Canmore gourmet business dumps president who sent transphobic email

Social Sharing

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Email was in response to a request for sponsorship from 

Canmore Pride

Rob Easton · CBC News · Posted: Jul 27, 2022 

Canmore Pride asked Valbella Gourmet Foods in Canmore, Alta., shown here, if it would sponsor or make food donations to a Pride event and received a response from one of the owners, Jeff von Rotz, containing a series of conspiracy-laden, transphobic and homophobic insults. (Google Street View)

Warning: This story contains transphobic and homophobic language.

---

A prominent gourmet food supplier, caterer and retailer in Canmore, Alta., has removed its president from running the company after he sent a transphobic email to organizers of that town's Pride events.

Canmore Pride had reached out to ownership of Valbella Gourmet Foods to inquire about sponsorship or food donations for an "inclusive and free climbing event" during Canmore Pride that takes place in mid-September.

The response — containing a series of conspiracy-laden, transphobic and homophobic insults — took Canmore Pride co-chair K Kealey aback.

"I was really shocked and obviously very disappointed," they said. "I'm a trans person myself, so it's also very harmful and always so disappointing when, you know, people still think that way. And a lot of his message just brings forward these horrible stigmas that are really dangerous to our community."

The email, signed by Jeff von Rotz, repeated untruths about trans people as dangerous to children and perpetrators of violence.

The response from Valbella Gourmet Foods owner Jeff von Rotz to a request for sponsorship from Canmore pride. (K Kealey)

But in reality it is trans people who are in danger of being on the receiving end of violence and abuse, Kealey said.

"It's extremely harmful and upsetting," they said.

Kealey said they posted the email on a private message group of queer people who live in the Bow Valley to let the community know how the business was treating trans people and that it may not be a safe space for them to patronize.

"Everyone was very angry and upset that someone would say something like that," they added.

The message was eventually posted on Twitter, where the wider community expressed support for Canmore Pride, causing a social media storm.

The company released a statement Tuesday afternoon on its Facebook page after users began calling on major customers such as Fairmont Hotels and the Banff Centre to cut ties with Valbella.

Signed by Chantal von Rotz, the statement apologized for the email and said the person who wrote the email has been removed from the company and is no longer responsible for its operations.

"The words of the one person do not reflect the opinions of the many people who work as part of the Valbella team," the post reads. "On the contrary, we strive to make our company an inclusive workplace where all are welcome."

---

The email, written by Jeff von Rotz, talks about the false claims common among right-wing conspiracy theories of LGBTQ people grooming children for child abuse, saying there would be some other "woke organization mentally ill enough to help you."

"I'm sorry to say but you could not pay me to sponsor anything to do with child grooming t----," he wrote.

Jeff von Rotz signed the email as owner, but Chantal von Rotz later clarified the owners and founders of Valbella Gourmet Foods are parents Walter and Leonie von Rotz. She said Jeff von Rotz held the official title of president and that his employment was terminated effective July 26.

---

Social media users went through the list of businesses Valbella supplies and called on them to stop buying from the business.

Several clients of Valbella's later said they are cancelling their contracts, including the Banff Centre and Fairmont Hotels.

The Town of Canmore also released a statement saying it stands in solidarity with the LGBTQ community in a response posted on Facebook later in the day.

---

Kealey called the response "panicked" and unclear as the public said they would no longer support the business, wondering whether the family company had truly removed Jeff from the business. 

Valbella could also go a lot further in making amends, according to Kealey. They could say how Jeff von Rotz was removed and explain some actions they can take to undo some of the harm done by his comments.

CBC News made an interview request to Jeff von Rotz but did not receive a response. A request to the company was made but CBC News was directed to the statement on Facebook.

Kealey sees the ordeal as a teachable moment that the community can do more than just support the community during Pride.

"I think this is a prime example of why we continue to need spaces specifically for people in marginalized communities," they said.

Protesting Dutch farmers dump manure, garbage on roads

PETITE BOURGEOIS OUTRAGE AGAINST MODEST CLIMATE CHANGE REFORMS

FILE- Some 25 tractors were used to blockade a distribution center for supermarket chain Albert Heijn in the town of Zaandam, just north of Amsterdam, Monday, July 4, 2022. Dutch farmers angry at government plans to slash emissions used tractors and trucks Monday to blockade supermarket distribution centers, the latest actions in a summer of discontent in the country's lucrative agricultural sector. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong, File)

Mike Corder, The Associated Press
Published Wednesday, July 27, 2022 5:37AM EDT

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — Dutch farmers resumed protests at government plans to reduce nitrogen emissions Wednesday by dumping manure and garbage on highways and setting fires alongside roads.

Traffic authorities said several roads in the central and eastern Netherlands were completely or partially blocked by the early morning blockades and fire services rushed to clear roads as traffic built up. Cleanup operations were expected to take hours on some roads.

Dutch media reported that at one location, a sign was left behind that said: “Sorry for the inconvenience, Rutte IV is driving us to despair,” a reference to Prime Minister Mark Rutte's government, the fourth coalition he has led

The latest demonstrations in a summer of discontent came a day after a government-appointed mediator sent invitations to farmers' organizations to discuss with the country's ruling coalition ways of reducing nitrogen emissions.

“I see the talks as a turning point: breaking the deadlock together,” mediator Johan Remkes said. “The cabinet has assured me that there is room and joint solutions are possible.”

Some farmers have rejected the appointment of Remkes as an independent mediator because he is a member of Prime Minister Mark Rutte's center-right political party and a former deputy prime minister.

The farmers are angry at government targets for reining in emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia that they say threatens to wreck their agricultural way of life and put them out of business.

The government says emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia, which livestock produce, must be drastically reduced close to nature areas that are part of a network of protected habitats for endangered plants and wildlife stretching across the 27-nation European Union.

The ruling coalition wants to cut emissions of pollutants by 50% nationwide by 2030, calling the measure an “unavoidable transition” to improve soil, air and water quality in a nation known for its intensive farming practices. It has called on provincial authorities to draw up plans to reduce emissions and earmarked an extra 24.3 billion euros ($24.6 billion) to fund the changes.

Farmers argue that they are being unfairly targeted while other industries, such as aviation, construction and transport, also are contributing to emissions and face less far-reaching rules. They also say the government is not giving them a clear picture of their futures amid the proposed reforms.

Earlier this year, the farmers blocked highways with tractors and blockaded supermarket distribution centers.

Mining Giant Glencore Strikes One of Japan’s Most Expensive Ever Coal Deals

Nippon Steel will buy coal at $375 per ton through March 2023

Coal prices are surging as the world shuns Russian shipments

By Tsuyoshi Inajima and Stephen Stapczynski
July 27, 2022 

Glencore Plc, the mining and commodity trading giant, agreed to supply coal to a Japanese customer at one of the highest prices ever paid by the nation, threatening to further accelerate inflation.

Nippon Steel Corp. agreed on an annual supply deal through March with Glencore for power plant coal at $375 per ton, according to people with knowledge of the deal, who asked not to be identified because the information is private. The agreement is three times more expensive than similar deals done last year, and is likely one of the costliest coal contracts ever signed by a Japanese company, one of the people said.

Spokespeople for Glencore and Nippon Steel declined to comment.

Global competition for coal and natural gas is escalating as power generators move to secure additional fuel shipments amid an energy crunch. Utilities are curbing imports from Russia due to the war in Ukraine, tightening the amount of available supply and sending prices surging.

Japan has been struggling with strained electricity supplies and high demand during a recent heat wave. Nippon Steel, which uses fuel to power its industrial sites and supplies electricity to Japan’s grid, earlier this month purchased the country’s most expensive ever natural gas shipment

Glencore is the world’s top coal shipper and profits from the power-plant fuel are at an all-time high. The resource giant is on course for a record 2022 as it cashes in on soaring prices and volatility.

The Glencore deal may be used as the benchmark price for other annual supplies by thermal coal users in Asia, the people said. That will boost the cost to generate electricity, and threatens to increase power bills for businesses and households.

Australian Newcastle coal futures closed at $410.45 per ton on Tuesday on ICE Futures Europe, and touched a record earlier this year. European coal futures for next year rallied to an all-time high on Tuesday as Russia threatens to curb gas supplies to the continent.

— With assistance by Masumi Suga

Why does one NWT EV charging station cost more than $600,000?

OLLIE WILLIAMS

CABINRADIO.CA

 JULY 27, 2022 

Last week, the NWT government announced $624,000 would be spent opening an ultra-fast electric vehicle charging station in Behchokǫ̀.A level two electric vehicle charging station in Yellowknife in September 2021. Sarah Pruys/Cabin Radio

Given the territory had just received $414,000 from the federal government to help pay for up to 72 electric vehicle chargers, the announcement that far more was needed to build one Behchokǫ̀ charger raised eyebrows.

We asked the NWT Power Corporation, which is building the charging station, why it will cost so much.

The power corporation said the plan is to build a charging station with two stalls. That allows two vehicles to charge at once, with the aim of ensuring you don’t have to wait more than half an hour to get a full charge.

According to the power corporation, that explains some of the cost – as does the use of a level-three charger, currently the fastest commonly available.

“The cost to install a level three charger is significantly higher than a level two charger as there is a requirement for upgrades to the distribution system to power a level three charger,” Doug Prendergast, a spokesperson for the power corporation, told Cabin Radio by email.

“A level two charger can be connected to the electricity system, similar to a major appliance. The time required to charge an EV with a 100-kW level three charging system is approximately 30 minutes, while a level two charging station would require from six to eight hours.

“Approximately $200,000 of the total project cost is for the purchase of two 100-kW level three DC charging units. By comparison, a level two charger can be purchased for as little as $1,500.”

Prendergast initially said the federal funding for up to 72 charging stations was “primarily for level one and level two charging stations that residents or businesses can install using their existing infrastructure,” but later clarified – after this article was first published – that the funding will, in fact, be spent mostly on level two chargers, with some assistance available for level three chargers.

(Speakers at last week’s federal announcement had said the $414,000 was for level two and three chargers, and that money is coming from a federal fund that appears designed to support level two chargers or higher. A level one charger can plug into an ordinary power outlet and provides only around eight kilometres of charge per hour.)

The power corporation says other costs contributing to the $624,000 price tag “are related to design and engineering, property preparation (platform and entryway), distribution line upgrades – including the installation of a dedicated transformer and development and installation of a security monitoring system – as well as a communication system for billing.”

Prendergast said a 20-percent contingency had been included in case of “unknown or unexpected costs,” given this will be the NWT’s first level-three charging station outside Yellowknife.

“Behchokǫ̀ was selected as the site for the first charging station on the proposed corridor between Alberta and Yellowknife for several reasons,” he wrote.

Those reasons are the community’s proximity to Highway 3, the ease of access to existing hydroelectric power infrastructure, and the availability of nearby power corporation staff for technical support and maintenance.

Prendergast also noted Highway 3 between Behchokǫ̀ and Yellowknife is one of the busiest in the NWT and a study considered it to have “the greatest potential for EV adoption.”

Behchokǫ̀, he wrote, is “well-situated for travellers heading to or departing from the territorial capital.”

CAPITALI$M'S DEATH PENALTY

OAN, a Dependable Trump Promoter, Faces a ‘Death Blow’

After Verizon drops the network at the end of this week, OAN’s cable TV audience will shrink dramatically.

One America News’s headquarters in San Diego. The cable network will soon have lost its presence in some 20 million homes. Credit...The New York Times

By Jeremy W. Peters and Benjamin Mullin
July 26, 2022

The future of One America News, which established itself as a powerful voice in conservative media by promoting some of the most outlandish falsehoods about the 2020 election, is in serious doubt as major carriers drop it from their lineups and defamation lawsuits threaten to drain its finances.

By the end of this week, the cable network will have lost its presence in some 20 million homes this year. The most recent blow came from Verizon, which will stop carrying OAN on its Fios television service starting Saturday. That will starve the network of a major stream of revenue: the fees it collects from Verizon, which counts roughly 3.5 million cable subscribers. In April, OAN was dropped by AT&T’s DirecTV, which has about 15 million subscribers.

OAN’s remaining audience will be small. The network will soon be available only to a few hundred thousand people who subscribe to smaller cable providers, such as Frontier and GCI Liberty, said Scott Robson, a senior research analyst at S&P Global Market Intelligence. OAN also sells its programming directly to users through its OAN Live and KlowdTV streaming platforms, but those products most likely provide a fraction of the revenue generated by traditional TV providers.

“I really think this is the death blow for the network,” Mr. Robson said.

In its statement announcing the termination of its OAN deal, Verizon said only that it had been “unable to reach an agreement to continue carrying One America News,” and made no mention of the public pressure campaigns it faced from activist groups like Media Matters, which had been calling on cable providers to drop the network. A company spokeswoman declined to comment further on Tuesday.

DirecTV also did not elaborate on its reasons for dropping OAN, saying in January that the move was part of a “routine internal review.” On Tuesday, the company referred to the January statement.

Daily business updates The latest coverage of business, markets and the economy, sent by email each weekday. Get it sent to your inbox.

While OAN doesn’t have the influence wielded by the much larger Fox News, the top-rated cable news network, the fees from its deals with Verizon and AT&T provided a substantial stream of income, about $36 million a year by some estimates. And once it is gone from millions of television sets, OAN will be in a weaker bargaining position with advertisers — fewer potential viewers most likely mean fewer companies willing to pay as much to promote their products on the network.

All this comes at a particularly bad time for OAN, which is based in San Diego. The company and the Herring family that backs it face defamation lawsuits over the network’s claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald J. Trump.

That coverage featured wild stories about supposed plots to steal votes from Mr. Trump. The voting technology companies Smartmatic and Dominion are suing OAN over false claims that their machines enabled Mr. Trump’s enemies to switch votes cast for him to President Biden. One employee of Dominion, Eric Coomer, is also suing the network. Mr. Coomer received death threats after OAN named him in a report as an alleged collaborator of antifa, the far-left movement.

Two election workers from Georgia sued OAN for reporting that they were part of an illegal plot to add fraudulent votes to President Biden’s totals in the state, which he narrowly won. OAN settled that case in April.

The cases are among a series of defamation suits against conservative media outlets and Trump allies that are pending before judges across the country. Dominion and Smartmatic are also suing Newsmax, one of OAN’s competitors, and Fox News.

For OAN, the litigation has so far not gone well, as judges have rejected its attempts to have the cases dismissed. In one ruling, a judge concluded that OAN had acted “maliciously and consciously” in perpetuating falsehoods about Dominion, and that its chief White House correspondent, Chanel Rion, had failed to exercise even the most minimal journalistic scrutiny.

In her report, Ms. Rion cited a conservative podcaster and activist, Joe Oltmann, who claimed to have eavesdropped on an antifa conference call before the election. She reported that “antifa-drenched engineers are hell bent on deleting half of America’s voice” and referred to Mr. Coomer.

Last year, Charles Herring, the president of OAN’s owner, Herring Networks, defended the coverage in remarks to The New York Times, saying that the network has a review process with multiple checks in place to ensure news coverage is up to company standards.

“Based on our investigations, voter irregularities clearly took place in the November 2020 election,” he said. “The real question is to what extent.”

Started in 2013 by Mr. Herring’s father, Robert Herring, a tech entrepreneur, OAN was for years a little-watched, right-wing cable network running stories about a Republican effort to impeach President Barack Obama and about American Muslims joining the Islamic State.

The conservative takeover of Washington in 2017 gave it new life. That year, DirecTV struck a deal to carry the channel and substantially expanded its potential viewership. Mr. Trump gushed about its flattering coverage of him, lavishing on it the kind of praise he typically reserved for Fox News, calling OAN “a great network.”

Part of an OAN broadcast that described “alleged improper ballot counting” was screened at a Senate campaign event in Valdosta, Ga., in December 2020.Credit...Dustin Chambers/Reuters

OAN became not only a reliable purveyor of fawning coverage of Mr. Trump but also a dogged pursuer of his political opponents. Its willingness to bend the truth and give voice to conspiracy theories on a variety of topics — vaccines, Covid-19, the identities of the rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — went further than any of its competitors in the pro-Trump media sphere.

Mr. Trump rewarded the network’s loyalty. In the summer of 2020, dissatisfied with what he considered insufficiently positive coverage from Fox News, he urged his followers to instead watch OAN and Newsmax, deeming them “much better!” He did so again after the election, when OAN’s correspondents were more willing than many Fox journalists to continue lending credibility to allegations of voter fraud.

More so than some of its competitors, for months OAN clung to the notion that the election remained unresolved. At times, the network acted as if Mr. Biden were not the president. The channel did not broadcast live coverage of his inauguration. In a report in late March 2021, one of its correspondents claimed, “There’s still serious doubts about who’s actually president.”

Now OAN is trying to shore up its viewership. In recent days, an advertisement on its website offered new subscribers free access to its OAN Live service through Oct. 31.

Its anchors have cast their network’s dispute with Verizon as another attempt by a corporate media establishment to silence conservative voices.

One anchor, Dan Ball, recently implored viewers to call Verizon and demand that it continue service of OAN. “Call that number. You want to tell them, ‘Keep OAN. Keep OAN,’” he said. “Verizon is the next one trying to censor One America News.”


Jeremy W. Peters covers media and its intersection with politics, law and culture. He is the author of “Insurgency: How Republicans Lost Their Party and Got Everything They Ever Wanted.” He is a contributor to MSNBC. @jwpetersnyt • Facebook

A version of this article appears in print on July 27, 2022, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Possible ‘Death Blow’ as Conservative Network Loses TV Carriers.

Sask. pushes decision on site of potential small nuclear reactor back to late 2024

Social Sharing

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Original plan had been to choose a site by next year for

small modular reactor

Kelly Provost · CBC News · Posted: Jul 27, 2022 

A concept image of a GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 small modular reactor, the technology SaskPower plans to use if it moves ahead with its plan to build the nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan. (GE-Hitachi)

The Saskatchewan government's schedule for potentially building a small modular reactor in the province includes deciding on its location by late 2024 — a revision from the initial schedule published four months ago.

SaskPower recently announced it had selected the technology that could be used to build potential reactors, known as SMRs, for deployment in the province in the mid-2030s.

At the same time, the Crown energy corporation confirmed it's currently conducting a detailed technical evaluation of potential regions that could host such a nuclear facility. It expects to identify suitable regions this year.

A strategic plan released in March said site selection engagement would also begin this year and a site would be chosen in 2023. However, SaskPower spokesperson Joel Cherry said the utility now expects the selection process to be complete by the fourth quarter of 2024.

"After reviewing the project schedules it was determined that more time for engagement with the public, stakeholders and Indigenous rights holders would be beneficial," Cherry said, pushing the selection timeline back.

Plan to build 2 reactors in 1 location

Cherry said the delay will not impact the overall project schedule or the expected 2029 decision on whether or not to proceed with construction of a first SMR.

The Saskatchewan government has said that if it goes ahead, construction could start as early as 2030 and the reactor could be operational in 2034 — with the potential for construction of three other reactors between 2034 and 2042.

The province's SMR strategic plan says SaskPower's plan would have the first two reactors on one site, to reduce long-term licensing costs.

• Saskatchewan's plan to build small nuclear reactors draws mixed reactions

• Green Party leaders urge Sask. government to halt small modular reactor plans

SaskPower will perform an impact assessment for two SMRs on the same site, but the decision on whether to construct the second reactor will be made at a later time, it said.

Doug Opseth, SaskPower's director of generation asset management planning, said when the utility identifies potentially suitable regions in the province for an SMR this fall, that information will be made public.

Site selection work done so far has focused on technical criteria, he said, such as "water availability for cooling, access to existing transmission infrastructure, access to roads, and importantly, access to communities that have a workforce that could support a reactor like that."

SaskPower is currently in the process of creating a shortlist of regions based on its criteria, but hasn't yet ruled any out, he said.

According to the government's SMR strategic plan, the reactors need to be located on a site that is supported by the host community and meets all technical and regulatory requirements.

As a project proponent, SaskPower said it is responsible for reviewing and considering the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's list of site selection criteria for new nuclear sites, as well as additional criteria.

It said the Saskatchewan government "will bring forward additional socio-economic and regional drivers" in the selection process.

Reactors part of net-zero plan

A small modular reactor typically produces 300 megawatts of electricity or less — enough electricity to power 300,000 homes each year, according to the province.

The reactors are considered "modular" because they're designed to work either independently or as modules in a bigger complex. Modules are generally designed to be small enough to be transported easily — via a standard shipping container, for example.

The province said the reactors could play a critical role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from electrical generation in the province and could contribute to Canada's efforts to address climate change.

Currently, about 75 per cent of electricity in Saskatchewan is generated from fossil fuels.

• CBC EXPLAINS
  'The next wave of innovation': Nuclear reactors of the future are small and modular

• SMRs could be key weapon in climate-change battle, engineer says

The deployment of four SMRs would help achieve net-zero emissions in the provincial electrical grid, the government said.

The reactors could also help boost uranium production — including providing new opportunities for uranium produced in Saskatchewan — enhance nuclear research and add jobs in construction and facilities operations, according to the province.

Saskatchewan is one of four provinces in Canada exploring the potential of building SMRs, along with Alberta, Ontario and New Brunswick.

Selection may be difficult: Environmental Society

Ann Coxworth, a research advisor with the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, thinks the site selection process will be complicated and difficult for SaskPower, mainly because it's proposing a water-cooled reactor.

Coxworth noted the Lake Diefenbaker region has been previously considered for a reactor. According to a consultant's report commissioned by the then NDP government and prepared for SaskPower in 2007, that area of the province was the Crown utility's preferred location for a nuclear power plant.

"I think with the frequent droughts that we have and the really heavy demand on the Lake Diefenbaker water, I think they would have a really hard time getting permission to locate on the lake," she said.

• Lake Diefenbaker region preferred site for nuclear plant: SaskPower report

A northern site has more consistent cold water availability, said Coxworth.

"But again, I assume they would probably want to locate closer to the centre of demand, which is obviously in the south," she said.

"I think wherever they look at a site, there's going to be a lot of local reaction to deal with."

SARM supports nuclear power

Ray Orb, the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, said its members got the chance to talk to SaskPower at an association convention about SMR site selection, without getting into the sites under consideration.

Given the federal government's plan to phase out traditional coal-fired electricity by 2030, Orb wonders about situating an SMR in an area that currently has a coal-fired power plant.

"It kind of makes sense that if you're going to build something to replace … [coal], you would use the same kind of site, because you've already got the grid in place," he said.

• Battery storage system in Regina will play role in helping hit net-zero goal, company says

• Sask.'s largest wind farm opens near Assiniboia

That's a "great thing" for the province, Orb said, and his association is supportive of nuclear power.

"The site that's selected, obviously there's going to have to be co-operation from the residents in that site. But if it is our members that are in favour of it, of course, we will support our members."

Asked if he thought there are any rural municipalities that would be interested in getting a reactor, he said he thinks there will be, specifically mentioning job creation.

"If you're looking at a place in Saskatchewan where you're losing some kind of industry, you'd be kind of eager to get another industry there," he said.

In a statement to CBC News, a spokesperson with the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association said it had little information regarding the process or areas under consideration. A discussion regarding small modular reactors is set to go before SUMA's community and economic development committee in late August or early September, the association said.

A statement from the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan said when the subject of potential locations for small modular reactors was raised, it organized information sessions in collaboration with SaskPower.

• Three Indigenous-owned corporations show support for small modular reactors

The province of Saskatchewan and SaskPower have taken important first steps on this topic to ensure that Métis voices will be heard, the organization said, adding it believes those steps won't be the last.

CBC also requested comment from the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations and New North, a northern Saskatchewan municipal lobby organization, but has not yet had a response.

Britain sending military specialist on Russia's threat to Arctic to work in Canada

RUSSIA'S THREAT TO ARCTIC

The Canadian Press - Jul 27, 2022 /  | Story: 377354

Photo: The Canadian Press

Britain is sending a military expert on the threat posed by Russia and China in the Arctic to work in the British High Commission in Ottawa.

In a sign of deepening co-operation between Canada and Britain on defence matters, the U.K. is dispatching Nick Diggle, a former Royal Navy officer and research specialist in Arctic security, to Ottawa in September.

The former counterterrorism expert's move follows a warning from Canada’s defence chief that protecting the Arctic region is a key concern for the Armed Forces.

At a conference in Ottawa in March, Gen. Wayne Eyre said Russia had reoccupied abandoned Cold War bases in its Far North.

The threat of a Russian incursion into Canada’s Arctic is very low at the moment, he said, but it is “not inconceivable that our sovereignty may be challenged” in the future from the North.

Eyre also highlighted Russia's “remilitarization” of the North, which is potentially vulnerable because of its sparse population and lack of infrastructure.

Diggle, a former warfare officer with the Royal Navy, has been researching how the U.K. and Canada can work together “to combat the geostrategic threat from Russia and China in the Arctic" at the Changing Character of War Centre based at Oxford University in England.

The centre, which studies armed conflict, said Diggle will take up the post of minister-counsellor at the High Commission in Ottawa.

In an October interview with the Sunday Times, a British newspaper, U.K. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said London is planning to strike new security deals with democratic countries to fight the influence of China and Russia.

Gen. Sir Jim Hockenhull, chief of defence intelligence in the U.K., signalled last year that Britain is planning to send more intelligence personnel overseas during a rare public appearance at the Defence and Security Equipment International trade exhibition in London.

The U.K’s Ministry of Defence told The Canadian Press that Britain is increasing the number of defence intelligence personnel who operate overseas to help the country “build relationships with key international partners.”

Diggle, who did not respond to a request for comment, was commissioned into the Royal Navy as a warfare officer in 1988.

He served in the navy for over 12 years, later joining the U.K.’s Foreign Ministry, where he served in a range of roles and overseas postings including in Oman and Mexico. He also recently worked on global counterterrorism issues in London.

A spokesperson for the British High Commission in Ottawa said developments in the Arctic affect the environment, prosperity, energy supply and security.

A 2021 review set out the U.K.'s approach of helping to maintain the region as one of high co-operation and low tension, contributing to Arctic science — particularly on the impacts of climate change — and working with partners such as Canada, she added.

Russia taking over ownership stakes in Arctic oil field

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia announced further moves Tuesday to take over foreign ownership stakes in energy projects, saying it would acquire the stock in an Arctic oil field now held by French and Norwegian companies.

The Russian government said it approved a proposal for the Russian oil firm Zarubezhneft to acquire the stakes of TotalEnergies of France and Equinor of Norway in the Kharyaga project in the Arctic. The move gives Zarubezhneft 90% of the projects shares, and the balance are held by another Russian company.

The Kharyaga oil project is operated under a product-sharing agreement, with Zarubezhneft serving as operator. Financial terms and other details of the transactions weren’t disclosed.

The acquisition is part of a divestment trend following foreign companies saying they would exit the Russian market because of the country’s military action in Ukraine.

On June 30, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree handing full control over a major oil and natural gas project partly owned by Shell and two Japanese companies to a newly created Russian firm.

The new company takes over ownership of the Sakhalin Energy Investment Co., which was nearly 50% controlled by British energy giant Shell and Japan-based Mitsui and Mitsubishi.

Definitions and implications of climate-neutral aviation

• Nicoletta Brazzola, 
• Anthony Patt & 
• Jan Wohland 

Nature Climate Change (2022)Cite this article

• 532 Accesses

• 104 Altmetric

• Metrics

• 
  

• 
  

• 
  

• 
  

• 
  details

• Analysis
• Published: 25 July 2022

Abstract

To meet ambitious climate targets, the aviation sector needs to neutralize CO2 emissions and reduce non-CO2 climatic effects. Despite being responsible for approximately two-thirds of aviation’s impacts on the climate, most of aviation non-CO2 species are currently excluded from climate mitigation efforts. Here we identify three plausible definitions of climate-neutral aviation that include non-CO2 forcing and assess their implications considering future demand uncertainty, technological innovation and CO2 removal. We demonstrate that simply neutralizing aviation’s CO2 emissions, if nothing is done to reduce non-CO2 forcing, causes up to 0.4 °C additional warming, thus compromising the 1.5 °C target. We further show that substantial rates of CO2 removal are needed to achieve climate-neutral aviation in scenarios with little mitigation, yet cleaner-flying technologies can drastically reduce them. Our work provides policymakers with consistent definitions of climate-neutral aviation and highlights the beneficial side effects of moving to aircraft types and fuels with lower indirect climate effects.

Main

The aviation sector is expected to quickly recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and resume its trend of rapid growth1,2,3. Due to the complexity and uncertainty of aviation’s non-CO2 effects on the climate4,5,6, on top of the general difficulty to regulate international aviation emissions7,8, aviation’s non-CO2 effects are currently excluded from international climate agreements (that is, the Paris Agreement), other aviation mitigation policies (for example, efforts from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) such as the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International aviation (CORSIA)9 and its mid-century targets8) and carbon markets (for example, the European Emissions Trading System4,7). If aviation’s non-CO2 effects are left unmitigated, the sector’s expansion could, however, conflict with climate goals such as those in the Paris Agreement7,10,11,12,13.

The burning of jet fuel at high altitude affects the climate both directly—due to the emissions of CO2, H2O, sulfur dioxide and soot—and indirectly due to the short-lived formation of contrail cirrus and the changes in O3, CH4 and stratospheric water vapour due to NOx emissions14,15. These various effects have different magnitudes and lifetimes and jointly have contributed about 4% of the anthropogenic forcing from pre-industrial times14,16, two-thirds of which are due to non-CO2 effects (with uncertainties between 38–77%) (ref. 14). While the non-CO2-related effects are both warming and cooling, their net effective radiative forcing—dominated by contrail cirrus—is positive14,17,18.

Climate-neutrality targets are designed to guarantee that human activities, such as aviation, stop further contributing to climate change19. For a long-lived greenhouse gas such as CO2, stabilizing atmospheric concentrations to avoid further warming requires reducing net emissions to zero20,21,22. This is not the case, however, for the short-lived effects caused by aviation19,23. Ceasing emissions would eliminate the (net positive) short-lived terms of radiative forcing, resulting in a cooling relative to the period preceding the cessation. Thus a definition of climate neutrality requires setting the baseline relative to which net emissions are neutral19,24. First attempts to investigate the implications of climate neutrality and the related issue of offsetting non-CO2 forcing with CO2 removal exist for some sectors dominated by short-lived greenhouse gases, such as agriculture23,25,26. There has been no such analysis of the aviation sector, which has far more complex climatic effects. We address this deficit here.

In this study, we explore the climate impacts of aviation under different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), that is, SSP1–2.6 and SSP5–8.5, encompassing a large range of possible future changes in demand, CO2 intensity and energy efficiency. Besides scenarios where fossil jet fuels continue playing a predominant role (Fossil jet fuels), we additionally assess two technology scenarios envisioning a complete transition to zero-carbon fuels (Zero-CO2 fuels) or hypothetical emissions-free aircraft (No-emissions aircraft). Finding that climate neutrality, and not carbon neutrality, is necessary to align the aviation sector with Paris-compatible climate change mitigation, we propose and formalize three plausible definitions of climate-neutral aviation that consider non-CO2 effects. We calculate the levels of CO2 removal required to offset the residual emissions overshooting the different climate neutrality targets. Finally, we assess the impacts of these climate neutrality frameworks, including the needed CO2 removal, on global temperature in the context of the different demand and technology scenarios.

Our modelling approach is summarized in Fig. 1. We use empirical relationships to translate aviation emissions into climate forcing (the sensitivity parameters, σ, of each emitted aviation species and indirect effect14), an alternative application of the Global Warming Potential (the GWP*)27,28,29 as a heuristic to estimate carbon-removal rates and a reduced-complexity climate model (the Finite Amplitude Impulse Response model, FaIR)30,31 to compute temperature change. In doing so, we fully propagate the uncertainty (that is, the standard error of the sensitivity parameters and of zero-carbon fuels emissions reduction) through our modelling chain. More details are provided in Methods.

Fig. 1: Modelling approach used in this study.

First, we explore different scenarios of future aviation, taking into consideration future technologies and demand changes following different socioeconomic pathways. These scenarios result in different pathways of future aviation emissions and indirect effects (Supplementary Methods 1.1). Then, we use the sensitivity parameters, σi, to calculate the effective radiative forcing of the different aviation species and its uncertainty. We then apply different definitions of climate neutrality (Gold, Silver and Bronze) and calculate the needed carbon-removal rates, using the GWP* metric to establish a relationship between aviation non-CO2 forcing and CO2 removal. Finally, we input CO2 emissions and removal rates and non-CO2 effective radiative forcing in a reduced-complexity model (FaIR) to calculate the temperature outcomes of the different scenarios of climate neutrality.

Full size image

The role of non-CO2 effects in future aviation scenarios

In Fig. 2, we show the evolution of the different terms of aviation’s effective radiative forcing (ERF) according to the two socioeconomic and three technology pathways. While non-CO2 effects currently account for 67% of aviation’s total historical ERF (38–77% when considering the whole uncertainty range)14, their future contribution could substantially change. The non-CO2 term is largely dominated by the ERF of contrail cirrus, followed by the short-term O3 increase caused by NOx emissions. Under the Fossil jet fuels scenarios, CO2 emissions are only partially mitigated (for example, via energy efficiency and CO2 intensity reductions) and thus their ERF continues increasing. For contrail cirrus and other short-term forcing, the growth trajectory of emissions determines whether short-term forcing decreases in the second half of the century (as in SSP1–2.6) or continues increasing (as in SSP5–8.5). Under assumptions of undisturbed sectorial growth as in SSP5–8.5, the share of ERF due to CO2 decreases from the observed 38% (27–67%) in 2018 to 26% (18–52%) in 2100, while the contribution of contrail cirrus rises from 58% (30–69%) to 71% (42–81%). In SSP1–2.6, the non-CO2 ERF terms peak at 79% (53–86%) before 2060 and shrink to 61% (31–73%) by 2100 because of decreasing emissions.

Fig. 2: ERF components of aviation.

Components with a negative ERF (cooling effect on the climate; blue shades): sulfur aerosol and decreases in CH4, ozone and stratospheric water vapour due to NOx emissions. Components with a positive ERF (warming effect on the climate; grey to red shades): H2O, soot, CO2 and contrail cirrus. The black dots show the total ERF in each year, while the grey bars encompass the standard deviation of the total ERF of aviation. Different panels relate to different input emission scenarios, with rows for the most optimistic (SSP1–2.6) and most pessimistic (SSP5–8.5) socioeconomic scenarios and columns for different technology scenarios. The black horizontal line corresponds to zero effective radiative forcing and shows the divide between warming and cooling species.

Full size image

A rapid transition to cleaner-flying technologies changes the breakdown of ERF by aviation species. For instance, the 100% transition to zero-carbon fuels by 2050 in the Zero-CO2 fuels scenario eliminates CO2 emissions, stabilizing the ERF of CO2. As a result, the relative contribution of non-CO2 effects to the total ERF increases, despite zero-carbon fuels partially mitigating some of these effects. Consequentially, by 2100 CO2 contributes only 13% (8–36%) to the total aviation ERF under SSP5–8.5, while contrail cirrus contributes 78% (39–86%). While in this scenario, the short-term increase in O3—an indirect effect of NOx emissions—seems to play a prominent role, it is almost completely compensated by NOx cooling effects.

In the exploratory No-emissions aircraft scenario, about a quarter of the flights are emissions free by 2050 and all of them by 2080, eliminating all short-term ERF contributions and lowering the total ERF by the end of the century. Only a rapid shift to no-emissions aviation would thus justify the current standard of excluding non-CO2 effects from mitigation efforts7,8,9,32. Yet such a transition relies on very optimistic assumptions about technology development and diffusion that might well not materialize. For this reason, aviation’s non-CO2 forcing should be addressed through climate neutrality targets.

READ ON/DOWNLOAD PDF   Definitions and implications of climate-neutral aviation | Nature Climate Change

Carbon Offsets Alone Won’t Make Flying Climate-Friendly

Carbon dioxide emissions aren’t the only way aviation warms the planet. Exhaust contains a host of polluting particles, from soot to nitrogen oxides.


PHOTOGRAPH: SOEREN STACHE/GETTY IMAGES


JET A-1, A straw-colored, kerosene-based fuel used in most big airplanes, is a difficult substance to replace. It’s packed with energy; per unit of weight, at least 60 times as much as the lithium-ion batteries used to propel electric cars. It’s also terrible for the climate. So as the aviation industry has gradually climbed aboard global pledges to get rid of carbon emissions, it has mostly promised to make up for its damage elsewhere—through offsets that might involve planting trees, restoring wetlands, or paying people to preserve ecosystems that otherwise would have been razed. But according to a growing body of research, those efforts leave something out: Most of the planet-warming effects of flying aren’t from carbon dioxide.

Burning jet fuel at 35,000 feet sparks a molecular cascade in the troposphere. The initial combustion releases a shower of particles—sulfur, nitrogen oxides, soot, and water vapor. At those frigid heights, some of the particles become nuclei around which condensation gathers and then quickly freezes, helping to produce puffy contrails that either vanish or persist as wispy, high-altitude cirrus clouds. In the presence of the sun’s rays, nitrogen molecules set of a chain of reactions that produce ozone and destroy free-floating atmospheric methane. It's tough to pin down the meaning of all this chemistry. Some of these reactions, like the methane destruction, help cool the Earth. Others warm it. It all depends on the atmospheric conditions for each flight, multiplied across tens of thousands of planes streaking across the sky each day.

Overall, the warming effects add up. In an analysis published last year, an international team of researchers pinned 3.5 percent of total warming in 2011 on aviation alone—which may sound small, but the number has been growing fast. The authors found that roughly two-thirds of warming due to aviation at that time was caused by all of those factors that aren’t CO2 emissions.

Which is why some scientists argue that the term “carbon-neutral” doesn’t mean much, at least when it comes to flying jets. If the aviation industry wants to do its part to help meet global temperature goals, it’s better yet to think in terms of “climate-neutral,” says Nicoletta Brazzola, a climate policy researcher at ETH Zurich. In a study published this week in Nature Climate Change, she outlines all the ways to get there, including rules for more efficient flying, new technologies like low-carbon fuels and batteries, and more intensive efforts to remove carbon from the air that would go beyond canceling out aviation’s CO2 emissions, accounting for all of the industry’s warming effects. And, oh yeah: less flying. “It would require an enormous effort to meet this climate-neutrality framework solely with technology fixes and no changes to lifestyle,” she says.

So far, the industry’s focus has been on offsetting carbon. It’s the greenhouse gas we all know, and it’s easy enough to measure how burning jet fuel converts into tons of carbon emissions. That’s based on intimate knowledge of existing fuels and engines. Airlines already make those calculations and let customers see their damage—and often pay a little extra to offset those emissions through partner programs that do things like plant trees. Expecting continued growth in demand for aviation, members of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) have pledged to hold their net carbon emissions to 2019 levels through those types of offsets. That effort itself is far from perfect—a number of investigations have found that many of the offset programs that airlines partner with chronically overestimate the amount of carbon that they successfully store. 

And again, those schemes are all about carbon.

In part, that’s because it’s tricky to account for all the non-CO2 factors. Atmospheric chemistry at 35,000 feet is inherently localized, dependent on factors like temperature and humidity. The greatest uncertainty is the potential behavior of contrails—the tendrils that form behind planes as water molecules condense around exhaust particles and freeze. “The basic microphysics of the ice crystals is quite difficult to get a handle on,” says David Lee, an atmospheric scientist at Manchester Metropolitan University who studies aviation emissions. If the air is humid and cool enough, they can hang around as cirrus clouds, and that would likely have a net warming effect. The time of day is another X factor. During the day, those clouds can reflect sunlight, keeping the Earth cool. But they can also trap heat, especially at night.

In theory, it might be possible to mitigate some of those effects by flying differently—avoiding particularly cold and humid patches of air, for example, or flying less often at night. But the atmospheric models the airline industry relies on aren’t good enough at predicting the exact conditions along the flight path—and there’s a risk that changing flight patterns might emit more CO2 while resulting in little benefit. “The risks of making things worse are very, very real until we can predict things better,” Lee says.

It could be better to address the emissions problems related to jet fuel directly, but finding replacements is challenging. Batteries have a long way to go before they’ll be able to pack enough energy for flight, even for short hops that carry relatively few passengers. (Though researchers are exploring more energy-dense chemistries that look beyond the lithium-ion batteries used in cars.) Another possibility is to produce sustainable jet fuels that are derived from CO2-sucking sources, like crops or algae. That would help the planes get closer to carbon neutral, because the carbon in the fuel was originally taken from the air. But there are immense logistical challenges to scaling up production of those fuels.

In the meantime, “the biggest lever you have is conserving fuel,” says Rohini Sengupta, senior manager for environmental sustainability and climate at United Airlines. In addition to cutting back on CO2, that helps mitigate the other forms of warming, she says, by reducing emissions of nitrogen and soot. The airline is also working toward to expand its use of sustainable fuels by the year 2030, and is pursuing a switch from carbon offsets to more robust carbon removal strategies to meet its 2050 carbon-neutrality goal.

In a statement, Southwest Airlines also said the company would continue to monitor non-CO2 research and pointed to its investments in sustainable jet fuels. Representatives from Delta, American, and British Airways-parent IAG did not respond to interview requests.

One good thing is that the non-CO2 effects of any particular plane streaking across the sky are short-lived. Clouds form and then fade, and molecules like ozone get destroyed by chemical processes within months. (In contrast, CO2 emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere for thousands of years.) This means that today’s efforts to curb non-CO2 effects will have an immediate effect on warming.

The key is keeping fuel use in check. “We’re addicted to flying, even though it’s a tiny percentage of the population that actually flies,” says Lee, who has avoided taking personal flights for the past 21 years (though business travel took him around the world before the pandemic). Asking people to change their behavior is never easy, but the current imbalance is all the more reason for those who have choices in how they travel to consider their own impact, Brazzola told me from a scorching Greek island, where she was on vacation. She had reached her destination by a complex chain of trains, buses, and boats. “It was quite the journey,” she says. But a step in the right direction.