POUR PUBLICATION IMMÉDIATE                  
Le mardi 20 September, 2022                           

Nouvelle publication : Les classes en plein air donneront aux étudiants du Nouveau-Brunswick un avantage expérientiel

  • Le 20 septembre 2022, le Réseau environnemental du Nouveau-Brunswick a publié un document de travail sur les avantages de l'apprentissage en plein air en s'appuyant sur les commentaires et les idées de plus de 50 éducateurs de la province. 
  • Le document recommande une période de cinq ans au cours de laquelle les écoles s'efforcent progressivement d'atteindre une norme d'au moins dix heures par semaine consacrée à l'apprentissage en plein air, ce qui conduira à de meilleurs résultats d'apprentissage, à une meilleure santé physique et mentale et à un lien plus fort avec l'environnement. 
  • Les résultats démontrent que le système d'éducation publique du Nouveau-Brunswick dispose déjà des outils et des ressources nécessaires pour faire de l'apprentissage en plein air une partie permanente et obligatoire du programme des écoles publiques sur une période d'ajustement de cinq ans, à condition que les écoles reçoivent un soutien gouvernemental adéquat pendant la transition.

MONCTON, Nouveau-Brunswick - Le mardi 20 septembre, le Réseau environnemental du Nouveau-Brunswick a publié un document intitulé «Donnons à nos enfants un avantage expérientiel : Un document de travail sur l'apprentissage en plein air au Nouveau-Brunswick.» En combinant une revue de la littérature académique, des entrevues semi-structurées avec des experts en éducation et des commentaires des enseignants tout au long du processus de rédaction, le document présente une approche multisectorielle sur la façon de combler les lacunes restantes, de surmonter les obstacles communs et d'accéder à des ressources utiles lors de l'intégration de l'apprentissage en plein air dans le programme d'études.

Le document démontre comment l'enseignement et l'apprentissage à l'extérieur s'alignent sur chacune des six compétences mondiales qui guident les objectifs de l'éducation au Nouveau-Brunswick et dans le monde. S'ils sont mis en œuvre, ces principes contribueront à faire du Nouveau-Brunswick un exemple de calibre mondial en matière d'éducation de qualité.

Le document de travail montre également comment l'apprentissage en plein air renforce ou aide à atteindre les objectifs de réforme déclarés par le ministère de l'Éducation du Nouveau-Brunswick, tels que ceux inclus dans le livre vert de 2019 du ministre de l'Éducation Dominic Cardy, les plans d'éducation décennaux de la province (2016), le cadre des compétences mondiales du Nouveau-Brunswick (2019) et le plan de retour à l'école du ministre Cardy (2021).  

Après deux années d'apprentissage interrompu et virtuel en raison de la pandémie de COVID-19, les enseignants et le ministre de l'éducation ont signalé une préoccupation majeure concernant les compétences en littératie et en numératie à tous les niveaux scolaires. L'apprentissage pratique et expérimental en plein air offre une solution pour combler ces déficits de connaissances en proposant des expériences engageantes qui mettent en pratique les résultats d'apprentissage. 

Les maladies, dont la COVID-19, sont aussi largement reconnues comme étant moins facilement transmissibles en milieu ouvert, ce qui a encouragé l'adoption de pratiques d'apprentissage en plein air dans le monde entier ces dernières années en réaction à la pandémie. 

Le document est disponible ici : https://nben.ca/fr/aev-documents.html 

À propos du Réseau environnemental du Nouveau-Brunswick

Le Réseau environnemental du Nouveau-Brunswick (RENB), fondé en 1991, est un réseau de communication composé de plus de 110 organisations à but non lucratif et en environnement au Nouveau-Brunswick. Le rôle du RENB est d'améliorer les communications et la coopération entre les groupes environnementaux, ainsi qu'entre ces groupes, le gouvernement et d'autres secteurs. Le RENB n'est pas un groupe de revendication (militant) et il ne prend position sur aucune question. Le RENB offre des occasions d'apprentissage à ses membres et associés, et il encourage l'expansion du mouvement environnemental au Nouveau- Brunswick. Le RENB agit à titre de secrétariat pour l'Alliance pour l'éducation à la viabilité, un réseau reliant des organisations, des agences et des individus à travers le Nouveau-Brunswick qui veulent s'unir pour évoluer vers une culture d'éducation à la viabilité. 

Pour tout commentaire ou pour organiser une interview, veuillez contacter :
Tzomi Jazwicki, Responsable pour l’Alliance pour l’éducation à la viabilité
Annika Chiasson, Directrice executive
nben@nben.ca
506-855-4144

232 Botsford Street, 2nd Floor
Moncton, NB, E1C 4X7

###

Screenshot 2022 09 01 131234

La Fondation Aster accepte des propositions de la part d’ONGs et d’organismes de charité enregistrés (ou autres donataires reconnus) au Nouveau-Brunswick pour des projets sur le thème de l’élaboration collaborative de politiques environnementales. 

Financement disponible : 10 000$
Nous accorderons ce financement à un (1) projet de 10 000$ ou deux (2) projets de 5 000$ chacun. 

Pour faire une demande : Remplir le FORMULAIRE DE DEMANDE et l’envoyer à info@asterfoundation.ca avant 17h, heure de l’Atlantique, le mardi 11 octobre 2022.

 Appuyer l’élaboration collaborative de politiques environnementales

Le mouvement environnemental au Nouveau-Brunswick est très fort, avec plusieurs acteurs dans toute une gamme d’enjeux. Au niveau provincial, le mouvement est appuyé par le Réseau environnemental du N.-B., qui fournit du soutien aux organismes sous forme de réseautage, de collaboration et de mobilisation. Les organismes individuels sont en général bien financés pour des projets de toutes sortes, que ce soit la qualité de l’eau, la restauration d’habitats ou l’éducation sur le changement climatique (éventail complet), via des programmes provinciaux de financement tels que le Fonds en fiducie pour l’environnement (plus de 8 millions $ par an, avec plus de 5 millions $ accordés aux ONG par an au cours des trois dernières années) et le Fonds en fiducie pour la faune (environ 600 000 $ par an), ainsi que des projets de financement fédéraux (Programme d’intendance de l’habitat, etc.) et certaines subventions provenant de la part de fondations. 

LNG export terminal would carry great risks | TJ.news

Jim Emberger|Commentary  August 13,2022

Editor's Note: As part of our In-Depth series, we invited a proponent and an opponent of the LNG export terminal in Saint John to make their case. Below is Jim Emberger's argument against the project.

The economic and climate costs of developing an LNG export facility in Saint John are real and significant. Benefits, if any, will come at great risk.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres recently stated, “Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.”

He was summing up the warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, and climate scientists everywhere. Developing new fossil fuel projects will hinder any chance of meeting the climate targets necessary to save the world from dire consequences.

Observing the current record-setting heat waves, droughts, floods and forest fires afflicting every corner of the planet gives proof to these warnings. Unfortunately, the warnings underestimated how quickly climate effects would arrive, and how severe they would be.

The costs of climate disasters go beyond the billions in property destruction and loss of lives. Climate-influenced crop failures across the globe have threatened multitudes with starvation, created millions of food refugees, and increased food prices for us all. 

Climate disasters in Europe have also shut down nuclear power plants and rendered the Rhine River too shallow to support its normal huge load of shipping. So why would Germany look to increase the production of the very fossil fuels responsible for climate change?

In fact, they are not. Germany is well into a transition to a clean economy, with a large and growing renewable energy sector. In response to their current gas shortage, they plan to double down on renewables, and exit from natural gas as soon as possible. 

Germany needs LNG only for short-range relief. Yet, it will likely take five years to even begin sending LNG from a new Atlantic terminal – probably longer in light of necessary Impact Assessments and probable legal challenges. 

Atlantic LNG cannot be a real solution to Germany’s immediate needs.

This timing mismatch also highlights the extreme risk associated with any potential benefit for New Brunswick. Converting the Repsol facility to exports will require between $2 billion and $4 billion (according to a 2014 Natural Resources briefing note), plus considerably more for pipeline additions, and may require billions more for expensive carbon capture technology that either doesn’t exist or works poorly (and undoubtedly requiring taxpayer subsidies).

Add many more billions if the intent is to later convert the facility to handle hydrogen, another expensive, high-risk conversion for which there is little actual experience. Hydrogen itself currently has only a few technically and economically proven uses.

To recoup such vast investment, these projects require guaranteed purchases by LNG buyers for at least 20 years, as made clear by Repsol’s CEO. It is doubtful that a Germany looking to rapidly leave gas behind will make that commitment.

If by some miracle commitments are made, then the climate costs to Canada, New Brunswick and the earth increase, as fossil fuels are locked in for another generation. 

Canada is the only advanced nation that has never met a single emissions target, and New Brunswick is a leading per capita producer of greenhouse gases (GHGs). LNG export terminals produce great amounts of GHGs. Adding a terminal here will ensure that neither Canada nor New Brunswick meet our climate targets.

Simultaneously, we will risk having a multi-billion dollar white elephant in Saint John, as we gamble in the incredibly volatile gas market.

For the last decade, shale gas created gas prices so low that investors lost billions. Only in the current crisis has the price risen to profit-making levels. It’s now so high that it is causing financial crises and providing more incentive to abandon gas.

Shall we bet that the current scene will last the next 30 years? Repsol is stuck with the unused LNG import terminal that it now has, because it made a wrong bet on where gas was heading 20 years ago.

What makes climate and economic sense for New Brunswick is to invest in and promote the cheapest electricity in the history of the world – solar and wind, whose fuel costs will never go up – accompanied by affordable energy storage, conservation and retrofits of infrastructure.

This move to electrification of our society is inevitable, as the world is starting to seriously react to a fast-changing climate. We can, and should, be a leader in that move.

The cost/benefit comparisons are no-brainers. Any temporary jobs created during construction of an LNG terminal could easily be surpassed in a transition to a renewable/electrified economy.

LNG tax and royalty money for government coffers only lasts while markets are good, whereas cheap electricity rates for citizens will continue with renewable energy, and residents of Saint John will not have to cope with the huge dose of air pollution that LNG exports will also bring.

A clean economy in New Brunswick benefits Germany, the world, and us by reducing GHG emissions, which our Supreme Court acknowledges cause the same global harm, regardless of where they are created. Let’s not add to the harm.

Jim Emberger is spokesperson for the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance.

 TJ.news   Jim Emberger | Commentary | June 28, 2022

A recent Brunswick News editorial admitted Canadian fossil fuel companies might not profit on the misfortunes of the war in Ukraine ("Think long-term on resource projects," June 17). That should have been a foregone conclusion.

Europe’s search for natural gas to replace Russian supplies logically pointed it toward nations that could fill its needs immediately. Many European nations also stressed that their climate crisis plans to reduce gas usage as quickly as possible were still in effect. 

Canada would take years to become a European supplier, by which time there may no longer be a demand. Large fossil fuel projects are also generally planned for 30-year lifespans to recoup the massive financial investment involved. So, investors in Canada would risk their investments becoming stranded (essentially, lost) if the Europeans stick to their climate pledges. 

The editorial board professed a belief in the climate crisis. Yet they simultaneously argued the transition to renewable energy will take a long time, and so, meanwhile, we should profit on new fossil fuels projects.

This directly contradicts the recommendations of the many climate scientists whose work has been published by the UN International Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency and peer-reviewed journals such as Nature. They concluded there can be no new fossil fuel projects, and some existing projects must be abandoned early.

Of course, there will be a transition when fossil fuels will still be used, but only where necessary, for as short a time as possible and in diminishing quantities. Transition plans created years ago called for an orderly reduction of fossil fuels by just a small percentage each year, allowing us to slowly break our fossil fuel habit.  

Unfortunately, we ignored those plans for decades, and now we require greater and swifter reductions in fossil fuels. The climate emergency is here, and obviously severe. It is no longer just a worry about our grandchildren.

Historic, record-breaking temperatures and extreme weather events are killing thousands, increasing hunger, raising food prices and costing our economies billions right now.

The editorial board nevertheless suggests more Canadian gas, through fracking and liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, can help because it is "lower carbon intensity" and "ethical." This is irresponsible and contestable.

Methane from natural gas is 86 times as potent as CO2 (over 20 years) as a greenhouse gas, and can leak for the entire gas life cycle. Scientific studies state that leakage has in previous years led to as much global warming as coal.

Shale wells and LNG plants are major methane leakers, and require the burning of fossil fuels to power their processes. LNG requires huge amounts of energy to chill gas to a temperature of minus 161.5 C. Fracking burns through oil and gas to mine enormous amounts of specialized sand, to transport it and millions of litres of water and wastewater, and to fuel many powerful compressors to shatter shale rock. 

Fracked gas and LNG should be considered extreme climate threats. The “Compendium," a compilation assembled from peer-reviewed studies, journalism and advocacy groups published by an organization of health professionals and scientists opposed to fracking, concluded: “Our examination uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health directly or without imperilling climate stability upon which human health depends.”

Based on the experience of other jurisdictions, if New Brunswick developed either project, it would likely mean it could not hit its greenhouse gas commitments. Is any of this ethical, or an argument for social license?

Ethical, long-term and sane solutions are at hand, and will make us healthier, prepare us for the future and provide jobs. Only fossil fuel influences and poor political choices prevent their deployment.  

We must electrify the economy as much as possible and run it on renewable energy as much as possible, as electricity from solar and wind is the cheapest form of electricity in the world. The fuel cost of sun and wind will never rise, unlike the current budget busting spikes in gas and oil.

Batteries and other storage methods have likewise advanced technologically, and dropped immensely in price. We can also use less energy by using it wisely, insulating buildings, using heat pumps, localizing our economy and conserving where we can.

That we are not adequately investing in these obvious solutions, and in an improved electric grid to tie them all together with potential hydro from our neighbours, is inexplicable.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres noted recently that "the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness."

He's right. There is no bargain that one can make with the physics of climate change to allow fossil fuel interests to make money on their way out.

That’s not long-term thinking. That’s self-destructive fantasy.

Jim Emberger is spokesperson for the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance.
From:
David H. Thompson, Project Officer
Leap4Wards
P.O. Box 4561
Rothesay, NB E2E 5X3


June 15, 2022


To:
Standing Committee on Science and Research

Sixth Floor, 131 Queen Street
House of Commons\Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Email: SRSR@parl.gc.ca


Attention: Committee Clerk


Leap4wards, Saint John Region (New Brunswick) chapter, submits the following brief to the Study on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Leap4wards is a local action group that works on social and environmental issues.

We believe that SMR development SHOULD NOT be supported by federal funds earmarked for climate action. In fact, if SMRs were a worthy investment, private investors would fully support them, and the proponents of these SMR projects would not be asking for government money (taxpayer funding).

Government investment in energy should ONLY be directed to renewable energy development and energy conservation and efficiency. We are in an emergency situation with climate change. Renewable energy projects of various kinds can be put in place quickly in all regions across Canada, whereas SMRs are only in the development stage.

The type of renewable energy projects for each location should be geared to the most available and economic sources of natural energy in that place. For instance, where we are, on the New Brunswick Bay of Fundy coast, wind power would probably be the best source for new electricity generation. Furthermore, information indicates that wind power sites strategically located would provide a more reliable supply of energy than the existing Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station, which is often out of service for months at a time, sometimes during peak electricity demand times during the winter months. During its refurbishment several years ago, Point Lepreau was out of commission for 3 ½ years. Furthermore, Point Lepreau Nuclear Station is mired in debt.

Wind power is likely to be the best power generating choice for many coastal regions as well many other regions of Canada.

Solar energy, in its many forms of collection, including active, passive, and photo voltaic, can be a valuable source of energy to many communities, providing both heat and electricity from a non-inflationary source.

Heat from geothermal sources, aquafers and also industrial sources (which currently dump their heat into the natural environment) should all be taken advantage of.

Recovery of biogas from farm waste and other biologically digestible waste materials should be encouraged by making resources available for the infrastructure to collect, distribute, and use this under-used resource.

Potential still exists for more hydro-generated electricity, including small-scale hydro at many environmentally acceptable locations across Canada. Also, many existing hydro stations need refurbishment, as they are operating with inefficient and antiquated equipment installed decades or, in some cases, a century ago. For instance, in our Fundy region of New Brunswick, a small hydro station built in the early 1900s to serve the needs of a small pulp mill and the community surrounding it, originally produced only about 1M.W. of electricity. With the installation of modern equipment about a dozen years ago, it now generates in excess of 15 M.W. of electricity.

We strongly recommend that NO taxpayer dollars be invested in SMRs which, like all nuclear generation, would create radioactive waste which would be dangerous for thousands of years.

SMRs would be financially wasteful, too, as they are still in the pre development stage and have already gobbled up millions of dollars, requiring billions more and perhaps many years more to get them into production – if they ever DO get them into production.

The time factor is another reason that federal money should not be invested into SMRs, which will not be built – if ever – before the end of this decade. We already have renewable energy sources (wind, solar, etc. . .) that are getting more efficient and more economical all the time.

We are confident that Net Zero Carbon Emissions can be accomplished more economically and much faster WITHOUT more nuclear and WITHOUT SMRs. Let’s put federal dollars into renewable energy, conservation, and efficiency, because they have already proven themselves to be reliable and economic. Furthermore, unlike non-renewable energy, the fuels to provide renewable energy (wind, sun, flowing water, etc.) have no cost and therefore are immune to future inflation.

New nuclear power plants, SMRs or fuel preparation facilities for SMRs must never be built in Canada without the most detailed and comprehensive federal environmental impact assessments, with FULL public participation. This is necessary due to the radioactive wastes produced and the danger of radiation escaping into the environment.

Thank you for considering our submission.
David H. Thompson
Project Officer, Leap4wards

Image des personnes en kayak qui lire Postulez avant le 6 juillet Le programme des gardiens de la faune Canadienne Societe pour la nature et les parcs du Canada section Nouveau-Brunswick

La SNAP NB est à la recherche d’ambassadeurs de la faune, âgés de 18 à 30 ans, pour un pour un programme de bénévolat en matière de conservation de 8 mois!

Rejoignez-nous lors d’un voyage en pleine nature dans la magnifique baie de Fundy, dans la région de St. Andrews (les 25 et 26 août 2022), pour observer les baleines, faire du kayak de mer, ainsi que pour participer à un programme local de bénévolat en matière de conservation et à un sommet régional (lieu à déterminer) – toutes dépenses payées!

Pour en savoir plus : www.snapcanada.org/pgfc ou par courriel mjellett@cpaws.org

La date limite pour présenter une demande est le 6 juillet. 

Les candidatures sont disponibles en ligne en anglais et en français :

www.cpaws.org/cwsp  (EN)
www.snapcanada.org/pgfc  (FR)

 © 2018 NBEN / RENB