It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
In a series of tweets on November 9, “serial technology entrepreneur” Dave Troy outlines his view of cryptocurrency as “an ideologically-driven attack on the legitimacy of fiat currency, the @federalreserve, and the incumbent financial system,” and “the sequel to the January 6th” Capitol riot.
Let’s dispense with the latter charge first: There’s no merit to it whatsoever.
Cryptocurrency came into existence years before Trumpism was so much as a gleam in the Republican Party’s eye, and was conceived in large part as a method of separating money and state.
The Capitol riot, on the other hand, was no more than a tawdry tantrum of preference over which tyrant was entitled to crack the whip of government over the “incumbent financial system.”
In short, the Capitol rioters have far more in common with Dave Troy than with Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator.
Troy is partly right, though, in claiming that cryptocurrency constitutes “an ideologically-driven attack on the legitimacy of fiat currency” in general and on the Federal Reserve itself.
That doesn’t mean that the many people involved in cryptocurrency, from miners to exchange operators to individual holders, are all wild-eyed anarchist revolutionaries like me. Far from it. For the most part, they’re no different than any other class of investor, entrepreneur, or consumer. They see something of value and they want to profit from it, or at least make good use of it. For most of them, it’s no more ideological than buying a share of Apple or a loaf of bread.
But for us ideologues, yes, the purpose of cryptocurrency is to seize control of money from the political class and distribute that control widely among free markets and individual people. That would be a good thing, not a bad thing, and to understand why we need look no further than the current worries over inflation.
America’s central bankers claim that recent inflation — supposedly annualizing to more than 6% at the moment, but probably much higher — is “transitory,” while politicians either claim confusion as to its cause or attribute it to convenient distractions.
Inflation happens when the money supply increases faster than the production of goods and services for purchase with that money. Period. Rising prices aren’t inflation, they’re just a symptom of inflation.
The Fed has spent the last two years magically creating new dollars out of thin air far faster than the economy can absorb those dollars with production of goods and services to sell.
Why? So that Congress can borrow those magical dollars and spend them on whatever the political class happens to want … in the process, reducing the value of the dollars you earned with actual productive work.
While it’s a stretch to claim that cryptocurrency is immune to government manipulation, it’s at least immune to arbitrary creation by government. Cryptocurrency makes it harder for the politicians to steal from you. That’s why the political class hates and fears it.
Giving government control of money was one of our worst mistakes. Cryptocurrency is how we’re correcting that mistake.
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.
California NORML organized a celebration/symposium on November 5, 25 years to the day that California voters passed Proposition 215, the ballot initiative that legalized marijuana for medical use. The purpose of the all-day event, according to CA NORML director Dale Gieringer, was “to record the history before the people that made it are all gone.” The venue was perfect —the General’s Residence at Fort Mason, which commands a fabulous view of the Bay and North Beach. There were five panels covering aspects of the sprawling history —the last years of Prohibition, The Campaign/Implementation, Doctors/Dispensaries, Legal/Prisoners, and The Present/The Future. More than 200 pot partisans and erstwhile activists heard 35 speakers tell their tales. There was so much to say that breaks between the sessions were called off.
The show began with a video welcome from Attorney General Rob Bonta. Introducing the clip, Gieringer described Bonta as “one of the state officials who have done so much over the years to help make Prop 215 actually work.” That blunt assertion was antithetical to the POV of Dennis Peron, the prime mover, who made futile trips to Sacramento in the years after 215 passed to testify against the “enabling legislation” by which Democratic politicians from State Sen. John Vasconcellos to Jerry Brown to Gavin Newsom and Rob Bonta have effectively modified the measure. According to Dennis, all that was needed to make Prop 215 work was for Law Enforcement to respect the letter and spirit of the law.
A co-author who agreed with Dennis, Dr. Tod Mikuriya, has been gone since 2007. So the Prop 215 origin story presented at Fort Mason was one-sided, except for a video statement by Dennis that his friend Davie Smith recorded in late ’95.
Bonta, 49, is a handsome, soccer-playing Yalie, very well-liked by our two mutual acquaintances. (His wife just got elected to his old seat in my Assembly District, running as a “progressive.” She spent $1 million to edge out a Democratic Socialist.) Bonta claims and deserves credit for passing the legislation on which the current tax-and-regulate scheme rests. In 2015 the Assembly passed his “Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act” (MMRSA, pronounced “mersa”). No physicians were involved in the drafting process, obviously, or the politicos wouldn’t have called it by the name of a deadly pathogen (MRSA, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus). Mersa consisted of three separate bills, each, according to Bonta, addressing a problem that supposedly stemmed from Proposition 215. His three bills work in concert with the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA, rhymes with trauma). The complex scheme imposes a 15% excise tax on cannabis that must be paid by all users —as if it cannabis really medicine after all! (Prescription meds are not taxed anywhere in the US except Illinois, where the rate is 1%. In almost all states, over-the-counter meds are taxed at the sales tax rate, which in progressive California is 7.25%, the highest in the nation.)
Soon after AUMA took effect in 2018 it became apparent that high taxes were driving consumers away from licensed sellers. Bonta introduced a bill to reduce the excise tax to 11%, but his fellow legislators, instantly addicted to the extra revenue, voted it down. As AG he has been going after illicit growers and vendors. He proudly announced in his Fort Mason video that the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting had recently eradicated “nearly 1.2 million cannabis plants that were grown illegally.” To some in the audience the once dreaded thwump thwump thwump of choppers has become a welcome sound, and the formerly disdained Camo Buddies are rappelling down to save the environment. “The wheel of the law turns,” wrote Uncle Ho, “What could be more natural?”
The first panel was called “The Lead-up to Prop 215.” Gieringer recounted how in 1994 and ’95, medical marijuana bills had passed the state legislature and then been vetoed by Gov. Pete Wilson. These bills would have applied only to patients suffering from AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma. Dr. Mikuriya scornfully called them “the short-list initiatives.” After Wilson’s second veto, activists meeting at Dennis Peron’s San Francisco Cannabis Buyers’ Club drafted a ballot initiative that could not be vetoed or (it was assumed) weakened by the state legislature. They dubbed it “The Compassionate Use Act of 1996.”
Creating the wording was a truly collective process, with Gieringer, Dennis, Mikuriya, and attorney Bill Panzer playing key roles. Valerie Corral, an epilepsy patient who grew her own medicine in Santa Cruz, insisted that the right to cultivate be specified. Valerie was on the “Lead-up” panel but didn’t take credit for her crucial contribution. Later in the day Pebbles Trippet would acknowledge her role.
At one point three women in nuns’ habits came in and stood against a nearby wall. The garb looked authentic but not much worn, and at a quick glance (it’s rude to stare) they all-seemed 30-something behind their masks. They could have been Bay Area gals repurposing their Halloween outfits or they could have been real nuns from Holy Names, the Oakland college at which George “I Guarantee It” Zimmer, president of the Men’s Wearhouse, had funded a chemistry lab with a plaque honoring Dr. Mikuriya. After a while the three took seats to my right. When a speaker expressed his and “our” great love and respect for “the plant,” I heard myself saying, “So we grow her under lights and deprive her of sexual fulfillment.” The nearest nun cracked up. I asked politely, “Are you real sisters?” She said yes, but not from the order of Holy Names. I didn’t know what to believe.
The second panel, “Taking it to the Streets: The Prop 215 Campaign,” featured the Soros-funded professionals who took over the leadership from Dennis in the early months of 1996. (The usurpers took it to the streets by hiring a professional signature-gathering firm.) Soros’s lieutenant for drug policy reform, Ethan Nadelmann, and Santa Monica PR pro Bill Zimmerman laid out the Capital-H History that someday will inform Ken Burns’s inevitable Marijuana documentary.
I started muttering audibly. Leif Erikson, MD, was sitting in front of me. I figured he wouldn’t find my jive objectionable because he knew the real story. Which is…
By January, 1996, it had become clear that Dennis’s network of volunteers could not come up with enough signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. Nadelmann notified Bay Area activists that he’d arrange the financing and, as a quid pro quo, replace Dennis as campaign manager. They assented. Then, to allay Soros’s fears that he’d be seen as a carpetbagger (which he was), Nadelmann arranged a $105,000 contribution from George Zimmer, . Soros then came through with $350,000, Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance with $300,000, John Sperling of Phoenix University and other private colleges, $100,000, and Laurence Rockefeller (!) $50,000.
In April both Zimmerman and Dennis submitted ballot arguments in support of Prop 215 for inclusion in the Voter’s Handbook. It was Secretary of State Bill Jones. a Republican politician active in the No-on-215 campaign, who selected Zimmerman’s ballot arguments. These would subsequently be interpreted by judges to weaken the law passed by the voters. The initiative was written, Panzer says, as “a bar to prosecution.” But the ballot argument that Zimmerman drafted for San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan to sign would turn the new law into “an affirmative defense,” meaning the cops could keep arresting and the DAs could keep charging people with cultivation, distribution, and even possession. Only then, as a defendant, could a medical user cite their doctor’s approval. (Pro-cannabis MDs often had to take time off to confirm their diagnoses in court as a result of the “Yes” ballot argument.”
Years later I asked Hallinan why he had signed the ballot argument. He said he assumed whatever Zimmerman wrote was right on because “We go back to the DuBois Clubs” (a youth group set up by the Communist Party in the 1950s as a recruiting mechanism). I never wrote about this because the only headline I could think of was “The Commie Conspiracy to Weaken Prop 215.”
Prop 215 was well ahead in the polls when Nadelzimm took over the campaign. A statewide survey in June ’95 by David Binder Associates had put the margin of support at 60-40. The opposition was led by an over-confident Attorney General Lungren and other Republican politicians and law enforcement officials who assumed the American people would buy their War-on-Drugs propaganda forever. Their strategy was to make the vote a referendum on Dennis Peron and the San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club.
On Sunday morning August 4, about 100 agents from the California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, supervised by Senior Assistant Attorney General John Gordnier, raided 1444 Market Street. Simultaneously, five smaller BNE squads raided the homes of Buyers Club staff members in and around the city. The raiders wore black uniforms with BNE shoulder patches. They seized 150 pounds of marijuana, $60,000 in cash, 400 growing plants, plus thousands of letters of diagnosis that citizens had brought from their doctors and left on file at the club.
Members kept streaming by in the days after the bust and expressed their dismay and anxiety as they stood outside the closed front door, with its big red cross and heart painted on the plate glass. Many went across the Bay and joined the newly formed Oakland Cannabis Cooperative. Several San Francisco churches began serving as dispensaries. New clubs were launched in the Mission District (Flower Power) and at Dennis’s old location at Church and Market (CHAMP —Cannabis Helping Alleviate Medical Problems).
Dennis considered opening the club in defiance of the court order. He was dissuaded by attorney J. David Nick, who thought he could get the terms of the shutdown modified in Superior Court by promising to tighten up the admissions procedures.
Bill Zimmerman went so far as to urge the northern California ACLU chapter not to file an amicus brief on Dennis’s behalf. “Every time I debate Brad Gates,” said Zimmerman, referring to the Orange County Sheriff, a No-on-215 leader, “he always begins by saying, ‘This bill was written by a dope dealer from San Francisco,’ and emphasizes the looseness with which the Cannabis Buyers Club was run.” Zimmerman said he had developed an effective counter: “If Prop 215 were law, we wouldn’t need such clubs.”
Why, I asked Dennis, had he come up so short on the original signature drive? “I think I underestimated the climate of fear,” he said. “People think twice before they sign a petition that involves drugs. It’s like the McCarthy period —people worry if their name will go down on some list, if they’ll lose their job. Where are the liberals who will stand up and say, ‘This has gone too far?”
The liberal who stood up was Garry Trudeau. On Monday, Sept. 30 the Chronicle, the LA Times, and many other papers in California ran a strip in which Zonker’s friend Cornell says, “I can’t get hold of any pot for our AIDS patients. Our regular sources have been spooked ever since the Cannabis Buyers’ Club in San Francisco got raided…”
Attorney General Lungren, fearing the impact these strips would have on the Prop 215 campaign, urged the newspaper publishers who carry Doonesbury to spike the entire set. “Alternatively,” he suggested in a letter to the media owners, “your organization should consider running a disclaimer side-by-side with the strips which states the known facts related to the Cannabis Buyers Club.”
Lungren provided an op-ed piece stating the facts as determined by his BNE investigators. The club “Sold marijuana to teenagers. Sold marijuana to adults without doctors’ notes. Sold marijuana to people with fake doctors’ notes using phony doctors names and in some cases written on scrap paper. Allowed many small children inside the club where they were exposed for lengthy periods of time to second-hand marijuana smoke. Sold marijuana to people whose stated ailments included vaginal yeast infections, insomnia, sore backs and colitis —hardly terminal diseases. Sold marijuana in amounts as large as two pounds, greatly exceeding the club’s ‘rules.’”
Lungren called a press conference for Tuesday, Oct. 1, to reveal some of the evidence that had been assembled against Peron and the San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club. During the question-and-answer session he got irritated by a question about Doonesbury. “Skin flushed and voiced raised, Attorney General Dan Lungren went head-to-head with a comic strip Tuesday…” is how Robert Salladay began his Oakland Tribune story. Don Asmussen in the SF Chronicle lampooned “Lungren’s War on Comics.” The New York Times devoted two full columns to the brouhaha, including a quote from Peron: “Crybaby Lungren… I think he’s just gone off the deep end. Waaa!”
According to the polls, a gradual decline in support for Prop 215 ended Oct. 1. Lungren had Peron arrested Oct. 5 on criminal charges that included conspiracy to distribute marijuana —one more effort to make the vote a referendum on this infamous San Francisco pot dealer. Press conferences to denounce Prop 215 were called by Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey and Joseph Califano of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (who flew out to San Francisco to publicize a misleading poll). Former presidents Ford, Carter and Bush released a letter calling a No-on-215 vote. Senators Boxer and Feinstein were also opposed, as was Gov. Gray Davis (all Democrats). The very popular former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop carried the No-on-215 message in the final ad campaign. Proposition 215 passed on November 5, 1996, with 56% of the vote.
Fred Gardner is the managing editor of O’Shaughnessy’s. He can be reached at fred@plebesite.com
Wealthy Americans Get Paid Leave, Shouldn’t the Rest?
For Ruth Martin, the fight for paid leave is both professional and personal.
NOVEMBER 12, 2021
As Senior Vice President of MomsRising, she’s helped mobilize more than 870,000 calls and emails to lawmakers advocating for paid leave and other pro-family benefits in the Build Back Better legislation.
As the daughter of a cancer patient, she’s seen up close how the lack of paid leave benefits ravages families.
“I lost my mom to lung cancer in June,” Martin said at a recent Capitol Hill rally. “Losing a parent is devastating. Losing a parent during a pandemic is worse. And losing a parent without paid leave is absolutely horrendous.”
During her mother’s illness, Martin had paid leave benefits through her employer, but her three siblings who live near her mother’s home did not.
“Lung cancer spreads quickly,” Martin said. “My brother who lived with my mother would still have to go to work because he didn’t have paid leave. And it was so terrifying to have to wonder what was going to happen while he was gone.”
President Biden had proposed 12 weeks of paid leave to allow workers to care for newborn babies, other loved ones, or for personal illness. Then conservative Democrats stripped the benefits entirely from the Build Back Better Act, claiming that the world’s richest country cannot afford a benefit that nearly every other country offers its workforce.
But an outcry from MomsRising, Family Values at Work, and many other advocacy organizations succeeded in shoehorning four weeks of paid leave back into the legislation.
Now even this modest proposal is in jeopardy.
West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin continues to insist that paid leave be addressed through bipartisan legislation, rather than through the Democrats-only budget reconciliation process. He aims to strip these benefits before the legislation is finalized.
The absence of a national paid leave system is one of many drivers of our country’s skyrocketing inequality. The larger your paycheck, the more likely you are to have these benefits.
Among the highest-earning tenth of private sector workers, 95 percent have some form of paid sick leave, according to federal data. Among the lowest-earning tenth, just 33 percent do. In the highest-wage group, 43 percent have paid family leave, compared to just 6 percent in the bottom group.
The lack of paid leave creates a vicious cycle for families struggling to get by. In the event of pregnancy, illness, or family medical emergency, people who are already earning less than a living wage may have no choice but to drop out of the workforce entirely.
Under the House legislation, a worker whose employer doesn’t provide paid medical or family leave can apply for up to four weeks a year of wage replacement for time off.
Workers making $15,000 or less a year would receive the highest wage replacement rate — 90 percent — but have to have earned at least $2,000 in the two years prior.
The plan cuts off wage replacement for those earning more than $62,000 a year. People with higher incomes can submit requests for paid leave, but their earnings would be replaced only up to that level.
Since every Democrat’s vote will be needed for passage in the Senate, Manchin’s opposition means the paid leave provision faces an uphill battle.
Whatever happens with this round, the fight will continue.
“We need paid leave in this country for the moments that break our hearts and the moments that fill us with joy,” said Martin of MomsRising. “And no one should risk losing their last moments with their parents because they have to clock in and clock out for work.”
Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Forests Can’t Handle All the Net-Zero Emissions Plans: Companies and Countries Expect Nature to Offset Too Much Carbon
White Salmon Canyon, Washington State. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.
Net-zero emissions pledges to protect the climate are coming fast and furious from companies, cities and countries. But declaring a net-zero target doesn’t mean they plan to stop their greenhouse gas emissions entirely – far from it. Most of these pledges rely heavily on planting trees or protecting forests or farmland to absorb some of their emissions.
That raises two questions: Can nature handle the expectations? And, more importantly, should it even be expected to?
We have been involved in international climate negotiations and land and forestclimate research for years. Research and pledges from companies so far suggest that the answer to these questions is no.
What is net-zero?
Net-zero is the point at which all the carbon dioxide still emitted by human activities, such as running fossil fuel power plants or driving gas-powered vehicles, is balanced by the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Since the world does not yet have technologies capable of removing carbon dioxide from air at any climate-relevant scale, that means relying on nature for carbon dioxide removal.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global carbon dioxide emissions will need to reach net-zero by at least midcentury for the world to have even a small chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F), an aim of the Paris climate agreement to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
The devil of net-zero, of course, lies in its apparent simplicity.
Nature’s potential and its limits
Climate change is driven largely by cumulative emissions – carbon dioxide that accumulates in the atmosphere and stays there for hundreds to thousands of years, trapping heat near Earth’s surface.
Nature has received a great deal of attention for its ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the biosphere, such as in soils, grasslands, trees and mangroves, via photosynthesis. It is also a source of carbon dioxide emissions through deforestation, land and ecosystem degradation and agricultural practices. However, the right kinds of changes to land management practices can reduce emissions and improve carbon storage.
Net-zero proposals count on finding ways for these systems to take up more carbon than they already absorb.
Researchers estimate that nature might annually be able to remove 5 gigatons of carbon dioxide from the air and avoid another 5 gigatons through stopping emissions from deforestation, agriculture and other sources.
This 10-gigaton figure has regularly been cited as “one-third of the global effort needed to stop climate change,” but that’s misleading. Avoided emissions and removals are not additive.
A new forests and land-use declaration announced at the UN climate conference in November also highlights the ongoing challenges in bringing deforestation emissions to zero, including illegal logging and protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.
Stored carbon doesn’t stay there forever
Reaching the point at which nature can remove 5 gigatons of carbon dioxide each year would take time. And there’s another problem: High levels of removal might last for only a decade or so.
When growing trees and restoring ecosystems, the storage potential develops to a peak over decades. While this continues, it reduces over time as ecosystems become saturated, meaning large-scale carbon dioxide removal by natural ecosystems is a one-off opportunity to restore lost carbon stocks.
Carbon stored in the terrestrial biosphere – in forests and other ecosystems – doesn’t stay there forever, either. Trees and plants die, sometimes as a result of climate-related wildfires, droughts and warming, and fields are tilled and release carbon.
When taking these factors into consideration – the delay while nature-based removals scale up, saturation and the one-off and reversible nature of enhanced terrestrial carbon storage – another team of researchers found that restoration of forest and agricultural ecosystems could be expected to remove only about 3.7 gigatons of carbon dioxide annually.
Over the century, ecosystem restoration might reduce global average temperature by approximately 0.12 C (0.2 F). But the scale of removals the world can expect from ecosystem restoration will not happen in time to reduce the warming that is expected within the next two decades.
Nature in net-zero pledges
Unfortunately there is not a great deal of useful information contained in net-zero pledges about the relative contributions of planned emissions reductions versus dependence on removals. There are, however, some indications of the magnitude of removals that major actors expect to have available for their use.
ActionAid reviewed the oil major Shell’s net-zero strategy and found that it includes offsetting 120 million tons of carbon dioxide per year through planting forests, estimated to require around 29.5 million acres (12 million hectares) of land. That’s roughly 45,000 square miles.
Oxfam reviewed the net-zero pledges for Shell and three other oil and gas producers – BP, TotalEnergies and ENI – and concluded that “their plans alone could require an area of land twice the size of the U.K. If the oil and gas sector as a whole adopted similar net zero targets, it could end up requiring land that is nearly half the size of the United States, or one-third of the world’s farmland.”
These numbers provide insight into how these companies, and perhaps many others, view net-zero.
Research indicates that net-zero strategies that rely on temporary removals to balance permanent emissions will fail. The temporary storage of nature-based removals, limited land availability and the time they take to scale up mean that, while they are a critical part of stabilizing the earth system, they cannot compensate for continued fossil fuel emissions.
This means that getting to net-zero will require rapid and dramatic reductions in emissions. Nature will be called upon to balance out what is left, mostly emissions from agriculture and land, but nature cannot balance out ongoing fossil emissions.
To actually reach net-zero will require reducing emissions close to zero.
Doreen Stabinsky is Professor of Global Environmental Politics, College of the Atlantic. Kate Dooley is a Research Fellow, Climate & Energy College, The University of Melbourne.
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 10, 2021 Enbridge’s 1,038-kilometre pipeline is a crucial petroleum conduit for Ontario and Quebec.
DALE G. YOUNG/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Canadian operator of the Line 5 pipeline is urging Joe Biden’s administration to embrace its proposal to reroute a controversial Great Lakes crossing deep underground as an example of U.S. “Build Back Better” infrastructure projects.
Calgary-based-Enbridge’s 1,038-kilometre pipeline is a crucial petroleum conduit for Ontario and Quebec that carries Alberta and Saskatchewan petroleum through Great Lakes states before re-entering Canada at Sarnia, Ont.
Its future is unclear after Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer ordered the pipeline shut down over fears of an oil spill where it crosses the Straits of Mackinac waterway in northern Michigan.
Canada and the United States are in negotiations over the matter after Ottawa invoked a 1977 bilateral treaty that was designed to ensure the uninterrupted transmission of petroleum between the two countries.
Enbridge, meanwhile, is still awaiting regulatory approval for a workaround that it says would further insulate the Great Lakes from a potential spill. Right now, Line 5 splits into two pipelines that enter the Straits of Mackinac and run along the seabed from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to the Lower Peninsula where they reunite into one line.
The company is proposing to build a US$500-million tunnel that would run deep under the Straits of Mackinac – as much as 100 feet below – as an alternative to the current route. It would bore through the rock under the waterway in what company advertising says would “virtually eliminate the chance of a pipeline incident in the Straits.”
Colin Gruending, an executive vice-president at Enbridge, argued that the project fits the Biden administration’s “Build Back Better” priorities. “The tunnel is a job creator, it protects the environment and it secures the economic security for the entire region. This fits right into the criteria of the current U.S. administration.”
Mr. Biden’s spending agenda, styled as “Building Back Better” after the economic toll taken by the COVID-19 pandemic, includes a massive infrastructure plan, but the energy component is not focused on fossil fuels.
Mr. Gruending said the company finds it surprising that the Michigan government won’t work with Enbridge to move ahead on the tunnel project. “We should be focused on partnering on building the tunnel as reasonably and expeditiously as possible,” Mr. Gruending said.
“The pipeline will continue to be safe until we get the tunnel built but the sooner the state starts working with us to permit and construct the new tunnel the better, and should be everyone’s priority.”
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last June announced it had opted to conduct a more extensive review of the tunnel project, a decision that could add years to the process.
The Michigan Governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Enbridge’s statements but a spokeswoman for Michigan Attorney-General Dana Nessel on Tuesday rejected the tunnel as a viable solution.
“We remain focused on the continuing threat presented by the existing pipelines in the water,” Lynsey Mukomel said in a statement.
“We cannot afford to wait for a tunnel that will not be built for several years, if at all.”
A University of Michigan computer-modelling study in 2016 concluded that more than 1,120 kilometres in Lake Huron and Lake Michigan would be vulnerable to oil spills if the pipelines beneath the Straits of Mackinac were to rupture.
While Michigan remains intent on shutting down Line 5, the White House on Tuesday said it is not contemplating shutting down Line 5 as it engages in talks with Canada.
“We expect that both the U.S. and Canada will engage constructively in those negotiations,” White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters.
She said those discussions should not be viewed as an indicator that the U.S. government was considering shutting down the pipeline.
“That is something that we’re not going to do,” she said.
Environmental critics say the Line 5 tunnel project in no way qualifies as a 21st-century infrastructure project of the kind envisioned by the Biden administration.
“When the world’s leading climate scientists are saying we have to rapidly decarbonize the global economy in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change it makes no sense to spend any time building a tunnel to transport more climate change-inducing fossil fuels,” said Sean McBrearty, the Michigan legislative and policy director with environmental group Clean Water Action.
Mr. McBrearty estimated that as things stand, the tunnel project is now seven to 10 years from completion.
With reports from Reuters
With wealth comes waste: Alberta to target environmental waste with new legislation
By Jessika Guse Global News Posted November 15, 2021 Alberta is pushing forward with a plan to reduce the amount of waste that people in the province send to landfills every year. Morgan Black has the details.
With Albertans sending 1,034 kilograms of waste per person to landfills annually — a number higher than any other Canadian jurisdiction, according to Alberta government data — it’s no wonder the province is looking to put a stop to all the waste.
On Monday, the government announced that new legislation will be brought forward, and if passed, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Amendment Act would set the foundation for the provincial government to implement an extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework next year.
“We have historically been the wealthiest province in the country, and as a result, with wealth tends to come waste,” said Christina Seidel, executive director of the Recycling Council of Alberta.
“We are high consumers because we’ve been wealthy, and as a result, we create a lot of waste.
“We’re the only province that produces more than one tonne per person per year of garbage and that is something that we need to really deal with.”
The national average of waste produced per person is 710 kilograms per year, the province said.
Essentially, the EPR framework would create a provincial system for managing single-use plastics, packaging, paper products and hazardous and special products like household pesticides and solvents.
According to a provincial government news release, it would shift the physical and financial role of collecting, sorting, processing and recycling waste to the industries that produce products instead of local governments and taxpayers.
“Basically if you’re a producer — whoever brings the product into the province — then you have to make sure that a certain percentage of that material gets properly handled, ie. recycled, at the end of its life,” Seidel explained.
The move would also increase recycling as a whole in Alberta, which Seidel says is good news all around. The increase would contribute roughly $1.4 billion to the economy and support about 13,300 jobs, Seidel said.
“Right now, and for too long, municipalities and taxpayers have been shouldering the burden of collecting, sorting, processing and recycling waste,” said Minister of Environment and Parks Jason Nixon
According to a news release, if passed, EPR would help Alberta transition to a plastics circular economy and achieve one of the goals outlined in the Natural Gas Vision and Strategy for Alberta to become a North American centre of excellence for plastics diversion and recycling by 2030.
KENNEY SOCK PUPPET FOR BIG OIL Ottawa must consult provinces on emissions cap for oil, gas industry: Alberta premier
OTTAWA — Alberta Premier Jason Kenney warned the federal government on Monday that it must consult with the provinces as Ottawa moves on plans to implement a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector.
The warning came during a rare appearance between Kenney and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as Alberta became the latest province to agree to participate in a national child-care program.
The two leaders sought to downplay their long-standing differences during a news conference in Edmonton announcing the child-care deal after Alberta spent months holding out alongside Ontario and New Brunswick, which still don’t have an agreement.
Yet Trudeau and Kenney struck distinctly strident tones when asked by reporters about the prime minister's announcement at the UN climate change talks in Scotland two weeks ago that Canada would start working on the long-promised emissions cap.
IF KENNEY WAS SERIOUS HE WOULD HAVE GONE TO COP26
INSTEAD UCP BOYCOTTED IT
After Trudeau promised federal officials would consult industry, experts and scientists as it develops the cap, Kenney took issue with the prime minister’s failure to include provinces in the list of interested stakeholders.
“The provinces own the resource, and under the Constitution, the provinces regulate the development of those resources,” Kenney said in response to a reporter’s question as Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland looked on.
“So I will underscore the importance of collaboration. When it comes to finding a balance between jobs and growth and reducing emissions, I think we can find a suitable approach.”
Trudeau did not specifically respond to Kenney's comments, but did insist all parts of the economy will need to do their part if Canada is to reach its emissions-reduction targets by 2030 while encouraging economic growth in clean energy and other sectors.
In July, Canada formally submitted to the UN its new target, which aims to reduce emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. The previous target was a 30 per cent reduction by 2030.
“Canada doesn't reach our 2030 targets unless everyone is part of it,” the prime minister said on Monday.
“And we need the innovation, the hard work, the leadership, the science, the knowledge of Albertans and folks in the oil and gas sector across the country to be part of figuring out how we move forward.”
The cap had been promised in the Liberals' recent election platform, with plans to force emissions down until they hit net zero in 2050. A lack of regulations for the sector has long been a sore spot between environmental groups and Ottawa.
Some environmental groups have since said the government should focus on cutting production from the oil and gas sector rather than reducing emissions through long-term targets and unproven technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration. THE FIRST TWO ARE UNICORNS ONLY LNG IS REAL Kenney, however, held up carbon capture, hydrogen energy and liquefied natural gas as ways to reduce emissions, adding: “We are willing to be partners as long as there is a future for the largest sector of the Canadian economy. That is our energy sector.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 15, 2021.
Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
Note to readers: This is a corrected story. A previous version said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his promised cap on emissions for Canada's oil and gas sector at the United Nations climate change talks in Scotland last week. The announcement came Nov. 1.
Braid: Kenney's agitated party drags down his good news day
Like many things UCP, the revolt is peculiar
Author of the article:Don Braid • Calgary Herald Publishing date:Nov 15, 2021 •
Riding presidents held a rambling Zoom session with reporters. They claimed to honour the party constitution without quite saying most of them want Kenney out on his ear.
This has been rumbling for many months, often at high volume, with elected UCP members calling for Kenney to quit.
The dissidents have now met the standard of 22 ridings officially demanding a special party meeting to vote on leadership.
Not coincidentally, the UCP annual general meeting starts Friday in Calgary. The central party, so far loyal to Kenney, can’t simply ignore the rebel demand.
Like many things UCP, the revolt is peculiar.
In all the long history of party uprisings against conservative premiers (Don Getty, Ralph Klein, Ed Stelmach and Alison Redford), there’s never been one that reads like a formal Supreme Court challenge.
Kenney looked almost grey when he took to the podium alongside Trudeau, who surely knew what was going on.
It had to be deeply embarrassing for Kenney to stand beside his chief political foe at a moment like that.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (left) listens while Alberta Premier Jason Kenney answers a questions about climate change policy during a joint federal-provincial announcement of $10-a-day daycare at Boyle Street Plaza in Edmonton, on Monday, Nov. 15, 2021. PHOTO BY IAN KUCERAK /Postmedia Kenney went on the offensive. It didn’t work out well.
The premier said Alberta didn’t sign earlier because it wanted terms like Quebec’s child-care deal, with no strings attached to funding.
Well, said Trudeau, you could have a similar deal if Alberta, like Quebec, already had daycare costing only $8.50 per day. But Alberta does not, Trudeau said, so there must be standards attached to $3.8 billion in federal money, including an eventual cost of $10 per day.
Kenney argued that it’s not really federal money, just Albertan tax payments coming back home. Sometimes it’s tough for an Alberta premier to be gracious to Ottawa. The spectacular bottom line is that Ottawa is going to send Alberta that $3.8 billion.
This isn’t really Alberta tax money anyway. It’s borrowed.
These prickly exchanges took some shine off a good-news announcement that could actually win Kenney some popularity.
Ottawa allowed participation of licensed private daycare centres, a large part of Alberta’s capacity. But most new spaces — more than 40,000 over five years — are expected to be not-for-profit.
Kenney presented the support for private care as a win. But the NDP noted that Ottawa has never ruled out the participation of for-profit centres, as long as they’re licensed by the province.
“That was just a stalling tactic used by this government,” said NDP children’s services critic Rakhi Pancholi.
The delays have cost parents money. But starting in January their daycare payments will be reduced by 50 per cent.
Rakhi Pancholi (Alberta NDP Critic for Children’s Services) at It’s All About Kids Daycare in Edmonton on Monday, November 8, 2021.
PHOTO BY LARRY WONG /Postmedia
Next year, the government says, a family earning $120,000 a year that now pays an average of $1,172 a month for one infant will pay only $284.
This agreement leaves Ontario as the only major province without a deal. Premier Doug Ford will have some explaining to do. When even Alberta sees benefit in a federal deal, shouldn’t he?
Kenney went from the daycare news conference to another with Metis leaders who are challenging the federal ban on tanker oil shipments off the northern West Coast.
He made some good points about the many First Nations that support resource development.
But the party anvil bumped along behind the premier.
With him was his Indigenous Affairs minister, Rick Wilson, and Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo MLA Tany Yao.
Both their riding associations called Monday for an early leadership vote. The presidents were at the news conference.
There has to be a resolution soon or this party could blow apart at the seams, just from the stress.
Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Calgary Herald.
UCP constituency associations say they passed vote triggering early Kenney leadership review
Social Sharing
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Reddit
LinkedIn
Announcement comes ahead of the United Conservative
Party's annual general meeting this weekend
CBC News ·
More than a quarter of the province's United Conservative Party constituency associations say they have passed special motions that would trigger an early leadership review of Jason Kenney, to be held within the next three months. (Chris Schwarz/Government of Alberta)
More than a quarter of the United Conservative Party's constituency associations say they have passed a special motion that will force a leadership review of Jason Kenney within the next three months.
In a letter to party president Ryan Becker that was shared with the media Monday, 22 constituency associations say they have passed identical motions that would call for the leadership review at a special general meeting sometime before March 1.
A review of Kenney's leadership was already planned for April during the party's 2022 annual general meeting. In September, the party decided to move next year's AGM up to the spring from its usual time in the fall. Monday's announcement of the special motions to force a leadership review sooner than that comes ahead of the 2021 AGM this weekend.
At a news conference Monday morning, UCP Calgary-Fish Creek constituency association president Jack Redekop declined to speak about criticism of Kenney's leadership, instead framing the early review as a matter of timing that will ensure input from as many party members as possible.
"This would allow one member, one vote," Redekop said, noting that at an annual general meeting, "only those attending are allowed to vote on the motions, including if it is a leadership review."
"So that is the primary reason."
WATCH | Kenney says UCP remains united despite calls for leadership review:
Asked about calls by many UCP constituency offices to expedite a leadership review, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney says the party is united and is focusing on “big issues, not internal party politics." 1:28
'Frustrations' in party 'no secret,' Kenney says
Redekop said the early leadership review would also occur before the legislature's spring session and said the party's constitution mandates periodic leadership reviews.
"So then the question just defers to the timing," he said. "It is nothing other than that.
"I mean, do we have some members displeased with the leader? Of course we do. Do we have some members that are completely supportive of the leader? Yes we do."
He said the 22 constituency associations represent 36 per cent of sitting UCP MLAs — more than the quarter needed under the bylaws to trigger the review — but that more constituency associations are currently voting on the motion. Three boards have already rejected it, Redekop said.
Kenney is currently facing plunging approval ratings and intense pushback from his caucus and party for his government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
During questions from reporters at an unrelated news conference Monday, Kenney said he recognizes there has been a "very divisive and polarized debate" in the province, and within his party, on how best to respond to the pandemic.
"Those frustrations are being felt in my own party and caucus. There is no secret about that," he said.
"At the end of the day, it's my responsibility as premier, and the government's responsibility, to take responsible actions," Kenney said. "We have done that, and I do believe actually that the vast majority of the folks in my party are united around our common values and goals."
In an emailed statement to CBC News, Becker said a letter had been received "regarding a special general meeting. The board [of directors] will review and discuss it."
Motions aim to ensure security of voting system
The letter to Becker says that according to motions the associations have passed, the leadership election committee will include two constituency presidents appointed by the associations, as well as an independent accounting and auditing firm that will oversee the process to "ensure the security of the voting system."
"We know that the media in the past has suggested that there was some inappropriate malfeasance with previous campaigns," Redekop said, adding that has never been proven "and there is no evidence that that has happened."
Delegates vote on policies at the 2019 Alberta United Conservative Party Annual General Meeting in Calgary. According to one of the party's constituency association presidents, the upcoming early leadership review is a matter of timing that will ensure input from as many party members as possible. (Dave Chidley/The Canadian Press)
"We just wanted to make sure that we quelled any possibility of that rumour spreading with this particular vote."
During the party's 2017 leadership vote, two of the three candidates — Brian Jean and Doug Schweitzer — asked that voting be put on hold hours after members began casting their ballots because of concerns about voter security related to personal identification numbers.
The party's leadership election committee said it found no evidence of security breaches.
Redekop said Becker has told the constituency associations that he has acknowledged the legitimacy of the boards' passed motion.
Kenney 'under seige'
The president of the Central Peace-Notley constituency association, Samantha Steinke, was more blunt than Redekop about her board's views of Kenney's leadership.
"I feel I would be doing not my job if I wasn't very clear on the stance of my (constituency association) board, which is they overwhelmingly do not support the premier," Steinke said.
She said that's the reason her board has passed the motion, but noted it wasn't the reason all the other boards had passed it.
Derrick Casey, president of the Grande Prairie constituency association, said his board passed the motion "marginally" but said "certainly there is a discontented group" within the party that disapproves of Kenney's leadership.
"It is not one issue and certainly, to have success in this motion speaks to the fact that there is a level of urgency."
Mount Royal University political scientist Lori Williams said Kenney is "under siege" from both outside and within his party.
"He has got the lowest polling numbers of any leader in the country," she said. "He is facing censure from the opposition. He is getting public criticism from his own caucus and from within his cabinet.
"And he has now got 22 constituency associations that want to force a leadership review before March."
Williams said the constituency associations that passed the motion want to send a clear message to the party that they think they can be more successful in the next provincial election with a leader other than Kenney.
The United Conservative Party Constituency Association Presidents confirm a special motion has been passed by enough associations to pave the way for a review of Premier Jason Kenney's leadership.
At least 22 associations, accounting for more than a quarter of the UCP associations, passed a special motion demanding a leadership review be held within the next three months at a special general meeting.
“This would allow one member, one vote,” said Calgary-Fishcreek Constituency Association president Jack Redekop on Monday.
“With a AGM (annual general meeting) April 8th and 9th, just like the AGM that we have starting this weekend, only those attending are allowed to vote on the motion, including if it's a leadership review.”
Redekop says there have been nine meetings in the last eight months on calls for a leadership review. Many associations have brought forward concerns on everything from how the province handled the pandemic to pipelines and health care problems.
“We've had up to 37 constituencies on the call. Were some of those constituencies absolutely wanting to change the leader? To force a leadership review immediately, and even at this AGM? Absolutely," said Redekop.
“Frankly, I think the majority of the people on those meetings supported the leader.”
Premier Jason Kenney admits there is unrest within party lines.
“Those frustrations are being felt in my own party, in caucus. There's no secret about that,” he told reporters Monday.
“I do believe actually the vast majority of folks in my party are united around our common values and goals.”
According to the association presidents, the passing of the special motion by the 22 associations meets the threshold to trigger a special general meeting to conduct a leadership review as per the party's conditions endorsed by the board.
The presidents say that a motion will be on the floor Friday, on day one of the party’s 2021 AGM in Calgary. The motion would increase the threshold from 25 per cent of constituency associations (CA) calling for a review to 33 per cent. This vote has support of 36 per cent of associations, according to Redekop.
Though Redekop fronted a media conference on Monday, he did not pinpoint the exact reason why this review needed to be called early.
Samantha Steinke, president of the association in Central Peace-Notley region, said she does not trust Kenney to lead.
"I feel I would be doing not my job if I wasn't very clear on the stance of my CA board, which is that they overwhelmingly do not support the premier,” said Steinke.
"So that is the reason that this board has passed. But that is not the reason that all boards have passed the motion."
Party members also say that any motion brought forward at the 2021 AGM can only be brought forward by Kenney himself.
“It’s clear that premier Kenney is in a fight for his political life,” said University of Calgary political scientist Lisa Young.
“I think there is a lot of discontent in the party at what is seen as being a real repudiation of that grassroots guarantee.”
Young believes the move by constituency associations sends a strong message.
“I think that it also has to do with wanting to be sure that there is a reasonably long runway for a new leader in advance of the 2023 provincial election,” she said.
Derrick Casey, constituency association president for Grande Prairie, says the timing of an early leadership review is what triggered the votes, but it didn’t sway all associations.
“Even those people who are displeased with the work of the premier are saying, ‘if we have a leadership review, who is in the wings, what then?’” said Casey.
“Those people are saying no to a leadership review, regardless of timing.”
The following are the four constituency associations who have passed the motion: Airdrie-Cochrane Innisfail-Sylvan Lake Calgary-North East Calgary-Klein
BIG OIL CAPITOL OF CANADA Calgary city council declares a climate emergency
Author of the article: Madeline Smith Publishing date: Nov 15, 2021 •
Mayor Jyoti Gondek speaks with the media after breakfast with energy industry leaders on Monday, November 15, 2021.
Azin Ghaffari/Postmedia
After nearly two hours of debate Monday night, city council overwhelmingly agreed to declare a climate emergency. The 13-2 vote comes two years after Edmonton made its own emergency declaration, and it was one of Mayor Jyoti Gondek’s first moves after being elected last month. In addition to the emergency declaration, the motion calls the City of Calgary environmental plan to be updated to aim for net-zero emissions by 2050. Gondek said the move is about aligning the city government with the position Calgary oil and gas companies are already taking.
“It is a matter of making sure that we understand the reality of the table stakes that are declaring a climate emergency, so we can actually attract capital and talent here,” she said.
Coun. Sean Chu and Coun. Dan McLean, the two votes in opposition, said they were concerned about council sending a negative message to Alberta’s oil and gas industry.
“Fossil fuels have, if anything, made human life on this planet better, not worse. They have blessed humans with the capability of living successfully in a harsh natural climate like ours,” Chu said.
“Declaring a climate emergency should not take priority over the economic emergency and jobs emergency in Calgary.”
Coun. Jasmine Mian said she rejects the idea that the motion represents an “attack” on the oil and gas sector.
“When facing a collective action problem like climate change, the greatest threat is thinking that everyone else will take care of it,” she said.
Coun. Sonya Sharp wanted council to change the wording of the declaration from “climate emergency” to a “call to action” to accelerate the environmental work the city is already doing.
But she could only get a handful of council colleagues on her side, with others saying they feared changing that language could water down its intent. Numerous cities around the world have declared a climate emergency, and city officials said if Calgary didn’t use the same language, it wouldn’t be on that same level.
Ahead of the council discussion, energy company representatives and business leaders met with city council members, and Gondek said it represents how the municipal government is forging a new relationship with the energy sector.
“There are so many accomplishments in the energy transition that we just haven’t been talking about. The narrative has to get out there that our city and our energy sector is doing good work — they have set some very, very high targets for bringing emissions under control.”
Calgary Chamber president and CEO Deborah Yedlin said Monday that the business community’s reaction to the proposed motion varies depending who you ask, and some have been concerned about the possible message behind it.
But she doesn’t believe there should be cause for concern, saying Calgary has an opportunity to become “the Silicon Valley for energy transition technologies.”
“When we have this kind of pronouncement by the city, it puts us on the map. It takes away some regulatory uncertainty, it takes away that perspective that we’re not committed and that people will look at us again in a different light,” she said.
“And that’s what’s really exciting because there is a lot of money on the sidelines looking to invest in the energy transformation, and we are so well-positioned to do that.”
Explorers and Producers Association of Canada president Tristan Goodman added that energy companies have already gotten on board with commitments to pursue net-zero emissions by 2050 and combat climate change.
“We know we have an emissions problem, and we have to show to Canadians, but also actually our own investors, that we treat this seriously — which we do,” he said.
Avatar Innovations CEO and co-founder Kevin Krausert said there hasn’t historically been ties as strong as he’d like to see between municipal leaders and the energy sector, and Monday’s meeting helps create new connections.
“I think Calgary stands at an important crossroads,” he said.
“The energy transition is the single greatest economic opportunity facing Calgary. We’re literally talking about rewiring and repowering the world.”
masmith@postmedia.com Gondek hosting breakfast with energy industry leaders ahead of decision on climate emergency declaration
Author of the article:Stephanie Babych Publishing date:Nov 15, 2021 •
Mayor Jyoti Gondek speaks at an orientation outlining the 2022 Adjustments to the One Calgary Service Plans and Budgets report at Calgary Municipal Building on Monday, November 8, 2021.
PHOTO BY AZIN GHAFFARI/POSTMEDIA
Calgary’s mayor and councillors will be joined by a number of energy industry leaders for breakfast Monday morning, ahead of city council’s decision on a motion to declare a climate emergency.
Leaders from the energy sector will meet with Mayor Jyoti Gondek and councillors early Monday to discuss the industry and the notice of motion to declare a climate emergency that would also update Calgary’s environmental plan to aim for net-zero emissions by 2050.
The energy companies that will be represented at the Mayor’s Energy Breakfast include Suncor, Shell, Enbridge and Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance.
“I want us to have a candid, open discussion to move forward on this journey so that by 2050 we reach our targets,” Coun. Raj Dhaliwal said Sunday.
“I’m very optimistic and hopeful that we’ll have a very good discussion. I worked in the energy sector for more than 10 years, I’ve seen it first-hand and been a witness to the great work that our energy sector has already been doing through innovation and technology.”
Also present at the meeting will be TC Energy, Imperial, Avatar Innovations, White Cap Resources, Young Pipeliners Association of Canada, The Explorers and Producers of Canada, Energy Futures Lab, and Ecosystems at Sustainable Tech Canada.
The motion also asks for the city’s environmental plan to be updated to include the goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, which is a worldwide target to stop adding heat-trapping carbon emissions to the atmosphere and limit global warming to 1.5 C.
“My biggest hope this week is that we get on that journey to net-zero,” said Dhaliwal, adding that he hopes to see unanimous agreement from his fellow councillors.
The Ward 5 councillor said it’s long overdue for Calgary to make such a statement.
A number of other Canadian cities have declared climate emergencies, including Edmonton in 2019. Corporations including Shell, Cenovus, Repsol and Teck have also previously committed to net-zero emissions targets by 2050.
The discussions and decisions that will be made Monday show that Calgary council is committed to focusing on its climate targets and that they recognize the significance of it, Ward 3 Coun. Jasmine Mian said Sunday.
“I think declaring a climate emergency is a really important step for us at this juncture. I think it shows we have a strong commitment to addressing climate change,” said Mian.
“I think the conversations we’re having around reaching net-zero by 2050 are going to require us to reframe how we make decisions and think about climate not so much as a policy that sits on the shelf with all the other policies, but is a consideration that underscores everything we do.”
Mian said the breakfast meeting is an excellent opportunity to learn more about what’s being done and what can be done to meet the city’s climate targets.
:format(jpeg)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/ZPR5OBVKB5NFDIZCZYI7AKNZIM.jpg)
