fossil fuel divestment movement in Canadian higher education: The mobilities of actions, actors, and tactics.” Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020:

Prior to the current research, few studies have reviewed Canadian HEIs [higher education institutions] investment policies or divestment activities in relation to climate action (Curnow and Gross, 2016; Del Rio, 2017). There has been limited scholarly work on the FFD movement in HEIs in general. The few studies that have examined the movement have explored student activism in climate justice, the connections between FFD and sustainability in higher education, and the factors influencing divestment decisions across the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and Netherlands (Curnow and Gross, 2016; Bratman et al., 2016; Grady-Benson and Sarathy, 2016 [sic]; Hamaekers, 2015; Healy and Debski, 2016; LeQuesne, 2016; Ringeling, 2015; Singer-Berk et al., 2014). Studies outside of Canada indicate that FFD is increasingly being engaged as a response to the failure of HEIs to adequately address climate change, and is seeking to (re)politicize climate action by demanding transformative and radical change (Bratman et al., 2016; Healy and Debski, 2016; Ringeling, 2015). In the US, several studies found that students previously involved in sustainability initiatives are now more likely to focus their attention on FFD, with support from other stakeholders such as sustainability officers (Singer-Berk et al., 2014).

Decisions to commit to and/or reject divestment have been reported across U.S., Canada, and U.K. HEIs, with most of the commitments coming from small universities and colleges with smaller endowment funds (Hamaekers, 2015; Healy and Debski, 2016; Grady-Benson and Sarathy, 2016). Common reasons for rejections have been said to include fiduciary duty, cost risk to endowment funds, and minimal impact on fossil fuel industry (Bratman et al., 2016; Healy and Debski, 2016; Singer-Berk et al., 2014). Despite rejections, studies have shown that organizers have escalated their campaign tactics to involve direct action and are prepared to carry out long term organizing until their demands are met (Grady-Benson and Sarathy, 2016; LeQuesne, 2016; Ringeling, 2015).

In the case of the Canadian higher education FFD movement, one of the two existing scholarly studies shows that campaign organizing is shifting towards an intersectional social justice framing (Curnow and Gross, 2016). It describes a shift among FFD student leaders and national organizers such as Divestment Student Network (DSN) towards engagement with race, colonialism, environmentalism and solidarity with Indigenous frontline communities (Curnow and Gross, 2016). The two Canadian studies focused on the campaign at the University of Toronto, outlining the motivations, goals, and outcomes of this campaign (Curnow and Gross, 2016; Del Rio, 2017).

References: (as formatted by these authors)

Curnow and Gross, 2016
J. Curnow, A. Gross
Injustice is not an investment: student activism, climate justice, and the fossil fuel divestment campaign
J. Conner, S.M. Rosen (Eds.), Contemporary Youth Activism: Advancing Social Justice in the United States, Praeger, Santa Barbara, California (2016), pp. 367-386

Del Rio, 2017
F. Del Rio
In a World where Climate Change Is everything…; Conceptualizing Climate Activism and Exploring the People’s Climate Movement (Master’s Dissertation)
Retrieved from McMaster University Libraries Institutional Repository (2017)

Bratman et al., 2016
E. Bratman, K. Brunette, D.C. Shelly, S. Nicholson
Justice is the goal: divestment as climate change resistance
J. Environ. Soc. Sci., 6 (4) (2016), pp. 677-690

Grady-Benson and Sarathy, 2015
J. Grady-Benson, B. Sarathy
Fossil fuel divestment in US higher education: student-led organising for climate justice
Local Environ.: Int. J. Justice. Sustain., 21 (6) (2015), pp. 661-681

Hamaekers, 2015
N. Hamaekers
Why Some Divestment Campaigns Achieve Divestment while Others Do Not: the Influence of Leadership, Organization, Institutions, Culture and Resources (Doctoral Dissertation)
Retrieved from Rotterdam School of Management: Erasmus University (2015)

Healy and Debski, 2016
N. Healy, J. Debski
Fossil fuel divestment: implications for the future of sustainability discourse and action within higher education
Local Environ., 22 (6) (2016), pp. 699-724

Singer-Berk et al., 2014
L. Singer-Berk, M. Matsuoka, B. Shamasunder
Campuses of the Future: the Interplay of Fossil Fuel Divestment and Sustainability Efforts at Colleges and Universities
(2014)

LeQuesne, 2016
T. LeQuesne
Revolutionary Talk: Communicating Climate Justice
Master’s Thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara (2016)

Ringeling, 2015
X. Ringeling
Transformative Reformism: A Study of the UK University Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement’s Potential for Significant Change
Master’s thesis, University College London (2015)

Theories for why the University of Toronto divested from fossil fuels

Not mutually exclusive:

  1. They are about to launch a bicentennial fundraising campaign with themes including healthy lives, sustainable future, and the next generation. They feared negative public relations attention if they launched the campaign while continuing to refuse to divest
  2. The university’s investment managers have decided that they can better retain authority and control by choosing how to divest on their own terms, and particularly with little reference to the culpability of the industry
  3. In trying to implement the prior environmental, social, and governance (ESG) screening method, the investment managers at the University of Toronto Asset Management (UTAM) corporation decided that divestment would be easier or better based on their secret internal metrics
  4. The Harvard announcement and COP26 have added to the pressure to announce new efforts
  5. U of T perceived that it was increasingly behind when a growing number of Canadian schools had made divestment commitments
  6. A student-led volunteer campaign persisted through multiple setbacks and core cohort graduations and was sustained by the University of Toronto Leap Manifesto chapter and subsequently the Divestment & Beyond faculty- and union-led campaign after the Toronto350.org / UofT350.org effort

As in the campaign as a whole, the university’s penchant for secrecy makes it challenging to explain or understand their actions. In particular, that includes the parlour trick of setting up your own investment management corporation as a means of evading oversight, by pretending that somehow the advice from this organization should only be available to the administration in secret.

Divest Podcast on the Leap Manifesto U of T divestment campaign

The latest episode of The Divest Podcast features Julia DaSilva from the Leap Manifesto chapter at U of T, the second of three groups to organize divestment campaigns, after the Toronto350.org / UofT350.org campaign and before / concurrently with the faculty/union Divestment & Beyond campaign.