Fearing embarrassing questions about why there's no winter at the winter Olympics, Stephen Harper prorogued the planet today. The Canadian public reacted with predictable outrage, with several thousand people unfriending the Prime Minister on Facebook, wiping out all the gains he made by singing the Beatles.
"We needed the time to recalibrate," said the Prime Minister, "And by that I mean approving a bunch more tar sands projects while I distract everyone by saying our emissions targets are just like the Americans."
The opposition parties reacted by promising to show up on the planet anyway so that they could keep fighting with each other about the best way to save it. "We refuse to accept that Harper can unilaterally suspend his divide and conquer campaign against us," said an opposition spokesperson, "So we'll show up at work as usual, at each other's throats until the planet is cooked permanently."
As imagined by:
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
More Make-Up Clean-Up Coming?
Tomorrow afternoon, it is anticipated that the federal government will publish their draft decision on whether or not another concerning chemical used in personal care products will be proposed as "toxic" in Canada. If it is, the government can propose actions intended to reduce our exposures.
A quick search in the U.S.-based Cosmetics Database revealed that the concerning chemical commonly known as BHA/scientifically known as phenol, (1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methoxy- can be found in lipstick, eye shadow, moisturizer, mascara, and other personal care products. We found a few of the BHA-containing products in the Cosmetics Database on Canadian store shelves. However, that's not all BHA might be in. Information suggests that it may also be found in food packaging and food (e.g., butter, meats, glazed fruits, cereals, baked goods, snack foods, nuts).
So why are we concerned? Well, BHA has been classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" according to the U.S. National Toxicology Program. It is also a carcinogen on California's Prop 65 list of substances "known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity".
BHA, or butylated hydroxyanisole, has the CAS No. 25013-16-5. It is being evaluated through the federal government's Chemicals Management Plan.
A quick search in the U.S.-based Cosmetics Database revealed that the concerning chemical commonly known as BHA/scientifically known as phenol, (1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methoxy- can be found in lipstick, eye shadow, moisturizer, mascara, and other personal care products. We found a few of the BHA-containing products in the Cosmetics Database on Canadian store shelves. However, that's not all BHA might be in. Information suggests that it may also be found in food packaging and food (e.g., butter, meats, glazed fruits, cereals, baked goods, snack foods, nuts).
So why are we concerned? Well, BHA has been classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" according to the U.S. National Toxicology Program. It is also a carcinogen on California's Prop 65 list of substances "known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity".
BHA, or butylated hydroxyanisole, has the CAS No. 25013-16-5. It is being evaluated through the federal government's Chemicals Management Plan.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Satellite images of tailings ponds
In the spirit of information wanting to be free, and with a credit to Global Forest Watch Canada, below are the satellite images of toxic tailings "ponds" (lakes, really) from the tar sands we first published in our report about talings ponds leakage - in short, all of the ponds leak massive amounts of toxic materials into the groundwater every day. The series shows the growth of the earthen structures (no liners) from 1974 through to the present, including the last one showing the future - the ponds now approved to happen.
The latest on this issue is that both the Alberta and federal governments continue to deny that the toxic leakage reaches surface waters, despite documented cases of it doing so (Suncor's infamous tar island dyke, and Syncrude's Beaver Creek incident), plus industry acknowledgement in their environmental assessment filings that it will take place. Furthermore, neither level of government can show that the 'deep' leakage into the groundwater won't get into surface waters over time, and some of the dangerous substances like napthenic acids break down only over many decades.
The federal government, however, says it is investigating the matter, but so far there has been no enforcement of the Fisheries Act. Stay tuned.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Talings ponds have been coloured yellow
1974
1992
2002
2008
Future - Approved Ponds
The latest on this issue is that both the Alberta and federal governments continue to deny that the toxic leakage reaches surface waters, despite documented cases of it doing so (Suncor's infamous tar island dyke, and Syncrude's Beaver Creek incident), plus industry acknowledgement in their environmental assessment filings that it will take place. Furthermore, neither level of government can show that the 'deep' leakage into the groundwater won't get into surface waters over time, and some of the dangerous substances like napthenic acids break down only over many decades.
The federal government, however, says it is investigating the matter, but so far there has been no enforcement of the Fisheries Act. Stay tuned.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Talings ponds have been coloured yellow
1974
1992
2002
2008
Future - Approved Ponds
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Rubin-esque
I have a lot of sympathy for one of Jeff Rubin's core arguments - that high oil prices have been ignored when compared to the sub-prime mortgage mess when talking about the cause of the recent recession.
I even bought and read his best-selling book on this, and recommend it.
But, today Rubin misrepresents California's efforts to reduce the carbon content of fuels sold in that state, and by extension the whole rationale behind so-called 'low carbon fuel standards' everywhere. He characterizes California's push as a "ban" on tar sands oil in particular, when it is no such thing - it requires fuel sellers in California to reduce the overall carbon content of fuel sold there, and lets them do this by blending higher carbon options - like tar sands oil - with lower carbon options, or indeed by buying credits from lower carbon electricity sources feeding electric vehicles.
By doing this, California helps call the question of whether the tar sands industry and their Alberta and federal government boosters are actually serious about reducing the carbon content of tar sands oil, as they claim to be by directing billions of dollars of taxpayer money into carbon capture and storage, or whether this is ultimately a very expensive green washing exercise.
Indeed, documents we recently obtained under Access to Information indicate that the federal government knows the carbon content of tar sands oil is likely to go higher rather than lower, due to factors such as the shift to the more carbon intensive steam injection method, through having mined out the easiest to reach deposits, and through the likelihood that the Alberta government will allow the industry to burn much dirtier feed stocks than natural gas to generate its energy for production.
Those same documents also show our federal government lobbying the California government on low carbon fuel standard using tar sands industry-funded numbers that it knew to be "not transparent" and "out of date." These are our civil servants doing the industry's bidding using misleading information.
Ultimately, a low carbon fuel standard is akin to the consuming jurisdiction enacting a carbon tax if the producing jurisdiction doesn't do it - and do it at a level that actually reduces emisisons. This is exactly what is now unfolding between California and other jurisdictions interested in a robust response on the one hand, and the lame response we have so far seen from Alberta and the Canadian government on the other.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
I even bought and read his best-selling book on this, and recommend it.
But, today Rubin misrepresents California's efforts to reduce the carbon content of fuels sold in that state, and by extension the whole rationale behind so-called 'low carbon fuel standards' everywhere. He characterizes California's push as a "ban" on tar sands oil in particular, when it is no such thing - it requires fuel sellers in California to reduce the overall carbon content of fuel sold there, and lets them do this by blending higher carbon options - like tar sands oil - with lower carbon options, or indeed by buying credits from lower carbon electricity sources feeding electric vehicles.
By doing this, California helps call the question of whether the tar sands industry and their Alberta and federal government boosters are actually serious about reducing the carbon content of tar sands oil, as they claim to be by directing billions of dollars of taxpayer money into carbon capture and storage, or whether this is ultimately a very expensive green washing exercise.
Indeed, documents we recently obtained under Access to Information indicate that the federal government knows the carbon content of tar sands oil is likely to go higher rather than lower, due to factors such as the shift to the more carbon intensive steam injection method, through having mined out the easiest to reach deposits, and through the likelihood that the Alberta government will allow the industry to burn much dirtier feed stocks than natural gas to generate its energy for production.
Those same documents also show our federal government lobbying the California government on low carbon fuel standard using tar sands industry-funded numbers that it knew to be "not transparent" and "out of date." These are our civil servants doing the industry's bidding using misleading information.
Ultimately, a low carbon fuel standard is akin to the consuming jurisdiction enacting a carbon tax if the producing jurisdiction doesn't do it - and do it at a level that actually reduces emisisons. This is exactly what is now unfolding between California and other jurisdictions interested in a robust response on the one hand, and the lame response we have so far seen from Alberta and the Canadian government on the other.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Monday, January 18, 2010
Big Week for BPA
For those of you watching or reading the news last week, you’ve probably come across a couple of BPA stories making the media rounds. Regardless of whether you have or haven’t seen them, know that both are significant in that they further vindicate Canada’s earlier position on the substance (that it’s harmful) and that they contribute to building momentum for broader BPA bans (including the need to get it out of all food and beverage containers).
More specifically, a new study concluding that “higher BPA exposure, reflected in higher urinary concentrations of BPA, is consistently associated with reported heart disease in the general adult population of the USA” was published last Wednesday. This study is particularly significant in that it is the second time BPA has been linked to heart disease in humans; most studies of BPA occur in the lab. Then on Friday, the United States Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA) stated that there is “some concern” about BPA's effect on fetal, infant, and young child brain development, prostate gland development, and behavior. Although the agency was clear that their health assessment of the chemical is ongoing (and in fact, $30 million is being put to the effort), Friday's announcement is significant in that the U.S. FDA considered BPA to not be of concern up until now.
If you’re interested in reading more about these two stories, be sure to see the Globe & Mail’s article on the cardiovascular study and/or its article on the U.S. FDA’s decision. And if you are interested in learning more about what we think of the FDA’s change in direction, see a press release we put out on Friday.
More specifically, a new study concluding that “higher BPA exposure, reflected in higher urinary concentrations of BPA, is consistently associated with reported heart disease in the general adult population of the USA” was published last Wednesday. This study is particularly significant in that it is the second time BPA has been linked to heart disease in humans; most studies of BPA occur in the lab. Then on Friday, the United States Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA) stated that there is “some concern” about BPA's effect on fetal, infant, and young child brain development, prostate gland development, and behavior. Although the agency was clear that their health assessment of the chemical is ongoing (and in fact, $30 million is being put to the effort), Friday's announcement is significant in that the U.S. FDA considered BPA to not be of concern up until now.
If you’re interested in reading more about these two stories, be sure to see the Globe & Mail’s article on the cardiovascular study and/or its article on the U.S. FDA’s decision. And if you are interested in learning more about what we think of the FDA’s change in direction, see a press release we put out on Friday.
the Petro-Loonie
See the Toronto Star today for a piece on how because of the tar sands Canada's dollar has become a "petro-loonie" - connected to the price of oil.
With global scarcity hitting oil, the price will only trend upwards, taking the dollar with it, and pricing our manufacturing products out of international markets.
So, when people tell you the tar sands are good for Canada's economy, ask them "who's economy?"
Here is the graph:
With global scarcity hitting oil, the price will only trend upwards, taking the dollar with it, and pricing our manufacturing products out of international markets.
So, when people tell you the tar sands are good for Canada's economy, ask them "who's economy?"
Here is the graph:
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Take Metal Jewelry Away From Children Who Will Swallow, Suck or Chew On It
Yesterday, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Chairman Inez Tenenbaum advised parents to take metal jewelry away from “children who will swallow, suck or chew on it” and that parents should “not allow young children to be given or to play with cheap metal jewelry, especially when they are unsupervised”.
This guidance follows a very recent Associated Press investigation showing cadmium in a piece of children’s jewelry at 91% its weight and in some other pieces of children’s jewelry at more than 80% their weight. You can also read about the story on the CBC.
Cadmium is a heavy metal known to cause lung and prostate cancer. It is also toxic to the gastrointestinal tract, the kidneys, and the respiratory, cardiovascular, and hormonal systems. Unfortunately for parents, there is no easy way to tell whether something contains harmful levels of cadmium or other hazardous metals such a lead. For this reason, watch for recalls listed on the U.S. CPSC website and the Health Canada website.
Click here to read the U.S. CPSC guidance directly.
Janelle WitzelToxic Nation Coordinator
Rubber Duck is US-Bound
As Bruce Lourie and I get ready to launch Slow Death by Rubber Duck in the United States next week, so far so good! The review in last weekend's Washington Post was great and the chemical industry's flunkies are already frothing at the mouth about it.
We'll be in New York City on Jan. 19th talking to Time Magazine and in Washington DC on January 20th appearing on the Diane Rehm Show (on NPR). "O" Magazine has a book review that should be out any day and we did a pre-taped interview with the Dr. Oz show this week. Our first US launch event will be in DC at Busboys and Poets on Wednesday, Jan. 20th, from 6:30-8:00PM, at their 14th St. location. Come on out if you're in the neighbourhood.
And if you have any friends or acquaintances or long-lost cousins in the DC area, by all means let them know we'd love to see them! I'll keep you posted as our US-wanderings develop. We won't rest until Leno or Conan or both (!) have succumbed to the Duck.
We'll be in New York City on Jan. 19th talking to Time Magazine and in Washington DC on January 20th appearing on the Diane Rehm Show (on NPR). "O" Magazine has a book review that should be out any day and we did a pre-taped interview with the Dr. Oz show this week. Our first US launch event will be in DC at Busboys and Poets on Wednesday, Jan. 20th, from 6:30-8:00PM, at their 14th St. location. Come on out if you're in the neighbourhood.
And if you have any friends or acquaintances or long-lost cousins in the DC area, by all means let them know we'd love to see them! I'll keep you posted as our US-wanderings develop. We won't rest until Leno or Conan or both (!) have succumbed to the Duck.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Thank You to (certain) Muzzled Civil Servants
UPDATE: Here is the ATIP document (pdf).
You never know what you are going to get when you file an Access to Information request.
Recently, one came back that netted a draft "Oil Sands Issue Paper," and the back and forth between Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) as revisions were made. You may have heard about it here.
This is the chatter that Canadian citizens never hear, especially now that their civil servants whose salaries they pay for are muzzled by the current government.
Beyond the change-able political level in Ottawa, NRCan is famously pro-industry, so it comes as little surprise that Environment Canada needed to push back on NRCan's drafting of the 'issue paper,' saying that the draft "would make the government to be perceived as bias and thus not credible or serving the public good."
(Of course, after Copenhagen, the public is only too aware that the federal government is not credible or serving the public good).
Then, Environment Canada proceeds to provide more balanced information to revise the document, calling out risks of carbon capture and storage, and pointing out that some pollution control 'solutions' (like tailings ponds technologies) wind up moving pollution around rather than fixing it.
So, while we don't always agree with the civil servants in Environment Canada, at least in this instance we'd like to say thank you for trying to to the right thing. The government seems to have buried this document entirely, which is not surprising given its track record, but at least we know there are civil servants working behind closed doors to bring some sanity to Canada's most out of control industrial project.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
You never know what you are going to get when you file an Access to Information request.
Recently, one came back that netted a draft "Oil Sands Issue Paper," and the back and forth between Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) as revisions were made. You may have heard about it here.
This is the chatter that Canadian citizens never hear, especially now that their civil servants whose salaries they pay for are muzzled by the current government.
Beyond the change-able political level in Ottawa, NRCan is famously pro-industry, so it comes as little surprise that Environment Canada needed to push back on NRCan's drafting of the 'issue paper,' saying that the draft "would make the government to be perceived as bias and thus not credible or serving the public good."
(Of course, after Copenhagen, the public is only too aware that the federal government is not credible or serving the public good).
Then, Environment Canada proceeds to provide more balanced information to revise the document, calling out risks of carbon capture and storage, and pointing out that some pollution control 'solutions' (like tailings ponds technologies) wind up moving pollution around rather than fixing it.
So, while we don't always agree with the civil servants in Environment Canada, at least in this instance we'd like to say thank you for trying to to the right thing. The government seems to have buried this document entirely, which is not surprising given its track record, but at least we know there are civil servants working behind closed doors to bring some sanity to Canada's most out of control industrial project.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
