The 30 Second Anarchist Manager

What would anarchist management look like. How would it fulfill the organizations goal of becoming a 'professional learning community', which is the latest in vogue paradigm for the post-TQM age.

Keeping the Black Flag Flying: Anarchy, utopia and the politics of nostalgia. 

Patrick Reedy. 

In this paper I explore the neglected use of utopias and utopian thinking by the critical management community. I argue that utopianism provides a number of stimuli to both critical thinking and practice when considering the ‘good’ organisation. In particular I draw attention to the distinctive features of anarchist utopianism as being worthy of further attention. Managerialist Utopias Having outlined some general contextual discussion of utopian thinking, it might be interesting to explore one of the possibilities raised the analysis of the claims made by official management theory. Certainly, the argument that utopian longing is a constant feature of all societies would seem to be borne out by the strong appeal to such longings within management literature. However, in this case it is the business organisation which becomes the utopian community within which the individual achieves their full potential. I shall examine the claims of one particular expression of this strongly managerial utopian current, found in ‘The Fifth Discipline’ (Senge 1999). Senge recounts something of a conversion from seeing the public sector as the agent for the development of a progressive society to seeing the business organisation as the driving force, and in particular the emergence of the ‘learning organisation’, where “people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspirations is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together”. (1999: 3) The emergence of the learning organisation is seen as part of a natural historical process in the developed world where affluence for the ‘majority’ has brought about a rejection of an instrumental attitude to work. Instead we are all seeking to build organizations “that are more consistent with man’s higher aspirations” (1999: 5). Such aspirations appear to include righting social injustice (through the development of a broader sense of corporate responsibility). 

The new focus in management studies and in management paradigms in the work place is leadership. Which a Canadian critic of MBA programs disses. Business school scourge slams MBA leadership trend

Professor Henry Mintzberg, scourge of the business school world, has launched his latest attack on his own profession of management scholars by denouncing the teaching of leadership, the latest business school trend.

In Monday’s Financial Times, Prof Mintzberg writes: “We have this obsession with ‘leadership’. It’s intention may be to empower people, but its effect is often to disempower them.” By focusing on the single person, he writes, “leadership becomes part of the syndrome of individuality” that is “undermining organisations”.

In his latest article Prof Mintzberg, a strategy professor at McGill University in his native Montreal, decries “managers who sit on ‘top’, pronouncing their great visions, grand strategies and abstract performance standards”.

Good management and leadership, he argues, cannot be separated. “Does anyone want to work for a manager who lacks the qualities of leadership?...Well, how about a leader that doesn’t practise management?”

Capitalism 3.0

A free book on the need for capitalism to reform itself into socialism by evolving into the cooperative commonwealth. An old idea from last century which we know in Canada as the CCF, and in the UK as Guild Socialism and Cooperative Distributionism economics.

Capitalism 3.0: a guide to reclaiming the commons 

 I’m a businessman. I believe society should reward successful initiative with profit. At the same time, I know that profit-seeking activities have unhealthy side effects. They cause pollution, waste, inequality, anxiety, and no small amount of confusion about the purpose of life. I’m also a liberal, in the sense that I’m not averse to a role for government in society. Yet history has convinced me that representative government can’t adequately protect the interests of ordinary citizens. Even less can it protect the interests of future generations, ecosystems, and nonhuman species. The reason is that most—though not all—of the time, government puts the interests of private corporations first. This is a systemic problem of a capitalist democracy, not just a matter of electing new leaders. I’d been much affected by the writings of British economist E. F. Schumacher. In his 1973 book Small Is Beautiful, Schumacher argued that capitalism is dangerously out of sync with both nature and the human psyche. As an alternative, he envisioned an economy of small-scale enterprises, often employee-owned, using clean technologies. When capitalism started, nature was abundant and capital was scarce; it thus made sense to reward capital above all else. Today we’re awash in capital and literally running out of nature. We’re also losing many social arrangements that bind us together as communities and enrich our lives in nonmonetary ways. This doesn’t mean capitalism is doomed or useless, but it does mean we have to modify it. We have to adapt it to the twenty-first century rather than the eighteenth. And that can be done. The Decline of the Commons In the beginning, the commons was everywhere. Humans and other animals roamed around it, hunting and gathering. Like other species, we had territories, but these were tribal, not individual. About ten thousand years ago, human agriculture and permanent settlements arose, and with them came private property. Rulers granted ownership of land to heads of families (usually males). Often, military conquerors distributed land to their lieutenants. Titles could then be passed to heirs—typically, oldest sons got everything. In Europe, Roman law codified many of these practices. Despite the growth in private property, much land in Europe remained part of the commons. In Roman times, bodies of water, shorelines, wildlife, and air were explicitly classified as res communes, resources available to all. During the Middle Ages, kings and feudal lords often claimed title to rivers, forests, and wild animals, only to have such claims periodically rebuked. The Magna Carta, which King John of England was forced to sign in 1215, established forests and fisheries as res communes. Given that forests were sources of game, firewood, building materials, medicinal herbs, and grazing for livestock, this was no small shift. In the seventeenth century, John Locke sought to balance the commons and private property. Like others of his era, he saw that private property doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it exists in relationship to a commons, vis-à-vis which there are takings and leavings. The rationale for private property is that it boosts economic production, but the commons has a rationale, too: it provides sustenance for all. Both sides must be respected. Locke believed that God gave the earth to “mankind in common,” but that private property is justified because it spurs humans to work. Whenever a person mixes his labor with nature, he “joins to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.” But here Locke added an important proviso: “For this labor being the unquestionable property of the laborer,” he wrote, “no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” In other words, a person can acquire property, but there’s a limit to how much he or she can rightfully appropriate. That limit is set by two considerations: first, it should be no more than he can join his labor to, and second, it has to leave “enough and as good” in common for others. This was consistent with English common law at the time, which held, for example, that a riparian landowner could withdraw water for his own use, but couldn’t diminish the supply available to others. Despite Locke’s quest for balance, the English commons didn’t last. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the movement to enclose and privatize it accelerated greatly. According to historian Karl Polanyi, this enclosure was the great transformation that launched the modern era. Local gentry, backed by Parliament, fenced off village lands and converted them to private holdings. Impoverished peasants then drifted to cities and became industrial workers. Landlords invested their agricultural profits in manufacturing, and modern times, economically speaking, began. One observer of this transformation was Thomas Paine, America’s pro-independence pamphleteer. Seeing how enclosure of the commons benefited a few and disinherited many others, Paine proposed a remedy—not a reversal of enclosure, which he considered necessary for economic reasons, but compensation for it. Like Locke, Paine believed nature was a gift of God to all. “There are two kinds of property,” he wrote. “Firstly, natural property, or that which comes to us from the Creator of the universe— such as the earth, air, water. Secondly, artificial or acquired property— the invention of men.” In the latter, he went on, equality is impossible, but in the former, “all individuals have legitimate birthrights.” Since such birthrights were diminished by enclosure, there ought to be an “indemnification for that loss.” Paine therefore proposed a “national fund” that would do two things: [Pay] to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property: And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age. A century and a half later, America created a national fund to do part of what Paine recommended—we call it Social Security. We’ve yet to adopt the other part, but its basic principle—that enclosure of a commons requires compensation—is as sound in our time as it was in Paine’s.

Home - Peter Barnes : Peter Barnes

peter-barnes.org

Peter Barnes is an innovative thinker and entrepreneur whose work has focused on fixing the deep flaws of capitalism. He has written numerous books and articles, co-founded several socially responsible businesses (including Working Assets/Credo ), and started a retreat for progressive thinkers and writers ( The Mesa Refuge ).

NUKE NEWS

Arctic SMR plans make progress

09 August 2021

Rusatom Overseas has been licensed as competent to construct Russia's first SMR power plant on land. The plant, based on the RITM-200 reactor design, is scheduled to operate in the Russian Arctic town of Usk-Kuyga from 2028.

How a power plant based on RITM-200 technology could appear (Image: Rusatom Overseas)

“We have reached another milestone in the project for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Yakutia region" said Oleg Sirazetdinov, vice president of Rusatom Overseas. The licence comes from a department within the Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Nuclear Supervision, Rostekhnadzor, that deals with radiological safety in an inter-regional context.

Usk-Kuyga is a town of around 1000 inhabitants on the Arctic coast of Russia's far east in the Republic of Yakutia. The regional government has agreed to take up to 50 MWe of the plant’s production.

In November last year, Rosatom said it had been working on "various engineering surveys to evaluate the suitability of the chosen site, including a hydrometeorological survey, an environmental survey, a geodetic survey, and a geological survey". On 5 August the company said most of the survey work at the station construction site has been completed, and a preliminary version of the environmental impact assessment and the licence substantiation materials have been developed. Public hearings in Ust-Kuyga in June presented information on the planned plant's environmental impact.

With the start of the construction planned for 2024, Sirazetdinov said the new licence "is an important step towards the successful implementation of the project." The new reactors are scheduled to generate power in 2028.

RITM reactors are family of integral pressurised water reactors designed by OKBM Afrikantov which are usually used in pairs. Versions of the design are already used in three of the latest icebreakers - Arktika, Sibir and Ural - and are proposed for floating nuclear power plants. Construction in Usk-Kuyga will be the first deployment of the version adapted for use on land.

US NRC discontinues work on reprocessing regulation

09 August 2021

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has discontinued work on a rulemaking that would have added a framework for licensing commercial reprocessing facilities to its regulations. In a notice published by the US Federal Register on 29 July, the regulator said its decision was based on the costs of conducting the rulemaking coupled with limited interest from industry.

A dry storage facility for US used nuclear fuel (Image: NAC International)

Reprocessing of used fuel from commercial reactors has been prohibited in the USA since 1977, with all used fuel being treated as high-level waste. Industry interest led to a 2013 NRC recommendation to develop the regulatory framework - with a limited scope mostly restricted to risks associated with reprocessing facilities - but in 2016, industry interest in constructing and operating a commercial reprocessing facility had declined and the regulator suspended its work on the issue, the NRC said in the Federal Register notice.

The NRC in March last year held a public meeting with stakeholders to discuss the status of the rulemaking, as well as engaging with organisations and vendors in the advanced reactor community to assess their interest in and specific needs for reprocessing. While industry representatives had voiced their support for continuing the rulemaking, no stakeholders had indicated any plans to submit an application to the NRC for a reprocessing facility in the foreseeable future, it said, and also noted that it would cost an estimated USD2.5 million to complete the rulemaking. "Therefore, while a rule would provide additional clarity for potential applicants, the NRC concludes that it is not warranted at this time," the NRC said.

The American Nuclear Society (ANS) last year urged the NRC to resume the rulemaking. The organisation's CEO and Executive Director Craig Piercy reiterated that call following the NRC decision.

"We're disappointed with the NRC's decision to suspend the rulemaking," Piercy told World Nuclear News. "ANS remains concerned that innovation in advanced reactor designs may be slowed by the absence of a modern, efficient and predictable regulatory framework for the recycling of used nuclear fuel. We urge the Commission to continue evaluating existing regulations and maintain its readiness to reengage in the rulemaking process in the near future."

Should it receive an application for a commercial reprocessing facility, the NRC could use its existing regulatory framework under part 50 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities for any near-term licensing needs, the regulator said. Current US Department of Energy activities to develop reprocessing technologies, particularly for advanced reactors, are aimed at providing a limited near-term supply of high-assay low-enriched uranium - also known as HALEU - for initial advanced reactor designs and do not require NRC licensing.

US energy retailer's nuclear tariff grows in popularity

05 August 2021

US energy retailer Energy Harbor has claimed "strong demand" for its tariffs offering carbon-free electricity from nuclear power plants. Interest in and sales of 100% carbon-free retail electricity products from the company's clean, reliable nuclear fleet have increased significantly this year, it said yesterday.

The two-unit Perry plant, pictured when it marked 30 years of operations in 2017 (Image: FirstEnergy)

The company offers a range of energy tariffs to business and residential customers in the US states of Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Its carbon-free options are tracked and delivered through Emission-Free Energy Certificates (EFECs).

Senior Vice President of Sales David Leone said Energy Harbor's clean energy products had attracted interest from a range of commercial and industrial industry sectors including data processing, auto, steel, plastics, food processing, secondary and higher education, municipalities and others, with the company seeing a shift in carbon-free demand as customers strive to achieve their ESG (environment, social and governance) goals. "In addition to our ever-growing commercial and industrial carbon-free customer base, we are also serving nearly 100,000 individual residential customers with 100 percent carbon-free power, eliminating over a half a million tons of carbon dioxide from the environment annually," he added.

Energy Harbor sources its power from the Beaver Valley plant in Pennsylvania and the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear power plants in Ohio, with a total generating capacity of around 3950 MWe. These "produce nearly 30 million EFECs annually" for "climate conscious" customers including 100,000 homes, according to company statements. Planned closures of units at the Davis-Besse and Perry plants were rescinded in 2019 and Beaver Valley in 2020 after state-level action to support zero-emission generation.

The company also uses the WH Sammis and Pleasants coal-fired power plants in Ohio and West Virginia respectively, with a total capacity of 3500 MWe, and these support other tariffs. Overall Energy Harbor says its electricity is "nearly 90% carbon free", pointing to the relatively low capacity factor of those plants.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

WHY FARMERS CREATED THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Drought-battered producers facing another crisis — contract penalties

Deadly combo of crop failures and sky-high prices leave some facing huge penalties on unfulfilled contracts

By Alexis Kienlen
Reporter
Published: August 9, 2021

Although this harvest will be meagre, Jason Saunders expects to fulfil his grain contracts this year. But countless farmers across the Prairies won’t be able to — and many face substantial penalties when they can least afford it. Photo: Supplied

The drought is squeezing producers from all sides, with many facing another calamity — not having enough crop to fulfil their grain contracts.

“There are issues because the drought is so widespread,” said Jason Saunders, vice-chair of Alberta Wheat and a dryland farmer from near Taber. “There was aggressive forward contracting on canola and old-crop wheat because of the record-high prices happening in the spring.

In normal times, there’s the option of sourcing canola or grain from farmers who have a good crop. Moreover, prices tend to fall between the time a portion of the crop was pre-sold and harvest.

But that’s not the case this year.

“This year is different, because more areas have been hit by drought. Finding the production needed won’t be easy — it’s a Prairie-wide issue,” said Saunders.

Not being able to fulfil contracts — and having to take a big loss — are a huge concern this year as prices, especially for canola, are sky high and producers were more likely to forward contract, said Alberta Canola general manager Ward Toma.

“We’ve had two very rare events happening at the same time,” he said. “Historical, high, never-heard-before prices at the same time we’re having a historic low production that is shrinking every day.

“We see crop disappearing every day because of the dry condition in the Prairies, and we see record prices at the same time.”

But there’s little that his organization, or others, can do once a contract has been signed, said Toma.

“It’s a voluntary contract between you and the grain company,” he said. “You accepted it, and that’s part of the problem. With contract law, you sign that document and you (have to) abide by those terms.”

Kevin Auch took a “very conservative” approach when pre-selling part of his pea crop. But he’s not sure he’ll even harvest the 13 bushels an acre he needs to fulfil that contract. photo: Supplied

However, many producers “just look at the price” or assume that if they have a complete wreck, there’s some sort of way out.

“Unfortunately, we have people learning these things the hard way,” he said. “They don’t take the time to read the contract and understand what the terms are. They just look at the price.”
Be up front

But there are other reasons why farmers sign grain contracts.

“The idea is that you pre-sell some of your crop, so you get harvest movement or soon thereafter,” said Sylvan Lake producer Mike Ammeter. “It’s a cash flow issue — I need the money, I need this grain sold and to get it moved — (or) maybe it’s a storage issue.”

Pre-selling is not uncommon but “it’s all over the map as to how farmers approach that,” he added.

Some are more aggressive but even those who take a conservative approach can be caught in a year like this one, said Ammeter.

“Maybe it’s your habit to pre-sell 20 to 30 per cent of your crop, and now you’ve got nothing. How do you tackle that?”

The first thing to do is to call the grain company, he said.

“You have to do your best to negotiate out of it. Be up front and do your best to come to an agreement on how you’re going to settle this.”

That’s the advice that farm organizations across the Prairies are giving their members right now. But again, this year is different. For example, in past years some companies might have agreed to roll the contract over to next year. But this year, grain companies are in a bind, too, noted Toma.

“The shortage of the crop is going to be a problem — not just for the farmers who can’t deliver the product, but also to the grain companies that can’t make their deliveries,” he said.

It all makes for a very tough situation.

“I don’t see the grain companies would allow you to purchase back your grain (contract) until you harvest and you deliver everything you’ve got,” said Saunders. “And then if you’re still short, it would be a case where (you) would buy it at market price.”

Nevertheless, contact your grain company immediately, he said.

“Grain companies that get a phone call from producers saying they are short — they have to send their representatives out to look at the field. They don’t take your word for it, unless there has been a widespread hailstorm.”

Also, during droughts people often think they have less crop than they do, said Saunders, who is pretty sure he will be able to fill his contracts.

“We’re harvesting our winter wheat right now,” he said in an interview in late July. “It’s not very good, but there’s still something. At times, people are just saying there’s zero. They can be short, and not be at zero.”
One-sided deals?

But the situation is once again shining a light on the nature of these contracts, which Saunders calls one sided.

“They (grain companies) have out clauses, but there aren’t any out clauses for producers,” he said. “I think an equal contract is all I could ever argue for at this point — one that has equal risk and liability on both sides.”

Although smaller companies handling special crops might let a producer out of a contract, Saunders said he has never seen a large grain company or a primary elevator do that.

Even though he only pre-sold a small portion of his pea crop, Carmangay producer Kevin Auch doesn’t know if he’ll harvest enough for his contract.

“A 13-bushel-acre average is what I’ve contracted, but this is the worst crop I’ve seen since the 1980s,” he said. “I thought I was being very conservative, but I might be short on my contract a little. It’s going to be nip and tuck here.”

Some farmers may find themselves first delivering whatever they harvested to the elevator and writing a cheque to a grain company, he said.

“Some of them say, ‘You’ll make up the difference between the price that you contracted it for, and the price that it is now — that could be $2, $3, $4 a bushel depending on what it is,” said Auch. “It gets a little scary when you’re having to take $2, $3, $4 a bushel out of the meagre crop that you have and apply it to the crop you’re short on.”

Producers should pull out their contracts and give them a thorough read, he said.

“Some contracts have Act of God clauses, so if you have that, you’re fine. It just depends on what the contract says.”

However, Act of God clauses are more common in pulses and specialty crops, and are not commonly seen in wheat and canola, he said, adding a grain company “can’t take that loss either.”

“They make their money by shipping the grain,” said Auch. “They have a margin in there, and that’s the margin that they pay to get it to the customer. Now the customer is still expecting that product at that price.”

While some have argued crop commissions in the Prairie provinces, should band together to pressure grain companies to make contracts more fair to farmers, their role is very limited in this regard, he said

“The only thing commissions could do is inform farmers of what they are signing … (and) warning farmers of some of the pitfalls,” said Auch, who served as Alberta Wheat chair in 2016-18.

The advice to call your grain company as soon as possible really is the best option, he added.

“I’ve already talked to one of my grain buyers that I am going to be short on my pea crop,” he said. “They are aware of that, and if they have anything on their end that they can start working on, they can mitigate it.”

You should also talk to the grain company about any fees, said Daryl Fransoo, chair of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.

Often, producers aren’t aware of the fees and that they can vary widely, said the Saskatchewan farmer who has been taking a lot of calls from growers worried about their contracts.

“Farmers are getting charged over and above the spread when they’re buying their contract out,” said Fransoo. “Grain companies are calling it an administration fee. It differs greatly between companies.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Alexis Kienlen lives in Edmonton and has been writing for Alberta Farmer since 2008. Originally from Saskatoon, Alexis is also the author of two collections of poetry, a biography, and a novel called "Mad Cow."

Company 'shocked' by Ottawa's decision on proposed coal mine in southwestern Alberta



CROWSNEST PASS, Alta. — The company behind the proposed Grassy Mountain coal project in southwestern Alberta says it is shocked by the federal government's decision that it cannot proceed.

Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson made the announcement in a news release Friday.

He said while mining is important to the economy, coal can include significant adverse environmental effects.

Wilkinson said the decision was based on information that included the findings of a joint review panel report.

Benga Mining Limited says in a statement this week that the minister's determination was made despite applications being filed with the Court of Appeal of Alberta by the company and two separate First Nations.

The company says its legal counsel wrote to the minister requesting he take no action at this time to allow it to pursue legitimate legal avenues on appeal.

"We are shocked that Canada's Minister of the Environment should take such a precipitous step before our legal appeal could be heard in court," Benga CEO John Wallington said in the release.

"By ignoring Benga's legitimate request that he hold his decision in abeyance whilst the legal appeal process runs its course, the minister has ridden roughshod over the legal rights of Benga, Piikani Nation and Stoney Nakoda Nations.

"The minister's actions may have far-reaching implications beyond any one project, and sends a strong message to potential investors that Canada's regulatory regime is uncertain."

Wilkinson said in the news release last week that the project would have likely caused harm to surface water quality, to species including the threatened westslope cutthroat trout and endangered whitebark pine trees, and to the physical and cultural heritage of the Kainai, Piikani and Siksika First Nations.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 10, 2021.

The Canadian Press

1. Meet the Australian Companies Behind the Grassy Mountain ...

   https://albertawilderness.ca/meet-the-australian-companies-behind-the...

   2020-11-30 · If Benga went bankrupt, its limited liability status protects Hancock. If Benga still exists when the mine ceases production, Albertans have to hope it will have posted adequate money, or equivalent security, to fund reclamation and long-term monitoring activities under the Mine 

Australia refuses to commit to net zero emission in next 30 years

Reacting to UN warning on climate changes, prime minister says he ‘will not sign blank check’ on behalf of Australians

Islam Uddin |10.08.2021

*Writing by Islamuddin Sajid

ANKARA

The Australian prime minister on Tuesday refused to commit to the UN target of net zero emissions by 2050.

Speaking to reporters, Scott Morrison said: "I won't be signing a blank cheque on behalf of Australians to targets without plans."

“Australians deserve to know the implications and the costs and what the plans are," Morrison added.

On Monday, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that over the next 20 years, the global temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius.

A report by the IPCC experts projected that in the coming decades climate changes will increase in all regions, saying for 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming, there will be increasing heat waves, longer warm seasons and shorter cold seasons.

“At 2°C of global warming, heat extremes would more often reach critical tolerance thresholds for agriculture and health,” the report added.

The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the Working Group's report was nothing less than "a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable".

He added that ahead of the Glasgow climate conference in November, all nations – especially the advanced G20 economies – needed to join the net zero emissions coalition, and reinforce their promises on slowing down and reversing global heating, "with credible, concrete, and enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)" that lay out detailed steps.

However, the Australian prime minister said he will set out a clear plan that his citizens deserve to know.

Ancient flood that covered Fort McMurray area could offer insights into rapid climate change: U of A study

Author of the article: Scott McLean
Publishing date: Aug 09, 2021 •

Sophie Norris, who led a team of researchers as a University of Alberta Faculty of Science PhD student, takes samples in Fort McMurray Wood Buffalo's rural areas. Norris was studying an ancient flood that covered much of the prairies 12,000 years ago. Supplied Image/University of Alberta

A flood that covered Fort McMurray roughly 12,000 years ago could offer researchers insights into what drives rapid climate change.

The epic flooding, which was led by researcher at the University of Alberta, is one of the largest of its kind in the planet’s history. Sophie Norris, who led the team as a U of A Faculty of Science PhD student, says the flood from melting glaciers could have altered the circulation of the world’s oceans. This would have caused temperatures to drop and ushered in an ice age.

“What’s really interesting and important about this lake is that as it drained, it occurred at the same time as we were going into a sort of warm period more like the climate conditions that we have today,” said Norris in an interview.

The flood waters drained from an ancient glacial lake called Agazzis, which formed nearly 16,000 years ago. At 1.5-million square kilometres, the lake was roughly the size of Mongolia and larger than any lake that exists today. It stretched across Saskatchewan and Manitoba and crossed into northeastern Alberta, including what is now the Fort McMurray Wood Buffalo area.

The glacier melted fast enough to fill 800 Olympic swimming pools every second and gave way to enough water to fill the Great Lakes.

The floodwaters flowed northwest through a channel referred to as the Clearwater-Athabasca Spillway, which passed through Fort McMurray, and into the MacKenzie River Basin. The rushing waters did not stop until it reached the Arctic Ocean.

The flood corresponds with a period called the Younger Dryas. The northern hemisphere was coming out of an ice age but suddenly returned to near-glacial conditions. Norris and other researchers are planning more studies to understand the flood’s relationship to the Younger Dryas.

“The [flood] that goes through the Fort McMurray area is one of the leading culprits for [rapid climate change],” said Duane Froese, Canada Research Chair in Northern Environmental Change and Norris’ PhD supervisor at the University of Alberta, in an interview. “But up until now we never had a really good estimate of exactly how much water went through and what the source of that water was.”

The flooding in the Clearwater Valley was enough to cover houses, while geographically the terrain at the time was at the level of the Fort McMurray International Airport. As the flood waters flowed north, gravel deposits were left in its wake.

“One of the things that’s really cool is just how much construction and development around the Fort McMurray area intercepts these flood deposits,” said Froese.

“From building basements and housing developments through mining and the oilsands developments themselves.”

Ancient lake flood spanned the prairies, factored in ice age: U of A research
Author of the article:Nicole Bergot
Publishing date:Aug 09, 2021 • 

An illustration of a family of Woolly Mammoths grazing on what is left of the grasses as winter approaches in this ice age scene. PHOTO BY AUNT_SPRAY /Getty Images/iStockphoto
Article content

An epic glacial lake flood spanning Canada’s prairies may have been swift enough to trigger the ice age roughly 12,000 years ago, shows research lead by the University of Alberta.

The flood from the ancient 1.5-million square kilometre Glacial Lake Agassiz drained at a rate of more than 800 Olympic swimming pools a second, a finding that supports the theory that it may have propelled the warming Earth back into an ice age, said a recent U of A news release.

Sophie Norris, a former U of A Faculty of Science PhD student, led the study to determine how much water was discharged through the meltwater channel from the lake spanning what is now southern Manitoba and central Saskatchewan, up to the Alberta border.

“We know that a large discharge has gone through the area but the rate of the discharge or the magnitude was pretty much unknown,” said Norris, who finished her PhD under the supervision of Duane Froese, in a statement.

When the three-kilometre-thick Laurentide Ice Shield atop North America started to melt about 16,000 years ago, the lake formed, creating a dam that stopped any meltwaters spreading to Hudson Bay, say researchers. But the lake eventually spilled out to the northwest, along the major channel known as the Clearwater-Athabasca Spillway, through what is now Fort McMurray, into the Mackenzie River basin en route to the Arctic Ocean.

Norris added that Alberta might owe part of its resource wealth to the great flood.

“The oilsands region is essentially within the channel that this flood formed,” she said. “There would have been a huge amount of quaternary material on top of that, as there is in the surrounding area, but it has been exposed in Fort McMurray by this huge event.”

The first part of her international study used sedimentary evidence to estimate the flood water’s force, as well as more than 100 valley cross-sections to estimate flow sizes. The research team created a model of gradual dam failure, then determined an estimated discharge rate, at its height, of two million metres cubed of water every second. That means the flood drained about 21,000 cubic kilometres of water — or the amount of water contained in the Great Lakes — in less than nine months.

“What I find deeply satisfying is that modern hydraulic modelling, when applied to the evidence preserved in the landscape, shows how a phenomenal flood propagated 12,000 years ago,” said Paul Carling, study co-author from the University of Southampton, U.K.

The event was likely the largest terrestrial flood ever recorded from the overtopping of a lake, said co-author Daniel Garcia-Castellanos, from Geosciences Barcelona in Spain. “It also suggests that we are getting close to quantitatively understanding these rapid erosional-flooding events and linking them with the long-term erosion of landscapes.”

The time of the flood also corresponds to an event known as the Younger Dryas, when just as the northern hemisphere was coming out of the ice age, it suddenly returned to near-glacial conditions.

“During the Late Pleistocene, temperatures were returning to normal, when the Earth slipped back into an ice age,” added Duane Froese, Norris’s PhD supervisor and Canada Research Chair in Northern Environmental Change in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.

“We don’t know for sure that the flood caused the Earth to slip back into the ice age, but certainly if you put that much water into the Arctic Ocean, the models show you get cooling of the northern hemisphere climate.”

Norris said the next step for researchers is to better understand whether the flood occurred at the start of the cold reversal, where it may have been the cause, or just played a part in more complex events that followed.

The paper, ‘Catastrophic Drainage From the Northwestern Outlet of Glacial Lake Agassiz During the Younger Dryas,’ has been published in Geophysical Research Letters.

'Fundamentally undemocratic': Alberta medical, political and legal experts criticize UCP government tactics


Timm Bruch

CTV News Calgary

 Video Journalist
 Tuesday, August 10, 2021 

Calgary academics allege censorship

Some Calgary academics are alleging censorship following their criticism of the provincial government.

CALGARY -- Some educators and experts in Alberta say they're tired of the provincial government trying to discredit and even muzzle them in their fields of expertise.

Multiple professors, academic experts and even one faculty head tell CTV News the province has gone too far in its attack on their work, and even their personalities, after they criticize UCP policy.

Legal expert Lorian Hardcastle says the province's issues managers and press secretaries -- many making six figure salaries -- have been going too far in what she calls, "their gaslighting tactics."

"I've personally had my photo posted, my employer tagged and my dean tagged (in a staffer tweet)," Hardcastle said. "There's also a discrediting of your expertise. I was called an expert in quotation marks just this week."

Hardcastle and some of her University of Calgary colleagues say attempts from issues managers to spark anger and confusion on social media is a dangerous ploy.

"There's a few tactics they employ, the downplaying of your expertise, the accusations that you are lying or that you are a surrogate for the NDP," she said. "What they are trying to do is silence critiques and that's fundamentally undemocratic."

Staffers often use disparaging words to question medical experts and political scientists who they disagree with.

Those who have studied or worked years in their field say they're sick of being undercut or brushed aside just because they're expressing critical views.

Six different professors from two Alberta post-secondary institutions told CTV News they feel they are targets.

"At the root, it has to do with this polarizing technique to say, 'you shouldn't trust anyone who isn't on our team,'" said Melanee Thomas, a political scientist at U of C.

"I think our province deserves better than that hostile and really blunt approach to politics."

One economist even believes the behaviour stretches offline.

Lindsay Tedds claims she was called into a University of Calgary office earlier this year to discuss some of her more critical online behaviour. The meeting invite arrived after a lengthy exchange with government employees online.

Tedds calls the timing suspicious.

She also says she knows of others who have experienced similar events.

"Just about anybody who has had these experiences can't say for sure where the call has come from, but it is very clear who is being targeted," Tedds said.

Both the province and the school denied that claim.

A University of Calgary spokesperson issued the following statement regarding the allegations.

To our knowledge, these claims have not been brought to our attention and we are not aware of any instances where the University of Calgary has been asked or directed to mute or manage criticism by faculty members of the provincial government. Academic freedom and freedom of expression are central tenets of research universities. As explained in our Statement on Free Expression:

All members of the university have the right of free expression, which means the freedom to investigate, comment, listen, gather, challenge and critique subject to the law and, on our campuses, to university policies and procedures related to the functioning of the university.”

We would encourage members of our campus community to discuss such concerns with their deans or senior leaders.

When asked about the online behaviour of staff members, one of Jason Kenney's press secretaries sent a statement saying, "issues managers and press secretaries providing information and correcting misinformation online is common practice across governments in Canada."

Thomas completely disagrees.

"Most issues managers, you don't know their name," she said. "They manage the issue, and they are not the issue themselves. This happens nowhere else."

Thomas said she believes the UCP is partially misleading and creating anger on purpose.

"We know that this type of politics actively demobilizes people who don't like it. I think it's fair to ask whether or not that demobilization is the goal," she said.

LGBTQ+ supporters protest outside new church in Kelowna

 

Protest outside new church

Cindy White - Aug 9, 2021 / 4:00 am | Story: 342327

Waving signs and carrying a Pride flag, a small group of protesters showed up outside Praxis Church on Valley Road in Kelowna Sunday.

The protest was organized to show that the LGBTQ+ community won’t stand idly by in the face of discrimination.

“We all just wanted to come together and just show them that we are here and we see them and we are valid and this whole community is valid, and nothing that they say and nothing that they can say about the bible is going to change that,” said protest organizer Leesa Resch.

Several people have pointed to information from the church’s website that says it does not condone same-sex marriage or homosexual lifestyles.

"We do not condone same sex marriage or homosexual lifestyles. Additionally, we believe that God has created men and women as two distinct sexual beings. Any discrepancy between ones biological sex and gender identity is due to the effects of sin in the world," the church states in its statement of beliefs.

Pastor Josh Dool posted a couple of videos on the church’s Facebook page in response to the outrage in the LGBTQ+ community.

He doesn’t deny the allegations but argues people can still have a difference in belief and not "hate" others.

“We want to be able to enter into a friendly, civil dialogue with anyone who’s interested,” said Dool in one of his videos.

He goes on to say, “Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you’re welcome to post comments, you are, but Kelowna please, this time can we keep things just a little bit more classy.”

Resch calls it frustrating. “That in this day and age, in 2021, we have to be here because somebody is anti-gay and anti-trans. Like, who are we hurting? Yet, they are hurting us."

On the Praxis website, it notes Kelowna was chosen for its new church for its central location and notes Praxis wants to ‘plant’ churches throughout the Okanagan.

'You can't pray the gay away': Threats of

 violence made, protest held over beliefs of

 new church in Kelowna

Kendra Mangione 

Reporter and producer, 

CTVNewsVancouver.ca

Published Monday, August 9, 2021

VANCOUVER -- A new church in B.C.'s Okanagan has prompted protests and even threats of violence due to its publicly posted beliefs.

The criticism of and action against Praxis Church in Kelowna has been in response to a statement on the church's website, which includes that believers should support marriage only between men and women.

"We believe that divorce, adultery and homosexuality constitute a violation of God's intention for marriage and sexuality as laid out in the Holy Bible. We do not condone same sex marriage or homosexual lifestyles," the church's website says.

Additionally, the church claims anyone who doesn't identify as cisgender, meaning their personal identity and gender don't correspond with their sex, has been influenced by "sin of the world."

The church's website also says its vision is to "plant" similar churches throughout the Okanagan, which will be geared towards recruiting younger people, those who've recently moved to the area, and what it describes as "the unchurched."

A small group of protesters stood outside the church on Sunday carrying a Pride flag and signs, including one that read, "You can't pray the gay away," according to Castanet.net.

The protest's organizer told Castanet her intention was to show residents in the LGBTQ+ community that they are supported.

The church's pastor, Josh Dool, posted a video on Facebook at the end of July, which he called a response to some of the controversy. He said criticism has spread online across the country, and the church has even received threats of violence.

In his video, Dool suggested the beliefs posted on the church's website have led to assumptions that may not be accurate.

He said just because a member or the church itself disagrees with someone doesn't mean they hate or fear that person. Additionally, he said that loving someone doesn't mean a person agrees with everything they do.

He called these beliefs "nonsense," and said, "For the record, we don't hate anyone. We don't require anyone to adhere to a set of moral codes or standards in order to show up to Praxis."

Dool said the statement of faith isn't being posted anywhere other than its site, and there is no intention to legislate any of its beliefs.

Acknowledging comments coming from across Canada, he said the beliefs were part of "an internal document," which was posted in response to questions from those in the community about where the church stands.

He said he believes "obedience to Jesus is the pathway to the most joy in life… We desire people to enter into this joy, but we want to be a church where people can come and skirt the edges and check it out and see what it means, wrestle through what it means, to be a follower of Jesus."

In the church's definition of what it means, this involves following the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

Let’s say it without flinching: the fossil fuel industry is destroying our future

Simon Lewis

Following the unequivocal IPCC climate report, we must all put pressure on governments to end the fossil fuel era

‘Extreme heatwaves, rainfall events and droughts will get worse until carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are reduced down to zero.’ A wildfire in Gerania, Greece, May 2021. Photograph: Vassilis Psomas/EPA

Tue 10 Aug 2021 

The sixth assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is no ordinary publication. Its 4,000 pages were written by hundreds of independent scientists from 66 countries. It was commissioned by 195 governments and all of them signed off on the conclusions after reviewing them line by line and word by word. These governments, whether supportive, ambivalent or hostile to climate action, now own the messages in the report. So what does it say?

The report concludes that there is now “unequivocal” evidence that human actions are changing our climate. Behind this are alarming findings. The burning of fossil fuels and deforestation has led to levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that are higher today than at any time in the past 2 million years. Alongside methane and other greenhouse gases, this has driven Earth to be warmer than at any point in the past 125,000 years. The impacts of this can be seen in the loss of Arctic sea ice, accelerating sea level rise, hotter and more frequent heatwaves, increased and more frequent extreme rainfall events and, in some regions, more intense droughts and fires.

As scientists, we can now clearly and unambiguously join all the dots, linking these “climate-impact drivers” back to global heating and carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. Today’s global temperature rise of 1.1C above pre-industrial levels confirms the predictions of climate scientists more than 30 years ago. The increases in heatwaves and extreme rainfall events were also long foreseen. Those in power may have heard the warnings in previous reports, but they did not listen.

The current wave of devastation from heatwaves, fires and floods is causing misery across the world. Even the world’s wealthiest countries, such as Canada and Germany, are woefully ill-prepared for the escalating effects of the climate crisis. Destructive events are the consequences of failing to act on past warnings. As a result, the climate emergency is no longer a future hypothesis: it is with us here and now.

Global emissions of carbon dioxide are rising again after their temporary fall during the Covid lockdowns. According to the International Energy Authority, unless new policies are enforced, CO2 emissions will probably hit record levels in 2023. And, as if that were not enough bad news, extreme heatwaves, rainfall events and droughts will get worse until carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to zero.

It is hard to make sense of all this. How do we even think of a time as hot as 125,000 years ago? At that point, humans were coexisting with Neanderthals. As much carbon dioxide as two million years ago? Our species hadn’t even evolved by then. It is no wonder these incredible changes feel existential. But we must urgently make sense of them, and act fast.

The problem is ultimately that the use of fossil fuels is a “progress trap”. Decades ago, fossil fuels improved lives compared alternative energy sources, but now their use does the opposite, actively destroying lives and livelihoods. Fossil fuels have gone from an ingenious enabler of human progress to a trap that undermines it. The climate crisis is not caused by vague “human actions”; nor is it a result of some innate aspect of human nature. It is caused by specific investments by specific people in specific things. Change those, and we can change the future.

It may feel uncomfortable saying that fossil fuel companies, their investors and the politicians who enable them are the enemies of progress. But if we care about our collective future we need to say it, again and again, without flinching: using fossil fuels today is destroying our future.

The fossil fuel industry is a powerful and complex enemy. Historically, it is where the world’s most influential lobbyists have worked. Their efforts have secured subsidies, military campaigns and a free licence to pollute, all justified in the name of access to fossil energy. Oil, coal and gas are also intimately involved in our lives, from heating our homes to powering transport. There is no single policy, technological breakthrough or activist campaign that alone can help us escape this trap.

Instead we need a three-pronged attack on fossil fuels: target the industry directly, join broad social movements to secure the political changes needed to end the fossil fuel era and make changes to reduce our demand for fossil fuels. That might mean asking your pension provider to divest from fossil fuels, joining the next Extinction Rebellion protest or replacing your polluting gas cooker with a modern electric one. In this, there is a role for everyone.

What also matters is talking about the climate emergency and the urgent need to end the fossil fuel era. We should be bringing this up at home, at work, at school and with our friends. While the sweeping changes needed must ultimately come from government regulation, it is us who must demonstrate that the desire for change exists.

The new sixth assessment report was not all bad news. It included one unambiguously positive finding: the level of devastation we face is in our collective hands. If the world slashes emissions now and reduces them to net zero by 2050 we would keep the global temperature rise close to 1.5C and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

To achieve this, politicians will need to hear that the clamour of millions of people’s voices is greater than the might of the fossil fuel lobby. Governments accept the science of climate change. Now they need to be forced to act on what they know is true, and help us escape the fossil fuel progress trap.

• Simon Lewis is professor of global change science at University College London and University of Leeds