July, 2024
There’s a lot of chatter about the possibility of a provincial election this fall or spring. So, in the spirit of collective decision-making, we’re asking about your priorities if an election is called.
On a scale with five options, with “Not Interested” being the least and “Very Interested” being the most, what’s your stance on the following issues?
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
A monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community, and in-depth dives into key topics.
June, 2024
Our June poll addressed what can be a bit of a hot-button issue in environmental circles, nuclear power and its role in an emissions-free energy future. The results were:
The largest portion of respondents answered that the role of nuclear was important, with the caveat that safety and waste disposal improvements were needed.
This cautious support for nuclear, together with the votes for the “Crucial – Nuclear energy is vital for achieving low-carbon energy goals” answer, tips the balance in favour of nuclear energy over the 50% mark.
After the answer providing conditional support, the next most popular answer was that nuclear power was unnecessary and that we should focus solely on renewables as the keystone of the transition away from fossil fuels.
Finally, the other answer provided, that the risks associated with nuclear are too high, along with “Other” answers that echoed the sentiment that the costs and risks associated with nuclear are too high, rounded out the rest of the responses.
While I think it is worth lumping the two answers in support together, and thus arriving at the conclusion that most respondents are in favour of nuclear power as a key part of the energy transition, I also think it’s worth teasing them apart a bit.
The conditional support, based on improvements to safety and storage, gets at some of the key concerns that people have regarding the role of nuclear power in our society. While the upside are large – emissions-free power, large amounts of power, stable power… – the downside, in the event of a disaster, can be large, too.
Ask anyone about nuclear power, and they are likely to respond with the names of three disasters – Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. This is just as likely to be the case if they get all of their electricity from nuclear generation, as many of us do in Ontario.
This concern about nuclear, I think, is in part due to its assoociation with nuclear weapons, as well as due to how our understanding of our world is shaped by media narratives and the type of information it conveys. There is far more attention paid to things when they go wrong, than there is to things when they just work, and so the bad occurances and their impacts can often take on an outsized role in our decision making.
I wonder what the answers would be if we made the choice a little more difficult? If, for instance, it were something along the lines of, “If you had to choose between nuclear and natural gas power generation, which would you prefer?” or, “If you had to choose between an energy economy heavily reliant on China, such as is likely with a greater reliance on solar panels, and the development of a domestic nuclear industry, which would you prefer?” (China controls around 95% of the global production capacity of components for solar panels.)
Or course renewables aren’t only solar, but I think it’s worth complicating the issue of nuclear a bit more than what our initial questions allowed. It is an issue that is laden with a large amount of fear and misunderstanding, and given the magnitude of the climate crisis and the task of transitioning away from fossil fuel energy, we need to be open to what might be some difficult trade-offs.
April, 2024
The full answers were too long to fit nicely on the chart, so as a reminder, they were:
- Very important: Increasing immigration is crucial for maintaining population growth, supporting the economy, and providing refuge for those displaced by climate change.
- Somewhat important: While increasing immigration can help with demographic and climate issues, it should be balanced with other domestic policies.
- Not very important: Canada should focus more on internal policies and less on increasing immigration levels.
- Not important at all: Canada should not increase its immigration levels, and should instead focus on reducing overall immigration.
- Other.
A slim majority felt that increasing immigration is very important, while slightly fewer felt that it is somewhat important.
Answers in the negative, combined, were fewer than either of the positive answers.
Sylvia, who answered “Other”, noted concerns regarding limits to growth, stating that endless growth, including economic growth, isn’t possible.
I am not sure whether this comment is based on the 1972 Limits to Growth report commissioned by the Club of Rome. In a nutshell, this report argued that exponential population and economic growth would exhaust the Earth’s finite resource base and cause a catastrophic decline in population and industrial capacity. It was estimated that this was likely to occur within 100 years from the report’s publication.
The concerns this report raised remain relevant. Non-renewable resources are being depleted, but the timelines for when they reach their peak are illustrative of some of the weaknesses in the Limits to Growth report.
Peak oil, for example, was initially projected to occur in the early 2000s, but as extraction methods and technologies developed, enabling producers to drill deeper along with the discovery of new reserves, the timeline for this has been pushed back to, roughly, 2020-2040.
The point here is that, while there are finite aspects of life on this planet, there are also aspects that carry infinite potential. Foremost among these are human beings, but the capacity for near boundless creativity depends on us supporting each other.
To wrap this up, one of the interesting things about growth, is, if it’s healthy, it tends to find an equilibrium.
There is a well-worn analogy likening the human species to a cancer, framing us as having a boundless appetite for growth, even if it winds up killing that which we depend on for our survival, and thus, ultimately, us.
Cancerous growth seems to me to be growth that is misaligned with an overarching goal, it’s out of sync with its host. There are certainly aspects of that in our relationship with Earth and the natural world, but I like to think that we have the potential to overcome that, to understand where the limits are and to live within them.
March, 2024
Our last community poll question tried to get at one of the more tricky debates regarding environmental activism, but the answers were pretty conclusive as to the belief in the power of individual action.
A majority answered, yes, individual actions are essential and can make a meaningful difficult in the fight against climate change.
Nearly a quarter answered that they are a distraction, with the responsibility for pollution resting with large corporations and governments.
Slightly more than a quarter chose the “Other” option, with Melanie, Lee, Kathrine, and “J” noting that both are important.
It’s hard to disagree with that answer, but what if we made choosing it answer a bit more difficult? If you have to choose one, either all of our efforts focused on individual actions, or focused on regulating large emitters, which would it be?
What are your thoughts on the concept of a carbon footprint? In the past, this metric, used to measure the amount of carbon an individual’s lifestyle generated, was one of the most prominent features in environmental messaging. It seemed to offer a neat, well-defined way to understand exactly how much your lifestyle contributed to climate change, and, accordingly, some direction in how to reduce that.
While not without value, the carbon footprint concept was popularized by the public relations arm of the oil giant BP, principally as a way to emphasize the need for individual action, with the goal of diverting attention from the need to regulate activities of corporations such as itself.
Just to give a sense of individual vs corporate responsibility, global subsidies to fossil fuel interests in 2020 amounted to nearly $6 trillion. This is what fossil fuel companies are desperate to protect. On the other hand, if every single person on the planet were to stop eating meat, stop purchasing fast fashion clothes, and minimize their air travel, GHG emissions would be reduced by only 25% of what is necessary to meet the Paris Accord goal of limiting warming to less than 1.5°C.
Finally, one person reached out via email saying they would like to explore this issue further, asking if there was any way to facilitate a more in-depth conversation about it. If anyone would like to get involved in a discussion on this, or, for that matter, any other issue, let us know. We’d be happy to help facilitate that.
February, 2024
February’s question addressed political will, and whether there is enough of it in Canada to do what’s necessary to achieve net-zero emission goals.
The vast majority thought that we are not doing nearly enough, with one stating that even net-zero isn’t enough, and that we need negative emissions to get back on track, and few were unsure
Being unsure about this question is itself interesting, and may indicate the lay of the land, currently with respect to where we are with efforts to achieve net-zero, as opposed to simply not knowing how to answer. There certainly is ambiguity regarding the goal, since it’s been clearly communicated as something we will meet, yet there’s increasing concern regarding whether we are, in fact, doing enough to do that.
Finally, Ric took the time to share his concern that we might starve or freeze first, and so what’s the point? He is also under the impression that “BUBBLE advocates don’t have any day to day bills to meets/survive.” I’m not sure who he’s referring to as bubble advocates. My best guess would be small children, and in that case I suppose I’d agree with him, since they don’t have the primary responsibility for paying bills. And so it all makes sense.
Thanks for the feedback, everyone!
January, 2024
We had a great response to this month’s poll.
In addition to answering the provided questions, a number of people added comments, noting what they are seeing and what they are most concerned about.
Fires, in particular forest fires, and the impacts they have on air quality, featured prominently. Larry noted that they had to stay inside a number of days this past summer, which many of us can relate to.
Flooding was another major concern, with s.hirst commenting on damage experienced to their house.
Brent, Mirjana, and George all noted that climate change is likely to cause increased political instability. (This is an issue on our radar for an upcoming Issue In Brief.)
And, the very Canadian concern of the loss of ice surfaces (connecting to the loss of traditional experiences and the deep cultural impact that has) was raised by Kevin.
In what time-frame do you think climate impacts will directly affect you?
Some examples of what directly affected means: damage to your property, or an increase in the price of a product that requires you to make a hard choice (to buy it means to not buy something else).
Results
