Nouvelles des groupes
- Détails
- Publié par : Sam Arnold
- Affichages : 7781
Sam Arnold and Keith Helmuth
The good news is this weekend will see the largest worldwide demonstration ever for political
action on climate change.
Hundreds of thousands of citizens in cities around the world will be joining the People’s Climate
March for climate action now. They will be calling on their political leaders to act together in
global cooperation to stem the flow of fossil fuel pollution that is wrecking climate balance.
New York City will be the epicentre of this uprising because world leaders are meeting next week
at the UN to talk about action on climate change. The People’s Climate March has been organized
worldwide to help these leaders understand that global action must be taken now to drastically
reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other green house gases that are being dumped into the
atmosphere.
For all the research, and all the negotiations that have been going on for the last several decades,
fossil fuel pollution of the atmosphere is continuing to climb. And climate disruption is no longer a
vague possibility: It is manifestly clear that the damage and the costs of extreme weather events
are escalating.
Several years before hurricane Sandy hit New York City, leading meteorologists said it was only a
matter of time until a super-storm hit the area that would flood lower Manhattan and fill the
subway tunnels with water. Then it happened, and the cost of the damage for that storm has been
pegged at $68 billion. And that doesn’t even count the cost of economic disruption of businesses.
Canadian meteorologists have since pointed out that if Sandy had come up the Bay of Fundy the
storm surge would have gone right across the Isthmus of Chignecto connecting New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia. It would have taken out all of its infrastructure and disconnected the two
provinces. And think of all the other surrounding shoreline damage that would have occurred. Is
this reality just a matter of time for us?
The reality of continued fossil fuel pollution of the atmosphere is not just global warming, but
increasingly chaotic, disruptive, and damaging climate instability. More than just discomfort,
inconvenience, or even loss of life and infrastructure, the costs of dealing with and trying to
recover from blow after blow will increasingly cripple our economy. Climate disruption is now a
looming economic disaster. How will NB, already deeply in debt, deal with such a future?
In 2011 the Canadian National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy (NRT) published
a major research report titled, Paying the Price: The Economic Impacts of Climate Change for
Canada, which laid out the costs likely to be incurred if nothing is done to stem the direction of
climate disruption. They estimate that by mid-century costs could average up to $1800 per home
per year in New Brunswick. Householders in some regions, of course, will suffer much greater
damage than others.
By 2020 the costs nationally will be $5 billion annually. By 2050 they will rise to between $21 and
$43 billion per year. These are conservative projections. If climate damage accelerates, they
estimate the figure could go as high as $91 billion every year.
If political leaders, including Canada’s, are not persuaded to take effective global action to move
swiftly from reliance on fossil fuel energy to renewable energy, these costs will become a reality.
The People’s Climate March on Sunday is a worldwide demand for political and business leaders
to wise-up to what’s happening. As the March organizers say, “Do the math!” The quantity of
fossil fuels still in ground, if extracted and burned, will destabilize the climate to such an extent
that the damage will far outstrip any possible benefit. We’ve got to minimize the use of fossil fuels
and switch to renewable energy as fast as possible simply to save our economy.
Even the US military has done the research and has warned that destabilizing the climate is the
biggest threat to national and global security that we face. If the Pentagon is worried about this,
it’s pretty dumb for the rest of us not be worried as well.
So what’s the response of political leaders in Canada and, for us, in New Brunswick? The Harper
government has responded by “shooting the messenger.” In addition to telling the economic truth
about climate change, the NRT had the audacity to issue a major study in 2012 titled, Framing the
Future: Embracing the Low-Carbon Economy. The Harper government yanked the NRT’s funding
out of the 2012 budget, which forced it to close down in 2013.
A “low-carbon economy” is the last thing the Harper government wants to hear about when its got
the Alberta tar sands going full tilt. And in New Brunswick, the Alward government wants the
west-east pipeline to bring Alberta crude to the Bay of Fundy, and to see the shale gas fracking
boom set up shop in the province.
This is the opposite of “embracing the low-carbon economy.” It’s the opposite of a positive,
progressive response to both the challenge and the opportunities of climate change. The NRT’s
study lays out the road map to a low-carbon economy that helps stabilize the climate, and creates a
renaissance of new businesses, investment, and employment opportunities in renewable energy
technology.
Why aren’t governments listening? Why aren’t they doing their best to minimize the economic
costs of climate disruption? How can we think of them as “leaders” when they are walking
backward into climate chaos and economic ruin?
The organizers of the worldwide People’s Climate March on Sunday hope that a massive uprising
of citizen power can be a turning point, even at this late date, which gives birth to a new politics of
global cooperation on climate change action. “If the people lead, the leaders will follow.”
Sam Arnold and Keith Helmuth are members of the Woodstock Sustainable Energy Group. For
further information on SEG go to www.ttwnb.ca
- Détails
- Affichages : 7756
Au Nouveau-Brunswick, cette transformation prend place grâce aux efforts du Collectif sur la santé des enfants et de l’environnement.
Durant les années 1990, la situation inquiétante des enjeux de la salubrité de l’environnement incluaient et ce depuis des décennies la pulvérisation des forêts avec des insecticides et des herbicides, les fuites d’essence des réservoirs et la contamination des eaux souterraines, la pollution de l’air par les centrales électriques et par la plus grande raffinerie de pétrole du Canada (accompagnée de taux élevés d’asthme), et la contamination au plomb d’une fonderie qui polluait les potagers des gens et qui causait des maladies dans les collectivités avoisinantes. Les responsables de la santé publique n’étaient pas intervenus pour avertir les citoyens de ces menaces. Les débats publics sur les enjeux de la salubrité de l’environnement étaient polarisés, divisés et ne faisaient même pas partie des préoccupations de l’administration. Et il n’existait certainement pas une seule voix qui demandait à l’unisson que l’administration agisse.
Certains groupes auraient voulu étudier le problème fondamental des effets sur la santé, particulièrement sur celle des enfants. Mais il existait plusieurs obstacles :
· Personne dans la province ne travaillait directement sur ce sujet;
· Aucun ministère particulier n’avait cette responsabilité;
· Il existait très peu de communication dans les secteurs sur ces enjeux, pas plus que de communications intersectorielles.
C’était un problème trop complexe pour qu’une organisation ou qu’un secteur s’en occupe par lui-même; la seule solution possible était de faire progresser plusieurs secteurs ensemble.
L’obtention de la confiance de l’administration a commencé avec une personne, le directeur de la santé publique du ministère de la Santé qui avait d’abord évité les demandes de rencontres à cause de l’histoire entre son ministère et les groupes environnementaux. À force de persistance, un petit groupe d’ONG de la santé et de l’environnement a réussi à le rencontrer et de s’en faire finalement un allié essentiel.
En 2005, une première rencontre provinciale a été organisée et a réuni plusieurs secteurs. Une fois rendus dans la même salle, il a été facile pour les représentants de groupes disparates d’adopter le but commun de protéger la santé des enfants.
Des séminaires ont été organisés et des conférenciers ont mis en lumière les recherches et les expériences d’autres compétences. Après un certain temps, les participants ont fait des liens entre l’exposition des enfants aux contaminants et leurs enjeux. Graduellement, des alliés improbables se sont réunis pour réfléchir à des solutions et créer une stratégie provinciale pour réduire les nombreuses expositions des enfants aux dangers environnementaux.
Aujourd’hui le Collectif est un groupe qui relie plus de 300 personnes provenant de plus de 100 agences représentant plus de 20 secteurs. Les participants proviennent de groupes de la santé de l’environnement, des enfants et de la famille ainsi que des administrations de tous les niveaux, et constituent en somme un « réseau d’action ». Le champion officiel du Collectif est Raffi Cavoukian (le chansonnier pour enfants), fondateur du ‘Centre for Child honouring ’. Plusieurs l’appuient, dont la Fondation David Suzuki, ÉcoJustice, l’Association pour le droit environnemental de la Côte Est, les chercheurs canadiens Donald Spady et Colin Soskolne, le pédiatre Canadien Robin Walker et le pédiatre Américain et champion de la santé des enfants et l’environnement Philip Landrigan.
Depuis 2008, le contexte politique du Nouveau-Brunswick concernant les enjeux de la salubrité de l’environnement a changé : quelque chose d’impossible n’eut été l’éthique issu des acteurs du Collectif pour la Santé des enfants et de l’environnement du Nouveau-Brunswick (CSEENB).
• Le Service des milieux sains a été mis en place en 2010 avec un seul employé très dévoué, ce qui a donné accès à de la formation professionnelle en santé des enfants et de l’environnement à plus de 150 professionnels de la santé publique, formateurs et travailleurs de première ligne formés en réduction de l’exposition des enfants aux contaminants et à l’offre de renseignements aux clients.
• Les participants du CSEENB qui avaient fait des progrès avec les ministères de l’Administration avec leurs rencontres et leurs présentations ont été invités à contribuer à la préparation d’un plan de travail provincial et multisectoriel sur la santé des enfants et de l’environnement.
• Les infirmières qui fournissaient une formation aux parents et aux enseignants une formation sur la santé des enfants et l’environnement officieusement sont maintenant reconnues par la gestion comme des agents de changement, certaines sont devenues gestionnaires.
• Une équipe de chercheurs du CSEENB a organisé un atelier de deux jours qui a présenté une proposition de cartographier les points chauds environnementaux de la province.
• Les participants au CSEENB ont contribué à la préparation du nouveau programme d’éducation à la petite enfance en y ajoutant un accent sur la salubrité des milieux, sur la formation en plein air et sur la réduction des expositions aux contaminants.
Mais il reste encore beaucoup à faire!
Avec l’aide du bureau du Défenseur des enfants et de la jeunesse, ÉcoJustice et l’Association du droit environnemental de la Côte Est, l’ébauche d’une Charte des droits de protéger les enfants des dangers environnementaux a été préparée pour la considération de tous les partis politiques. Après l’élection du 22 septembre, ce document sera soumis au parti au pouvoir pour la préparation à son adoption. Jusqu’ici deux partis politiques ont inclus la santé des enfants et l’environnement dans leur plateforme électorale.
Nous sommes optimistes que le respect des enfants deviendra une approche généralement acceptée dans la préparation des politiques au Nouveau-Brunswick. Nous avons réalisé beaucoup, mais le bienêtre et le développement en santé de nos enfants exigent une surveillance constante et des actions. Avec la collaboration du CSEENB et ses nombreux participants, l’avenir se révèle prometteur.
- Détails
- Publié par : Jon MacNeill
- Affichages : 7185
| MEDIA RELEASE Thursday, Sept. 18, 2014. Parties reveal position on environment and conservation FREDERICTON - Three of New Brunswick’s political parties are saying ‘yes’ to clean air and water by indicating they would halt fracking activity and take steps to protect our Crown Forest should they form the next provincial government. Earlier this month, the Conservation Council of New Brunswick asked the province’s five political parties to share their conservation goals and environmental priorities in the lead up to the 2014 general election on Sept. 22. The questionnaire asked party leaders to reveal their commitment on a number of actions related to air and climate protection, forest management, clean water, and the development of energy projects in New Brunswick. The Liberal Party, Green Party and New Democratic Party participated in the survey. The Progressive Conservatives and People’s Alliance did not respond. “We were pleased to see that of the parties who participated, by and large they took positions in favour of protecting the land, air and water in New Brunswick,” said Lois Corbett, executive director of CCNB. “Some parties could have taken a harder line, but it’s fantastic to see conservation and environmental issues have not been overshadowed this time around by staple election issues like the economy or healthcare budget.” Some highlights from the survey include: 1. The Liberals would consider an open consultation to review the effectiveness of the Crown Lands and Forest Act; The NDP would enforce existing regulations, add new ones, and launch a judicial review to determine if the latest forestry strategy is legal; The Green Party would create a new Crown Land Forest Sustainability Act, protect diversity and cease logging in the Acadian forest, and create Community Forest licenses. 2. The NDP and Green Party would ban shale gas development in the province, while the Liberals would impose a moratorium on fracking. 3. The Green Party would prioritize river classification under the Clean Water Act and enhance watershed protection; The Liberals would centralize conservation, inspection and enforcement functions in one department; The NDP would classify rivers under the Clean Water Act and enforce existing watershed regulations. 4. The Liberal party would not commit to reviewing greenhouse gas reduction targets, but pledged a greater focus on renewable energy sources; The Green Party would set more aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets; The NDP would establish a new Chief Provincial Scientist office to ensure air quality legislation is evidence-based and enforced. See the complete survey results from respondents here. -30- MEDIA CONTACTS: Jon MacNeill, Communications Officer; 458-8747 Lois Corbett, Executive Director; 458-8747 Conservation Council of New Brunswick 180 St. John Street, Fredericton NB E3B 4A9 506.458.8747 :: www.conservationcouncil.ca |
- Détails
- Publié par : Jim Emberger
- Affichages : 8359
New Brunswickers who are looking for the facts about shale gas are not getting them from the current political debate. They are often being deliberately misled or else are confused by politicians who don’t understand the issues, themselves. And they are definitely missing out on critical information.
First, the economics.
The numbers cited by our government appear to be picked from thin air, are baseless and are designed just for the election. Economists don’t see how they can work and the government will supply no supporting data.
We have all heard David Alward claim that, by drilling a modest 50 wells per year, the province will earn $200 million in annual royalties. He does not say how he arrived at this figure. His math even baffles our province’s top economists.
In British Columbia, they drilled thousands of wells to earn $200 million in royalties.
New Brunswick currently has about 50 producing gas and oil wells. The total royalties average roughly $1 million per year. One million is an awfully long way from $200 million. We earn more than a million from our gravel and sand industry.
New Brunswick’s university economists have analyzed the current royalty scheme. They say these are the lowest royalty rates in North America and that it is highly doubtful that New Brunswickers will gain any significant profits. They say it is an inefficient, overexploitation of our resource. The government has dropped their earlier plan to share royalties with those municipalities and landowners who would be bearing the risk of shale gas.
The PC party must also further justify their estimates on job creation per well.
In four years, the only data they quote to support their job claims comes from the partially government-funded and widely disputed Deloitte report, a small and questionable survey that predicted a best-case scenario of 21 jobs per well.
However, we have examined a number of detailed fiscal policy reports based on actual figures from places where shale gas is being produced. These show an average of 4 jobs per well, while being highly critical of predictive reports like the one from Deloitte.
In New Brunswick, with our roughly 50 producing wells, we have less than a dozen ongoing full-time jobs.
Our question is this: Why should we base our decision on estimates from a questionable survey, when there are real life examples and hard facts to draw upon?
Shale gas is not the only way to bring New Brunswickers home and create jobs.
Multiple reports actually show that the oil and gas sector produces far fewer jobs than any other energy-related industry. Retrofitting infrastructure for energy efficiency, alternative energy development and mass transit each create up to 8 times the number of jobs created by fossil fuels. These figures are based on real-life experience, not hopes.
A clean economy requires the same skills that our people out west already have, and it fosters industries that would create career opportunities, retain college graduates, employ both genders, and save the existing jobs in our tourism and agriculture sectors that are now being threatened by shale gas.
We also ask this: What is the long-term economic viability of this industry?
The industry is a typical boom-bust venture that leaves communities worse off than they were. Its long-term viability is unproven.
Recent figures from the Energy Information Agency (EIA), investment firms and financial analysts show that the industry is $100 billion dollars in debt. And 75% of its firms are rated as below investment grade (junk status). As a whole, the industry does not make any money from the sale of gas. It survives on borrowing, and selling assets.
It also seems some parties do not understand our Oil and Gas Act.
Hydrofracking is hydrofracking no matter whether you use propane or water, and it is the only way to get shale gas. The idea that one can keep exploring while not allowing hydrofracking is a contradiction in terms.
And to be clear, if an exploration company lives up to its requirements to invest a certain amount of money, it may automatically convert to production when it is ready. Thus, to put a moratorium on shale gas, you can not allow exploration to continue. You must stop both or you cannot stop either.
And as various parties talk about the necessity of having world class regulations, they ignore the recent report from the Council of Canadian Academies, which noted that there is so little research or monitoring of shale gas that no regulations anywhere can be said to be based on science. Regulations willnot protect us.
But, perhaps the largest piece of missing information and discussion concerns the effects of this industry on climate change. The day before our provincial elections there will be massive demonstrations around the world focused on climate change.
The world’s scientists, militaries, insurers, financial institutions, food and water specialists, and experts in many other fields tell us that climate change is the number one problem facing the world. It costs us billions of dollars and thousands of lives per year already, and those numbers will rise.
All public policies – local, regional, national and international - must now consider the effects of policy on climate change and the problems that will come from it. Investments in those industries are likely to be lost as the world reduces fossil fuel usage. Yet, remarkably, only one party mentions this ultimate threat and issue in their party platform.
Our concerns about unconventional oil and gas are not just the immediate threat to our health and environment caused by extraction methods, but also that we will be adding a new source of greenhouse gases to the fossil fuel mix that threatens us and future generations.
For the past 4 years, volunteers within the Anti-Shale Gas Alliance of New Brunswick have worked hard to get existing science to the people of New Brunswick in an understandable way. We have succeeded in bringing to light the costs and impacts of this industry and making shale gas a hot campaign issue in this election. All of our concerns have been validated by Canadian scientists, and yet, we see the same overinflated numbers and misleading information on economics and jobs being used to gather votes and sell this industry to the public. It is time to eliminate the spin and get honest about this issue.
The lawsuit that we have filed awaits whichever party wins the election. We are asking that a high standard be used to judge the scientific and health claims of the safety of this industry – “beyond a reasonable doubt” - the same standard for deciding guilt or innocence in court. High stakes demand a high standard.
So politicians take note. Deciding how to respond to this lawsuit will be one of your first tasks. Please take this seriously for all our sakes and start talking honestly about it now.
About NBASGA
The New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance represents the interests of New Brunswickers opposed to unconventional gas and oil exploration and development, while promoting a future in clean energy alternatives.
Website: www.noshalegasnb.ca
Email: [email protected]
Contact Information
Jim Emberger (English)
Tel: 506 440-4255 Email: [email protected]
Denise Melanson (French)
Tel: 506-523-9467 Email: [email protected]
- Détails
- Publié par : Jean Louis Deveau
- Affichages : 5327
Conseil des Canadiens (CdC), section de Fredericton
Fredericton, N.-B. Le 15 septembre 2014
La santé du public retranchée - Alward donne aux Néo-Brunswickois l’illusion de sécurité
Les trois sections du Nouveau-Brunswick du Conseil des Canadiens, celle de Fredericton, de Moncton et de Saint John, accusent le premier ministre Alward de créer une illusion de sécurité chez les Néo-Brunswickois. Lors du débat télévisé avec les chefs des autres partis, mardi soir passé, M. Alward a dit que son gouvernement avait saisi l’occasion de mettre en place « les règles les plus sévères en Amérique du Nord » pour surveiller l’exploration du gaz de schiste.
« Nous sommes d’accord avec le premier ministre quand il déclare que nous avons besoin de règles sévères pour protéger la santé de la population contre cette industrie. Mais ce qui nous préoccupe sérieusement, c’est ce qu’il ne dit pas. Ni lui ni personne d’autre dans son gouvernement n’a expliqué publiquement pourquoi la question de la santé du public avait été enlevée des 12 principes sur lesquels se sont appuyées ces règles », de commenter Jean Louis Deveau qui a récemment fait une analyse de la manière dont ces règles ont été établies. « Élaborer des règles pour l’exploration du gaz de schiste en suivant une recette dont le premier ingrédient n’est pas la santé des gens c’est comme préparer un repas de dinde sans dinde », poursuit-il.
En décembre 2011, 12 principes directeurs qui ont servi pour élaborer ces règles sont apparus dans un communiqué émis par le gouvernement. Ils portaient, entre autres, sur des points tels que « prendre des mesures pour éviter une possible fuite de produits contaminants par le puits », « se pencher sur la question de l'utilisation durable de l'eau » et « protéger la santé du public ».
Pourtant, six mois plus tard, en mai 2012, lorsqu’un document de travail contenant les 116 recommandations – devant servir à établir des règles parmi les meilleures au monde - fut soumis à l’examen du public, on n’y faisait aucune mention de la santé des gens. Et la population n’en avait pas été informée.
« Le fait que le gouvernement n’ait pas traité la santé du public comme un ingrédient essentiel dans l’élaboration des règles n’est qu’une indication de plus que ce qui compte pour lui c’est de satisfaire les besoins de l’industrie plutôt que de voir au bien-être des citoyens de cette province », déplore Caroline Lubbe-D’Arcy, co-présidente de la section de Fredericton du Conseil des Canadiens.
-30-
Contacts pour les médias : Jean Louis Deveau, (506) 459-2907 (m), (506) 238-5277 (c); Caroline Lubbe D’Arcy, (506) 454-5119; Angela Giles, (902) 422-7811
- Détails
- Publié par : Tashina Thomas
- Affichages : 7811
Je m’appelle Marie-Pierre Poirier. Je suis récemment diplômée d’une maîtrise en développement international et mondialisation et je suis originaire de Grande-Digue. Ma passion pour les enjeux environnementaux dans notre belle province m’a guidé ici au RENB ou je travaillerai comme assistante de programmes. J’ai bien hâte de collaborer avec vous, de près ou de loin, afin de continuer à promouvoir des pratiques et des modes de vie durables partout au Nouveau-Brunswick et ailleurs !
