Fertilizer Canada report goes astray

By Darrin Qualman
NFU
Published: October 28, 2021
Opinion


The National Farmers Union argues that a recent report on how federal greenhouse gas emission targets would affect fertilizer use is based on false assumptions. | File photo

Fertilizer Canada and Meyers Norris Penny recently released a report called Implications of a Total Emissions Reduction Target on Fertilizer.

That report is a response to the December 2020 federal government announcement that it would “set a national emission reduction target (for 2030) of 30 percent below 2020 levels from fertilizers and work with fertilizer manufacturers, farmers,” and others to meet that target.

The MNP and Fertilizer Canada report presents a model that assumes that a 30 percent reduction in fertilizer-related emissions requires a 20 percent reduction in fertilizer tonnage (especially nitrogen) and that, in turn, would lead to a 20 percent reduction in crop yield. The report calculates that this yield reduction would lead to billions in lost revenues.

Unfortunately, the report is based on simplistic, flawed assumptions and seems intended to stoke fear among farmers, rather than contribute to fruitful discussions regarding pathways to agricultural emissions reduction.

The following examines some of the report’s false assumptions:

Less fertilizer must equal less crop. False.

The report disregards the sophisticated management capacities of farmers, the potential for innovation and adaptation and the many ways that farmers can reduce fertilizer requirements, including better soil testing, variable-rate application, enhanced rotations, split application, or biological nutrient sources. It assumes that a 20 percent reduction in fertilizer use will result in a 20 percent reduction in yields.

To the contrary, research indicates that farmers could significantly reduce fertilizer use with little or no impact on yields. This is because there is now a tendency to calculate fertilizer requirements based on target yields rather than actual or profit-maximizing yields. Not all rates are based on soil tests and factors other than nutrient availability (precipitation) are often the limiting factor in plant growth.

Fertilizer Canada’s report repeatedly refers to a fixed ratio between fertilizer and grain in terms of “pounds per bushel.” In effect, the report assumes that fertilizer is being used with maximum efficiency, rates are optimized, soil testing is universal, and that every unit of reduced fertilizer input must result in a unit of reduced crop output. Such assumptions are false.

Reducing fertilizer use will reduce farmers’ net incomes. False on most farms.

The report claims to measure “direct financial impacts” on farmers but does not do so. It quantifies alleged negative impacts on gross revenues but omits cost savings from reduced fertilizer purchases.

Contrary to the report’s assertions, it is very likely that a well-managed transition to optimizing fertilizer use via better placement and timing, and other factors will enable farmers to reduce fertilizer rates, emissions, and costs; maintain yields and revenues; and thus increase margins and net incomes.

Business as usual (BAU) is an option. False.

Fertilizer Canada uses a BAU scenario incompatible with Canada’s emission-reduction commitments and incompatible with the stable climate farmers need. Its BAU scenario projects a crop tonnage increase of 34 percent by 2030. By the report’s own logic, this must mean that fertilizer tonnage must also increase by 34 percent. It follows that greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer would increase by a similar percentage.

Canada, however, has committed to cut economy-wide emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. Fertilizer Canada’s BAU scenario of ever-rising emissions is simply impossible as we move toward 2030 and beyond.

The interface between climate, farm economics, global prices, emission-reduction commitments, input-use efficiency, soil biology, plant genetics, adoption of agronomic practices, government policies and programs, and other factors is complex.

Unfortunately, Fertilizer Canada and MNP ignored these complexities and produced a simplistic, self-serving model that does nothing to illuminate the actual path that farmers must follow to reduce emissions in line with the requirements of Canada’s international commitments and the maintenance of a stable climate.

This report provides no useful insights into how farmers might contribute to Canada’s low-emission future and prosper as they do so.

Darrin Qualman is the National Farmers Union’s director of climate crisis policy and action.

Dollars in the dirt: Big Ag pays farmers for control of their soil-bound carbon

By Karl Plume, Reuters News Service, Rod Nickel
Published: October 25, 2021

Fertilizer producers Nutrien Ltd and Yara, agribusiness giant Cargill Inc, and seed and chemical dealers Corteva Inc and Bayer AG are paying growers for every acre of land dedicated to trapping carbon underground. | File photo

WINNIPEG, Manitoba/CHICAGO, Oct 25 (Reuters) - The biggest global agriculture companies are competing on a new front: enticing farmers to join programs that keep atmosphere-warming carbon dioxide in the soil.

Fertilizer producers Nutrien Ltd and Yara, agribusiness giant Cargill Inc, and seed and chemical dealers Corteva Inc and Bayer AG are paying growers for every acre of land dedicated to trapping carbon underground, known as sequestering it. The companies' ambitions stretch from the United States to Canada, Brazil, Europe and India, executives told Reuters.

Farmers capture carbon by planting off-season crops, tilling the ground less and using fertilizer more efficiently. They log their practices on digital platforms to generate a carbon credit. Agricultural companies use the credits to offset the climate impact of other parts of their businesses or sell them to companies looking to reduce their own carbon footprints.

Agriculture covers nearly 40 percent of the world's land and is responsible for 17 percent of global emissions, according to the United Nations. Changes to farm practices could sequester as much as 250 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually in the United States, or 4 percent of the country's emissions, according to a 2019 report https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25259/negative-emissions-technologies-and-reliable-sequestration-a-research-agenda by the National Academy of Sciences.

Agriculture is therefore increasingly seen as a potential ally as companies and governments attempt to meet lower greenhouse gas emission targets and fight global warming.

Some farmers view the programs run by the giant agricultural corporations with suspicion - as a method to harvest their data that will be used to sell them more products, according to interviews with more than a dozen farmers, analysts and farm groups. Other critics question whether it is even possible for farmers to guarantee they are keeping carbon underground because simply turning the soil can undo efforts to store it.

Sequestering carbon, however, can provide a new revenue stream for farmers looking to diversify in a volatile industry. The farming techniques required by such programs offer the additional promise of realizing higher yields from healthier soils that are less reliant on chemicals.

Hoping to be rewarded for reducing tillage and planting a cover crop on his central Illinois farm, Matt Tracy enrolled 548 acres in Cargill's RegenConnect program, choosing it over a similar one offered by Bayer due to its short, single-season contract term.

He remains happy with his decision even after Bayer, whose program requires a 10-year commitment, began offering sign-up bonuses of up to $1,000.

"I didn't want to be tied up for too many years in a contract … I want to see how it goes before I jump in whole-hog," he said. "I think these programs could become more and more popular and we're going to get paid more than we are now."

Agriculture companies can measure success through the number of acres farmers devote to their programs and commitments from other corporations to eventually buy the credits generated, said Alejandro Plastina, associate professor in economics at Iowa State University. Most of the corporate commitments are vague, however, and the acres in pilot projects remain small, he said.

For little cost, agriculture companies get to showcase their social responsibility, while securing farmers' loyalty to their digital platforms that can turn into greater farm supply sales down the road, Plastina said.

"It gives (ag companies) the opportunity to associate their brands with caring for the world," Plastina said. "I don't expect them to make money on these projects anytime soon."

Bayer is an early leader with around 1.5 million acres enrolled in sustainable agriculture programs globally, mostly in the United States.

Bayer's program is unique in that it compensates growers for planting cover crops and reducing tillage, rather than paying them for how many tonnes of verified carbon they sequester.

"The idea was to get something that farmers feel comfortable with and certain of so they can have a line of sight in terms of how much money they can make," said Leo Bastos, head of Bayer's carbon business.

Nutrien's program has secured 200,000 acres in the United States and Canada this year. Nutrien expects to make a profit from the start, because enrolment involves selling farmers high-margin products like crop treatments composed of insect-killing bacteria or controlled-release fertilizer, said Mark Thompson, the company's Chief Strategy and Sustainability officer.

Such products also generate higher yields for farmers, Thompson said.

Cargill aims to reduce its supply-chain emissions 30 percent by 2030 in part by enrolling 10 million acres in small-scale regenerative agriculture programs.

Corteva's partnership with farm technology and services provider Indigo Ag rewards farmers for better crop nutrient management, which could encourage purchases of products such as nitrogen stabilizers, which make more efficient use of fertilizer.

"Corteva sees that as a way to deepen their relationship" with farmers, said Chris Harbourt, Indigo's global head of carbon.

Norway-based Yara is running a pilot program on 50,000 U.S. acres and plans to have 1 million U.S. acres under contract by year-end.

Brazil and India, where farmers harvest multiple crops each year, could generate larger volumes of sequestered carbon than the United States under Yara's program in as little as three years, said Alex Bell, chief executive of the program, called Agoro Carbon Alliance.

Agoro has an edge over some competitors because it is signing farmers to longer contracts, ten years, that should yield higher prices for their carbon, Bell said.

"It's a tough thing to ask of farmers, but that's what (credit) buyers actually value," Bell said. With the average U.S. farmer nearing retirement age, some are reluctant to lock in long-term, he said.

Yara is launching its program at a loss and may break even within three years, Bell said.

Farmers, however, give the programs mixed reviews.

"I smell complete bullshit - it's a terrible idea," said Manitoba farmer Gunter Jochum, president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. In return for small payments to farmers, ag companies gain access to valuable data, he said.

The programs' principle is "essentially unworkable," because carbon sequestration is not permanent, especially in a warming climate, Canada's National Farmers Union said in a submission to the Canadian government.

But North Dakota farmer Justin Topp decided to give carbon farming a try. He committed 12,000 acres, or 80 percent of his land to Nutrien's program, choosing it over four others.

"Everybody's talking about it. I'm curious about what shakes out."

New Brunswick

A sampling of highest and lowest-paid workers on N.B. picket lines

Social Sharing

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Email

• Reddit

• LinkedIn

CUPE workers are barely scraping by or they're raking in 

 the dough, depending on your perspective

Jennifer Sweet · CBC News · Posted: Oct 31, 2021

CUPE pickets try to attract public's attention on Friday, the first day of a strike by thousands of public employees in New Brunswick. (Roger Cosman/CBC)

Wages are a central issue in the contract dispute between the Higgs government and 10 locals of the Canadian Union of Public Employees whose members went on strike Friday.

And depending on who you talk to, they wages are either very low, or very high.

Some of the workers represented are "the lowest-paid of the lowest-paid in Canada," according to Steve Drost, CUPE New Brunswick president.

Some are working two jobs to make ends meet, he said, and have only $20 left for two weeks of groceries after paying their bills.

Two per cent raises a year would only amount to an additional $2.50/hour over the span of the contract for some, Drost said.

CUPE is looking for pay increases of three per cent a year over four years.

On the other hand, said Premier Blaine Higgs, some of the workers on strike are making 30 to 40 per cent more than their counterparts in the private sector.

Higgs said his government's offer of a total increase of 8.5 per cent over five years is reasonable and was recently accepted by three other bargaining units. Those who settled include medical specialists, professional support workers in schools and Crown prosecutors.

Combined with benefits, vacation and sick days, he said, it's "very fair."

Here's a closer look at a few of the highest and lowest-paying jobs at issue — and how they stack up to what's paid across the country.

Lowest

Laundry workers in Local 1251 (not hospitals) — $16.99 to $18.29/hour

Across Canada, in the private and public sectors, average wages for this job class are $12.50 to $21.00 an hour, according to the federal government's Job Bank. 

A current posting for a government laundry job in British Columbia has wages of $19.68 to $21.35/hour. 

A posting for a position at a private resort in P.E.I. is offering $13.00 an hour for 30 to 40 hours a week.

CUPE pickets out on the sidewalk in Fredericton on Friday. (Edwin Hunter/CBC)

Labourers from Local 1190 — $17.54 an hour

Average wages for construction labourers across Canada in the public and private sectors are $15 to $34/hour, according to the Job Bank. 

In Nova Scotia, government labourer wages as of March 31 were $20.68 to $21.90 an hour. Their government work week is 37.5 hours, compared to New Brunswick's 36.25 hours.

Current postings for jobs in the private sector in New Brunswick are offering $12 to $20 an hour.

Custodians in Local 1251 (those working in jails and other places, but not schools or hospitals) —  $17.96 to 19.52 an hour.

Average wages for this job class, public and private, across Canada are $13 to $27 an hour.

In Nova Scotia, janitors get $1,367.46 to $1,395.03 biweekly, or $18.23 to 18.60 an hour. 

Highest 

Clinical psychologists — $31 to $40 an hour. 

The Job Bank lists no rates lower than that in other provinces. 

The national average is $20 to $60 an hour.

Recent postings for government positions in Nova Scotia and P.E.I. advertised rates of $46.65 to $59.71 an hour.

Social workers —  $24-$41 an hour. 

The national average range is $21 to 45 an hour.

Nova Scotia social workers are paid $1,805.02 to $3,288.59 biweekly, or $24.07 to $43.85 an hour.

Job postings in Saskatchewan are advertising $31.86 to $44.65 an hour. 

A health authority in Newfoundland and Labrador is offering $35.40 to $39.61 an hour

WorkSafeNB adjudicators and investigators — $29.94 to $35.70

Adjudicators for workers' compensation in Nova Scotia get $2,385.81 biweekly, or $31.81 an hour.

At WorkplaceNL In Newfoundland and Labrador, investigators are paid $56,564 to 62,405 a year. Their work week is 35 hours long. 

Intake adjudicators are paid $63,767 to $70,351 a year. Extended services adjudicators are paid $52,571 to $58,000.

With files from Information Morning Moncton and Fredericton

Starbucks Canada raising wages amid 'critical staffing shortages'

The Canadian Press

TORONTO -- Starbucks Canada says it's raising wages and benefits amid “critical staffing shortages'' and a renewed commitment to the well-being of its workers.

Beginning in January, the company says its starting wages will be increased to a dollar above provincial minimums, while workers who have been with the company a year will receive a six to 10 per cent pay hike.

It says the wage boost, which will impact about 20,000 workers, will bring the hourly pay for baristas to between $13 and $20.45, depending on location and tenure, while shift supervisors will earn between $15.85 and $24.95.

Starbucks also says it's providing every hourly worker in Canada with three paid shifts off per calendar year for sick days or family care, along with ongoing perks such as free coffee, a subscription to a meditation app and health and dental care.

The higher wages and benefits come as the coffee company says it has added recruiting specialists to address “critical staffing shortages and difficulties'' in some markets.

Starbucks, which refers to workers as partners, says it's also investing in additional training and new technologies and processes to improve day-to-day tasks in its coffee shops.

The company says the operational and wage investments are designed to retain and recruit the best people and “affirm Starbucks as one of the very best jobs in retail.''

Lori Digulla, senior vice-president and general manager of Starbucks Canada, says the company's investments will improve wages, training and in-store experiences for workers.

“We have been through some of the toughest times our world has ever seen and although we are still living through this immense change, we are moving forward thoughtfully and courageously to always be a company that cares for its people,'' she said in a statement on Wednesday.

“Our partners are the heartbeat of Starbucks and what will always remain is our commitment to sharing our success with our partners.''

Starbucks has about 963 company operated stores and 441 licensed stores in Canada.

Loblaw Makes Its Profits by Paying Workers Poverty Wages


For Canada’s third-richest family, the Westons, the pandemic has meant windfall profits. Now, workers at Loblaw-owned supermarket chain Real Canadian Superstore are threatening a strike for better pay and conditions.

On September 24, 97 percent of Alberta’s Real Canadian Superstore workers voted to strike.

BY MITCHELL THOMPSON
JACOBIN

10.28.2021

Ten thousand Real Canadian Superstore workers across Canada’s westernmost prairie province, Alberta, appear poised to strike against pandemic pay cuts by Loblaw Companies Ltd. Even after Loblaw reported a banner year in profits and revenue, the company refuses to reinstate their $2 per hour “hero pay.”

This past summer, after over a year of rapid profits, Loblaw decided that its unionized Alberta Superstore workers were due for wage and hour cuts. Superstore’s August 2021 offer, posted on the United Food and Commercial Workers’ Local 401 website, would have cut the hours qualifying for “night premium pay” and cut guaranteed hours for staff. The union pushed for the company to reinstate the $2 per hour “hero pay” it cut last summer, but management refuses to budge.

On September 24, 97 percent of Alberta’s Superstore workers voted to strike. The company responded by retracting its main demand for hours cuts and offering an immediate wage increase of up to $0.90 per hour instead, plus an increase of as much as 1.5 percent in the first year of employment. This minor improvement is only about half the rate of the hourly pay it cut last spring. The latest struggle is yet another chapter in the company’s ongoing efforts to maximize the “flexibility” of its operations by busting unions, cutting wages, and gutting job security.

“The Well-Being of Our Colleagues Remains Our Top Priority. Be Well.”

The Superstore workers aren’t alone. After the hero pay was cut in late June 2020, it wasn’t restored for any of the company’s 220,000 workers as they faced resurgent waves of COVID-19 infections and deaths.

The cutback led to a strike by workers at Loblaw-owned Dominion grocery stores in Newfoundland. The strike lasted twelve weeks, persevering in the face of a heavy police presence and threats of arrest. The workers, unfortunately, only won a $0.35 increase in the first year.

In lieu of pay increase, all 220,000 workers received a note from the company’s scarf-enthusiast CEO, Galen Weston Jr, justifying the cut on the grounds that management was “confident our colleagues are operating safely and effectively in a new normal.” Lest he seem cold, Weston ended his letter by assuring the low-wage workers: “Your safety and the well-being of our colleagues remain our top priority. Be well.” To date, thirty of Alberta’s forty Superstore locations have reported COVID-19 outbreaks.This struggle is yet another chapter in the company’s ongoing efforts to maximize the ‘flexibility’ of its operations by busting unions, cutting wages, and gutting job security.

Immediately following the wage cut, Bloomberg reported, the company’s shares rose by 2 percent. One Desjardins Securities analyst called the cut “a slight positive for the industry as wages account for the majority of the pandemic-related costs.” Throughout 2020, according to the company’s most recent annual information form, Loblaw’s revenues grew to $52.7 billion. Loblaw reported a profit of nearly $400 million and raised its dividend by 3.2 percent. As of April of this year, Galen Weston Jr increased his own reported wealth, as part of Canada’s third-richest family, from $8.8 billion in March 2020 to $13.4 billion.

It may seem strange that an enterprise as large and as profitable as Loblaw Companies Ltd. is willing to provoke two strikes involving tens of thousands of workers in order to block a $2 pay increase. However, it is in keeping with management’s long-standing strategy of keeping workers’ expectations low.

The same month the company introduced its $2 pay cut, Weston coauthored a report for the Business Council of Canada entitled “We’ve Flattened The Curve, Now What?” The authors of the report complained about the money the federal government had spent supporting workers left unemployed by the effects of COVID-19. These supports, they argued, meant that “employees lack incentives to return.”

This complaint was not without precedent. Back in 2018, Loblaw rejected a credit union proposal to pay its workers a “living wage” — described in the proposal as “the income necessary to support families in specific communities.” Notably, the directors opposed the motion because it would “oversimplify” the ways in which Loblaw sets compensation “and restrict its competitive flexibility.”

This flexibility is dependent on a workforce desperate for poverty wages. That the paltry offerings of federal COVID-19 supports worked to interfere with the company’s modus operandi is a sad testimony to its business strategy of exploiting destitution and need.
Building an Empire Through Low Pay and Labor Discipline

The scale of Loblaw’s enterprise is vast. Through its long history, it has grown its profits enormously by keeping wages low. Soon after its wartime expansion, the company was, Gerald Caplan notes, a prominent donor to the red-baiting Public Informational Association. The association waged a campaign to block both the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and the growing Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and to prop up George Drew’s Tories.

Loblaw wasn’t able to stop the rise of CIO organizing, but by the mid-1950s, the company, by then the largest chain in Canada and headed by the “Barnum of Supermarkets,” had settled with a number of CIO union locals. Late ’90s president and McKinsey & Co alum Richard Currie explained company strategy through these decades as a “huge capital investment program” pumped “into large high-volume stores, where union costs were not quite so much a determinant of profitability.”

In his history of UFCW Local 401, Defying Expectations, Jason Forster writes about the ways that Loblaw co-opted organized labor in order to expand the scale of its operations. The company did this in part through a program of closures and consolidations. However, Loblaw sometimes voluntarily recognized unions in order to buy peace and hobble radical labor organizing. This strategy could last only so long as demand was high.

By the early 1990s, that consumer demand tapered off. “We had a problem,” wrote Currie, for the Ivey Business Journal. “Weak management had allowed the store asset base to erode and had provided fertile opportunities for labor unions.” In the ’90s, sales were slipping, and revenue was uneven.

In a period of “slow growth,” Currie argued: “Profit improvements in the 1990s are likely to come primarily from bottom-line cost reductions and lowered breakeven points rather than from the top-line sales and margin expansion strategies much more common in the 1970s and 1980s.” For workers, that meant cutbacks — or, in Currie’s words, stretching “variable costs.”

The company demanded major cuts to wages and job security, provoking four high-profile strikes across Ontario and Quebec. Undeterred, the company reported that the negotiations were a success and its return on investment rose far about the TSX average. When Currie resigned as CEO, he collected a $10 million payout and left behind a management team dedicated to his vision. Loblaw would continue to “reduce operating and labor costs in order to maintain earnings in light of lower prices and increased competition.”

Throughout this period, the company also proved an eager supporter of right-wing provincial attacks on unions, workers, and the poor. Galen Weston, the CEO of Loblaw’s parent company, donated over $34,000 to Mike Harris’s ultra-right-wing Ontario Tory campaign. Harris also named Galen’s wife, Hilary Weston, Ontario’s lieutenant governor.

Poverty Wage Profits: The Long Game

In 2006, Galen Weston Jr took over as CEO in advance of, as Maclean’s noted, “an imminent strike by unionized workers in Ontario.” A last-minute agreement averted the strike, which was prompted by management’s attempt to reclassify stores in an effort to cut wages and benefits. In 2010, 1,700 workers in Sarnia, Chatham, and Windsor were moved to strike against company cuts of up to 25 percent to wages and benefits. At the time, Loblaw’s public relations vice president justified the cuts by saying it would help the company obtain “operational flexibility.”

Ultimately, the deal that averted that strike also froze the wages of part-time employees. In each successive annual report since then, the company has spelled out for its shareholders that it is “willing to accept the short-term costs of labor disruption in order to achieve competitive labor costs for the longer term.” This admission casts all Loblaw labor disputes in a different light — Loblaw expects strikes and factors arm-wrestling at the bargaining table into their long-term business strategies.

In 2013, the company provoked strikes at its Real Canadian Superstores in Alberta. As the Alberta Federation of Labour notes, the company’s demands for hours reductions and a 40 percent pay cut for new hires spurred a 97 percent vote in support of industrial action and a subsequent three-day province-wide strike. In the end, the 8,500 Alberta workers won some small wage increases for full- and part-time staff and improvements in health and benefit coverage.

In 2014, the company purchased Shoppers Drug Mart for $12.4 billion. In the aftermath of the sale, the Globe and Mail reported, management campaigned against an effort to automatically certify Shoppers outlets in Manitoba with its existing unionized grocery stores.

Loblaws operates an internal monitor system for potential union drives at its non-union stores. It is part of the company’s comprehensive anti-labor grand design. What better way to lower the cost of labor then to never allow it to rise in the first place?The company has underlined to its shareholders its ‘willing to accept the short-term costs of labor disruption in order to achieve competitive labor costs for the longer term.’

Loblaw has recently explored the possibility of an automated fulfillment order system. It has been clear that it doesn’t intend to create unionized jobs in the process. During an earnings call, the company’s president told one analyst that “from a union perspective, we wouldn’t see that.”

In 2017, Weston Jr, playing to type on a conference call, asserted that Ontario’s increased minimum wage was an “aggressive” financial “headwind.” Loblaw claims to have a “good relationship” with the unions representing its workers, but for decades, the company has worked to undermine organized labor in the name of “flexibility.”

Any gains workers win in pay, benefits, or improved job security today will become the basis for the bargaining power they’ll have tomorrow. This will, in turn, empower them to stand up to management’s demands for cuts.

Loblaw is able to guarantee its profits by continually suppressing the demands of its workers — this is the source of the Weston family’s wealth in Alberta and everywhere else in Canada. Workers employed by the Loblaw empire in other parts of the country should take note of this latest strike effort. If workers can win in Alberta, they win across the rest of Canada, too.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mitchell Thompson is a writer, researcher, and occasional radio producer in Toronto.

State denies permits for power plants in NYC, Hudson Valley
Bloomberg


Buck Ennis
Power plant in New York City

State environmental officials denied required air permits Wednesday for natural gas power plants in New York City and along the Hudson River, saying both would be inconsistent with statewide greenhouse gas emission goals.

The denials of Title V air permits for NRG Energy’s Astoria Replacement Project in Queens and the Danskammer Energy Center in the town of Newburgh were announced separately by Basil Seggos, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Conservation.

The pair of decisions marked a victory for clean air advocates who argued the plants would produce unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions as the state transitions to cleaner renewable energy. New York state is attempting to dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades under its 2019 climate law.

“Both would be inconsistent with New York’s nation-leading climate law, and are not justified or needed for grid reliability. We must shift to a renewable future,” Seggos tweeted.

NRG had proposed replacing an oil-burning power plant with cleaner-burning natural gas plant. The company said that it was reviewing the state's decision, and that the project would have provided immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

“New Yorkers deserve both cleaner air and reliable energy to ensure the lights stay on for our small businesses, homes, schools and hospitals when they need it most,” NRG Energy Vice President of Development Tom Atkins said in a prepared statement. “That’s what this project would have delivered.”

He said the current Astoria plant will continue to operate.

Danskammer Energy was seeking to build and operate a new natural gas-fired power generation facility at an existing power site about 50 miles (80 kilometers) north of New York City.

An email was sent to Danskammer seeking comment.

The permit denials were praised by Gov. Kathy Hochul, Mayor Bill de Blasio and other elected officials, as well as by environmental groups. Scenic Hudson President Ned Sullivan said the Danskammer decision was the “first real test case” for New York's new climate law.

“This is a major victory both for the Hudson Valley and New York state,” Sullivan said.

U.S. Supreme Court to hear bid to curb federal power to limit carbon emissions

LAWRENCE HURLEY AND VALERIE VOLCOVICI
WASHINGTON
REUTERS

PUBLISHED OCTOBER 29, 2021



The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a bid by states, including coal producer West Virginia, and industry groups to limit federal power to use the landmark Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions from power plants.

The court’s decision to take up the case could complicate efforts by President Joe Biden’s administration to issue new and more stringent regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The announcement came two days before Biden arrives in Glasgow, Scotland, for the UN COP26 climate summit, where he had planned to reassert U.S. leadership on climate change. His predecessor Donald Trump withdrew Washington from the Paris climate agreement.

What is COP26? A guide to the Glasgow climate talks – the world’s most consequential environment conference

Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault ‘cautiously optimistic’ about COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow

The high court will hear a case brought by 20 states and various industry groups, including coal interests, to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to strike down a Trump-era rule intended to constrain regulation of carbon emissions from power plants.

The appeals court had ruled against Trump’s Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule which was challenged by states and groups that supported the Clean Power Plan of former President Barack Obama. That rule would have given the Environmental Protection Agency power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions mainly from coal-fired power plants.

In 2016, the Supreme Court blocked Obama’s regulation – the centrepiece of his strategy to combat climate change – from taking effect but never ruled on its lawfulness.

“We are extremely grateful for the Supreme Court’s willingness to hear our case,” said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who led the lawsuit.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan said on Twitter that the agency “got to work” after the DC Circuit struck down the Trump rule and “will continue to advance new standards to ensure that all Americans are protected from the power plant pollution that harms public health and our economy.”

The court will likely hear the four combined cases in its current term, with a ruling due by the end of June.

On Thursday, Biden secured a deal with Congressional Democrats around a $555-billion framework to carry out elements of his climate agenda that he had hoped would boost U.S. credibility ahead of the COP26 talks.

But tough intraparty negotiations led Democrats to drop a key clean-electricity proposal that would have slashed power plant emissions by encouraging a rapid shift to renewable energy. Losing that Clean Electricity Payment Program put pressure on the EPA to come up with new power plant regulations.

The Supreme Court case will delay that effort.

“As a practical matter, this will almost certainly prevent the Biden Administration from moving forward with a new rule to regulate carbon emissions from the power sector,” said Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant administrator and lawyer at Bracewell.

Ben Levitan, a senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund, which is a party to the case, said the group will “firmly defend EPA’s authority and responsibility to protect American families from the clear and present danger of climate pollution emitted by power plants.”

Canada underestimating carbon emissions from forestry sector, report suggests

Oct 29, 2021
CBC News

A new environmental report suggests that Canada could be drastically underestimating the carbon emissions from the forestry sector. The report also noted that while Canada's reporting model is used worldwide, it may not be the most accurate way of assessing the industry's true carbon footprint.

Climate change means Arctic may no longer be a safe haven for nesting birds

Social Sharing

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Email

• Reddit

• LinkedIn

New predators, diseases and shifting weather patterns

 threaten migratory birds

Jaela Bernstien · CBC News · Posted: Oct 29, 2021 

A polar bear causes chaos in a colony of thick-billed murres, photographed on Coats Island (Appatuurjuaq), Nunavut in July, 2011. (Kyle Elliott)

Our planet is changing. So is our journalism. This story is part of a CBC News initiative entitled Our Changing Planet to show and explain the effects of climate change and what is being done about it.

Wildlife research scientist Paul Smith is a lot like the birds he studies: every spring, when the ice recedes, he migrates north to the Arctic. But while he's been able to adapt to the changing climate, the nesting birds have not been so lucky in the face of new threats.

Historically, in Cape Dorset, Nunavut, when migratory birds would sit on their nests in June and July to incubate their eggs, polar bears were still out on the ice eating seals.

These days, Smith has witnessed an earlier ice melt that leads to bears coming to shore sooner. That means the birds' breeding ground becomes a snack bar.

"The bears are swimming onto islands where there are nesting colonies of birds, and gobbling up thousands of eggs," said Smith, who works for the National Wildlife Research Centre at Environment and Climate Change Canada.

An eider duck is pictured on Southampton Island, Nunavut. Polar bear incursions on the birds' nesting colonies have increased by more than seven times since the 1980s, according to a study co-authored by Smith and Grant Gilchrist. (Grant Gilchrist/Twitter)

In recent years, Inuit elders have reported seeing more bears near their communities, which has led to deadly attacks in some cases. Smith and his fellow research scientists stopped sleeping in tents and now stay in small cabins, surrounded by electric fences. 

Birds such as eider ducks and thick-billed murres are struggling to adapt.

• IN DEPTH
  Polar bears may adapt to an ice-free Arctic, but they're not safe from climate change, says scientist

• Arctic's Last Ice Area losing twice as much ice compared to rest of region: Study

"One bear can eat a thousand eggs in a sitting, and wipe out an entire nesting colony island, and that's it for that year for those birds," Smith said. 

It's a lose-lose situation — the eggs are not enough to substitute a polar bear's traditional diet of seals, which they can't access once the ice melts — and yet the loss of all those eggs is a major blow to the local population of birds.

New predators, parasites and pathogens

A polar bear enjoys a snack of eider eggs on East Bay Island, Nunavut, in 2017. (Evan Richardson/Environment and Climate Change Canada)

A recent qualitative review paper argues that the introduction of new predators is one example of how climate change is eroding the benefits of northward migration for birds, insects and other species around the world.

The authors suggest the Arctic is no longer the safe harbour for breeding and nesting that it once was.

• The world is aiming for net-zero emissions by 2050. Here's what that means

• The world is supposed to share the cost of fighting climate change. Here's how that works

The report, Animal migration to northern latitudes: environmental changes and increasing threats, explores how climate change is shifting Arctic and boreal habitats by contributing to the spread of parasites and diseases, an increase in predators, and timing gaps between when food supply is available and when offspring need to feed. 

"The [impact on] species could be like a domino," said co-author Tamás Székely, an evolutionary biologist and professor of biodiversity at the University of Bath in England.

Research scientist Paul Smith, left, is pictured with long-time research assistant Josiah Nakoolak, right. Smith has been doing summer fieldwork in the Arctic for the past 20 years in collaboration with local Inuit experts. ( Grant Gilchrist/Environment and Climate Change Canada)

He said it's difficult to know what will happen if climate change continues at this rate — some birds might stop migrating or migrate differently, while others may not be able to adapt. 

"It will not be better, that's for sure," Székely said.

One of the studies cited by the paper has had some of its claims contested by other scientists, including Smith, who said the new report exaggerates some specifics, such as the rates of predation of shorebirds. 

Still, Smith said the report raises important ideas about climate change and the benefits of migration.

• Have questions about COP26 or climate science, policy or politics? Email us: ask@cbc.ca. Your input helps inform our coverage.

"Migratory birds definitely are susceptible to climate change more so than other animals, because they're travelling through a whole bunch of different environments throughout the year," Smith said. 

Migratory shorebirds in decline

The rufa red knot has one of the longest migrations among bird species, and its numbers are in steep decline. During an annual count in the spring of 2021, conservationists found numbers of the shore birds had dropped to the lowest since tallies began 40 years ago. (Submitted by May Haga)

The Arctic is warming at more than twice the global average, and how that factors into the decline of certain bird populations is a topic experts say should be studied more — especially when it's well known that these species are already dealing with more pressures and threats along their flight north.

Shorebirds are among some of the most rapidly declining birds in Canada, according to the 2019 State of Canada's Birds report, published by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative and Nature Canada.

Ted Chesky, naturalist director with Nature Canada, said climate change can, for instance, change the dates when certain insects hatch. This means food might not be available at a specific location where birds stop on their flight north.

"The birds arrive, and there's no food there. You're driving across a long distance and you get to a gas station and you're almost out of gas, and there's nothing there," Chesky said.  

The steep decline in population of the rufa red knot shorebird is an example that experts point to as a canary in the coalmine, so to speak.

Every year, the terracotta-orange coloured birds travel 30,000 kilometers round-trip between Tierra del Fuego, an archipelago at the southernmost tip of South America, and the Canadian Arctic, where they breed. The red knot has one of the longest migrations of the bird kingdom, and that makes the bird more vulnerable to the ripple effects of climate change along its journey.

"Basically, they're travelling along the entire length of the hemisphere — expecting certain conditions at certain times — and everything is out of whack because of climate change," Smith said. 

Researchers say they're concerned about what will happen if, year after year, the birds that survive their risky journey north arrive in the Arctic only to discover the weather or food supply isn't favourable for nesting. 

"Sometimes, they'll even just turn around and start their leisurely migration back because they know it's not worth the energy," Chesky said. "If that happens over successive years, then you start losing generations of birds."

Eider ducks survive cholera, only to face new predator

Even when birds do survive or adapt to new threats in the Arctic, it's often only one of several shifting conditions they're up against.

Grant Gilchrist, a research scientist with Environment and Climate Change Canada, was part of a team of scientists who worked with Inuit experts to investigate an avian cholera outbreak that was killing off an Arctic colony of eiders, birds that had never been exposed to it before. Their findings were published in 2016.

Gilchrist said it's impossible to know definitively whether the spread of avian cholera was caused directly by climate change.

Since that study, the eiders have developed antibodies and fewer members of the colony are dying off as a result of the disease. But, that's not the only threat the local population is facing.

"The colony is not recovering," Gilchrist said. 

That's because polar bears are eating their eggs, which has resulted in "almost complete reproductive failure of the colony for the last five to seven years," he said. In other words, the eiders' offspring aren't surviving.  

Experts say it's difficult to predict exactly what will happen to birds who rely on the safe haven of the Arctic to breed, but they generally agree that if the world continues on the path that it's on right now, it doesn't bode well.

The complex domino effects of climate change on vulnerable species is exactly why, researchers say, it is essential that leaders commit to measures to cut emissions and slow the rate of climate change, while also putting conservation measures into place to protect vital habitats. 

"Major societal change in the way we live, making our economies more circular, respecting nature, these things are all a fundamental part of where we've got to go," Chesky said.

WATCH | Arctic nations discuss the perils of a warming climate: