Wednesday, December 18, 2019

logo footer
Good news for climate change: India gets out of coal and into renewable energy

By Tim Buckley, December 16, 2019
Many businesses, large and small rely on coal in India. That is changing rapidly. Image courtesy Shutterstock


In the often grim world of climate reporting, there is at least one upbeat story: India has been aggressively pivoting away from coal-fired power plants and towards electricity generated by solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. This means that the amount of carbon dioxide the country emits into the atmosphere should come down dramatically.

The reasons for this change are complex and interlocking, but one aspect in particular seems to stand out: The price for solar electricity has been in freefall, to levels so low they were once thought impossible. For example, since 2017, one solar energy company has been generating electricity in the Indian state of Rajasthan at the unheard-of, guaranteed wholesale price of 2.44 rupees per kilowatt-hour, or 3 US cents. (In comparison, the average price for electricity in the United States is presently about 13.19 cents per kilowatt-hour, and some locations in the country pay far more. As recently as 2008, the average homeowner on Block Island, Rhode Island, paid a staggering 61 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity, before any other fees or charges—which can nearly double the price. And businesses had it even worse, with some business owners reporting electric bills of as much as $30,000 per month.)

Consequently, with this massive reduction in the cost of renewables, India is able to shift away from the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel, and to much cleaner sources. It’s a stunning change, and one that could have profound implications on the world energy market. While western countries continue to baulk at reducing their reliance on fossil fuels, India is accelerating its plans to lock in a sustained, aggressive reduction in the carbon emissions intensity of its economy. In fact, India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, is targeting a fivefold expansion of the electricity generated from renewable energy sources by 2030—and this from a country that has already doubled its renewable energy in the past three years.

This means that India is committed to more than meeting the goals of its national contributions in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement; it is going to “overdeliver,” in the parlance of economists. This development is all the more astonishing, because just a few years ago India was a villain when it came to coal use; in 2015, Modi’s ruling party had wanted to more than double India’s mining of coal, to 1.5 billion metric tons by 2020, despite the risks this posed to the climate and the country.

The benefits of this green sea-change are already being felt.

The rapid diversification of India’s electricity sector is creating an abundance of jobs and bringing an influx of new investment—needing to reach $500 billion over the coming decade if the targets are to be met—while reducing India’s emissions profile.

Ahead of the curve? Yes, India has certainly entered the global centre stage. Achievable? Entirely.

And this change of course also raises other questions, such as why India, and why now? What are the factors driving this energy transition from coal to renewables?

A perfect storm—in a good way. Several developments have come into play at once, that together have made for this startling, climate-friendly transformation of India’s energy policy. They can be generally categorized as coming from two camps; one environmental and one financial. On the environmental side, India had no choice but to deal with its poor air quality and water scarcity. On the financial end, unreliable power supplies—and India’s historic and growing dependence on imported fossil fuels—were an ongoing drag on its domestic economic growth.

We’ll take a look at each category in turn.

The environmental costs of increasing economic growth. Similar to China’s growth since the start of this century, India has been on an industrialization path that has pushed the country’s economy to grow at over 6 percent annually since 2010. In the coming decade, the Indian government is targeting 6-to-8 percent annual growth.

But such sustained economic growth comes with an ever-increasing environmental cost.

Take air pollution. Over the last couple of weeks, residents in the capital of New Delhi have likened their “hazardous” air quality to living in a gas chamber, while flights to the city have been diverted due to poor visibility, reported in the Australian Financial Review. In fact, a recent New York Times article used New Delhi as an example of some of the world’s worst air quality, noting that at 900 micrograms of fine particulates per cubic meter of air, the city was “blowing past the E.P.A.’s definition of ‘hazardous’ air (which maxes out at 500) and into extreme territory.” While seasonal factors are clearly at play, the deteriorating air quality is an all too powerful symbol of the growing environmental costs of strong economic growth for the people of India, and the right to breathe clean air is gaining traction as a demand among schoolchildren forced to stay locked indoors.

Similarly, clean water is also becoming a critical issue. The electricity sector—still the dominant energy source in India—is still largely based on coal, and this sector of India’s economy is one of the largest consumers of the country’s scarce water. Meanwhile, increasing economic growth means that the government must meet the burgeoning power demands of the population. But with the overall total water supply slowly declining and pressing agricultural needs (70 percent of India’s farming output is irrigation-based), there are simply not sufficient water resources for a continued expansion of the coal-power sector.

At the same time, India is genuinely committed to overdelivering on its national contributions to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, and locking in a sustained, aggressive reduction in the carbon emissions intensity of its economy. Indeed, India is on track to boast just 2 percent growth in carbon emissions in 2019; the country’s lowest rate of carbon-emissions growth this century, (assisted in part by the slowing economic growth rate).

In tackling air pollution, water scarcity, and the Paris targets, it might appear that India is driving its energy transformation because of domestic environmentalism. But this is not really the case. Finance is the central driver. India is embracing renewables and new energy technologies due to the compelling economic benefits of the rapid expansion of a cheaper electricity supply.

Creating a low-cost electricity supply. In 2017, India’s then-energy minister, Piyush Goyal, introduced online competitive “reverse auctions”—where suppliers can view the current bid and make lower bids if they wish—to win the right to build new renewable energy infrastructure across India. This encouraged each Indian state to compete with others, given that both local and international developers were able to choose sites with the best wind and solar resources. (The Indian states of Gujarat and Tamil Nadu offer some of the best sites in the world.)

The results of these reverse auctions were staggering; companies collectively bid for more capacity than was being auctioned by up to ten times. This high investor interest allowed the government of India to select the lowest-cost bids, ultimately benefitting India’s electricity consumers.

Fearful of missing out, the trend continued in subsequent reverse auctions, with investors bidding aggressively with cheap offers—putting enormous downward price pressure on reverse auction results. This in turn encouraged the state and central governments to encourage this investment boom further, by removing legal and regulatory barriers—lending truth to the adage that the flow of money through a system tends to organize it.

With such powerful forces at work, prices kept dropping. Previously expensive renewable energy prices dropped by some 50 percent over 2017 for both solar and then wind, while investors offered 2.40-3.00 rupees per kilowatt hour. This put domestic renewable energy prices about 20-30 percent below the cost of India’s existing domestic coal-fired power generation costs, and even below the cost of plants powered by imported coal or imported liquified natural gas.India’s Thermal and Renewable Capacity Additions, in megawatts. Source: Central Electricity Authority, MNRE, IEEFA Estimates



Subsequent reverse auction tenders reconfirmed this situation, highlighting the growing range of investors who wanted to participate in India’s renewables boom. Domestic power companies were all interested, including state-owned enterprises (not too subtly nudged by their government ministers to back this national mission using surplus capital they might have otherwise had to pay out as dividends) and private industry leaders like the massive Adani and Tata Groups. Domestic renewable energy specialists were also bidding. They were often backed by global private equity, and international investors who had jumped aboard as well—such as Japan’s SoftBank, Australia’s Macquarie Group, Goldman Sachs of the US, Singapore’s Sembcorp and Temasek, CLP Power Hong Kong, Finland’s Fortum, and France’s EDF.

The bidding for renewable projects became so frenetic that five leading Indian billionaires wrote a joint letter to the prime minister demanding limits to the injections of foreign capital. They said they could not compete with the flood of international investment that was driving electricity prices down and crowding out India’s domestic giants. The government reluctantly complied, putting a cap of $1 billion per bid per participant. An astonishingly good problem to have! India had been suffering from acute electricity supply shortages for a decade and now it was being overwhelmed with new investment in ultra-low cost electricity supply.

The result? The government of India enabled $40 billion of new investment and a doubling of renewable energy capacity in just over three years, to 83 gigawatts by September 2019, with another 45 gigawatts of large scale hydro-electricity. (To give a sense of scale, the Hoover Dam generates 2 gigawatts.)

Buoyed by the success, India’s initial target of 175 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2022 was expanded to a target of 275 gigawatts by 2027. Then in September 2019, Prime Minister Modi proclaimed a new target of 450 gigawatts by 2030, or another $500 billion of investment in the coming decade.

In addition to low-cost electricity, the government of India had introduced another key benefit into its auction process. Not only were the bids being offered about 20-to-30 percent below the wholesale price of electricity, they were also fixed at a flat rate for 25 years. In doing this, India created a deflationary low-cost electricity system running on zero inflation. A fixed rate is a very material benefit for investors, given consumer inflation was running at 10 percent annually when Modi was first elected Prime Minister in 2014.

India entered the first decade of the 21st-century on a path of massive coal-fired power generation investment, with plans reaching over 600 gigawatts. India now exits this decade with over four-fifths of this high-emission, high-pollution investment intent now shelved, uncompetitive against zero emissions renewable energy.

What’s more, the Indian government’s plans include a progressive expansion of electric vehicles, putting the country on a path to progressively reduce reliance on expensive, high emissions oil imports.

The energy transformation continues despite the economic slowdown. While the Indian government has embraced the deflationary opportunities in renewable energy investment, the technology-driven disruption of its energy system has a long way to go—and it has by no means been entirely smooth sailing.

The national electricity grid is showing signs of serious congestion from the rapid influx of intermittent renewable energy generation. The gold rush for the best wind and solar sites of a few select states has put intense pressure on the grid, created energy distribution bottlenecks, and provoked some policy contradictions—including increased state government charges on renewable energy.

The government of India has also come up against push-back from its domestic manufacturing industry, seeking—and winning—tariff protection from the ever-lower priced solar module imports from China. Prime Minister Modi campaigned on a “Made in India” manufacturing upswing, but the domestic solar industry to-date has been unable to compete with the rapid innovation and huge economies of scale inherent in China’s solar module export industry. The government’s subsequent import duties on Chinese solar modules not only raised solar tariffs by 10-to-20 percent, but caused a 12-to-18 month installation delay as the new rules were all too slowly clarified.

These issues will likely be short-lived, however, as the same imperatives that first triggered this boom continue to remain: to fight the environmental costs of India’s economic growth, and to lower India’s energy costs.

Prime Minister Modi’s target—of ensuring an uninterrupted supply of electricity to all households, industries, and commercial establishments—highlights the government’s well-publicized commitment to transforming India’s electricity system.

The energy security gains of a reduced reliance on fossil fuel imports are clear, as are the benefits of diversifying India’s electricity system from its historic overreliance on heavily polluting coal-fired power generation. And the benefits extend well beyond its borders.

As India benefits from the shift to domestic renewable energy, other emerging market nations are watching, keen to leverage the same benefits for their own countries.

And therein lies a key path to global decarbonization and a much-needed solution to limit global warming.

And none too soon.


Tim Buckley
Tim Buckley is director of energy finance studies at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, based in Sydney, Australia. He has 25 years of financial market experience cov...

RIP GM OSHAWA 


Canada 'altered' scientific reviews of oil spill research, court hears
By Carl Meyer in News, Energy, Politics | December 16th 2019

#247 of 248 articles from the Special Report:Trans Mountain


In this photo dated Dec. 5, 2019, a worker in Alberta takes 
measurements for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. 
Trans Mountain Photo / Facebook


Canada “altered” scientific reviews of oil spill research and “suppressed” information until after consultations over the Trans Mountain pipeline were over, says a lawyer for the Tsleil-Waututh Nation.

Scott Smith argued Monday at the Federal Court of Appeal that Canada had failed again in its duty to consult in a meaningful way, in part by intentionally withholding information associated with the Tsleil-Waututh’s concerns about the pipeline expansion project.

“My submission to you today is that Tsleil-Waututh was deprived of any opportunity to meaningfully dialogue,” said Smith in the Vancouver courtroom. “Either Canada was having a conversation with itself to resolve these issues, or it altered its scientists’ conclusions.”

Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson's press secretary Sabrina Kim could not immediately offer comment when reached by National Observer.

Several B.C. First Nations are in court this week to argue against the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. The court is focusing on the federal government’s conduct after it re-launched consultations last year and through this spring.

Consultations had to be redone after the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the approval of the pipeline in August 2018. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau re-approved the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in June.

The expansion project, now being built by Canada through a Crown corporation, would nearly triple the capacity of the existing pipeline, to carry crude oil and other petroleum products from near Edmonton to metro Vancouver.

The Tsleil-Waututh Nation (TWN), Coldwater Indian Band, Squamish Nation and others submitted a memorandum of fact and law to the court that says Canada commissioned reviews of Tsleil-Waututh expert reports on oil spills without telling the First Nation.


This fact was “withheld” during government consultations, the memo states, and Canada instead “took positions contrary to those of its own scientists,” only providing the reviews to the First Nation after talks had wrapped up.

By comparing the draft and final reviews, the First Nation said, it became obvious that “the conclusions within were altered to advocate for project re-approval.”

The expert reports were submitted by TWN to the government during a reconsideration hearing, held by what was then the National Energy Board in late 2018.

The reports were: an assessment of the risk of an oil spill during marine shipping by Simon Fraser University’s Thomas Gunton and Chris Joseph; an analysis of how an oil spill response might work, by environmental consulting firm Nuka Research; and an assessment of the behaviour of diluted bitumen during a marine oil spill, by environmental consultant Jeffrey Short.

Bitumen is a dense, viscous oilsands product that must be combined with chemicals in order to get it to flow smoothly along a pipeline. The resulting product is called diluted bitumen, or dilbit for short.

Government officials asked Environment and Climate Change Canada to produce a peer review of those reports, where new science could be brought to bear on the topic.

The initial version of those peer reviews is dated March 12, 2019 but TWN says they only received them on June 22. By that time, Trudeau had already re-approved the pipeline expansion, five days earlier on June 18.

“The duty to consult imposes upon Canada a ‘positive obligation’ to ensure it provides TWN with all necessary information ‘in a timely way’ so TWN had a meaningful opportunity to express its interests and concerns,” reads the memo.

“Canada failed to discharge that duty here.”

In between the March peer reviews and the June decision, TWN and Canada met on April 29, 2019, to discuss concerns linked to the expert reports that the First Nation had submitted.

TWN asked Canada if it had new studies or reviews on the project or on the reports it had filed — but was told by Canadian officials that “no such documents existed,” the court memo says.

Through cross examination, a senior bureaucrat at Natural Resources Canada confirmed that the peer reviews had been prepared by federal scientists before the April 29 meeting, and it was “possible” the request had been misunderstood.

Despite this, the First Nation also says it followed up on the April 29 meeting on May 17, asking again if there were any internal documents related to the expert reports and were told “there are no additional diluted bitumen studies to share at this time.”

Then, at a May 29 meeting, Canada finally revealed that the peer reviews existed, according to the court memo. It ultimately delivered the final versions on May 31 — hours after the final consultation meeting had just concluded that day.

"Canada suppressed and altered the peer reviews in relation to marine spills," the memo states.

TWN says the peer reviews showed that government scientists “substantially agreed” on a central issue raised in the report by Short — how long it would take for diluted bitumen that had been released in an oil spill to submerge into the ocean, making it much harder to clean up.


Short had said that spilled dilbit in the Fraser River during the spring thaw could submerge within one to two days. Government scientists said dilbit in fresh water was at risk to submerge within five to 10 days.

Yet Canada maintained the view during the April 29 meeting that “diluted bitumen submergence can take approximately two to three weeks,” a much longer timeframe, the memo stated.

“How are we meaningfully dialoguing?” Smith asked the court on Monday. “Five to 10 days is not two to three weeks.”


NATIONALOBSERVER.COM
It’s been more than a dozen years since the metaphorical alarm was first sounded, and yet the residents of Fort Chipewyan still don’t know what’s killing them. But what they do know is that there are still elevated rates of cancer in the northern Alberta community.
Sarah Lawrynuik: Downstream of oilsands, death by cancer comes too often. It’s been more than a dozen years since the metaphorical alarm was first sounded, and yet the residents of Fort Chipewyan still don’t know what’s killing them. What they do know is that there are still elevated rates of cancer in the northern Alberta community. They also know that nothing's been done to address the issue, despite community leaders asking for further investigation for years. “It’s like a silent killer. You don’t know what it is that’s out there, what’s causing you to get sick,” said Chief Allan Adam, leader of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation since 2007. Adam was in Ottawa last week campaigning, once again, to get answers for his community.
Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Mikisew Cree First Nation and the hamlet of Fort Chipewyan are all situated near the mouth of the Athabasca River, where it flows into Lake Athabasca, in the province’s upper northeast, after traversing more than 1,200 kilometres from its source in the Columbia Icefields.
On its route, the river flows through Canada’s oil patch, giving rise to the theory that the oil-and-gas industry is responsible for the illnesses, having poisoned people for years by contaminating the environment. Government bodies and researchers have challenged that theory, leading to a call for a new more conclusive health study that could provide real answers.
Thirteen years ago, Warren Simpson, a member of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, told CBC News how afraid he was that he’d die of cancer from living in that community. He said he’d been lucky enough to fight off cancer the first time he was diagnosed, but he worried that he wouldn’t be so lucky if there was a second bout.
"My dad, my sister, my aunt, a lot of my cousins have it, my friends' families ... A lot of them have died of cancer, and some of them are dying now of cancer," he said in 2006.
Last month, he posted his first entry on his blog, outlining how he was losing his battle with a rare form of bile-duct cancer called cholangiocarcinoma, which is only supposed to affect one in 100,000 people, according to American statistics.
He wanted to write the blog “mostly to give awareness of so many damn cancers that we suffer in Fort Chipewyan,” he wrote on Facebook. “Love you all for your support, and let’s pray for all the people with cancer.”
Simpson died days later.
“It’s like a silent killer. You don’t know what it is that’s out there, what’s causing you to get sick,” said Chief Allan Adam, leader of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation since 2007.
Chief Adam says he wishes Simpson were an exception, but 10 other people have passed away in the last few months, and seven of them were from various forms of cancer.
Simpson only spoke to reporters about cancer in his community because a Fort McMurray family doctor started sounding the alarm in 2006. Dr. John O’Connor was worried about the number of cancer cases he was seeing in Fort Chipewyan — especially cases of bile duct cancer, or cholangiocarcinoma — as he treated patients there remotely.
After O’Connor raised concerns, the Alberta Cancer Board — supported by the province’s governing health authority, Alberta Health Services —​​​​​​​ conducted a comparative survey to see whether he was right.
Public attention waned as the cancer board did its research. When the findings were released in 2009, they showed cancer rates were indeed higher in Fort Chipewyan than what would be expected. In a community of roughly 1,200 people, the study found, you would expect to see 39 cases of cancer. Instead, it found 51 cases, a difference of 30.7 per cent.
Rates were particularly high in cancers of the blood and lymphatic system, biliary tract and soft tissue.
“These increases were based on a small number of cases and could be due to chance or increased detection. The possibility that the increased rate is due to increased risk in the community, however, cannot be ruled out,” the report reads.
While this study confirmed there was a problem, a full investigation by Health Canada would be needed to sort out what was causing it. This comprehensive baseline health study was recommended by the Alberta Cancer Board back in 2009 but it has never been completed.
That’s why Chief Allan Adam was back in Ottawa last week, pounding the pavement, speaking with different government agencies and departments, trying to force the Liberal federal government to make good on that promise made a decade ago.
“The only reason they don’t want to do it is because of the magnitude — how big this is going to be,” Adam said.
Health Canada directed all questions to Indigneous Services Canada, which provided a statement to National Observer saying, “Since 2009 many efforts have been undertaken to bring partners together to create a framework for the Fort Chipewyan Regional Baseline Health Study, but consensus has yet to be reached.”
The Indigenous Services Canada spokesperson directed all questions related to the delay to the leadership of the First Nations.
“Both federal and provincial partners have made commitments to fund this work since 2009. Indigenous Services Canada, Alberta Health and the communities continue to work together to move forward to develop a framework,” the spokesperson said by email.
Ultimately, Adam said, the delay over the baseline study has come down to disagreement over who would have control over the research and whether industry could be part of the process.
“We don’t want industry involved,” Adam said flat out.
Furthermore, failures to consult with the communities have fishtailed previous efforts to conduct such studies, leading the communities to mistrust the intentions of government.
Public attention flared up again when influential environmental scientist David Schindler dug into the water quality of the Athabasca River.
His study, published in 2010 by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, confirmed that oilsands developments had contributed heavy metals, such as mercury, arsenic, lead and cadmium, and other contaminants — toxic even in low amounts — to the region’s waterways.
It seemed like the region’s residents had two pieces of the puzzle: a study proving they were indeed getting sick and a study showing toxic contaminants in their water supply.
Many refuted and cast doubt on Schindler’s findings, including a set of studies published seven years later by William Shotyk, a professor of agriculture and environment at the University of Alberta. Shotyk looked at silver, cadmium, lead, antimony, thallium, arsenic and lead, and found that the presence of these elements in the waterways was no different upstream from oilsands projects when compared with downstream testing.
Two research studies. Two very different conclusions about contamination. Both sets of research have seen plenty of criticism —​​​​​​​ criticism that is generally and predictably divided between those who oppose oil-and-gas development and those who support it.
The sources of research funding can be divided along similar lines. Schindler’s research was funded in part by the Tides Foundation (donations from this American charity are at the centre of conservative claims of a foreign-funding conspiracy).
Shotyk's research was paid for by the Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance and Alberta Innovates, both organizations whose express interest is innovating the oilsands.
After Schindler had published his study, without any movement on the baseline health study, the two First Nation communities of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation took matters into their own hands. They pooled their resources to begin funding research that the communities could be confident in. With some additional funding from Health Canada, a three-year, $1-million study got off the ground.
The research project was led by Stephane McLachlan, a professor at the University of Manitoba. He remembers being approached by community leaders specifically because he came from outside the province, which he believes helped build some trust automatically.
“[The study] was this attempt to bridge the science and the Indigenous knowledge that came from doing interviews and focus group discussions and talking with people and getting to know people over the years,” McLachlan said.
Based on the grassroots interviews, McLachlan quickly realized the fear of not knowing what was making people sick was influencing how people lived, right down to fear of their traditional foods.
“A lot of those kinds of drivers were preventing people from going out on the land, making people question the safety of the traditional foods. And so that had implications, obviously, for how people engage with the environment,” McLachlan said.
In 2014, while McLachlan’s study was underway, Dr. O’Connor travelled to Washington to testify before the U.S. Senate in hearings on the Keystone XL pipeline. In his testimony, O’Connor stated that he believed elevated cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan were linked to chemicals leaching into the Athabasca River from the oilsands.
The Alberta government rejected that claim, stating there was "insufficient evidence to link the incidence of cancer in Fort Chipewyan to oil sands operations" and arguing that rates of cancer are "within the expected range."
Health Canada threatened to suspend O’Connor’s medical licence for raising undue alarm.
Then, later that year, McLachlan released the findings of his study.
The research measured contaminants not only in water but also in beavers, ducks, fish, moose and muskrats — animals consumed as part of a traditional diet for those who continue to live off the land in the Peace-Athabasca Delta. He concluded that the animals contained high concentrations of pollutants such as carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, cadmium and selenium.
All of these are byproducts of extracting and upgrading bitumen. Arsenic in particular has been linked to increased risk of biliary tract cancer.
Despite these findings, McLachlan watched in horror as governments waited out the news cycle and again conducted no further investigation.
“It’s just too easy for a government and industry because I think it was quite deliberate on their part,” McLachlan said. “They could have engaged with the research. They could have engaged with the leadership. But they knew that that would just create unwanted attention. And so what they did is —​​​​​​​ they knew that whatever that media cycle is, one or two weeks, whatever it is —​​​​​​​ they just hid in the weeds and waited for it to blow over so they could just continue with business as usual.”
McLachlan says he hopes that in years to come, no matter how long it takes, the Canadian government is held accountable for its inaction.
Also in 2014, Alberta Health Services conducted a follow-up cancer survey to the one done in 2009. It concluded that the overall cancer rates were no longer especially high, but the region was seeing continued elevated rates of biliary tract and newly elevated rates of cervical cancer. The latest update to the survey is expected to be released early in 2020, according to AHS.
One last blast from O’Connor raised the issue in the media again, in 2015, when, despite remaining in good standing with the medical community, O’Connor was fired from the position he held with the local health authority, which employed him to care for the people of Fort Chipewyan.
O’Connor no longer works in the northern community but continues to keep tabs on what goes on there. With all the attention over the years, O’Connor said he can’t fathom how nothing has been done to try to ameliorate the situation in Fort Chipewyan.
“I’m extremely frustrated. I’m beyond anger. I was hopeful when the NDP got into power, but that hope was dashed. The economy and other issues took precedence,” O’Connor said.
The NDP, now the official opposition in Alberta, did not respond to a request for comment.
Since 2015 when O’Connor was fired, there’s been radio silence on the illnesses in Fort Chipewyan and surrounding communities. There is still no baseline health study to answer people’s questions about what is going on.
However, over the course of this battle for Health Canada to conduct a baseline health study, the Oil Sands Monitoring Program was established to keep tabs on any possible contamination from the industrial area. The program is a joint effort between the federal and provincial governments. Its most recent study, released in 2018, found increased presence of aluminum, copper, iron and lead in the Athabasca River, surpassing water safety guidelines. It also found an increased presence of arsenic in the Athabasca’s tributaries.
The report said these increases were not directly linked with upstream oilsands projects, but that in the Muskeg River, one of the tributary sources, that land-clearing associated with oilsands mining was believed to have played a role in increasing contamination.
National Observer asked to speak with the co-lead of the Oil Sands Monitoring Program, scientist Monique Dube, who works in Alberta Environment and Parks, but the interview was declined by the departmental communications team, citing scheduling conflicts.
When reached for comment, AHS did not offer any suggestion that anything else was being done on their part to calm community concerns or address the issue. A request for an interview was made, but they made no one available.
“At a minimum, this comprehensive health study that we've been calling for and demanding, over the last 15 or 20 years, needs to be done,” McLachlan said. “It needs to be done in a way where [the First Nations are] full partners in that work. That they have ultimate say in terms of the nature of the work, and the focus of the work, and ultimately how the outcomes are shared.”
The stress and the pain of having all of this go on for years has meant that Chief Adam is frustrated beyond belief. Talking about it isn’t easy.
“Until we do a community baseline study, all of these will just be questions,” Adam said. “It gets frustrating as a First Nations leader. You know, you’re always out there advocating and people are always looking at you saying, ‘Here comes trouble, again.’ Well that’s not the point, right? We’re trying to work together here and it’s not our lifestyle that’s causing all of these health problems.”

MATT WOLF SPEAKS FOR JASON KENNEY IN WAYS THAT SUGGEST HIS BOSS IS A CHILDISH BULLY
Matt Wolf earns $194,253 a year of taxpayers’ money to serve as executive director of Issues Management for Jason Kenney. The long-time political associate of the premier is expected to put the government’s position on issues forward in ways that will win over the public and to respond to the arguments that opponents of the government on those issues make.
Instead Wolf has a disturbing tendency to attack the critics rather than their arguments. His use of Twitter for character assassination follows the Donald Trump script. But it also replicates the premier’s disturbing McCarthyism which tends more to blanket smears of opponents as opposed to careful refutation of their arguments. When people resort to such tactics, one is right to be suspicious that they expect that their refutations would not be as powerful as the initial criticisms, and so the seek to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message.
Wolf is not acting out of character. His role in the kamikaze campaign of Jeff Callaway demonstrated that he is a wolf in wolf’s clothing. Leaked documents to the media earlier this year showed that Wolf worked closely with Callaway campaign manager Cameron Davies to coordinate a character assassination of Brian Jean as opposed to a takedown of his policies (there wasn’t that much, in a policy sense, that divided Jean and Kenney). Wolf and Jean, supposedly coordinating separate campaigns, wrote to each other regarding strategy, speeches, and advertisements. Wolf even e-mailed a resignation speech to Callaway the day he dropped out of the leadership race and endorsed Kenney for the leadership.
Jason Kenney claimed that there was nothing unusual about one campaign determining the strategy for a supposedly opposing campaign. But political commentators made the obvious point that it was not only unusual but suspect when one campaign was writing the lines for another campaign and one candidate (Kenney) was allowed to look statesmanlike by never directly attacking his main opponent while another campaign seemed to exist only to scorch Brian Jean’s name and reputation.
Matt Wolf is unlikely to become a sheep. Nor is he likely to develop the analytical and communication skills needed to defend the government’s policies in more than shallow tweets. But he and Kenney deserve to be called out for monitoring the behaviour of government opponents as opposed to their arguments. They are both paid on the public dime and need to show respect for all taxpayers since we have to pay their salaries whether we like their policies or not. In turn, we expect them to respect our right to disagree with those policies, in whole or in part, and to get answers from them about those policies that are thoughtful and researched. We do not expect and will not abide by non-answers that simply amount to “Your mother wears army boots.”
SEE     https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=MINTZ
LEFT WING POPULIST NEOLIBERALISM
Mexico transformed? Challenges, changes after a year of leftist government
December 11, 2019 
A year ago, the first leftist president in Mexico’s modern history took office.
The victory of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, commonly referred to as AMLO in Mexico, swept aside a long-standing political establishment in a society where most politicians are seen as corrupt and detached from the reality of ordinary citizens.
López Obrador’s victory not only threatened the entrenched political and economic interests that dominated Mexican politics for decades, it also came as a reprieve to an embattled left in Latin America at a time when right-wing forces were on the rise.
The transformative project of the new government, dubbed Mexico’s “Fourth Transformation,” has promised to break with the neoliberal model that had turned the country into the most unequal among OECD nations. This has meant a drastic change in policy priorities.
Under López Obrador, the government no longer promotes investment and job creation at any price. Instead, it announced the largest increase to the minimum wage in 36 years, passed a major labour reform strengthening workers’ rights and ended decades of discretionary tax breaks to large corporations. These measures have unsettled some economic elites, who are now hesitant to invest in a country that is changing the rules of the game.
López Obrador seems aware that the surly relations between the government and the private sector can hinder his transformative agenda. Despite his campaign promise of a four per cent annual growth, the economic scenario in Mexico is daunting. As the country struggles to avoid recession, rating agencies and international organizations are lowering their outlooks for the Mexican economy.
López Obrador is seen with Canada’s Chrystia Freeland at the signing of an update to the USMCA. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)
This is why Mexicans were so prompt to ratify USMCA, a renegotiated version of NAFTA, and its subsequent overhaul, despite the free-trade deal being at odds with López Obrador’s anti-neoliberal stance.
The rapid ratification of the trade agreement not only sent a message of certainty to domestic and international investors, it also flagged the limits of the AMLO government when it comes to breaking with Mexico’s neoliberal past.

Violence persists

A second threat to López Obrador’s agenda is the rising levels of insecurity in the country.
The new administration has been unable to contain a wave of violence that it inherited from its predecessors. In fact, 2019 is on the verge of becoming the deadliest year on record in Mexico. The massacre of the LeBaron family —in which six children and three women were murdered in northern Mexico — and the failed attempt to arrest the son of drug lord El Chapo in Culiacán, where the military was outnumbered by cartel gunmen, are just two examples of the government’s incapacity to end the violence.
Protesters hold a banner in support of the LeBaron family during a protest against López Obrador’s first year in office in Mexico City on Dec. 1, 2019. (AP Photo/Ginnette Riquelme)
The president’s “abrazos, no balazos” (hugs, not bullets) policy has been harshly criticized for its naiveté and has been largely ineffective.


However, one year into leftist rule in Mexico and it’s not all bad news. Despite economic woes and enduring violence, López Obrador’s government has made considerable progress dismantling a system that almost solely benefits the political and economic elite and keeps more than 50 million Mexicans in poverty.
López Obrador started his term by announcing harsh austerity measures to bureaucrats and politicians, including cutting his own salary in half and ditching the presidential mansion, jet and guards.

Tackling corruption

In a clear break with the past, his government is prosecuting corrupt officials from previous administrations. Social spending is also being revamped. About 18 million youth and elderly Mexicans are now receiving their scholarships and pensions from social programs as cash transfers.
Perhaps most importantly, López Obrador is transforming the perception of political power in Mexico and how it should be used. At most events he attends, the president finds himself surrounded by supporters who cheer and hug their leader without apparent constraints — in contrast to the strong security measures taken by his predecessors when in public.
López Obrador greets supporters in Mazatlan, Mexico as he kicked off a nationwide tour after his election. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo)
When asked about his safety, López Obrador confidently replies that it is the people who look after him. Despite his populist tone, he seems to understand that first and foremost, Mexico’s marginalized majorities need to be seen and recognized as part of a society that has excluded them for too long.
If we want to understand the change Mexico is undergoing, we must measure progress with metrics other than the GDP. Only when we gauge it via other methods will we understand the extent to which the political and economic structures that have made Mexico one of the most inequitable countries in the world are being dismantled.
Changing public perceptions about political power might not be as tangible as economic growth and decreasing homicide rates, but its impact on building a more inclusive society are real and every bit as important.

Disclosure statement