Episode 15: When it comes to turning your dreams into reality, whether it’s starting a business, a project or a relationship, the advice we get is “you just have to take the first step.” What does this even mean? How do we figure out the first step and overcome the fear and uncertainty around it? In this episode, I share three fool-proof strategies for taking the first step to accelerate your progress towards your goals.

If you enjoy learning how to take the first step, check out these other resources that will help you achieve your goals: 

• Why daily goals are essential for success
• How to be “successful”
• How to stay motivated
• How to be a young entrepreneur with Tania Del Matto

It’s time to Clear the Air of all this confusion about climate change. It’s time to learn how we, the youth climate leaders of today, can make a change. It’s time to take our future into our own hands.

Make sure to rate, subscribe and follow the Clear the Air Podcast, and follow the journey on social media:

Website: https://ctablog.ca

Podcast site: https://ctablog.ca/podcast

Instagram: @_ctablog

Twitter: @_ctablog

YouTube: Clear the Air

Don’t forget to share your sustainability journey on social media and tag Clear the Air!

Clear the Air – The Podcast

ABOUT THE PODCAST

Clear the Air seeks to educate, empower and mobilize youth to take action against climate change. These weekly episodes will focus on a specific theme, teaching you how to take action RIGHT NOW in your own life. By listening to the podcast, you will become a sustainability expert in no time.

Jenna Phillips is the podcast host, a passionate university student, and a local climate action leader. She uses her expertise and desire for change to make a difference in the lives of others.

It’s time to Clear the Air of all this confusion about climate change. It’s time to learn how we, the youth climate leaders of today, can make a change. It’s time to take our future into our own hands.

The post Episode 15: How to take the first step appeared first on Clear the Air.

While the majority of the blog posts on Clear the Air focus on environmental sustainability, I occasionally write about sustainability through a personal development lens. Today I will discuss how daily goal setting, a form of personal development, contributes to environmental sustainability. I will also share my top tricks for daily goal setting, helping you achieve success in school, your personal life and your long-term future.

We are taught how to define and set goals since grade school. What is a goal? Something you hope to achieve. How do you achieve a goal? By taking deliberate actions that will bring you closer to that goal. 

As we age, these goals grow with us. They become long-term and short-term goals, forecasting our lives in five, ten or even twenty years. We have career goals, relationship goals, academic goals – the list never ends because we are always trying to achieve something. Today the world is concerned with environmental goals like national emission reduction targets. These are massive goals that not one action can achieve, requiring the consistent actions of billions of people committed to making a change. No matter what type of goal you are hoping to achieve, one thing is for certain: if you don’t set a good goal, you won’t achieve anything.

Growing up, I struggled with goal setting. Why? Not because I didn’t have ideas. I had a clear picture of what I wanted and the steps to get there. I also knew how to hold myself accountable. My struggle had to do with thinking only long-term. 

Let’s rewind: I wanted to be a fashion designer since I was seven, all the way until I was fifteen years old. I had set long-term career goals of opening my own store, designing my own clothing line, and even planned what my future house, wedding dress and closet would look like. I was researching iconic fashion designers, drawing designs in my sketchbook whenever I had the chance, taking fashion and visual arts class in high school, preparing to apply to Ryerson for their fashion bachelor’s program, all to get me to this goal set decades into the future. I had it all planned out…until things changed.

What changed, exactly? Many things. Long story short, I no longer felt motivated to pursue fashion as a career. Fast forward through several bouts of identity crisis, confusion and anxiety, I am now confident where I am. Getting here wasn’t easy, and I struggled so much because I devoted all this time to setting and achieving goals that would advance my fashion career. When I would achieve one of these goals I wouldn’t feel accomplished or proud because I would instantly start thinking about the next goal to achieve. I was so focused on living in the future that I forgot to live in the present. Had I done so, perhaps I would have realized I wasn’t as passionate about fashion design earlier.

What does this have to do with sustainability?

You’re probably confused right now, so allow me to clear things up. Focusing too much on long-term goals without tuning in to your current intuition, thoughts and feelings is bound to create trouble. In addition, preoccupying yourself with the future to the point that you hardly enjoy the present moments is not a way to live. While it’s good to test your limits (it’s the only way to get better at something), continuously doing so can be harmful to your personal growth. For instance, having emissions reduction goals is great, but without a plan for every province, every region, every city, every neighbourhood, every household on a short-term basis, how can these larger goals ever be achieved? Even when I look back at the perspective I had in my first and second years of university, I was too focused on setting goals for the long-term future to understand what actions to take in the present moment to get me there.

What I am saying is that hitting smaller, shorter-term goals should be your focus, rather than the long-term massive goals that seem a lifetime away. Yes, you should have those long-term goals, but within the larger goals establish single goals that add up to it. The best way to do this is to set one daily goal. Just one. By doing so you have one single task to devote yours efforts to that day that contributes to your long-term future. You don’t feel this overwhelming pressure to achieve this far off goal that you have no clue of how to get to. Instead, you take every day as it comes. You have a better indication of progress through daily goals, will live in the present and be in tune with your desires.

Let’s say you want to live a zero-waste lifestyle. Complete, total zero-waste living is not going to happen overnight, nor is it easy to plan for years down the road. Hurdles appear, like broken appliances or dropped containers or illness that requires medication in plastic bottles. Hurdles interfere with your long-term goal, and unless you set daily goals that seek to overcome these hurdles you will never reach that zero-waste lifestyle.

Instead of telling yourself you will live totally waste-free, promise yourself that today you will consume one less pre-packaged snack than yesterday. The next day, put homemade snacks in a reusable container. The day after, make your own lunch instead of getting a sandwich to go. Each day you build towards something greater. Maybe you spend one whole month setting daily goals focused on food waste reduction because you are living on your own and control your food choices. The next month you may focus on making your shower routine zero-waste, or your house cleaning process. The daily goals that add up to monthly goals build towards this life goal of zero-waste living. 

If an unexpected event occurs – say you receive a gift wrapped in packaging – you can set a goal to repurpose that packaging somehow. It’s easy to get upset when small instances like this occur to set you back, but living in the present and dealing with these issues intuitively is the most effective way to overcome them. Instead of saying, “No! This packaging ruins my plan. I’ll never achieve a zero-waste lifestyle if this keeps happening,” you are now saying “Okay, so this happened…but here are the resources and knowledge I have at this moment to deal with this issue and get back on track with my regular goal-setting.” A totally different mindset, and a more manageable one at that. 

“Here are the resources and knowledge I have at this moment to deal with this issue and get back on track with my regular goal-setting.” A totally different mindset, and a more manageable one at that. 

How do you set daily goals?

It is easier than you may think. My favourite way is planning for the week. Think about where you want to be in one week in terms of the project you are working on. I’ll use one of my own projects as an example: one week from today, I will apply for a grant to support a sustainability project I am working on. Getting this grant would help further development phases the following month, and achieve the project’s overall goal that is still several months away. 

I can’t simply write the application. There’s a lot of planning, research and editing that goes into grant proposals, and even more preparation if you are given the opportunity to present a live pitch for the grant. Grant applications on the whole are overwhelming, but broken into small, daily chunks makes the process less stressful. My goal for day one (i.e. today) is to finalize research. Day two is to clearly define the problem and solution I am proposing. Day three is to propose a budget based on the research I have done. You continue this process up until day seven, focusing on each task as the days come. If something shifts due to an unexpected event you still have a sense of direction to get back on track. 

Another habit I have for setting daily goals occurs first thing in the morning. The night before when I’m finishing my work, I’ll think about what I have to get done the following day and within the week. I think about my commitments the next day and how much time I will have to work on a particular project. I go to sleep, wake up, and the first thing I do is listen to my mind and body. I again reflect on the day’s tasks, then tune in to see how I’m feeling physically and mentally, which will determine the kinds of work I will be productive at that day.

Next, I say the first task that comes to mind out loud; that will become my daily goal. Sometimes it will be to send a certain email I’ve been putting off, or to call an organization about project partnerships. Saying the goal out loud may sound silly, but it is a way of legitimizing yourself, understanding what you really want, and holding yourself accountable. You can also write down your goals on a sticky, on your phone or on a white board for further accountability. Daily goals are easier to stay accountable to because they require a small time commitment compared to larger, long-term goals that take years to form – even though the daily goals contribute to the long-term goal! Your perspective of time and commitment shapes your reality.

Daily goal setting is a way of legitimizing yourself, understanding what you really want, and holding yourself accountable.

To say, “I want to live sustainably” is an example of a poorly designed goal. What does living sustainably mean? When do you want to live sustainably by? What measures are used to determine the sustainability of your actions? Instead, you could say “This time next year, I want to change five different habits of mine to support a more sustainable lifestyle.” Then, through the process of setting monthly, weekly and daily goals, you can achieve this longer-term goal. Living sustainably requires planning, diligence and continuous action. Daily goals are a way of keeping you accountable for these continuous actions. Sustainability does not mean doing an action once and then reverting to your old habits. It requires constant, repetitive changes until the changes become new habits. Daily goals that contribute to these longer goals make these changes possible.  

As you can see, sustainability encompasses all aspects of life, including personal development. How we perceive the world and our future will dictate how successful we are at reducing our impact on the environment. Taking smaller, deliberate actions every single day will keep you accountable and productive. It will also help you achieve sustainability in your own life, preserving the world where you will someday achieve your long-term goals.

The post Why daily goals are essential for success appeared first on Clear the Air.

Hello, everyone! Long time no chat. The semester got very busy, very quickly (as expected…) but I am back with a new post! I plan to write some recap posts about the first few months of university, my co-op application experience and more. The next two weeks are very crammed with tests, assignment deadlines and council events, so once I’m through that haul I will try to post more regularly. Thank you for your patience, and I hope that you enjoy this post!

~~~ 

Welcome to Plastic Island

When deciding where to go on vacation people often look for clear water, white sand beaches, lush forests and colourful town centres alive with music, sound and light. Sounds good, right? How about taking a trip to what I like to call Plastic Island, ever heard of it? Let’s go there right now.

This monstrous 79,000 tonne plastic wasteland is officially known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and is the largest area of ocean plastic buildup in the world. Situated in the Northern Pacific, it spans an area of 1.6 million square kilometres, or 617,800 miles and contains more than 1.8 trillion plastic pieces. It was first found accidentally in 1997 by a boater and has been growing ever since. Some of the plastic found in this Patch dates all the way back to 1970!

Source: Jambalaya News

The patch is composed of two smaller patches (there are five known ones in the world): the Western Garbage Patch near Japan and the Eastern Garbage Patch between Hawaii and California. This whole system is tied together by the North Pacfic Subtropic Gyre. If you are unfamiliar, a gyre is a circular ocean current system created by earth’s rotation and wind patterns.

Wind and water currents near the GPGP. Source: National Geographic

This pile is only expanding because the plastic floating around it constantly breaks into smaller and smaller pieces; these plastics never fully decompose and just split into these tinier pieces. Photodegradation, the process in which the sun breaks down the plastic into smaller pieces, is one of the processes continuously splitting and shrinking these plastic pieces floating around, making them harder to find and clean up.

This garbage patch is more than meets the eye. According to National Geographic, trash “islands” are largely composed of microplastics, tiny pieces of plastic that are not always visible (because they’re so small!) but are filling our oceans at accelerating rates. The trash island also likely inhabits the ocean floor beneath the floating mass; 70 percent of ocean debris sink, so if we were to take a look beneath the water, it would likely look like an anthropogenic waste dump.

Beads of microplastics—they can be even smaller than this! Source: National Geographic

Approximately 80 percent of the GPGP’s debris comes from the shore of North America and Asia, taking six years to arrive at the island-like destination from North America—six years—and one year from Asia. The other 20 percent is from water-based activities, such as boating, ocean-based oil rigs and cargo ships. What are some of the impacts of all this plastic floating around in our oceans? Let’s look at a few examples:

Loggerhead sea turtles may consume plastic bags because they look like jellyfish, a common food source for the turtles. Albatrosses think that plastic pellets are fish eggs, feeding them to their chicks, which may consequently starve from lack of actual food or experience organ malfunction or rupture. Marine life can easily get tangled in plastic debris floating around which can dismember them, cut off their airway or cause them to drown. It is estimated that more than one million sea birds, and one hundred thousand marine mammals and sea turtles are killed by plastic waste every single year.

A dead albatross near the GPGP. Source: National Geographic

Chemicals like BPA can leach out of plastics, too, impacting marine life in many ways: slowing or stunting growth, thyroid disruption, premature egg hatching are just a few reported effects of BPA on marine life. The following graphic depicts tested and confirmed impacts; the link for the photo provides an in-depth report for greater understanding of these impacts.

Impacts of BPA. Source: Canesi and Fabbri

Plastic islands like the GPGP create a blanket effect on the surface of the water, much like what algae does in nutrient-rich lakes. The blanket effect prevents sunlight from passing through the water to the organisms below. Photosynthetic plankton and plants that act as the base of the oceanic food chain cannot receive the light they need to survive and thus die; organisms that rely on these plankton and plants for food will die, too; organisms that consume those consumers will also die, ultimately throwing the whole ecosystems into chaos. Many other issues can arise from plastic waste in our oceans, but if I were to provide an exhaustive list this post would be 10,000 words long.

Source: National Geographic

All this said, it is clear that single-use plastics = bad for our planet. So what can we do about plastic islands like the GPGC, which is now three times the size of France and twice the size of Texas?

On September 8, 2018 a large-scale cleanup of the Great Pacific Garbage patch officially began. Hosted by The Ocean Cleanup, an environmental organization set on cleaning our planet’s largest water bodies, the System 001 project (also called the beta system) is viewable on an online livestream. The OC’s research shows that they can clean up to 50 percent of the debris in the GPGP within five years of the project’s start. To do this, The Ocean Cleanup says “to catch the plastic, we need to act like plastic.” What does this mean, exactly?

Just like the plastic debris drifts through our oceans for years, the Ocean Cleanup will deploy collection systems that moves with ocean and wind currents at an accelerated pace. Using a “screen,” it will scoop debris into its centre and be emptied every 6-8 weeks. There first system was deployed in September, and by 2020 they hope to have a full-scale cleanup of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch underway. Although they currently cannot capture plastic more than five metres below the water’s surface, this cleanup is still huge and future progress may allow deeper cleanups to occur.

The system, unlike other conventional cleanup systems, is powered not by gas or oil but by earth’s natural systems, making it almost emission-free. The on-board electronics are solar-powered. Aside from constructing the actual system and the fuel needed for the vessel collecting debris, this system is powered by wind, water and light. After collecting the plastic, the plan is to recycle it to use for post-consumer recycled products, or oil that can power the collection vessels.

After countless trials, hours of redesigning, prototype testing and campaigning, the organization finally announced on July 28 2018 that they were ready to begin the project. The systems are engineered with safety rings to avoid colliding with any passing cargo ships (although this area of the Pacific hardly sees such large boats cruising through). There are on-board cameras and GPS trackers that will constantly monitor the performance, health and whereabouts of these completely automatic system. If the system is drifting too strongly, a manual message can be sent to the system to adjust its pathway. It has been engineered with the best weather-resistant technology that will allow it to still maximize its cleanup efficiency. Environmental assessments of the trial systems in 2017 did not show any serious impact to marine life caused by the screen or moving vessel.

The beginning of the Ocean Cleanup. Source: The Ocean Cleanup

It was once said that the Patch is simply too big to clean up, let alone cross safely. What was once considered impossible by researchers is now happening.

So we have a system that can help to reduce our waste that has already found its way into oceans—that’s amazing. But that’s not all we can do—in fact, each and every one of us have a critical role to play in reducing our waste and keeping plastic out of the oceans. We must stop waste from getting into the oceans in the first place. This means refraining from using single-use plastics like straws, water bottles and cutlery. Making these changes are so simple yet so overlooked by us. If you think about how many water bottles you go through in a day, or a week, and then think about how many you would be saving if you had a reusable water bottle, that is so much plastic we can stop from entering our oceans. Personally, I refill my reusable 16-ounce water bottle 2-3 times a day, and drink a few more 8 ounce glasses of water when I am at home—so I usually drink about 64 ounces of water a day. The typical water bottle is 16 ounces, so if you add up all the water I drink in a day and multiply that by a week, my one reusable water bottle stops me from throwing out at least 28 water bottles every single week! One simple change, and although you may think one person’s impacts may not mean much, when you look at the additive effects or our impacts, that adds up to a whole lot of plastic waste. All waste that is easily preventable by taking one small action and replacing your plastic bottles with a reusable one.

The plastic in our oceans isn’t just water bottles, though. Plastic cutlery, Styrofoam food containers, food wrappers, the list goes on. We need to stop littering—this seems like such an obvious and fundamental value in today’s society, yet the amount of litter I see around me every day indicates otherwise. Overall, we also need to reduce our consumption of single-use plastics. To really understanding its impacts, think about your actions from a large-scale, global perspective instead of a small-scale, dissociated and convenience-based perspective. Ask yourself, “where will this plastic water bottle go once I am done with it? How long will it take to break down?”

An installation made of plastic straws at the Pickering Town Centre as part of their Practice Safe Sips Campaign.

We, as humans of the 21^stcentury, must realize the impacts of our wasteful actions and how detrimental they can really be. All it takes is one small change to our daily habits to save one sea turtle or one marine bird. It was once said that the Patch is simply too big to clean up, let alone cross safely. The diligence and ambition of one company has now made this dream a possibility. You too can make an impact by making one small change in your life. Your action can then inspire your friends or family to make a change in their lives, who then inspire their friends and family, and so your one small action spreads in a ripple effect to create a massive movement.

The Ocean Cleanup is an amazing initiative and will lead the way for effective plastic cleanup projects around the world. The pollution we have already created will take years to clean up, and the more we contribute to it by using single-use plastics the longer it will take to clean up. One small action can really make a difference. So, what will your one small action be?

Want to learn more about what else you can do to fight plastic pollution? Check out these posts:

• Welcome to Plastic Island
• 10 zero-waste swaps for everyday life
• 4 ideas for a sustainable Halloween
• How to have a sustainable Christmas
• The truth about recycling

Thank you so much for reading, and I look forward to getting back into blogging regularly shortly!

Until next time!

The post Welcome to Plastic Island appeared first on Clear the Air.

Hello everyone! I officially have one week left of summer, and I am quite disappointed by how fast time has flown by. It doesn’t feel like I’ve been on break for nearly four months now! Nonetheless, I am very excited to get back to school and see my friends. This will be my first year completing a co-op term (which is in the winter) and I can’t wait to see what job I get! Applications and interviews began as early as mid-September, so I’ll have an update about that soon.

For today, I would like to reflect on my experience this summer as a camp counsellor. Quite honestly, I never would have thought that I’d have this job. I was always the kid who went to camp. I ended up applying for several different camps this summer, and this is the one I felt I was most compatible with.

I was so lucky to have such an amazing team. Seriously, all of the other counsellors were awesome. There was always something new going on at camp, too, and this job really taught me to think on my feet and be creative.

Although I am still working at the camp (this is my last full week!) I’ve been able to come up with ten lessons I learned as a camp counsellor. These lessons will no-doubt benefit me in the future, not only during my co-op terms but also in my everyday life. I want to share these lessons with you to perhaps inspire you to become a counsellor next summer, and to understand that counselling is much more than just playing games and singing songs all day.

With that, let’s get on to the post!

1.  You need to be adaptable. 

When working with kids, you need to be able to think on your toes and act quickly. Maybe you had an activity planned at the turf that you thought the kids would love; turns out they’d much rather kick soccer balls around and run into the walls (yes, some of them enjoy doing that). Or maybe you’re making a craft that worked well for the senior kids, but it’s just too confusing for the juniors who can’t even hold a pair of safety scissors properly. You need to always have a backup plan, and even better, a backup to your backup plan. You need to read the situation, act accordingly and adjust the activity so everyone can enjoy it equally.

2.   Patience is key.

If there is one thing that I think this job really tested this summer, it was my patience and tolerance. Kids are great, but they just. Don’t. Listen. You have to constantly tell them not to do something, only to have them do it while they’re staring right at you defiantly, knowing that you don’t want them to do it. Sometimes you have to put up with five kids yelling in your ears at once about the fight that happened between Bob and Billy. Sometimes you have to walk a bit slower because the youngest campers aren’t even half your height and climbing up three floors is like climbing up a mountain to them.

There were definitely times that I felt my patience running very thin, but I think my ability to tolerate stress and be patient has grown tremendously this summer. At the beginning of the summer I was surprised by how much the kids expected from me. I would get frustrated when they wouldn’t listen, or screamed at me about how Paul stole Gary’s chair. By the end of summer I could take all of this yelling and fighting and other stimulations without even flinching. Sometimes another counsellor and I would make eye contact while we were both being yelled at, a silent communication that we both get it. So what if Barry cried because he got apple juice instead of orange juice with his pizza? They’re kids. We shouldn’t be mad at them for the little things. They react differently than us big humans, and they don’t always understand the consequences of their actions.

3.    Having an imagination is an amazing thing. 

One of my favourite things about my job was hearing the kids’ crazy stories. As an adult, I often times find myself weighed down by the pressures of life and the harshness of reality. The amazing thing about children is that they still have this purity to them, where they can allow their imagination to run wild and do not worry about the things happening in the world around them. Spending time around them let me see the world through their eyes, a lighter, happier perspective that I used to have when I was their age.

I loved it when the campers would tell a story that was absolutely positively true, even though you know that’s hardly the case. For instance, one camper told me a story about something that happened to them when they were eight—but they’re only four. It’s so fun to tell your own stories, too! To get the kids to stop sticking their heads into these vents in the outdoor play area, the counsellors would tell them that an alien monster was sleeping inside and every time they yell into it or poke their heads in, the monster will wake up and try to eat them. They believed us, alright, but for some reason they said they wanted to be eaten by the alien and would continue to scream into the vents. Oh, kids…

4.    If you need help, don’t be the hero. Ask for help.

When starting at a new job where there are many senior counsellors, it can be intimidating to not know how everything is supposed to run. There are norms that everyone is accustomed to that you don’t want to mess up. You also don’t want to ask because you think that the others will look at you like you’re a fool that shouldn’t be asking simple questions. Instead of asking for the help you need, you keep your mouth shut and try figuring things out yourself — only to make the situation worse. Asking for help in the first place is the only way to avoid the embarrassment that will ensue if you create an even bigger problem, and it shows that you are actually wishing to learn how to complete your responsibilities properly.

On the first day of camp, I started at 7:45am at Express Drop-Off. Parents can drop their kids off downstairs and save the time and effort of signing them in upstairs (camp is on the third floor). I was so nervous to do this because I’d only watched the training videos and never got a chance to practice beforehand. I was scheduled to work with one of the senior counsellors, and when I walked into camp that morning there were only senior counsellors and the supervisor. I was very nervous because I was the newbie in the group and wasn’t sure what to do, so I stood there awkwardly for a few minutes until my Express partner said it was time to head downstairs. When we got down there, I finally worked up the nerve to ask my questions. I realized that I had nothing to be afraid of, and that the senior counsellors are all super friendly and welcoming to the new staff. They didn’t want us to feel isolated from the group and were so helpful at answering all of our questions throughout the summer. On the first day I told my Express partner that I was nervous to ask for help, and they said that they didn’t want any of the new counsellors to feel that way. Now we’re a big family, and I have the title of “Express Queen” because I do Express Drop-Off every single morning, training whoever my partner is. If I had been afraid to ask for help during the summer, things would not have gone nearly as smoothly, and we all wouldn’t be as close as we are now.

5.     Don’t bring your work stress home.

In any sort of job where you are working with people, you are bound to come across an irate customer. I had several occasions where angry parents condemned me or my teammates over something that was out of our control. I would feel bad that I couldn’t help them, yet hurt because the anger was often misplaced. Sometimes a parent would be having a bad day and take it out on us. This is something we all do as humans from time to time, which I totally understand, but that doesn’t make it okay. In addition, there were several situations during the summer that left me shaken when I got home. I can’t go into details, but some campers could have been seriously hurt if I had not intervened. These moments are when I truly realize that I am responsible for the lives of the children at these camps, and anything could happen to them at any moment.

Some nights I would come home from work very frustrated with how I was treated or what had happened to others at camp. Being the empath that I am, even if a camper is being bullied I take on the stress that the victim feels. I realized quickly that I needed to leave my work stress at camp for my own sanity. Dwelling on the stressful moments when I was at home would impact how I functioned in other areas of life, impede on my sleep cycle and just create unnecessary anxiety. I had to establish a rule with myself: what happens at camp stays at camp. This helped me relax once I clocked out and come to work refreshed the next day.

6.      Camp counsellors are some of the hardest workers out there. 

A parent once said to me when picking up their child, “Hey, you just take care of my kid during the day. Try being a parent and having them for the rest of the day.” I’m not saying that parenting isn’t hard. I applaud parents for all they do. However, I feel that this comment makes us counsellors seem like we’re just glorified babysitters. Counsellors do so much. We watch over up to 110 kids for ten to eleven hours every day. From planning activities, to watching the kids in the pool, to making sure our campers are safe while on trips, counselling is a lot of work. In addition, the campers are not allowed to have any electronic devices or trading cards at camp, and today’s kids are so attached to these items that the campers have a difficult time sitting still without them. This makes it extra challenging to keep the kids’ attention. Some counsellors work open to close, 6:30am to 6:30pm. Some counsellors do a full day shift at camp and then go to their next job right after. Needless to say, I have respect for camp counsellors all over the world. My coworkers are definitely some of the hardest workers I know.

7.       Repetition, repetition, repetition.

At the camp, we work with kids as young as four. As you can imagine, it takes a lot of patience (like I said before) and repetition to get a point across to these kids. Especially when youngsters are in a group with their friends, their attention spans are even shorter, so repetition is key. Whether you’re learning to ride a bike, using the quadratic formula for the first time, or baking your first ever cake, you don’t magically succeed on the first try (unless you’re a super human or genius…). Same goes with teaching kids how to behave at camp. Sometimes it takes one day to teach them how to listen. Sometimes it takes the entire week. You can’t be angry with campers for not complying to what you say the first time; they’re just kids after all. Sometimes they won’t ever get it, and that’s okay. There’s no harm in repeating what you’ve said before. After a while, the campers would get annoyed from hearing the same thing over and over anyway, and would eventually listen just so they wouldn’t have to hear it again.

8.       The kids look up to you as a role model.

To young children, the counsellors are like wise, old superheroes. They want to hear all about your life, what you do, what you’re good at. You watch over them from 7am to 6pm every day, and are their leader. They’ll mimic your actions, your sayings, all to be like their cool, grown-up counsellors. They want to help you hand out lanyards for the other counsellors, or cut off wristbands at the end of the day, or carry your binder and backpack. Although the job can be tiring, seeing how the campers want to be just like you is one of the things that motivates me to go to work every single day.

9.        Your words and interactions with the kids can change their lives.

Since the kids look up to you and start to mimic you, what you say and do can really change their lives. Have you ever had a bad day, and then you pass a stranger on the street who smiles and says hello to you, and you say hello and smile back, and feel instantly a bit better? Our interactions with the campers are like that. The little things we do, from braiding their hair, to holding their hand while walking through the gym, to letting them sit on our lap during opening circle really makes a difference.

I’ve seen kids sitting alone at lunch because they were too shy to interact with the other campers. I would sit down with the kids and eat my lunch with them, and they would instantly open up and start talking to me. Other campers would then come and sit down with us. The shy camper would interact with the others and laugh along with them, acting nothing like the quiet camper they had just been. I’ve also had one-on-one talks with campers that were crying because they were so self conscious over years of bullying. I’ve told them that the bullies are just trying to be mean, that nothing they say is true. I’ve told them about my personal struggles and how I came out so much stronger from experiencing them. I told them that I think that they are amazing, and that any time they feel down about them selves to remember that their counsellor thinks they’re a true leader that will change the world. The look in the child’s eyes when you say these things to them, or sit with them when they’re alone, or make them your special helper, is a look of admiration and hope. Many of the small things that happen to kids resonate with them their whole lives; I remember many negative things said about me when I was younger, and that was over ten years ago. I don’t think I’ll ever forget these things. I wish that my younger self had a friend or older peer to look up to, who told them that the bullies were wrong and that they were amazing. I want to prevent any of these kids from feeling bad about who they are, just because of what others think or say. I want to ensure that these kids have the best camp experience possible, and leave at the end of the week with their heart full. They’re too young to be dealing with some of the issues they tell me about, and it breaks my heart to see how it weighs them down in life. They deserve to have these years as happy, free souls. Every little action I can do as their role model makes a difference in their lives.

10.        These kids are our future.

What we teach the children now will inspire them to act in their future. I’ve told some of the kids about what I do in school, how I pick up litter and work to protect the environment, and they’ve said “I want to do that! I want to protect the environment!” We’ve had police officers, fire fighters, scientists and even Sam from PickWaste come in to chat with and inspire the kids. They see these successful individuals and ideas start to blossom inside their heads, their imagination running wild with all of the potential things they can achieve as they grow up. We teach the campers that they are capable of doing anything they set their heart to, and with a lot of hard work and determination they can achieve their goals. It’s important that the campers grow up with a mindset of optimism, otherwise they’ll be too discouraged to make a change. Inspiring them now will start them on the track of being our future leaders. Maybe one of them will be the prime minister, or the CEO of Canada’s greenest business, or a pop star, or a police officer, or anything else that will better our future. I know that some of these kids will make a big change in our world, and I am so excited to see what they do. I will do whatever I can to encourage them to achieve their dreams.

~~~

This summer has been more of a learning experience for me than anything else. I’ve worked three jobs (often two in the same day) and learned something different from each of them. Though an exhausting break, I wouldn’t change anything because I wouldn’t have met so many great people or learned so many new things.

I hope that you enjoyed this post, and I will see you next week!

Until next time!

The post Ten lessons I learned as a camp counsellor appeared first on Clear the Air.

Welcome to the third instalment of my climate change blog post series!

Congrats, you’ve made it to the final post in the series! It’s been a long journey full lot of information, so kudos to you for making it all the way here. If you haven’t read part one or part two yet, I strongly suggest that you do this now.

Before we get into the content for the post, a little life update. As the summer break nears the end (I can’t believe how quickly time flies…) I will be prepping for school and finishing up at the camp. While away at school I still plan on posting at least once every week or ten days. I know I had the same plan this time last year, but school got so busy that I just couldn’t manage the two things at once. This time I know what to expect, and I am planning on setting aside at least a few hours each week to do my own thing. Posts may not be as long or detailed, but they will still be filled with quality information, promise! I love blogging and sharing information with all of you, so I am determined to keep it up this year.

With that said, on to today’s topic: carbon pricing.

What is carbon pricing? It is really as straightforward as it sounds. In an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, governments put a “price” on the carbon that a company, country or industry can produce, or pollute. To price the carbon, the emissions are grouped into “units” to make it physically measurable. Two of the most common units include metric tonnes and cubic metres.

To control emissions, a country or industry will be given an emissions “cap.” For instance, the Alberta oil sands industry can produce up to 100 Megatons of carbon dioxide emissions in any year. They will be fined if they go over their cap. The goal of the “caps” or limit is to keep organizations in business while reducing their carbon footprint. In the grand scheme, all of these efforts are being made so that our country can reach its 2030 Paris Agreement emissions target.

This idea may sound a bit rigid to you. After all, how can an organization change their emission habits without losing profit? There’s a simple answer to that: cap and trade is known as something called a tradable permit system.

To describe this tradable permit system, let’s use the analogy of a trading card game (I’ve been around kids at camp with Pokemon and Yu Gi Oh! cards for too long). Each country starts with a specific amount of cards which they will distribute amongst their organizations. Overall, let’s say a country is allowed to have forty cards (forty permits) and can divide those up between sectors as they feel. Some sectors may get five cards, others may get ten cards; however many cards they have are equal to the number of “permits” or pollution “allowances” that they have. Each one of these cards, or permits, allows them to produce one unit of emissions (keep in mind, one unit can mean different amounts of carbon, depending on where you are. In Ontario, one unit is equivalent to one tonne of carbon). Got it so far?

Let’s say that between Country A and Country B, their total reduction goal is 100 units, or permits. Country A is required to reduce their emissions to 40 units and Country B to 60.

Within Country A, the 40 units are split up into different sectors: oil, forestry, food production and other smaller industries. Each one of these sectors are designated to reduce their emissions to a certain amount of units, which altogether will add up to the Country’s 40 unit goal. Now let’s get an even closer look.

Let’s say there are two companies within Country A’s forestry sector. In total, this forestry sector has 10 permits, or cards, of emissions to split up between the two companies. Company A and B both have 5 permits, or trading cards. Company A is a very large company, and are having a hard time keeping their pollution below the five units they have been given. Meanwhile, Company B is a relatively smaller company, and has no problem staying below their allowance. What do you think they can do? That’s right: they can trade their cards, or permits. Company B can give Company A one of their cards so now Company A has 6 cards and B has 4. This will allow Company A to produce one more unit of carbon emissions, and B one unit less. The net pollution is still ten units. 

This system is designed to reduce permits as time goes on. Let’s go back to the card analogy: at the start of 2018, Country A is given 40 cards to distribute however they deem appropriate. Companies within Country A must trade and sell their permits as they see fit, reducing their emissions while supporting the economy as they do so. A few years later, let’s say in 2025, Country A is only given 35 cards. With this new allowance, they must distribute the cards more carefully. In another ten years, they will have twenty five cards. The cycle continues. I’ve included a diagram I drew to visually explain this concept.

Cap and trade is a mandatory system only if your company produces over a certain amount of emissions annually; these emission caps are typically set by the government. For instance, in Ontario if your company produces between 10,000-25,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, you are not mandated to participate in the provincial cap and trade system. However, you can voluntarily participate. In our province, mandatory participation is required if your company imports electricity, produces more than 25,000 tonnes of GHGs a year, or is a fuel supplier selling more than 200 litres of fuel each year.

The cap and trade system allows us to regulate our pollution in a feasible manner for all parties. It stimulates the economy as companies buy and sell their permits (cards). What’s great about cap and trade is that it is personalized to each country’s marginal abatement costs (MACs). A country’s MAC is equivalent to how much it would cost for one party to abate (or reduce) their pollution by one unit of carbon, whatever they deem as a unit. To abate one unit, it may cost Company A 10 dollars, while that same unit may cost Company B 100 dollars to abate. Depending on technology, company size and current pollution levels, marginal abatement costs can vary greatly.

Let’s make sure we’re all clear on this: If Country A’s forestry sector has two major companies, Company A and Company B, and each are given only 5 units of pollution, each country will face different costs to get to this goal. Like I said earlier, Company A is a larger company and finds it harder to get to this 5 permit mark. Their marginal abatement cost is therefore likely higher than Company B’s, since they would have to sacrifice more to get to this level. For companies with higher MACs, it costs more for them to pollute the same amount of emissions as a company with a lower MAC.

Cap and trade adjusts the amount of pollution each country must abate (or reduce) so that everyone has a reasonable, achievable goal to reach. If Country A’s total emission reduction goal is 100 units by 2025, and Company A’s MAC is 100 dollars per unit while Company B’s is 10 dollars per unit, Company B will be required to abate more units than Company A, since it costs less. In the end, they are both still meeting their goals while doing what is economically reasonable for each of them.

Cap and trade is great for reducing the amount of pollution we create, while allowing parties to adjust to new laws in a reasonable amount of time. As parties reach their emission reduction goals, the cap (or total allowed pollution) can be lowered, and more units can be traded to adjust to these changes. In comparison, carbon taxes set a strict date for the tax to be implemented, and if you pollute over the limit, you will be taxed. Companies are often scrambling to reduce their emissions with carbon taxes, because they are not given an efficient system that allows them to gradually reduce their GHGs. At the same time, very wealthy companies may not even try to reduce their emissions, because the impact of paying the fine for disobeying the law is negligible in comparison to their profit from their polluting practices.

Compared to our past climate efforts (or rather, lack thereof), Canada has taken huge steps forward towards a cleaner future. Announced in 2016, the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change is a national plan that covers how our country will work to slow down climate change. One of the many areas it covers is carbon pricing.

The Framework required every province in Canada to have a carbon trading system. The system must involve pricing carbon units and developing a cap and trade scheme. This nation-wide policy was issued by Trudeau after his inauguration in 2015, and he gave provinces until 2018 to develop their trading system. If a province does not meet this deadline, the federal government will implement their own system in that province. As an example, Trudeau proposed that one unit of carbon (one tonne) should cost ten dollars in 2018, increasing by ten dollars every year; by 2022, it should cost fifty dollars for every tonne of emissions. Beyond 2022, the court will decide whether to continue increasing this price based on their emissions reduction trajectory at that time. This system is meant to be revenue neutral, which means that the federal government does not gain any profit from the money put into the system; it stays within the trading system of that particular province, for developing greener technology and supporting innovation.

To many, Trudeau is considered to have taken a “sledgehammer approach” with his nation-wide announcement, for the way he threw the policy on the provinces. In my opinion, Trudeau did the right thing. Based on our current trajectory, there really is no other way to achieve our Paris Agreement target by 2030 if we don’t take immediate action.

Some provinces are already ahead of the game and have no trouble with Trudeau’s ultimatum. Quebec introduced a carbon tax in 2007 and a cap and trade system in 2013. In 2017 they joined forces with California and then Ontario to create the very first trans-boundary cap and trade system, known as the Western Climate Initiative.

Despite the positive actions of some provinces, not everyone in our nation sees eye-to-eye on the issue. Saskatchewan’s new premier, Scott Moe, is very opposed to the carbon policy that Trudeau is implementing. He believes that forcing the provinces to reduce their emissions will hurt families and businesses by cutting jobs. He thinks that Saskatchewan is already doing enough to reduce their emissions, and to really tackle climate change we need to look at it from a global basis, not just a national one. Brad Wall, Saskatchewan’s premier prior to Moe, feels the same way, calling Trudeau’s plan an attack on their families and businesses.

Yes, Moe is correct: we do need to implement emission reduction techniques globally, but using one system for every single country simply cannot work. Every country is different: different demographic, economic status, social status, different everything. We need to use national systematic tools in order to make a global change. Trudeau is trying to do exactly that.

Moe is willing to take this issue to court, doing everything in his provincial power to fight the federal law. He states that his government has their own emissions reduction system that they will use, because using the same, “one-size-fits-all carbon tax fails to recognize the diverse nature of our great Canadian economy.”

Another province opposing the carbon tax is Nova Scotia, mainly because they feel they are also doing enough work towards mitigating climate change and have already met their 2030 target. They did, however, agree to become a cap and trade province, developing their own system to introduce it and implement it in January 2019.

Sadly, our very own province looks like they will be joining Saskatchewan in the fight against carbon pricing. After Doug Ford became the premier of Ontario this year, he promised to end Ontario’s emission reduction work if it relates to carbon pricing in any way. This includes resisting the system the Trudeau demands each province develop; Ontario’s original plan was to charge 20 dollars per tonne of carbon and increase that to 50 by 2022. This will be no more if Ford has his way. In addition, this announcement made in June will also cut our province’s ties from the WCI, leaving behind Quebec and California in the agreement.

By refusing to follow through with the federal Framework for climate change, our province is losing money. A lot of money. Provinces that comply with the policy are provided with funding to help them develop systems and technology to decrease their carbon emissions and introduce a cap and trade system. Refusing to comply with the law has put the 420 million dollars of funding for Ontario on hold. Any current emission reduction projects in the province are being cancelled, such as the Green Ontario Fund, which provides rebates to households and businesses that reduce their own emissions. Cancelling this project forgoes 100 million dollars in funding alone. This funding was received through carbon taxing, when organizations went over the carbon units they had purchased. Now that this system is being scrapped, there is no way to receive this funding.

Ford apparently doesn’t mind the loss, considering the fact that he calls the federal cap and trade system a “government cash grab.” In mid-July, Ford announced that he’d be joining Moe in filing a lawsuit against the federal government, and will devote 30 million dollars to this intense oncoming legal battle. This money, by the way, is coming out of taxpayer’s pockets (aka our pockets). Strange, Ford said that our wallets would be hurting because carbon pricing would take our money and jobs from us. Looks like it’s the other way around.

Despite the leaders’ determination, the federal court does have the final say, and we can still be hopeful that things will end in a positive light. Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna, has refused to allow Saskatchewan to remove themselves from the carbon tax; they, just like every other province, have until September 1st to present their carbon pricing plan for the upcoming years. In her response to Moe’s appeal, she stated as follows:

“To be clear, we cannot accept your request not to price carbon in Saskatchewan. Among other reasons, it would be patently unfair for one jurisdiction to avoid participating in this important national effort to support clean growth and cut pollution.”

In other words, if Moe and Ford don’t come up with their own system for emissions reduction, the federal court in Ottawa will force their own tax on them. You go, McKenna!

Greenpeace, one of the biggest international environmental organizations on the planet, made a statement by their representative Keith Stewart, which condemned Moe’s and Ford’s opposition: “Extreme weather fuelled by global warming is already hurting families and businesses right across the country and will get a lot worse if our elected officials ignore the threat. Attacking carbon pricing without an alternative plan to address climate change is nothing less than an unprovoked attack on our kids’ future.”

Similarly, the leader of the Green Party, Mike Schreiner, says that Moe and Ford’s decision to fight the federal court is a “pointless legal battle” that “exposes the people of Ontario to more costs with little to gain.” Ironically, that’s what they claim to be avoiding by challenging the carbon tax.

As mentioned, Saskatchewan has a different idea of how they will tackle their emission reduction requirements. They claim to have many projects planned, all of which will support the community, First Nations and the environment. Such projects they propose include improving the access First Nations have to natural gas, installing more solar panels and encouraging the use of innovation in their oil and gas sector. All together, Saskatchewan’s Minister of the Environment, Dustin Duncan, proposed that their projects, 11 projects in total, would reduce emissions by 188 million tonnes. They have committed to a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Despite the proposal, the federal government is hesitant about whether the province will follow through with all of their proposed projects and if they will actually work. As Duncan stated, “Our climate change strategy recognizes the investment and innovation that has taken place and sets out the road map for future actions. This is about protecting our people and communities as much as it is about working with industry and others to reduce emissions here in Saskatchewan.”

From this perspective, we can see that Saskatchewan is still trying to make an effort towards emissions reductions. But Ontario? Where’s our plan? Oh yeah, we don’t have one. Trudeau couldn’t have said it better in his 2016 announcing the introduction of the Pan-Canadian Framework: “I guess the question is: Why bother even trying? Well, I can think of a number of reasons. First of all, it goes without saying, if everybody took that view, nobody would do anything — and I don’t want to imagine what the planet would look like in the next century.” Couldn’t have said it better myself, Trudeau.

The question for Ontario is this: by withdrawing from the federal plan without a plan of our own to combat climate change, what are we trying to do? We aren’t looking to the future, despite what Ford thinks. We need climate change action now; while Moe is preparing to take his own course of action, what is Ford doing for our province? Ontario’s leading source of emissions is from transportation, and that does not come as a surprise with all the commuting we do here. We need to develop an emissions reduction system, or accept Ottawa’s immediately. There isn’t time to fight for our pride right now. There’s only time to save the planet, ourselves and the future generations.

After hearing so many concerned voices from Canadian citizens, the federal government decided at the beginning of August to be less rigid with their carbon tax by lowering the percent reduction companies must make. Back in January, it was set that companies must only produce 70 percent of their emissions from prior years; in other words, they were required to lower emissions by 30 percent or else face the tax. Now they are looking at 80 percent, and 90 percent for iron, steel, cement, lime and nitrogen fertilizer producers in the country. A big change, but it shows that the federal government isn’t just trying to take people’s money. They are willing to compromise to get the job done. 

Our federal leaders, and many provincial ones, recognize the importance of carbon pricing for achieving our environmental and social goals for the future. Carbon pricing, and more specifically the cap and trade system, is a great tool for reducing our emissions while protecting the money in our pockets. It allows companies to develop their own ways of reducing emissions, encouraging innovation. It makes the law more personalized, not uniform across every country. Each country has to reduce what is appropriate for them, based on their current reduction costs. Additionally, if one company finds a new, compelling way to reduce emissions, perhaps that technology could be adapted elsewhere. Furthermore, cap and trade is easily adjustable. As we lower our emissions, the “acceptable” emissions rate can be made gradually stricter, continuously stimulating the economy as companies buy/sell carbon permits while giving them the time they need to adapt to the new regulations. We have this great system ready to implement, yet we are stalling because we are afraid of the outcome.

It’s clear from this that addressing climate change is a messy issue, and no matter what, not everyone is going to be happy with the decisions that are made. Our leaders all over the world have a lot to think about when making these type of decisions, so I understand why tensions are so high. However, it is essential that all of our leaders sit down and talk with one another. We need to understand every perspective on the issue, and how climate change is effecting each nation. The simple fact is that climate change is affecting everyone, everywhere. While we may feel the effects differently here in Ontario than someone in, say, Nunavut, where food prices are rapidly rising which employee wages plummet, or in Brazil where old-growth forests continue to be destroyed, everyone needs to take action, right now. If we don’t start now, the costs of dealing with climate change in the future will just continue to rise. These costs aren’t just monetary; I’m talking about the social implications of climate change, the environmental, everything. Everyone, whether they like it or not, will be impacted by climate change, and it is our responsibility to mitigate these changes as much as we possibly can. 

If there’s one take-home message from this post series, it is that we need to take action, despite the fact that sometimes this action will make us uncomfortable. Harper muzzled our scientists and destroyed our country’s green initiatives because he felt uncomfortable with how it would impact our working industry, and wasn’t confident that our nation’s people could adapt to change. Ford is afraid of how our people will be impacted and does not think that we can be innovative enough to adapt. Trump is the same. Leaders all over the world are afraid of change, when really what we need is for everyone to embrace change. That’s the only way we can recover from this mess we have created. If you break something in a store, your moral values say you should pay for it, right? If you eat your friend’s food in their fridge, you replace it. So why can we destroy the planet and think that we don’t have to pay for it? We will be paying for it. We have already started to, and it will only get worse if we can’t band together to fight climate change. 

We can all make a change, each and every one of us. Write to your local leader. Sign a petition. Take part in a protest. Buy less plastic. Walk to school. Do something, no matter how small it is, because each and every one of these steps that you take are making a difference. We need these small changes made by everyone; it doesn’t matter how much political power you have. Especially in our democratic society, we influence our leaders. If enough of us demand change, it will happen. You just have to embrace the uncomfortable for a little while. Otherwise, the world will be a lot more uncomfortable very, very soon.

Thank you so much for reading as always. Every person that I can touch and inspire with these posts has the potential to make a difference in our world. Let’s make a change, right now.

Until next time.

The post Climate Change Part 3: Carbon pricing appeared first on Clear the Air.

Hello friends! I hope that you’re all having a fantastic long weekend. It’s definitely nice having an extra day off of camp to just chill. Last week was very busy, so it is a much needed break.

This week’s post is a continuation from last week’s, making it part two of three posts on the topic of climate change and carbon pricing.

Let’s recap what we learned last week: climate examines the average weather patterns in an area over a long period of time, which is different that just the day-to-day patterns shown by a weather forecast. Rising global temperatures are causing irreversible damage in all aspects of life. Our emissions (from cars, airplanes, factories, etc.) are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to dangerous levels. They prevent solar radiation from escaping the atmosphere (which they should not be doing!), increasing global temperatures by doing so. These changing temperatures can impact everything from soil quality to ocean pH to population size.

This week, we are going to learn about some of the biggest initiatives currently in effect around the world that are working to reduce our carbon footprint. Let’s get straight to the post!

There have been several large-scale attempts at reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide. Some attempts have been successful, such as the Montreal Protocol. Others…not so much. There are two main international agreements which you have likely heard about on the news or from a family member/friend. These agreements are the largest treaties for climate change action we have ever had, which is why I think it is important for you to know about them. They also are an important part of not only Canadian history but for the history of countries all around the world. First, we will discuss the Kyoto Protocol. After that, we will examine the Paris Agreement. Yes, there is going to be a lot of political talk in this post, but don’t worry, I’ve made it very straightforward!

To begin, let’s discuss the Kyoto Protocol and how Canada failed embarrassingly at following through with their promises in this treaty.

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty established in 1997 by the United Nations Framework Connection on Climate Change. It officially took force in 2005, making it the first international greenhouse gas reduction treaty in the world. In a series of “phases,” the goal of the Protocol was to reduce GHG emissions in the 192 countries that signed on to the treaty. Each industrialized country had a different reduction goal to meet, chosen based on several factors: the country’s wealth, demographics, current ecological footprint and more. The goal for industrialized countries like Canada was, on average, higher than developing areas: when averaging out these industrialized countries’ targets, they were overall required to reduce their emissions 5.2 percent below their 1990 levels by December 31 2012; this date marked the end of “Phase One” of the Protocol. The European Union had a reduction target of 8 percent by 2012, while the States had a target of 7 percent; some places, like Iceland, were even allowed to increase their emissions by 10 percent. Canada’s reduction goal was 6 percent.

The second phase of the Kyoto Protocol began in 2013 and runs until 2020, with a joint emissions reduction goal of 20 percent from the 1990 levels. As amazing as this sounds, Canada didn’t make it to this stage.

It doesn’t matter that Canada was one of the first countries to sign the treaty in 1998. The nation was under the ruling of Liberal Jean Chrétien at the time of signing. In 2011, under Harper’s Conservative government, Canada became the only country to this day to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. During Phase One, which was a time when Harper was in power, it was apparent that the country would not meet the 6 percent reduction target. Instead of pushing for more action, our country drop out altogether. We tried, and when failure seemed likely, we gave up. Giving up is not how we will overcome climate change.

Meanwhile, some countries (like the United States) never signed the treaty in the first place, and others chose not to accept Phase Two of the Protocol that began in 2013. The map below depicts how the world did or did not commit to the Kyoto Protocol.

Harper was not a fan of the Protocol because he believed it was targeting “rich” or developed countries only, forcing them to change their workforce and industry while the developing nations got off free. Yes, there were higher expectations on economically and socially wealthier nations like Canada than countries in a lesser state, but each country was required to do what was manageable for them. Nonetheless, Harper cut ties from the treaty, an embarrassing and degrading moment in climate change history for our country.

Fast forward a few years and we have a new government and international agreement that is very promising. The Paris Agreement is a treaty that, like the Kyoto Protocol, seeks to reduce global emissions in hopes of slowing the rate that earth’s temperature rises. The Agreement was negotiated at COP 21, the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference, in late 2015. COP stands for Conference of the Parties, and by Parties it (mostly) means countries. Sealed on December 12 2015 and signed on April 22 2016, the treaty came into effect on November 4 2016. A total of 179 Parties have signed the agreement, promising to do their part to keep the global temperature from increasing more than two degrees by 2100, and more ideally less than 1.5 degrees, which is below the pre-industrial rate of increase.

To meet this goal, the Parties have agreed to reduce their emissions to a personalized level by 2030, with emissions peaking no later than 2020. Canada’s emission target is to reduce our GHG’s 30 percent by 2030. This past May, the involved Parties were required to assess their current status in relation to achieving their targets, and identify what challenges they face. In order to reach their targets, Parties will need to deviate funding towards new green technology, policy development and research. This is where a tool like carbon pricing would come into play, which I will discuss in the next post.

Canada’s effort to meet their Agreement target is noticeable, but highly unlikely if not impossible to reach by 2030. Since Trudeau’s inauguration in 2015, the Liberal party has worked to increase the country’s climate change action and back their governmental decisions with more science-based evidence. Science is essential for providing solid evidence in decision making processes, especially when it comes to how emissions and other anthropogenic activities are harming the environment. In 2017, Trudeau appointed a federal Chief Science Advisor, Dr. Mona Nemer, to offer unbiased, expert advice during his decision-making processes for the country. Already, Dr. Nemer is working to make Canadian politics more transparent to the public and prioritize the Canadian Environmental Impact Assessment plans, which are used to monitor and regulate the environmental impact of industries, construction and other projects in the country. Her work is essential for conveying environmental data to the public and providing us with the information we need to take environmental action. I am among the many who are applauding Trudeau for taking this huge step in the right direction.

This step was no simple feat, either. Trudeau has significant damage to reverse: he must undo Harper’s efforts to “muzzle” scientists (prevent them from sharing their research, cutting their funding) and how they presented their research to the public. Not to mention the fact that Harper developed a communication policy in 2007 that prevented environmental scientists from openly interacting with the media, and cut the role of a national Science Advisor in 2008 from office (read the policy here), both of which resulted in a reported 80 percent reduction in media coverage of our environmental issues. Bringing back the Science Advisor and tearing down the barrier between scientists and the media will only help us reach our emissions target so we (the public) can make more environmentally conscious decisions.

I would like to discuss Harper’s “muzzling” a bit more, because this is a serious issue that no doubt stagnated a significant amount of the environmental action our country has taken. To illustrate, a 2011 study confirming that the snow near the Alberta’s oil sands were contaminated with petroleum; the policy discouraged the researchers from presenting and discussing this data with the media at the 2011 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry conference. Instead, the two scientists presenting the report were given a script. They were told what to say for the different potential questions they could be asked. One answer they were provided with was: “I am a scientist. I’m not in a position to answer that question but I’d be happy to refer you to an appropriate spokesperson.”

These contaminated soils could impact the aquatic life in the nearby Athabasca River as the snow melts and runs into the river in the spring. Despite this, the scientists could not express the issue because of how Harper stripped them of their voices. They stated in a “scripted” interview that the results of an impact assessment for petroleum contamination in the river were negative, and they could only answer media questions with previous approval. As stated in a 2010 publication in the Montreal Gazette, “the new communications policy has practically eliminated senior federal scientists from media coverage of climate-change science issues, leaving them frustrated that the government was trying to “muzzle” them.”

Protests were common for both scientists and public citizens during Harper’s reign because of his decision to cut funding to many research projects in the environmental field. One such protest includes the 2012 “No Science, No Evidence, No Truth” protest after Harper cut funding to a project providing industries with information on how to reduce damage from acid rain and phosphate pollution in Ontario’s lakes. This project could not keep running without the funding that Harper ripped away from them.

If this doesn’t sound fishy to you (no pun intended), I don’t know how else to show you how difficult our national leaders have made it to access reliable information that can help our environment. But why would they do this? Why prevent us from knowing about the problems we face, how our own actions are harming the planet?

Apparently, many of these cuts were made due to a tightening budget which required Harper to appoint funds to agencies that he felt were of higher priority. What’s more important than researching our impact on the planet, which will directly change how we live in the future? While Harper boasted about how he lowered tax rates, these rates create an economic deficiency that in turn tightened our national budget and reduced the funding our scientists and researchers were provided.

Meanwhile, Harper believed that Canada was an “emerging energy superpower,” largely because of the growing extraction of oil from the country’s tar sands, like the Athabasca tar sands. In a 2011 announcement, he stated, “The oil sands are a very important resource for our country, it’s a source of economic growth and jobs across the country, not just in the West, but in Ontario and Quebec, too.”

I do not think it is coincidental that reports on the damaging effects of our tar sands came out at the same time that scientists’ access to media coverage was restricted. Yes, the tar sands are important to Canada as they have been a huge source of economic surplus. However, the impacts that this energy source has on the environment far outweigh its economic benefits.

Needless to say, Trudeau’s government is struggling to pick up the pieces of the science and research field that were torn apart by Harper. While many argue that Trudeau’s government is still muzzling scientists and researchers, we can understand how difficult it must be to reverse Harper’s policies and funding decisions, which were implemented throughout his nine years in office.

On a brighter note, Trudeau released Canada’s new budget this past February, which will devote almost 4 billion Canadian dollars to science over the next five years, compared to the measly 1 billion from the year prior. Canada’s finance manager, Bill Morneau, stated that this is “the single largest investment in investigator-led fundamental research in Canadian history.” The Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory, one of the many environmental protection research organizations that require government funding, were preparing to close as their funding was running out. They are now among the many organizations benefitting from this budget, which can now run until at least 2019 when the new budget is announced.

On the other hand, the Climate Change and Atmospheric Research program, another vital research program in our country, did not receive any new funding to outlive it’s expiration this year. Our funding can only go so far without being stretched too thin, it seems. There is still much more our government can do, but nonetheless we are showing a promising move in the right direction.

Let’s take a break from talking about Canada for a minute. While our country appears to be making “greener” decisions, our neighbours to the South are not feeling so inclined to act in the same manner. Aaaannndd cue the Trump rant:

Since Trump’s ascent into presidency last year, he has decided to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement and eradicate all climate change procedures set in place by Obama. To him, climate change is a scam. You’ve probably seen the infamous tweet: December 6, 2013, Trump tweeted, “Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee – I’m in Los Angeles and it’s freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!” Yes Trump, because that is absolutely how climate change works. This shows how well he understands climate change, and how important it is that people read this post to understand what climate change is really about.

Due to Trump’s ignorance, his government is working to disassemble and divert funds directed to climate change action. This includes stepping away from Obama’s climate target, which is to lower the country’s emissions 26-28 percent below their 2005 levels (their highest levels ever recorded) by 2030. Cutting out the USA’s climate policy will, in a best case scenario, allow the country to only reach a 20 percent emissions reduction, and quite possibly only reach 12 percent. Trump feels that the Paris Agreement “disadvantages” the United States because it will cut thousands of jobs, result in factory closures, and put economic and social strain on the country’s people. Only when the terms are “fair” for the nation will he consider re-entering the Agreement. Wait, doesn’t this sound familiar? *cough cough* Harper choosing to withdraw Canada from the Kyoto Protocol *cough cough*

The States are not the only ones who will miss their target. Germany will reach 31.7-32.5 percent below their 1990 carbon dioxide levels, when their target was 40 percent (although their target is much more ambitious than the States). In fact, most industrialized countries are far from reaching their goal. Canada, for instance, will certainly not reach their target by 2020. At our current emissions level, if every country behaved in the same manner as Canada then the planetary temperature would increase by 3-4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. That is double what our goal reduction level is!

The only two countries that are currently meeting their goal below the 1.5 degrees mark are Morocco and Gambia, two countries which are far less industrialized than Canada and our neighbours. While the Paris Agreement is a smart way of getting global action to mitigate climate change, the 2030 deadline is overly ambitious. Many countries still rely heavily on fossil fuels and other emission-heavy processes that took decades to develop and stabilize their economies. Expecting them to change their ways by 2030 is simply not practical for some countries, especially those currently facing financial crisis or insecurity. It may be possible to develop laws and policies to help reduce emissions in this time, but actually having them implemented is just as long and tedious as the policy-making process.

With COP 24 coming up at the end of the year in Katowice, Poland, chances are that discussions will focus on the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and how we can slow down climate change before it is too late. Federal policies, such as national carbon taxes, are proving ineffective in some areas because provincial-level leaders do not agree with the federal law (more on this in the next post about carbon pricing!). Not only that, but countries are arguing over the best course of action for combating climate change (or in Trump’s case, if we should bother taking action at all).

With so many different opinions on the matter, it is beyond challenging to take action. What we need is our nation’s leaders to sit down and talk, really talk, about their values. Do they value economic prosperity over the wellbeing of their citizens? COP 24 is a time for this to happen, and this year’s conference is essential. If our leaders don’t come to terms with the future we will soon face, we will never meet our targets in the Agreement, let alone reduce emissions and slow down climate change any time soon.

In next week’s post, I will discuss my thoughts on what I believe is one of the most practical tools we have to combat climate change and reach our emissions reduction goal. Carbon pricing can be effective and immediate. Like other tools, there are so many mixed feelings about this tool, which I will also discuss.

I know that this post was long. If you got to the end, thank you for reading it all the way! I couldn’t make this post any shorter because this information is vital for understanding the crisis we currently face, and how our countries are choosing to deal with it. If we are not educated on the issue, we cannot demand better, faster action from our leaders. Without action, we will never find a solution. Without a solution, we will find ourselves in a very difficult position in the future. Our lives, and our future generations, are at stake. The decisions that we make now will change the way we live our lives for many, many years to come.

Until next time.

The post Climate Change Part 2: Canadian politics, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement appeared first on Clear the Air.

Happy Monday, friends!

This week is the first of three posts in which I’ll be breaking down a controversial topic that has been floating around in the news, especially in the last few months: climate change and carbon pricing. In general, carbon pricing is a “solution” that governments have started using to combat climate change by reducing their country’s emissions while stimulating the economy. To understand carbon pricing, firstly you must have a strong understanding of climate change. In this post, I will give you a straightforward explanation of what climate change actually is and how we can measure it. Next week I will discuss the most important points of climate change history and how this has currently impacted our efforts. The third post will cover carbon pricing, a controversial way to challenge climate change to meet our emission reduction goals.

I’ve wanted to write about this topic for some time. As I started researching and writing up the post, I realized that this topic is too dense to discuss in just one post. Not only would it be a crazy long post, but it would also be so content heavy that you probably couldn’t absorb much of the information. I tried splitting it up into two posts, but even that was too overwhelming. That’s why I’ve decided to split it up into three parts. This way, I can put all of my energy into each of the posts, instead of making one long post where I put all of my focus into the first part and then let it fade as the post continued.

Without further ado, on to the topic for today: what is climate change?

It’s safe to say that most of us think that climate change is a problem. However, I don’t think that society as a whole can claim to fully understand climate change and its impacts. I want to make sense of this topic for you, while educating you on the importance of paying attention to this statement that environmentalists, scientists, politicians and the media constantly make: Climate change is a problem. This is not fake news.

How do we define climate change? This complex process involves the rise in average global temperatures over a period of time; note the difference between climate and weather is that weather is a day-to-day local change, while climate is from a long-term, large-scale perspective. Rising global temperatures create countless environmental, social and economic problems. Ocean acidification, ozone depletion, biodiversity loss, eutrophication and other environmental issues occur ever-increasingly around the world. Natural disasters like floods, hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis are increasing both in frequency and severity. As a result of these environmental issues, marginalized communities (mainly the impoverished, developing areas) suffer from a lack of food, sanitary water, and safety as they live in middle of civil war zones, battles which occur over depleting resource pools.

Yes, earth’s climate does naturally change, and has done so since the beginning of time: the planet warms and cools, natural disasters hit and keep the populations at sustainable levels, causing some species to go extinct while allowing other species to evolve. However, these changes occur over thousands to hundreds of thousands or even millions of years, not nearly as frequently as they have in the past hundred and fifty years since the industrial revolution. In addition, they have occurred in cycles, such as the freeze-thaw cycle of an ice age. As far as science can tell us, temperatures are continuing to rise to record levels, with no sign of cooling in sight.

Rapid industrialization provided us with the tools needed to extract and use more natural resources than ever before. Before this time, resources were used at sustainable levels, or not used at all. For instance, nomadic human tribes hunted for food as needed. They respected the species they shared the planet with, and did not overexploit them. They could not carry a herd of animal carcasses on their backs, so they only killed what they needed at that time before moving on. Nowadays, humans live a domestic, sedentary lifestyle. Factory farms have distorted the way we value our animal friends; technological advancements can wipe out an entire population in a few seconds.

Another human advancement resulting from the industrial revolution was learning how to extract and burn fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are simply dead organisms that fossilized millions of years ago and are buried deep beneath the surface of the earth. These fossils act as an energy storage surplus; they are some of the most energy-abundant fuels available, yet hold the potential to be the most damaging to our planet. Humans continue to develop ways to extract and use these fossil fuels at ever-accelerating rates, creating energy in the form of coal, oil and natural gas.

Why are they so damaging? Fossils are composed mainly of carbon. When these fuels are burned for energy, a chemical reaction occurs to turn this carbon into carbon dioxide, which is released into the atmosphere.

Carbon is a naturally occurring element in nearly every living and non-living thing in the universe. Although we have an abundant source of carbon in the ground, air and oceans, the earth is very sensitive to this natural element. Our oceans act as a carbon sink, meaning that they can absorb carbon from the atmosphere. The ocean can be saturated with carbon, though, which just like a cup of coffee that you poured too much sugar in, the carbon cannot dissolve any more and therefore cannot absorb any more. For this reason, our oceans, the lithosphere and the atmosphere have specific levels of carbon that each can absorb at one time in order to function at a healthy level.

Especially in the atmosphere, this level can fluctuate throughout the year. At the end of the day, though, the atmosphere wants to reach homeostasis (its healthy level) so the planetary cycles can function optimally. Think of the human body: our body has an optimal temperature, specific requirements for different vitamins and nutrients, and more. Too much or too little of one of these things can throw our body out of whack: we get sick, our nervous system or digestive system shuts down. Until we can reach homeostasis again, our body will continue to react this way until we return to our optimal levels. The planet is exactly like the human body. Right now, the atmosphere (and soon enough the oceans) contain too much carbon, shifting it out of its homeostasis. This can lead to disaster.

Presently, there is too much carbon dioxide (the gaseous form of carbon) in our atmosphere. This is a problem because carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, which is energy in the form of heat that comes from the sun. For this reason, carbon dioxide is known as a greenhouse gas. It traps heat and warms the planet, much like how a greenhouse traps heat to warm the room. Heat can come in, but it cannot escape.

Essentially, the balance between the amount of energy coming into the atmosphere and the amount of energy leaving the atmosphere determines how our climate will change. A certain amount of this infrared radiation needs to escape our atmosphere to keep our global temperature stable. The earth naturally absorbs some of the sun’s incoming solar radiation. It reflects some as well, which is meant to escape the atmosphere. Things like clouds and, not surprisingly, greenhouse gases, prevent this reflected radiation from escaping. As the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, more infrared radiation is trapped. More infrared trapped = more heat = higher temperatures.

How do we measure how much infrared is trapped? There are a few mechanisms that can help us do this. One is radiative forcing, which numerically represents the change in energy in our atmosphere as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. If the number, expressed in watts per metre squared, is greater than 0, that means that the planet is warming. Less than 0 means that it is cooling.

Radiative forcing is calculated by subtracting the outgoing (escaped) radiation from the incoming radiation (coming from the sun, towards earth). Currently, our outgoing radiation is 237.9 W/m², while our incoming radiation is 240.5 W/m², making for a radiative forcing number of 2.6 W/m², give or take a few decimals depending on the data source. In other words, more heat is entering our atmosphere than what is leaving, so greenhouse gases are causing the planet to heat up.

As mentioned, there is a homeostatic or “healthy” level of carbon that can be present in our atmosphere at one time. Staying at this level will allow for planetary systems to function at their best. Another way of looking at this is to think of the atmosphere having a carbon dioxide “threshold,” where as long as we’re below this threshold the planetary systems will function effectively.

We’ve already measured how energy entering and leaving the atmosphere will impact our climate. How can we tie carbon dioxide levels into this, and how do we know what the “threshold” is? That’s easy: we measure the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere at a given time, and using scientific technology, we can determine what an “irreversible” concentration of carbon would be.

To understand how our atmosphere is changing, we’ll look at carbon concentrations before and after the industrial revolution. Just before the industrial revolution in the 1800s, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppm (parts per million). During the last ice age, this level was around 180 ppm. Seems like a dramatic difference, right? These levels naturally decrease in the winter because carbon dioxide is trapped inside of ice. Levels then increase in the spring as ice melts, releasing carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. They don’t change as dramatically as going from 280 ppm to 180 ppm, but keep in mind the last ice age was way before the industrial revolution and atmospheric carbon gradually increased as time went on. This increase was nothing like what we see now, though. I am simply using these numbers as reference points to compare it to what our current carbon state looks like.

While the concentration of atmospheric carbon does naturally increase throughout the year, it falls just as quickly. Today’s concern is that these levels are rising 100 times faster than they did since the end of the last ice age. In less than two-hundred years, we have surpassed 280 ppm of atmospheric carbon greatly. September 2016 marks a moment in climate change history, in which we created irreversible damage by passing our carbon threshold: atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reached 400 ppm. Even when levels fall in the winter, they will never fall below 400 ppm ever again, at least in our lifetime and almost certainly never in the next few hundred years. Burning fossil fuels has been a major source of this atmospheric carbon, increasing the amount in our atmosphere faster than we can predict the damages it will cause. From what we’ve seen already, though, nothing good will come out of this. Even worse, in 2017 we hit concentrations of 410 ppm for the first time in history, climbing ten units in less than a year. At this rate, we may hit 500 ppm soon. Who knows how that will impact the planet?

Despite recent efforts to cut emissions and decrease our atmospheric carbon, current results are negligible. In the diagram below, the concentration of atmospheric carbon is depicted, along with the most recent concentration recorded on July 20 2018. While this level is below 410 ppm, this is not a result of emission reduction efforts but just a natural cyclical fluctuation in carbon levels; while levels rise and fall on a macro scale (annually), they also fluctuate on a micro scale (daily).

Okay, the planet is warming. What does that mean? Well, remember how I said that the carbon cycle tries to stay in homeostasis? That goes for the rest of the planetary cycles, as well. Any small change in the environment impacts each and every one of these systems.

The oceans, for example: increasing atmospheric temperatures causes the oceans to warm up, too. A warmer environment, even by half a degree, can be too severe for some species living in that environment that require very specific conditions. Hotter temperatures may cause the ocean water to evaporate more, contributing to greater rainfall. Greenhouse gases can combine with water vapour to create acid rain. Increased temperatures can also cause droughts, or dry up the land in areas that typically don’t get as much rain. Polar ice caps are melting, species that require cooler temperatures are migrating north to escape the warmth; climate change effects every system, everywhere. This is not just about us having a warmer summer with crazy storms. There is a much bigger issue at hand, and it’s here, now.

Let’s recap what we’ve learned so far. We now know that climate examines the average weather patterns over a long period of time, and that rising global temperatures are causing irreversible damage in all aspects of life. We know that our emissions are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to dangerous levels, trapping solar radiation from escaping, increasing global temperatures by doing so. These changing temperatures can impact everything from soil quality to ocean pH to population size.

Now that you have a basic understanding of climate change, you’re probably thinking, “okay, we have all of these problems. Isn’t something being done to deal with them?” The short answer is yes. The longer answer, which I will get into in the next post, is yes, but not in a wholly successful manner.

I hope that you enjoyed this introduction to climate change, and now understand that climate change is something to taking absolutely seriously. Yes, climate change is a crisis, and we need to deal with it as soon as possible.

Enjoy the rest of your week, and I’ll see you next week to talk about how, exactly, we are dealing with the crisis, and how we haven’t been so successful thus far.

Until next time!

The post Climate Change Part 1: What is climate change? appeared first on Clear the Air.