Manmade climate change worsened the heavy rainfall and winds in Hurricane Milton, according to new rapid analysis by World Weather Attribution.

WORLD WEATHER ATTRIBUTION

The findings for Hurricane Milton are similar to those for Hurricane Helene and in line with previous attribution studies in the area. Based on that, the researchers conclude that such changes in heavy rainfall are attributable to human-caused climate change, caused by burning coal, oil and natural gas, and deforestation.

The rapid analysis found:Climate change increased rainfall from Hurricane Milton about 20-30%.

Rainfall storms similar to Milton are today about twice as likely as they were without human-induced warming.

Climate change made wind speeds from Milton around 10% stronger.

Addressing social vulnerabilities and implementing nature-based solutions, such as restoring wetlands, can help reduce future impacts from these storms

As the team recently conducted a detailed attribution study on Hurricane Helene the rainfall data for this new analysis is based only on weather observations data, rather than also using climate models.

You can find the full analysis on the WWA website.

Thanks,
Ignacio Amigo

Later is too late’: seniors show up for climate across Canada

Canada's National Observer

Seniors across Canada attended “rocking chair rallies,” marches, movie nights, town halls and other protests Monday to stress the importance of fighting climate change. Details here.

Animal Advocates Call on Manitoba's Hog Industry to Stop Using Gestation Crates

Are CBC’s science reporters violating Mother Corp’s own Journalistic Standards and Practices? (Opinion)

According to the JSP, “We do not promote any particular point of

view.” Yet if you heard our Senior Science Reporter talk about the

first private space walk the other day, you’ll know what I’m

getting at. She was positively besotted, using superlatives like

“historic,” and “amazing” often. If that’s not promoting a point of

view, I don’t know what is. (And she’s not the only one.)

Apparently piles of people see the space race as a noble

venture, fulfilling our need to “go where no man has gone before.”

Lots don’t, including myself. With Planet Earth struggling to

shrug off war, famine, poverty, disease and climate catastrophe, I

see countless dollars and rocket fuel being wasted in a quest to go

to a place where there’s no food, no water, no atmosphere, little life

of any kind.

News flash, folks!

We have all of those things right here under our feet

around us! I’m not suggesting our science reporters embark on

quest tomorrow to discredit the space race. Just grow some

skepticism and ask “why” for a change. It should be what we do.

A DISGRACEFUL BETRAYAL OF OUR PRECIOUS ECOSPHERE - A LETTER

       Photo depicts hog manure spread on a Manitoba
field after a rainstorm. Photo by Dr. Eva Pip.

ODE TO PIERRE POILIEVRE

Sounds like the leader of the Cynical Party of Canada sure knows how to win friends and influence people! In trying to persuade the NDP leader to abandon his pact with the Liberals, our country's Top Cynic called him "Sellout Singh." Then he suggested Mr. Singh is only in politics for the pension! What will YOU do for the people, Mr. Cynic? Get us free dental care? Free pharmacare? Oh, right. Mr. Singh has already done that for us! What a parliamentarian you are! What a leader! So you've offered to turn your own pension over to charity then, have you? You, Sir are a menace! A sad, Trump-like, hate-filled demagogue-in-waiting. May you never get within whiffing distace of the PM's office.

L.P.

Tailings spill fine not even close to maximum allowed, despite regulator's claims

By

• Natasha Bulowski

• News
• Politics
• Ottawa Insider

 August 29th 2024

Share this articlon Environment and Sustainable Development on April 24, 2023. Photo by Natasha Bulowski / Canada's National ObservThe Alberta Energy Regulator could have fined Imperial Oil at least 26 times more in connection with oilsands tailings leaks at one of its sites in northern Alberta, according to environmental law experts.

When the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) announced Imperial Oil had to pay a $50,000 administrative penalty, it said this was the maximum base amount allowed under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. 

This statement is “misleading” and “clearly wrong,” Nigel Bankes, an emeritus professor of law at the University of Calgary, told Canada’s National Observer in a phone interview. Bankes is an expert in environmental and natural resources law. 

Email

The regulations state the maximum administrative penalty is $5,000 per day for major contraventions such as this one. The AER used the maximum daily amount, but applied it on a monthly basis, which reduced the penalty by more than 95 per cent, Drew Yewchuk, a former staff lawyer with the University of Calgary’s public interest law clinic, told Canada’s National Observer. 

“That's extremely weird,” said Yewchuk, who likened it to staying at a hotel for 10 months and they decided to instead charge you for 10 days. 

Had the penalty been applied per day, as allowed under the legislation, Imperial Oil would be on the hook for more than $1.3 million. In the second quarter of 2024, Imperial Oil reported $1.13 billion in profit.

Last year, it came to light that toxic tailings had been seeping from Imperial Oil’s Kearl site for nine months and downstream communities were not properly notified. It took a massive spill of 5.3 million litres in February for the long-term seepage, which Imperial Oil first noticed in May 2022, to be made public through an environmental protection order. The AER’s investigation is still ongoing, this penalty only addresses the seepage that began in 2022.

“Administrative penalties are carefully evaluated by the AER to ensure they are fair and proportionate to the severity of the contravention,” an AER spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to Canada’s National Observer. The spokesperson reiterated the press release’s statement that $50,000 was the maximum base penalty allowed under the regulation.

“It's absolutely not the maximum,” Yewchuk said.

When @AER_news fined Imperial Oil $50,000 over a tailings leak it said that was the maximum penalty allowed. That is "misleading" and $50k is "absolutely not the maximum": environmental law experts @DrewYewchuk and @NdbYyc1305 told @NatObserver

The AER’s decision said applying the daily maximum would have resulted in “a disproportionate high response … especially in light of the fact that the actual known environmental impacts of the contravention, to date, appear minimal.” 

The regulations consider the potential for adverse effects — not the actual impact.

The decision goes on to say the $50,000 penalty serves as sufficient deterrence to both Imperial Oil and the industry in general.

“That's not enough reasoning to justify a 95 per cent reduction compared to what the table calls for,” said Yewchuk.

The regulations state that the regulator also has the option to assess and collect a separate, one-time amount if the company might have obtained an economic benefit by not complying with the rules. The AER chose not to do this.

Yewchuk said it's rare for the regulator to impose this one-time payment for economic benefits, but not unheard of. Earlier this year, the regulator handed a one-time administrative penalty to Tallahassee Exploration Inc. for failing to monitor and report its methane emissions, he pointed out.

“The AER calculated what it would have cost for them to do the methane measuring that they were supposed to,” Yewchuk explained. The result was a $191,885 penalty.

In the case of Imperial Oil, the AER could have calculated an economic benefit penalty based on what it would have cost to pay enough staff to do more checks and routinely monitor tailings areas, install more monitoring wells or use better materials, Yewchuk said.

Additionally, the AER charged Imperial Oil with two acts of noncompliance, but only fined it for one. For the other incident, the regulator gave Imperial Oil some homework: the company must produce a “lessons learned” report to share with other oilsands operators, as well as “a plan to ensure tailings seepage mitigation and monitoring processes are completed” by Nov. 1. After that, Imperial Oil must also develop a research plan to study the environmental impacts of oilsands tailings water.

“This is the work that Imperial is supposed to be doing, just to run the mine,” Yewchuk said. “They're supposed to be monitoring it. They're supposed to be researching what to do about the tailings … ways to deal with the tailings, to get rid of them, to decontaminate them, to stop expanding tailings areas, and they haven't done it.”

The 40-page decision indicates the AER suggested a $51,000 penalty even before receiving Imperial Oil’s submissions, and ultimately removed the extra $1,000.

“That's odd to me,” said Yewchuk.

“I would have thought that they were going to suggest something higher and have Imperial convince them to walk them back.”

This summer, Laurie Pushor, president of the AER, announced he will not return to his role when his contract expires in April 2025.

Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer