Our blog has a new home, it can be viewed on our new site at: http://environmentaldefence.ca/blog
We will no longer be posting blog entires here, all of our past and future blog entries will be found at: http://environmentaldefence.ca/blog
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Foxes, Chickens and Fish
Good Move, Minister Prentice!
Today, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice did the right thing by appointing an independent science panel to review industrial pollution in the Athabasca River and surrounding waterways. This comes on the heels of new scientific research showing that pollution from the tar sands is contaminating water far downstream from the development.
So far, the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) has been responsible for monitoring water pollution in the tar sands region. This industry-dominated body has continually reported that there are no problems. As internationally renowned biologist Dr. David Schindler has pointed out, “there's no way industry can be belching out hundreds of kilograms of toxins every year and this not be detectable in the environment unless the monitoring program is totally incompetent".
This fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation has led to growing concern from downstream communities about the safety of the water they’re drinking and the fish they’re eating. When several seriously deformed fish were recently displayed, Minister Prentice said he was “disgusted”.
We’re glad to see that Minister Prentice is now taking a step to get to the bottom of the pollution problem in the Athabasca River. By appointing a panel of independent scientists to provide recommendations on monitoring and best practices, he’s recognized that the federal government has a responsibility to protect people and the environment from tar sands pollution.
Today, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice did the right thing by appointing an independent science panel to review industrial pollution in the Athabasca River and surrounding waterways. This comes on the heels of new scientific research showing that pollution from the tar sands is contaminating water far downstream from the development.
So far, the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) has been responsible for monitoring water pollution in the tar sands region. This industry-dominated body has continually reported that there are no problems. As internationally renowned biologist Dr. David Schindler has pointed out, “there's no way industry can be belching out hundreds of kilograms of toxins every year and this not be detectable in the environment unless the monitoring program is totally incompetent".
This fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation has led to growing concern from downstream communities about the safety of the water they’re drinking and the fish they’re eating. When several seriously deformed fish were recently displayed, Minister Prentice said he was “disgusted”.
We’re glad to see that Minister Prentice is now taking a step to get to the bottom of the pollution problem in the Athabasca River. By appointing a panel of independent scientists to provide recommendations on monitoring and best practices, he’s recognized that the federal government has a responsibility to protect people and the environment from tar sands pollution.
Chair
Building a chair in nature, constructed from found elements, is a simple idea about accommodating human-kind in the natural world. Just as a primitive hut provides shelter, so too a chair provides a place to rest the body in a landscape that may not necessarily be relied upon to do so.
As a boy I spent my summers canoe-tripping in Northern Ontario. On many occasions we would stop our journey for a little while to rest and play. During such times I often made chairs. Our part of Ontario is located within the pre-Cambrian shield and is formed largely of granite. The chairs where made by stacking loose shards of rock to construct a seat, back and more often than not arms, as they were useful in stabilizing the back. Because the basic building blocks were both large and crude, the chairs tended to have throne-like qualities. Undoubtedly they were situated prominently, with a long view. The purpose of the chairs, to my young imagination, was to provide a place for the ‘hermit’ – the one who had escaped civilization and lived all around us, yet was never seen.
With this in mind, I determined to make a chair in the high Arctic as part of our Cape Farewell journey. Inspired by the hauntingly beautiful constructions made of snow by Peter Clegg and Anthony Gormley during the 2005 Cape Farewell Project, I went shopping in Toronto, prior to my departure, for the tools that I thought I would need; shovel, snow saw and ice saw.
It was a bit of a surprise therefore to arrive at Spitsbergen and discover that the beautiful snow that Peter and Anthony had worked with was available to them because their trip took place in February, whereas we were conducting our expedition at the end of the polar summer, throughout the last three weeks of September. Nature presented us with only a dusting of snow that rarely covered the enormous landscape of solid rock, loose rock, pebbles, and extremely hard glacial ice. So much for the concept of building a throne of carefully cut and assembled slabs of firm polar snow. How naïve I was.
However, after some time it became apparent that I might be able to carve a chair out of icebergs left on the beaches during low tide, adjacent to the glaciers. So, one morning, equipped with ice saw and a borrowed a hatchet from the ship I walked along the beach searching for suitable specimens, Simon was of course close by, rifle in hand, ever vigilant for polar bear.
Unlike the constructions of my childhood, which were made by adding bits of rock to build up a form resembling a chair, ice presented newer and different challenges. The three chairs constructed required cutting into the ice as found in order to create a place to sit. The resulting forms were not therefore instantly recognizable as chairs in the simple sense of the word, but were rather more sculptural. One of the chairs was like a little speed boat while another became a winged chariot, complete with seat, wings, tail and head.
The hat you see in the photos has another meaning. Also when I was a boy, I had a good friend whose father died accidentally when he fell through the ice while Nordic skiing. He was alone and close to shore, where the ice is thinnest, and with skis firmly fixed was unable to get out. With what may have been his final gesture, he threw his hat onto the dock to let his family know where he was.
The hat has become for me a symbol of loss and thin ice. It communicates both the loving selflessness of my old friend’s father’s gesture and the danger to us all of thinning ice; a sign of both love and death.
By late afternoon high tide had rolled in and the chairs carried out to sea, already beginning to melt beyond recognition. The hat is in my luggage awaiting another day.
As a boy I spent my summers canoe-tripping in Northern Ontario. On many occasions we would stop our journey for a little while to rest and play. During such times I often made chairs. Our part of Ontario is located within the pre-Cambrian shield and is formed largely of granite. The chairs where made by stacking loose shards of rock to construct a seat, back and more often than not arms, as they were useful in stabilizing the back. Because the basic building blocks were both large and crude, the chairs tended to have throne-like qualities. Undoubtedly they were situated prominently, with a long view. The purpose of the chairs, to my young imagination, was to provide a place for the ‘hermit’ – the one who had escaped civilization and lived all around us, yet was never seen.
With this in mind, I determined to make a chair in the high Arctic as part of our Cape Farewell journey. Inspired by the hauntingly beautiful constructions made of snow by Peter Clegg and Anthony Gormley during the 2005 Cape Farewell Project, I went shopping in Toronto, prior to my departure, for the tools that I thought I would need; shovel, snow saw and ice saw.
It was a bit of a surprise therefore to arrive at Spitsbergen and discover that the beautiful snow that Peter and Anthony had worked with was available to them because their trip took place in February, whereas we were conducting our expedition at the end of the polar summer, throughout the last three weeks of September. Nature presented us with only a dusting of snow that rarely covered the enormous landscape of solid rock, loose rock, pebbles, and extremely hard glacial ice. So much for the concept of building a throne of carefully cut and assembled slabs of firm polar snow. How naïve I was.
However, after some time it became apparent that I might be able to carve a chair out of icebergs left on the beaches during low tide, adjacent to the glaciers. So, one morning, equipped with ice saw and a borrowed a hatchet from the ship I walked along the beach searching for suitable specimens, Simon was of course close by, rifle in hand, ever vigilant for polar bear.
Unlike the constructions of my childhood, which were made by adding bits of rock to build up a form resembling a chair, ice presented newer and different challenges. The three chairs constructed required cutting into the ice as found in order to create a place to sit. The resulting forms were not therefore instantly recognizable as chairs in the simple sense of the word, but were rather more sculptural. One of the chairs was like a little speed boat while another became a winged chariot, complete with seat, wings, tail and head.
The hat you see in the photos has another meaning. Also when I was a boy, I had a good friend whose father died accidentally when he fell through the ice while Nordic skiing. He was alone and close to shore, where the ice is thinnest, and with skis firmly fixed was unable to get out. With what may have been his final gesture, he threw his hat onto the dock to let his family know where he was.
The hat has become for me a symbol of loss and thin ice. It communicates both the loving selflessness of my old friend’s father’s gesture and the danger to us all of thinning ice; a sign of both love and death.
By late afternoon high tide had rolled in and the chairs carried out to sea, already beginning to melt beyond recognition. The hat is in my luggage awaiting another day.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Ancient Ground
III
I walk on ancient ground
soft above permafrost
absorbing
what drifts from the south
to the archipelago
cadmium and mercury
bio-diversity
footprints
polar bear, arctic fox, Svalbard reindeer
carbon
remain for years
there are beds of pebbles
on bedrock
- a table top
smoothed by ice
finished
and free under foot
like a filter
exhorbitant
depository of industrial detritus
I walk on ancient ground
soft above permafrost
absorbing
what drifts from the south
to the archipelago
cadmium and mercury
bio-diversity
footprints
polar bear, arctic fox, Svalbard reindeer
carbon
remain for years
there are beds of pebbles
on bedrock
- a table top
smoothed by ice
finished
and free under foot
like a filter
exhorbitant
depository of industrial detritus
Monday, September 27, 2010
II
I witness ice absorbed by the sea
feeding her body
of water
warming
current events
on a bed
she curtsies
with the wind
- swoons
by the moon
she rises and falls
over again
she resists -
giving only
on her own terms
no idle tide
feeding her body
of water
warming
current events
on a bed
she curtsies
with the wind
- swoons
by the moon
she rises and falls
over again
she resists -
giving only
on her own terms
no idle tide
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Hoefhalveys I
I
Who would have thought that such colour
would grace the cliffs at Hoelfhalveys
not white
but of steel left year ‘round in the yard
leaves left to rust
to mulch in March
I could never have imagined rivules of scree
like the veins of a leaf in autumn
of no particular tree
zinc and iron ochre and copper
tracing contours
of isolation
- - -
Follow the Cape Farewell voyage on the 2010 Expedition blog.
First Watch
David Buckland and I awoke at 3:45 this morning to join first mate, Renske Ritzema, on the morning watch. We hoisted anchor at Sorgfiorden on the island of Friedland to head south through Hinlopenstretet. Our hope was to get through the polar ice that had been drifting northward through the straight, and dogging us for the past several days. The very same ice that nearly trapped us yesterday. To the disappointment of the polar bears, we got away. Full news on other reports.
There was the dimmest light in the sky, as indeed there is all through the night at this time of year. Looking across the horizon, Renske pointed out, one can see where the ice is located, not from seeing the ice itself but by detecting the white reflective band it makes on the skyline.
Within a half an hour I was at the controls of the ship with the entire Cape Farewell team, unawares, slumbering below. It was blissfull; silent and calm. There’s a lot of life on board this boat and it was really wonderful to be in the vastness of the arctic morn with the gang asleep.
She is sweet to control, this vessel. One needs to feel the turnings and compensations of the wheel as she moves about the course, mildly rolling in the morning swell. Finding the way through the broken ice pack adds to the joy, especially when successful.
And successful we were, to a point. The ice pack arrived, first on the horizon, then up close. Soon we were within. Renske took over the controls. Simon, our brilliant and friendly scientist, explains that loose polar ice is moved by a combination of wind and rotation of the earth, the latter causing the pack to drift to the east. The ship’s radar and Renske’s skill guide us through to open water.
But not for long as events turn. Two hours south we encounter the second wave of ice blocking our progress. I learn the patience of polar sailing, as we head back north to the fjord from which we came. Seems we will spend another night at Sorgfiorden with the hope that the disappearing polar ice pack will float past us, thereby allowing our passage tomorrow to future adventures.
- - -
Follow the Cape Farewell voyage on the 2010 Expedition blog.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Something fishy about Alberta's jobs claims
This week, three Alberta Ministers are in Ontario propping up the potential for Ontarians to get jobs helping out the tar sands. Today Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert encouraged workers in Ontario's manufacturing sector to stand up for the tar sands against the environmental campaigns.
But wait a minute...is tar sands development a saviour for Ontario's manufacturing sector?
Because of the tar sands, Ontario is being negatively affected by “Dutch Disease” – a term that describes a hollowing out of the manufacturing sector due to currency inflation driven by resource (oil) exports. A study out of the University of Ottawa that examined the impact of resource exports (oil) on the dollar and manufacturing jobs found that 42 per cent of manufacturing job loss in Canada due to rising currency has been a result of Dutch Disease stemming from rising oil exports.
Ontario is being hit harder by the symptoms of Dutch Disease than the rest of the Canadian economy, losing 183,000 jobs between January 2003 and December 2007.
Yet Ontario is creating new jobs in clean energy - an estimated 20,000 since the Green Energy Act was passed - showing that we can create good jobs by producing our energy here rather than continuing to send billions of dollars elsewhere every year to buy oil.
What's more, leaked cabinet documents reported by the CBC last December show that the federal government is planning on letting tar sands greenhouse gas pollution explode, which would consume an ever growing share of Canada’s carbon budget. This must come at the expense of other sectors – like manufacturers in Ontario – if Canada is to meet its overall carbon targets. This will place a burden on other regions of Canada to do more than their fair share to reduce emissions. The federal government estimates that tar sands emissions will nearly triple by 2020 to 108 million tonnes.
And, this all comes on the heels of Fort Chipewyan fishermen raising concerns about the deformed fish they're pulling out of Lake Athabasca and rising scientific evidence that tar sands pollution is poisoning the water and fish.
The Alberta's government's economic claims are just about as credible as their claims that tar sands development is 'responsible'.
Gillian McEachern
Program Manager, Climate and Energy
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Blogging is a Relative Thing
We’ve been at sea for five days now and the trend has been to have an adventure at shore in the morning and return to the Noorderlicht for lunch by 1:30. The afternoons are spent sailing and ‘blogging.’
It’s a curious sight to see twenty people sitting at their laptop computers while pitching and rolling in the cabin of a 100-year-old schooner at 80N. To a fault, the writers and artists on Mac, the scientists, PC. I suspect there are more words thus generated in the afternoon than are photographs the entire rest of the day, and that’s saying something. To be fair, I should mention that there are also many serious writers on our journey, who I know to be up to a lot more than this writer could ever pretend to be, but that’s still a lot of words.
Many of the blogs are destined for the web sites; primarily Cape Farewell and then on to Huffington Post, Treehugger and Environmental Defence. There’s a flurry of activity after dinner as files are transferred and photos selected to accompany the chosen texts for the day. And that’s no mean feat, for the sheer number of photos submitted for consideration, combined with our exacting editorial standards, makes for a highly competitive and ‘oft political selection process that leaves many images and even more egos left weakened and fallen on the cabin floor.
Words and images are then transferred to Cape Farewell’s Project Co-ordinator, Nina Horstmann who transmits them via Iridium satelitte feed to Marialaura Ghidini at the Cape Farewell headquarters in London. Nina and Marialaura are our Post Master General and work very hard (and often very late) into the night, to make it all happen.
But it wasn’t always this way.
The following excerpt is from a book purchased at the museum at Longyearbyen entitled:
Greetings from Spitsbergen, Tourists at the Eternal Ice 1827 – 1914.
John T. Reilly, published by Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim.
The early visitors were inveterate writers who never passed an opportuntity of informing family and friends of their daily experiences. Indeed postcards were one of the few souvenirs that passengers could obtain during their polar cruise and, as a result, many more than one might expect have survived the ravages of time. Cards could be bought on board ship and in various ports en route. Haffter, a passenger on the “Auguste Victoria” noted that the number of cards posted during the 1899 cruise came to around 20,000 – an average of fifty cards for each passenger. Indeed one tourist on the “Kong Herald” posted a record one hundred and two cards in a single day in 1898. It was not uncommon to run out of postage stamps, as did the small post office in northern Norway when six thousand cards were delivered from the “Blucher” in 1904.
So it begs the question: why all this writing? For one thing, the distance between points in this part of the world is really vast and sail boats, in our case, and steam ships, in the case above, move relatively slowly, so there’s a lot of time to spend between the moments of activity. It’s true there are lively conversations that occur, especially during mealtimes and into the evening, but there are also lengthy periods of silent contemplation, perfect time to write.
I also suspect that, unlike our Victorian ancestors, we are adjusting to the fact that we are no longer permanently connected to familiar and established networks of colleaugues, families and friends. Old habits die hard and home is a long way away.
But most important, we are very serious about the purpose of our journey and are passionate about sharing our thoughts and observations about the impact of climate change, recorded as we sway along the very edge of the polar ice cap, live and in real time - bumping into ice.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Skip the BPA: Food Packaging Update
For all those devoted bisphenol A (BPA) followers out there, here’s some food packaging news for you to chew on. Early in July, Heinz Australia announced that they were in the process of phasing out BPA in its baby food packaging that used BPA - not all baby food packaging did. This suggests that Heinz’s removal of BPA from their baby food packaging continues to move forward. Seeking Safer Packaging, a report Environmental Defence co-released in 2009, identified Heinz as the only surveyed company currently using an alternative to BPA in some of its can linings, and as phasing out BPA in its baby food can lacquers. A total of 20 companies were surveyed for this report.
Since the time of report release, it has also been announced that Muir Glen, a subsidiary of General Mills, will be switching to metal can packaging that does not contain BPA. To expand, a GreenBiz article suggests that Muir Glen tomato products harvested this summer will be packaged in BPA-free cans. And should you be interested, here are some more companies that BPA-free packaging for some or all of their products: Eden Foods, Edward & Sons, Wild Planet, Eco Fish, and Oregon's Choice.
Since the time of report release, it has also been announced that Muir Glen, a subsidiary of General Mills, will be switching to metal can packaging that does not contain BPA. To expand, a GreenBiz article suggests that Muir Glen tomato products harvested this summer will be packaged in BPA-free cans. And should you be interested, here are some more companies that BPA-free packaging for some or all of their products: Eden Foods, Edward & Sons, Wild Planet, Eco Fish, and Oregon's Choice.
Cape Farewell: First Night and Second Day
Comfortably cruising aboard the Noorderlicht through the blue of an Arctic high pressure system. Cold and clear we go between Western Spitsbergen Island and Prins Karls Forland Island due north through the Forland Sundet. We have had our early day adventure followed by a delicious lunch and are now at computers recording our observations. Artists as scientists as artists, searching for meaning, or some such thing.
The morning broke early and bright anchored in Trygghamna Bay (though I doubt the Norse call a bay a bay). Here words fail for the first time but certainly not the last. So make a picture in your mind’s eye, however you will, of a bright sun, a soft mist, clear blue water and two land banks facing one another at a kilometer distance. One rises to a height of 300 metres and the other to 1,000 metres. The bay, really a mini fiord, is 5 km long and ends in a glacier which Simon says has shrunk considerably since he was last here three years ago.
This is an arid landscape and the unusually hot summer of 2010 has left the land drier than usual. To the eye is an infinite nuance of brown. We head to shore aboard a zodiac and beach at the ruin of a 17th c. English whaling settlement, named Alkhornet. Andre, the Russia, and Simon, the Englishman, carry rifles to protect us against the threat of polar bear.
Andre insists, as he guides us to graves with 300 year old human bones, exposed thanks to permafrost, that the settlement was not of the English but rather of Russian ‘Pomors’, a people from the White Sea, and proves it by showing us some old bricks which he claims were made by them alone. Simon makes no retort to the contrary, so with no national affront taken, the guns remain with their latches on safety, at least for the time being.
Follow the Cape Farewell voyage on the 2010 Expedition blog http://www.capefarewell.com/2010expedition/
Monday, September 13, 2010
Cape Farewell: Expectation and Reality
Left Canada a few days ago to come to this remarkably remote place at 78 degrees north to join Cape Farewell’s global Climate/Culture Expedition. A group of 20 scientists, writers, visual artists and musicians; a delightfully odd collection of souls from around the world, will be boarding a 135 foot sailing schooner, the Noorderlicht, for a 22 day sail around the Svalbard archipeligo, a kind of roiling, boiling think tank on climate change.
Leaving Canada I was feeling excited to be going to a place that I thought would be beyond the reach, or at least just ahead of the curve, of the global eco-tourist trade. Having spent the summer hearing news of the sheer number of tourist boats cruising the Canadian Arctic, including the embarrisingly staged photo-op of Prime Minister Harper balancing on a little piece of polar ice (having personally banished the Russian Air Force) I was feeling pleased to be going to the far reaches of the polar planet, halfway around the world, away from the madding crowd.
Fifteen of us gathered at London and flew north to Oslo where we met our five Russian compatriots and continued further north to Tormo. Changing planes, we left Tormo in the darkness of night and flew ever further north to Longyeaybyen – and into the midnight sun. To bed with light in the sky at 3 am we awoke at 8 am, had breakfast and walked to the wharf, the boat and, as it turns out, a new awakening! Contrary to my expectation, eco-tourism has arrived and is alive and well in Longyearbyen too!
In the past three years, 200 tourist beds have been built in a variety of hotels; mostly to accommodate the cruise-ship trade from the south, but also to provide for climbers, hikers, kayakers and the odd scientific cultural polar expedition to sea. In addition, Longyearbyen hosts a small university, complete with students on bicycles and a very fine local museum to illustrate the history of a once-thriving but small coal mining town and northern outpost.
But never mind, it is still a spectacularly beautiful and very remote place and I have been assured that as we sail further north to the edge of the polar ice cap, we will see no signs of other humans and are guaranteed to see lots of whale, walrus, seal, manitou and of course polar bear. And this I do believe to be true as we will be packing rifles as protection whenever we go ashore. Will keep you posted.
Leaving Canada I was feeling excited to be going to a place that I thought would be beyond the reach, or at least just ahead of the curve, of the global eco-tourist trade. Having spent the summer hearing news of the sheer number of tourist boats cruising the Canadian Arctic, including the embarrisingly staged photo-op of Prime Minister Harper balancing on a little piece of polar ice (having personally banished the Russian Air Force) I was feeling pleased to be going to the far reaches of the polar planet, halfway around the world, away from the madding crowd.
Fifteen of us gathered at London and flew north to Oslo where we met our five Russian compatriots and continued further north to Tormo. Changing planes, we left Tormo in the darkness of night and flew ever further north to Longyeaybyen – and into the midnight sun. To bed with light in the sky at 3 am we awoke at 8 am, had breakfast and walked to the wharf, the boat and, as it turns out, a new awakening! Contrary to my expectation, eco-tourism has arrived and is alive and well in Longyearbyen too!
In the past three years, 200 tourist beds have been built in a variety of hotels; mostly to accommodate the cruise-ship trade from the south, but also to provide for climbers, hikers, kayakers and the odd scientific cultural polar expedition to sea. In addition, Longyearbyen hosts a small university, complete with students on bicycles and a very fine local museum to illustrate the history of a once-thriving but small coal mining town and northern outpost.
But never mind, it is still a spectacularly beautiful and very remote place and I have been assured that as we sail further north to the edge of the polar ice cap, we will see no signs of other humans and are guaranteed to see lots of whale, walrus, seal, manitou and of course polar bear. And this I do believe to be true as we will be packing rifles as protection whenever we go ashore. Will keep you posted.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Our Message to Madam Speaker
Our Message to Madam Speaker
It’s not every day that the third most powerful U.S. politician comes to visit Ottawa. It’s even more rare when a big part of her visit focuses on a key environmental issue – the mismanagement of the tar sands. Her visit coincides with growing U.S. opposition to a massive tar sands pipeline called the Keystone XL, something she is being pressured to investigate by many in her party.
We are encouraged that Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Markey, Chairman of the influential Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, have chosen to reach out to environmental and First Nations actors in addition to politicians and industry representatives.
Our organizations will have an opportunity to meet with her tomorrow to put forward our perspective on how regulators in Ottawa and Edmonton are failing to do their job with regards to the environmental impacts of the tar sands industry, and what U.S. political leaders can do about it.
Our message in a nutshell will be this: the environmental problems with tar sands development will not improve without a signal from its largest customer – the U.S. Indeed, the Canadian government has repeatedly said that it will not lead, but merely follow the U.S. in matters of climate and energy.
Virtually every environmental indicator in the tar sands – greenhouse gas pollution, toxic waste generation, acid rain, habitat destruction and fresh water use – is getting worse because Canada and Alberta are failing to establish or enforce absolute limits on the industry.
What’s worse, both levels of government engage in active denial of the impacts – such as claiming that pollution is “natural,” a claim recently turned on its head by Dr. David Schindler’s independent study on the Athabasca River.
Bigger picture, tar sands development holds hostage Canadian climate policy and diverts resources and attention away from the transition to the clean energy economy.
Canada could be a leader in a clean energy transition. With huge potential in renewable energy, it could also assist the U.S. with more exports of clean electricity. Instead, Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill for politicians to lobby against low carbon legislation in the U.S., in order to protect the tar sands industry.
The U.S. commitment to clean energy will necessarily force them to confront the problems with tar sands oil, which has a significant environmental impact. Right now, the U.S. can take one step by denying the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Otherwise, the U.S. is tacitly saying that it condones the ongoing mismanagement of the tar sands, and of Canada’s role as America’s dirty gas tank.
Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Markey were instrumental in getting a climate and energy bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. While the U.S. has not yet adopted comprehensive climate legislation, her focus on the tar sands could serve in the interim as a step forwards in tackling many of the same issues her legislation sought to address.
Someday our own policy makers will once again show leadership on the climate and energy files. For now, though, we look to others like Speaker Pelosi to help guide us to a better future.
Rick Smith, Executive Director, Environmental Defence Canada
Marlo Raynolds, Executive Director, Pembina Institute
It’s not every day that the third most powerful U.S. politician comes to visit Ottawa. It’s even more rare when a big part of her visit focuses on a key environmental issue – the mismanagement of the tar sands. Her visit coincides with growing U.S. opposition to a massive tar sands pipeline called the Keystone XL, something she is being pressured to investigate by many in her party.
We are encouraged that Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Markey, Chairman of the influential Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, have chosen to reach out to environmental and First Nations actors in addition to politicians and industry representatives.
Our organizations will have an opportunity to meet with her tomorrow to put forward our perspective on how regulators in Ottawa and Edmonton are failing to do their job with regards to the environmental impacts of the tar sands industry, and what U.S. political leaders can do about it.
Our message in a nutshell will be this: the environmental problems with tar sands development will not improve without a signal from its largest customer – the U.S. Indeed, the Canadian government has repeatedly said that it will not lead, but merely follow the U.S. in matters of climate and energy.
Virtually every environmental indicator in the tar sands – greenhouse gas pollution, toxic waste generation, acid rain, habitat destruction and fresh water use – is getting worse because Canada and Alberta are failing to establish or enforce absolute limits on the industry.
What’s worse, both levels of government engage in active denial of the impacts – such as claiming that pollution is “natural,” a claim recently turned on its head by Dr. David Schindler’s independent study on the Athabasca River.
Bigger picture, tar sands development holds hostage Canadian climate policy and diverts resources and attention away from the transition to the clean energy economy.
Canada could be a leader in a clean energy transition. With huge potential in renewable energy, it could also assist the U.S. with more exports of clean electricity. Instead, Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill for politicians to lobby against low carbon legislation in the U.S., in order to protect the tar sands industry.
The U.S. commitment to clean energy will necessarily force them to confront the problems with tar sands oil, which has a significant environmental impact. Right now, the U.S. can take one step by denying the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Otherwise, the U.S. is tacitly saying that it condones the ongoing mismanagement of the tar sands, and of Canada’s role as America’s dirty gas tank.
Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Markey were instrumental in getting a climate and energy bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. While the U.S. has not yet adopted comprehensive climate legislation, her focus on the tar sands could serve in the interim as a step forwards in tackling many of the same issues her legislation sought to address.
Someday our own policy makers will once again show leadership on the climate and energy files. For now, though, we look to others like Speaker Pelosi to help guide us to a better future.
Rick Smith, Executive Director, Environmental Defence Canada
Marlo Raynolds, Executive Director, Pembina Institute
Friday, September 3, 2010
Some Good News about Toxic Flame Retardants: Canada’s Proposing an Expanded Ban
For all those concerned about the presence of toxic flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (or PBDEs for short) in all kinds of products (e.g., furniture, textiles, electronics), know that Canada is committing to banning all of them in everything. Currently only some are.
While not all PBDEs are banned in all products yet and won’t be for a few more years, the commitment of the federal government to do so is certainly noteworthy. Ecojustice, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and Environmental Defence welcomed this news since we collectively filed a formal Notice of Objection to the original regulations. This was because the original regulations only banned some PBDEs in all products – they did not ban the import and use of the PBDEs that makeup the most widely used mixture. The expanded regulations the government is committing to introducing, however, will.
For more information, check out the recent media release and backgrounder (pdf). Also be sure to visit Health Canada’s webpage about PBDEs.
While not all PBDEs are banned in all products yet and won’t be for a few more years, the commitment of the federal government to do so is certainly noteworthy. Ecojustice, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and Environmental Defence welcomed this news since we collectively filed a formal Notice of Objection to the original regulations. This was because the original regulations only banned some PBDEs in all products – they did not ban the import and use of the PBDEs that makeup the most widely used mixture. The expanded regulations the government is committing to introducing, however, will.
For more information, check out the recent media release and backgrounder (pdf). Also be sure to visit Health Canada’s webpage about PBDEs.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
If you belch out toxins, they must end up somewhere
New research released this week shows that heavy metal pollution from tar sands development is contaminating rivers in the Athabasca region, despite the claims by government and industry that the pollution is from natural sources.
Dr. David Schindler, one of the authors of the paper, put it this way:
"There's no way industry can be belching out hundreds of kilograms of toxins every year and this not be detectable in the environment unless the monitoring program is totally incompetent,"
The study found 13 metals and metalloids, deemed priority pollutants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in snow and water. Seven of those were above levels considered safe by the Canadian government, and higher concentrations were found downstream from tar sands development than upstream.
At first, an Alberta government scientist responded with the usual refrain that the pollution comes from natural sources. This is the second peer-reviewed study published by Dr. Schindler that refutes that, yet the government wants us to keep on believing their side without providing any data to back it up. Next Energy Minister Ron Liepert tried to shoot the messenger by questioning Dr. Schindler's credibility. And then yesterday, Premier Ed Stelmach responded to say that his scientists would sit down with the researchers to figure out the discrepancy. The study has, rightfully, struck a nerve.
Meanwhile, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice stuck to his line that the lead and mercury found in the water is natural.
The Liberal Environment Critic, however, had a different take. David McGuinty said that "the federal government has to exercise its exclusive constitutional responsibility and enforce its existing environmental standards...That means Fisheries Act prosecutions if required, that means exercising the powers they have at their fingertips. Minister Prentice has got to stop bobbing and weaving now and he's got to do his job."
Hopefully, more federal politicians will start to take the type of action Mr. McGuinty is talking about.
Gillian McEachern
Program Manager
Dr. David Schindler, one of the authors of the paper, put it this way:
"There's no way industry can be belching out hundreds of kilograms of toxins every year and this not be detectable in the environment unless the monitoring program is totally incompetent,"
The study found 13 metals and metalloids, deemed priority pollutants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in snow and water. Seven of those were above levels considered safe by the Canadian government, and higher concentrations were found downstream from tar sands development than upstream.
At first, an Alberta government scientist responded with the usual refrain that the pollution comes from natural sources. This is the second peer-reviewed study published by Dr. Schindler that refutes that, yet the government wants us to keep on believing their side without providing any data to back it up. Next Energy Minister Ron Liepert tried to shoot the messenger by questioning Dr. Schindler's credibility. And then yesterday, Premier Ed Stelmach responded to say that his scientists would sit down with the researchers to figure out the discrepancy. The study has, rightfully, struck a nerve.
Meanwhile, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice stuck to his line that the lead and mercury found in the water is natural.
The Liberal Environment Critic, however, had a different take. David McGuinty said that "the federal government has to exercise its exclusive constitutional responsibility and enforce its existing environmental standards...That means Fisheries Act prosecutions if required, that means exercising the powers they have at their fingertips. Minister Prentice has got to stop bobbing and weaving now and he's got to do his job."
Hopefully, more federal politicians will start to take the type of action Mr. McGuinty is talking about.
Gillian McEachern
Program Manager
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Ontario outshines Sunshine State, surging to #3 in North American solar market
2010 is poised to be an even bigger year for solar power in Ontario. According to the Canadian Solar Industries Association, Ontario will install as much as 200 MW in 2010 (100MW have already been installed), pushing it closer to the top in North America. As a result, several new solar panel manufacturing plants have opened up shop in Ontario.
This massive investment in solar is driven largely by the Green Energy and Green Economy Act and Ontario’s new renewable energy Feed-in Tariff, guaranteeing the price paid to companies and homeowners who generate renewable power.
Thanks to Paul Gipe (www.wind-works.org) for the tip.
Friday, August 20, 2010
BPA: Soon to Be “Toxic”, Currently in Our Bodies
We have some good news to report regarding the designation of bisphenol A (BPA) as “toxic” under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The federal government is moving forward on its commitment to designate it as such, having stated that this will occur within the next 8-10 weeks. As mentioned in an earlier blog post, the reason for the 2-year "toxic" designation delay is because a formal notice of objection was filed.
Information reveals that the objection, which asked the federal government to reconsider the “toxic” designation, was filed on July 15, 2009 by the American Chemistry Council. However, now that the government has considered the notice and dismissed it given that no new data was brought forth, we’re going to see BPA’s addition to Canada’s Toxic Substances List relatively soon. For more information, check out this Postmedia article by Sarah Schmidt.
This is particularly good news given that the day before the above story was published, results from the federal government’s Canada-wide biomonitoring project (the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS)) showed that 91% of Canadians aged 6 to 79 had detectable concentrations of BPA in their urine. This is the first time BPA was measured at a national level. Given associated evidence that regulating substances and removing them from our products and environment works - lead concentrations in Canadians’ blood have gone from about 27% to less than 1% at or above the intervention level over 30 years – the move towards designating BPA as “toxic” and opening up the possibility for further action on the substance is most welcome. For more on the CHMS results, check out the full report by Heatlh Canada.
Information reveals that the objection, which asked the federal government to reconsider the “toxic” designation, was filed on July 15, 2009 by the American Chemistry Council. However, now that the government has considered the notice and dismissed it given that no new data was brought forth, we’re going to see BPA’s addition to Canada’s Toxic Substances List relatively soon. For more information, check out this Postmedia article by Sarah Schmidt.
This is particularly good news given that the day before the above story was published, results from the federal government’s Canada-wide biomonitoring project (the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS)) showed that 91% of Canadians aged 6 to 79 had detectable concentrations of BPA in their urine. This is the first time BPA was measured at a national level. Given associated evidence that regulating substances and removing them from our products and environment works - lead concentrations in Canadians’ blood have gone from about 27% to less than 1% at or above the intervention level over 30 years – the move towards designating BPA as “toxic” and opening up the possibility for further action on the substance is most welcome. For more on the CHMS results, check out the full report by Heatlh Canada.
catch up Ontario!
For a province with so much riding on the future of the automotive industry, you can't shake the feeling that Ontario is starting to fall badly behind in the electric vehicle revolution now unfolding - elsewhere.
Latest is the news that China is pulling together its industrial actors and investing $15 billion to become a leader in electric and hybrid vehicles. One commentator said this of the move:
“The car industry was long ago designated as a pillar industry for China. And the second thing is green technology or high tech; this is where the action is going to be, and China wants to be there.”
One can imagine substituting "Ontario" for "China" in that first sentence, but what about the second?
And, it's not just China that sees the opportunity. Last month, U.S. President Obama was in neighbouring Michigan to break ground on a new battery factory to serve the electric vehicle industry. His administration has allocated $5 billion to electric vehicles, and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm estimates that 62,000 jobs associated with the industry will be generated in that one state over the next decade.
So, where is Ontario? The McGuinty government seems to "get it" on one level that this is the future, but has so far confined itself to consumer rebates on electric vehicles, and committing to buy electric vehicles for government fleets.
This is all to the good, but amounts to small baby steps while our competitors take giant strides. We are getting left behind.
Fundamentally, this is a matter of infrastructure and industrial policy. Electric vehicle take up by Ontario drivers will only happen in a meaningful way when the infrastructure is in place to support them. And, this involves action on multiple fronts, including standard setting, grid upgrades, and charging stations.
Industrial policy involves working with existing and new companies and workers on creating the conditions where electric vehicle components are developed and manufactured in Ontario rather than elsewhere, and ensuring that these vehicles are powered by clean, renewable energy produced here at home to create even more jobs.
The necessary comprehensive policy for Ontario to catch up and to become a leader in electric vehicles cuts across several Ministries and therefore needs some kind of cross-government Task Force to pull the right decision makers together to make it happen. Such a Task Force should be coupled with an advisory body that brings in experts from municipalities, industry, labour, and environmental organizations.
Oil is a finite resource, and as the Gulf spill and ongoing tar sands destruction have shown, comes at an increasing cost to our life support systems. Ontario needs to catch up to other jurisdictions in pursuing electric vehicles as one core part of getting off oil, and needs to significantly up its game on this front, starting today.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Latest is the news that China is pulling together its industrial actors and investing $15 billion to become a leader in electric and hybrid vehicles. One commentator said this of the move:
“The car industry was long ago designated as a pillar industry for China. And the second thing is green technology or high tech; this is where the action is going to be, and China wants to be there.”
One can imagine substituting "Ontario" for "China" in that first sentence, but what about the second?
And, it's not just China that sees the opportunity. Last month, U.S. President Obama was in neighbouring Michigan to break ground on a new battery factory to serve the electric vehicle industry. His administration has allocated $5 billion to electric vehicles, and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm estimates that 62,000 jobs associated with the industry will be generated in that one state over the next decade.
So, where is Ontario? The McGuinty government seems to "get it" on one level that this is the future, but has so far confined itself to consumer rebates on electric vehicles, and committing to buy electric vehicles for government fleets.
This is all to the good, but amounts to small baby steps while our competitors take giant strides. We are getting left behind.
Fundamentally, this is a matter of infrastructure and industrial policy. Electric vehicle take up by Ontario drivers will only happen in a meaningful way when the infrastructure is in place to support them. And, this involves action on multiple fronts, including standard setting, grid upgrades, and charging stations.
Industrial policy involves working with existing and new companies and workers on creating the conditions where electric vehicle components are developed and manufactured in Ontario rather than elsewhere, and ensuring that these vehicles are powered by clean, renewable energy produced here at home to create even more jobs.
The necessary comprehensive policy for Ontario to catch up and to become a leader in electric vehicles cuts across several Ministries and therefore needs some kind of cross-government Task Force to pull the right decision makers together to make it happen. Such a Task Force should be coupled with an advisory body that brings in experts from municipalities, industry, labour, and environmental organizations.
Oil is a finite resource, and as the Gulf spill and ongoing tar sands destruction have shown, comes at an increasing cost to our life support systems. Ontario needs to catch up to other jurisdictions in pursuing electric vehicles as one core part of getting off oil, and needs to significantly up its game on this front, starting today.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
thanks, Scarp
UPDATE: The report talked about below can now be found online here.
*******
Thanks to MP Francis Scarpaleggia who both spearheaded the push to have the federal House of Commons Environment Committee investigate the issue of tar sands and water issues, and who today released his party's findings based on that investigation.
Unfortunately, the Committee itself could not come to consensus on putting out a report. The members cannot talk about why this is so, since the decision was taken in camera and the rules say they aren't allowed to talk about it. But, to get an indication of what happened, voters would be well advised to check out this story about a guide book on sabotaging Committee work that the Conservatives have deployed.
Mr. Scarpaleggia's recommendations are worth implementing, although unfortunately at this point his report has not been posted online, so we can't cite them in full. They include: conducting a cancer study in Fort Chip, including naphthenic acids in disclosure of pollutants, reviewing the discredited industry-dominated water monitoring program in the tar sands, and having the federal government assert its authority under the Fisheries Act to, in essence, do its job.
Overall, this is a sign that at least some MPs in Ottawa want to take their responsibility regarding tar sands regulation seriously. Indeed, with other party reports expected, this could very well be a majority of MPs - but unfortunately not those of the stripe that currently control the levers of power.
Matt Price
Policy Director
*******
Thanks to MP Francis Scarpaleggia who both spearheaded the push to have the federal House of Commons Environment Committee investigate the issue of tar sands and water issues, and who today released his party's findings based on that investigation.
Unfortunately, the Committee itself could not come to consensus on putting out a report. The members cannot talk about why this is so, since the decision was taken in camera and the rules say they aren't allowed to talk about it. But, to get an indication of what happened, voters would be well advised to check out this story about a guide book on sabotaging Committee work that the Conservatives have deployed.
Mr. Scarpaleggia's recommendations are worth implementing, although unfortunately at this point his report has not been posted online, so we can't cite them in full. They include: conducting a cancer study in Fort Chip, including naphthenic acids in disclosure of pollutants, reviewing the discredited industry-dominated water monitoring program in the tar sands, and having the federal government assert its authority under the Fisheries Act to, in essence, do its job.
Overall, this is a sign that at least some MPs in Ottawa want to take their responsibility regarding tar sands regulation seriously. Indeed, with other party reports expected, this could very well be a majority of MPs - but unfortunately not those of the stripe that currently control the levers of power.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Friday, August 13, 2010
Sun rises again for Ontario’s solar industry
Good news: Ontario Government hears public concerns on solar price change
A bit of background in case you're not in the renewable energy loop: On July 2nd, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) posted a change to the microFIT program, the guaranteed price paid to renewable energy generators in Ontario. Much to the chagrin of farmers and solar power investors, the new price for small scale ground-mounted solar projects was 26% lower than previously listed. Like I said in my earlier post, clouds were looming over Ontario solar power, and key stakeholders were not having it.
Leading the charge was the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA), the Canadian Solar Industries Association (CanSIA), Ontario Sustainable Energy Associationand the Green Energy Act Alliance. After several heated webinar battles, carefully crafted submissions and business models comparing installation costs, capacity factors, and debt/equity ratios, inundating the Ontario Power Authority, it was feared that the Ontario solar industry would be taking a big hit.
Today, following the 30-day consultation period, the government has decided to keep the original price for applications in the queue, but set up a new category for small solar power projects installed on the ground.
That sound you hear is a shared sigh of relief from the thousands of people currently waiting to hear back about their contracts or who want to build solar power, and the tens of thousands of people who will be employed in renewable energy industries. Congratulations and thanks for listening Minister Duguid and the OPA.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Wind fills sails of Ontario workers
Earlier today, Siemens announced it will be opening Ontario’s first wind turbine blade manufacturing facility. The deal with Samsung C&T and Pattern Energy includes 600MW of Siemens turbines for Ontario’s renewable energy market.
Siemens management credit Ontario’s new Feed-in tariff (FIT) with the decision to open the new plant. The FIT guarantees the price paid for different types of renewable power, including wind power.
This announcement is part of the $7 Billion dollar deal with a consortium of Korean companies, including Samsung C&T, that was finalized in January 2010 to anchor Ontario’s renewable energy manufacturing sector and create 1,400 manufacturing jobs while opening at least four manufacturing facilities for wind and solar power.
While it is not yet clear where the facility will be located, all eyes will be focused on Burlington and Hamilton where Siemens owns or has owned plants.
Siemens management credit Ontario’s new Feed-in tariff (FIT) with the decision to open the new plant. The FIT guarantees the price paid for different types of renewable power, including wind power.
This announcement is part of the $7 Billion dollar deal with a consortium of Korean companies, including Samsung C&T, that was finalized in January 2010 to anchor Ontario’s renewable energy manufacturing sector and create 1,400 manufacturing jobs while opening at least four manufacturing facilities for wind and solar power.
While it is not yet clear where the facility will be located, all eyes will be focused on Burlington and Hamilton where Siemens owns or has owned plants.
Shhh! This isn't news...
As Naomi Campbell's diamond flap fills news headlines, what's not news, apparently, is that pesky story that our life support systems are breaking down, just like global warming models predict.
From forest fires and landslides in BC, to forest fires and floods in Russia, to devastating floods around Asia, to a giant iceberg breaking off the Greenland ice sheet, very few journalists care to make the linkage between the trend towards more of these events, and our failure to enact policies to reduce global warming pollution.
Environment Canada, meanwhile, has a couple of interesting maps showing both how the Canadian national average spring temperature this year was 4.1 degrees above average (below), and also a disturbing time trend map showing temperature rise across the country over time.
Our policy makers must awake from their dangerous slumber on this file and instead put in place aggressive policies to transition us to a clean energy economy, as Portugal is doing, for example. But, first we'll have to convince them that the survival of our civilization is somehow more important than the long form census.
Matt Price
Policy Director
From forest fires and landslides in BC, to forest fires and floods in Russia, to devastating floods around Asia, to a giant iceberg breaking off the Greenland ice sheet, very few journalists care to make the linkage between the trend towards more of these events, and our failure to enact policies to reduce global warming pollution.
Environment Canada, meanwhile, has a couple of interesting maps showing both how the Canadian national average spring temperature this year was 4.1 degrees above average (below), and also a disturbing time trend map showing temperature rise across the country over time.
Our policy makers must awake from their dangerous slumber on this file and instead put in place aggressive policies to transition us to a clean energy economy, as Portugal is doing, for example. But, first we'll have to convince them that the survival of our civilization is somehow more important than the long form census.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Thursday, August 5, 2010
You don't need to be dirty to be rich
Today Premier Ed Stelmach is touting the economic benefits of the tar sands for the rest of Canada at the annual gathering of Premiers in Winnipeg. Apparently, we need to accept the growing pollution problem if we want to prosper.
But the data from the past two decades doesn't support that. Alberta was responsible for more than half of the increase in global warming pollution, and for 18% of Canada's GDP growth. Quebec was also responsible for 18% of our GDP growth, and actually reduced its emissions, while Ontario contributed 40% to GDP and 10% to emissions growth.
We don't need to accept rising global warming pollution as the cost of economic health, particularly with clean energy poised to become one of the largest industrial sectors in the world over the next decade.
What's more, the rapid rise in tar sands exports is actually having a negative impact on jobs in some parts of the country. Manufacturing is suffering in Ontario and Quebec partly due to the rising Canadian dollar. As oil exports have risen, our currency has become increasingly linked to the price of oil. The Petro-Loonie is set to soar if tar sands expansion proceeds as planned, and oil prices continue to rise.
Provinces like Ontario have recognized that the future energy economy will be green, and that jobs can be created by leading in transition from oil to clean energy. As a country, that's the type of economic engine we need, rather than hitching our wagon to dirty energy.
Gillian McEachern
Program Manager, Climate and Energy
But the data from the past two decades doesn't support that. Alberta was responsible for more than half of the increase in global warming pollution, and for 18% of Canada's GDP growth. Quebec was also responsible for 18% of our GDP growth, and actually reduced its emissions, while Ontario contributed 40% to GDP and 10% to emissions growth.
We don't need to accept rising global warming pollution as the cost of economic health, particularly with clean energy poised to become one of the largest industrial sectors in the world over the next decade.
What's more, the rapid rise in tar sands exports is actually having a negative impact on jobs in some parts of the country. Manufacturing is suffering in Ontario and Quebec partly due to the rising Canadian dollar. As oil exports have risen, our currency has become increasingly linked to the price of oil. The Petro-Loonie is set to soar if tar sands expansion proceeds as planned, and oil prices continue to rise.
Provinces like Ontario have recognized that the future energy economy will be green, and that jobs can be created by leading in transition from oil to clean energy. As a country, that's the type of economic engine we need, rather than hitching our wagon to dirty energy.
Gillian McEachern
Program Manager, Climate and Energy
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
BPA Exposure at the Till
Last October, we posted a blog titled, Beware of BPA When Buying? about the average cash register using BPA-receipt technology (not all cash registers do) having 60 - 100 mg of the substance available and ready for uptake. This may occur through the skin or by being transferred onto food and ingested.
Well now the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has found that 40% of the 36 receipts sampled from major U.S. businesses and services, including McDonald's, CVS, KFC, Whole Foods, Walmart, and Safeway, contained BPA. Testing also determined that the total amounts of BPA on the tested receipts were 250 - 1,000 times greater than other exposure sources.
Receipts from some major chains, including Target, Starbucks, and Bank of America ATMs, were BPA-free or contained only trace amounts, clearly indicating that BPA (pdf) exposure via cash register receipts isn’t the way it has to be.
Click here for more information on the EWG study.
Well now the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has found that 40% of the 36 receipts sampled from major U.S. businesses and services, including McDonald's, CVS, KFC, Whole Foods, Walmart, and Safeway, contained BPA. Testing also determined that the total amounts of BPA on the tested receipts were 250 - 1,000 times greater than other exposure sources.
Receipts from some major chains, including Target, Starbucks, and Bank of America ATMs, were BPA-free or contained only trace amounts, clearly indicating that BPA (pdf) exposure via cash register receipts isn’t the way it has to be.
Click here for more information on the EWG study.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Clouds looming over Ontario solar power
After receiving an avalanche of applications (over 16,000 in just eight months) for Ontario’s Feed-in Tariff (FIT) program, a new incentive for renewable electricity generation, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) have proposed reducing the guaranteed price paid for ground-mounted solar power projects.
Frustration is building, and rightly so, with the OPA and the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure over the surprise change in price. Currently, both ground-mounted and rooftop projects under 10kW are eligible for the 80.2 cents/kWh FIT rate. The new proposed category would reduce the FIT price for ground mounted solar projects to 58.8 cents/kWh (a 27% decrease).
As expected, the solar industry is overheating, but they are not the only ones calling foul. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has voiced its concern demanding the minister restore the original rate as farmers stand to lose a considerable stream of income and have in some cases already made major investments. Today, the Ontario Environment Commissioner has publicly stated that Ontario's solar sector is being harmed by uncertainty around the microFIT. MicroFIT Action, a website dedicated to a petition on the proposed price change, has also popped up and a group called the Ontario Solar Network is hosting a town hall meeting tomorrow night.
The OPA claims that the current FIT price results in a higher than expected rate of return for ground-mounted solar projects. While their price assumptions could be correct, opponents to the price change argue that the process of setting the assumptions is not transparent. They argue that money has already been spent and contracts have been signed with landowners at the original price and developers expected to be rubber stamped by the OPA. They had no reason to believe otherwise. The integrity of the FIT program is itself being challenged as investors question whether or not the program will remain stable enough.
No one disputes that the FIT rates should be adjustable. In fact, FIT programs are designed to decrease over time as the prices of technologies go down. The Netherlands have an annual review. Germany uses predetermined regression in price and a periodic review. Portugal’s FIT price is linked with technology targets. Spain’s system uses a hybrid of these. Ontario was planning a two year review, but is changing the price abruptly at less than 12 months.
Ontario needs to stick to a program, not change the rules mid-game. If we do, people won’t want to play on our home turf.
Frustration is building, and rightly so, with the OPA and the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure over the surprise change in price. Currently, both ground-mounted and rooftop projects under 10kW are eligible for the 80.2 cents/kWh FIT rate. The new proposed category would reduce the FIT price for ground mounted solar projects to 58.8 cents/kWh (a 27% decrease).
As expected, the solar industry is overheating, but they are not the only ones calling foul. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has voiced its concern demanding the minister restore the original rate as farmers stand to lose a considerable stream of income and have in some cases already made major investments. Today, the Ontario Environment Commissioner has publicly stated that Ontario's solar sector is being harmed by uncertainty around the microFIT. MicroFIT Action, a website dedicated to a petition on the proposed price change, has also popped up and a group called the Ontario Solar Network is hosting a town hall meeting tomorrow night.
The OPA claims that the current FIT price results in a higher than expected rate of return for ground-mounted solar projects. While their price assumptions could be correct, opponents to the price change argue that the process of setting the assumptions is not transparent. They argue that money has already been spent and contracts have been signed with landowners at the original price and developers expected to be rubber stamped by the OPA. They had no reason to believe otherwise. The integrity of the FIT program is itself being challenged as investors question whether or not the program will remain stable enough.
No one disputes that the FIT rates should be adjustable. In fact, FIT programs are designed to decrease over time as the prices of technologies go down. The Netherlands have an annual review. Germany uses predetermined regression in price and a periodic review. Portugal’s FIT price is linked with technology targets. Spain’s system uses a hybrid of these. Ontario was planning a two year review, but is changing the price abruptly at less than 12 months.
Ontario needs to stick to a program, not change the rules mid-game. If we do, people won’t want to play on our home turf.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Ontario workers are doing a sun salutation over new solar jobs in Toronto and London
In mere days, two big announcements for green manufacturing in Toronto and London. This type of massive shift in Ontario’s economy has been a dream for many environmentalists and workers alike, as Ontario positions itself as a leader in the new green economy.
Canasia Power Corp announced Tuesday that they would establish a solar module manufacturing facility in London, Ontario. The facility would initially have a 50MW annual capacity, employing roughly 100 people, but as capacity grows to 200MW, it will employ over 500 people.
SunEdison and Samco Machinery Ltd, a struggling Scarborough auto parts manufacturer, also announced yesterday that they would be retooling an Ontario factory to produce equipment for solar power projects in Ontario. Steps to retool the plant have already begun and the racking systems it will produce are expected to roll off the line as early as September 2010.
Samco has lost 37 % of their workforce, mainly due to a 63 % decline in automotive sales. The new contract is expected to increase their workforce by 25%, with 100 direct and indirect jobs expected as a result of this investment.
Samco Machinery credits this surge in demand to Ontario’s new feed-in tariff (FIT), guaranteed rate paid for renewable power. The FIT program has a local content requirement that requires renewable energy project developers to use equipment made in Ontario.
SunEdison has already made several announcements as a result of projects to be developed under the FIT program. In April, SunEdison announced it would be build 14 rooftop solar projects totaling 3MW in the Toronto area for the development and property management firm Remington Group. In June, SunEdison announced they would begin construction on eight systems totaling 2.1 MW hosted at facilities owned or operated by LaSalle Investment Management.
Swann Dive
What's up with Liberals straying from their roots in the faint hope of attracting Conservatives?
Latest up: Alberta Liberal leader David Swann, an honest-to-goodness nice guy who came to prominence by getting fired by the Ralph Klein government for supporting Kyoto.
Now, he's going against federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff for the latter's promise to formalize a tanker ban in BC waters, a move that would effectively end Enbridge's pitch to bring dirty oil from the tar sands to the BC coast.
Last time I checked, BC voters were overwhelmingly against having supertankers plying their coastline - those are of course voters that Mr. Swann by definition cannot court, unlike Mr. Ignatieff.
Which raises the question: exactly which voters is Mr. Swann going after here? His two biggest provincial rivals are trying to out-do one another with their pro-tar sands rhetoric, whereas polls show that Albertans have a more nuanced version of needing to do a better job on that file.
Perhaps Mr. Swann would have better luck returning to his roots, and taking a more progressive position on the issues.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Latest up: Alberta Liberal leader David Swann, an honest-to-goodness nice guy who came to prominence by getting fired by the Ralph Klein government for supporting Kyoto.
Now, he's going against federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff for the latter's promise to formalize a tanker ban in BC waters, a move that would effectively end Enbridge's pitch to bring dirty oil from the tar sands to the BC coast.
Last time I checked, BC voters were overwhelmingly against having supertankers plying their coastline - those are of course voters that Mr. Swann by definition cannot court, unlike Mr. Ignatieff.
Which raises the question: exactly which voters is Mr. Swann going after here? His two biggest provincial rivals are trying to out-do one another with their pro-tar sands rhetoric, whereas polls show that Albertans have a more nuanced version of needing to do a better job on that file.
Perhaps Mr. Swann would have better luck returning to his roots, and taking a more progressive position on the issues.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Petro-Determinists
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman coined the term "petro-determinist" to apply to a person who believes that we will use oil a long time, so there's no point in doing anything about it.
There's a lot of this about in the debate about the future of the tar sands - with proponents trying to shut down debate about the environmental impacts on the grounds that we simply need the oil.
Vancouver Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe seems to be the latest addition to this club, but is not alone. Recently we've seen it creep into the editorial pages of our own New York Times equivalent, the Globe and Mail.
Worse, perhaps, is coupling petro-determinism with political cynicism, which is on display in this piece by Norman Spector. In chronicling Quebec Premier Charest's own mild determinism that we exploit the tar sands because they are there, Spector tut tuts us idealistic environmentalists by telling us that tar sands money drives politics, so presumably we should just stop trying to make things better.
There's two things about petro-determinism, though, that should be pointed out:
1) It's intellectually lazy: just because we now use oil, it doesn't make the tar sands clean. It is possible to point out simultaneously that we are energy users and that Canadian and Albertan regulators are failing miserably at mitigating the worst impacts of the tar sands.
2) It's actually false: there are things we can do right now to dramatically reduce our dependence on oil, and guess what - nobody is making oil anymore, so at some point we have no choice but to embrace these solutions. Petro-determinism is by definition an argument with a limited shelf life.
It's a worrying trend that our media seems to be dominated these days by those who are rationalizing an energy system that is undermining the security of our life support systems. Our children deserve better.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
There's a lot of this about in the debate about the future of the tar sands - with proponents trying to shut down debate about the environmental impacts on the grounds that we simply need the oil.
Vancouver Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe seems to be the latest addition to this club, but is not alone. Recently we've seen it creep into the editorial pages of our own New York Times equivalent, the Globe and Mail.
Worse, perhaps, is coupling petro-determinism with political cynicism, which is on display in this piece by Norman Spector. In chronicling Quebec Premier Charest's own mild determinism that we exploit the tar sands because they are there, Spector tut tuts us idealistic environmentalists by telling us that tar sands money drives politics, so presumably we should just stop trying to make things better.
There's two things about petro-determinism, though, that should be pointed out:
1) It's intellectually lazy: just because we now use oil, it doesn't make the tar sands clean. It is possible to point out simultaneously that we are energy users and that Canadian and Albertan regulators are failing miserably at mitigating the worst impacts of the tar sands.
2) It's actually false: there are things we can do right now to dramatically reduce our dependence on oil, and guess what - nobody is making oil anymore, so at some point we have no choice but to embrace these solutions. Petro-determinism is by definition an argument with a limited shelf life.
It's a worrying trend that our media seems to be dominated these days by those who are rationalizing an energy system that is undermining the security of our life support systems. Our children deserve better.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Correction
A story ran yesterday that dealt in part with a letter I sent to Ministers Aglukkaq and Prentice about naphthenic acid, a key tar sands pollutant.
In that letter I said that the U.S. requires companies to report on releases of over one hundred pounds of this pollutant, whereas in Canada there is no requirement. In fact, the U.S. requires this reporting only at the many so-called "superfund" sites - places of heightened pollution concern.
I apologize for the error.
We still believe, however, that tar sands companies should be required to report on releases of this substance considering that scientists believe it to be one of THE key tar sands pollutants, and also given that tar sands companies themselves admit that their tailings ponds leak into the groundwater (and occasionally into surface water). Now, another company is applying for yet another tailings pond, so the problem is only growing.
Matt Price
Policy Director
In that letter I said that the U.S. requires companies to report on releases of over one hundred pounds of this pollutant, whereas in Canada there is no requirement. In fact, the U.S. requires this reporting only at the many so-called "superfund" sites - places of heightened pollution concern.
I apologize for the error.
We still believe, however, that tar sands companies should be required to report on releases of this substance considering that scientists believe it to be one of THE key tar sands pollutants, and also given that tar sands companies themselves admit that their tailings ponds leak into the groundwater (and occasionally into surface water). Now, another company is applying for yet another tailings pond, so the problem is only growing.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Monday, July 5, 2010
Whew!
As many of us swelter away, a reminder that when it comes to global warming there is a difference between weather and climate.
Nonetheless, 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record.
Canada's response? Fire up those tar sands!
Matt Price
Policy Director
Nonetheless, 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record.
Canada's response? Fire up those tar sands!
Matt Price
Policy Director
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
I Am A Cool Moose
For a moment at the start of the century, Canada felt like we were in the zone. We were a moose with sunglasses on the cover of the Economist – cool, but also Canadian in that we needed someone outside of our borders to confirm it for us.
We were even feeling good enough about ourselves to shout it out load, even if it had to be through the "I Am Canadian" beer commercial, which in itself seems like an appropriately Canadian vehicle.
What were the ingredients for this feeling good about ourselves? We were breaking new ground on ratifying Kyoto, on legalizing gay marriage, and on decriminalizing marijuana use. At the same time, we were generally standing apart from George W. Bush while he inflicted his narrow-minded America upon the world.
In short, we were expanding tolerance and telling the world that Canada was on the side of a more hopeful future. Things weren’t perfect, but we could be proud.
To show how this can also work in reverse: I have a good friend from the U.S. who was in Ottawa shortly after the fall of Baghdad. He’s the kind of guy who has built up a thick skin through long public service, and has a wonderful sense of humour he uses to smooth the rough edges. Over a drink, though, I was shocked when he teared up while talking about Abu Ghraib, about how for him the event was such a violation of everything that America stood for, that as an American it repeatedly brought him to tears even though he had nothing to do with it.
On this Canada Day in 2010, Canada does not bring me to tears, but it does make me sad. If you watch Joe’s beer commercial rant now, it comes across as dated, as about someone we no longer are. We have replaced vision with making do, tolerance with division, and debate with shouting at each other. Ottawa is a log-jam, with elected officials now consistently failing to move forward measures that inspire and engage us, that advance us as a people.
The worst part of this is our abject failure to provide hope to young Canadians that we will step up to the challenge of letting them live their lives with the stable climate that we took for granted. I constantly look at my four year old son and apologize silently for the conflict and diminished opportunity he will inherit. Many of our elected officials have chosen strip mining of tar sands over a clean energy economy, and as a result have replaced the cool moose we once projected to the world instead with a shameless dealer of dirty fossil fuels to addicts everywhere, defending the dead-end past rather than building a better future.
I refuse to accept that this is who we are, and what makes me passionate about my work is that I believe that most Canadians feel the same way I do. We are better than this and will be better than this. We will not get there, though, without coming together to change the behaviour of our leaders. And, for that to happen we must deepen our investments as citizens, as Canadians.
For now, though, a little break. Like thousands of others, I’ll be camping this Canada Day weekend, trying to figure out a way to watch the World Cup games without electricity or cable, and having some beers with friends and family. I’ll reconnect, recharge, and regroup. And then I’ll reengage. I hope you will too.
Happy Canada Day.
Matt Price
Policy Director
We were even feeling good enough about ourselves to shout it out load, even if it had to be through the "I Am Canadian" beer commercial, which in itself seems like an appropriately Canadian vehicle.
What were the ingredients for this feeling good about ourselves? We were breaking new ground on ratifying Kyoto, on legalizing gay marriage, and on decriminalizing marijuana use. At the same time, we were generally standing apart from George W. Bush while he inflicted his narrow-minded America upon the world.
In short, we were expanding tolerance and telling the world that Canada was on the side of a more hopeful future. Things weren’t perfect, but we could be proud.
To show how this can also work in reverse: I have a good friend from the U.S. who was in Ottawa shortly after the fall of Baghdad. He’s the kind of guy who has built up a thick skin through long public service, and has a wonderful sense of humour he uses to smooth the rough edges. Over a drink, though, I was shocked when he teared up while talking about Abu Ghraib, about how for him the event was such a violation of everything that America stood for, that as an American it repeatedly brought him to tears even though he had nothing to do with it.
On this Canada Day in 2010, Canada does not bring me to tears, but it does make me sad. If you watch Joe’s beer commercial rant now, it comes across as dated, as about someone we no longer are. We have replaced vision with making do, tolerance with division, and debate with shouting at each other. Ottawa is a log-jam, with elected officials now consistently failing to move forward measures that inspire and engage us, that advance us as a people.
The worst part of this is our abject failure to provide hope to young Canadians that we will step up to the challenge of letting them live their lives with the stable climate that we took for granted. I constantly look at my four year old son and apologize silently for the conflict and diminished opportunity he will inherit. Many of our elected officials have chosen strip mining of tar sands over a clean energy economy, and as a result have replaced the cool moose we once projected to the world instead with a shameless dealer of dirty fossil fuels to addicts everywhere, defending the dead-end past rather than building a better future.
I refuse to accept that this is who we are, and what makes me passionate about my work is that I believe that most Canadians feel the same way I do. We are better than this and will be better than this. We will not get there, though, without coming together to change the behaviour of our leaders. And, for that to happen we must deepen our investments as citizens, as Canadians.
For now, though, a little break. Like thousands of others, I’ll be camping this Canada Day weekend, trying to figure out a way to watch the World Cup games without electricity or cable, and having some beers with friends and family. I’ll reconnect, recharge, and regroup. And then I’ll reengage. I hope you will too.
Happy Canada Day.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Monday, June 28, 2010
Ontario’s Offshore Wind Undermined by Half-Baked Exclusionary Zone
Like all types of development, there are some good places and some bad places for wind turbines.
Ontario’s proposed 5km shoreline exclusionary zone attempts to solve this problem with a sledge hammer rather than the scalpel that was called for.
Offshore energy is nothing new. There are many examples in Denmark of wind turbines developments in near shore areas within 5km, including: Vindeby (1.5km offshore), Middelgrunden (3.5km offshore), Samso (3.5km offshore), Ronland (1km offshore), and Frederikshavn (1km offshore).
In 2000, the Danish Energy Authority appointed five international experts to the International Advisory Panel of Experts on Marine Ecology (IAPEME), including marine ecology experts from Universities in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark. The IAPEME goals were to comment on the observed impacts to marine wildlife and environmental monitoring methods of offshore wind turbine developments in Denmark. Their 2006 publication found that “The studies have shown that the Nysted and Horns Rev offshore wind farms have had very little impact on the environment, neither during their construction nor during their operational phases.” Further, “Large offshore wind farms can be constructed and operated without significant damage to the marine environment and vulnerable species.”
There are clearly some places where wind turbines should be pushed further than 5km from shore, if they’re even allowed at all. The proposed SouthPoint Wind project, which would site hundreds of turbines right next to Point Pelee, comes to mind. But what fact-based argument can there be to disallow turbines off the shore of urban Scarborough? None, it seems to us.
Over the next few weeks and months, the Green Energy Act Alliance will be pushing for a setback based on the best science. Five km may be necessary in some cases, but this is one situation where one size doesn't fit all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
