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

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.

A Big BPA Update

Canada took the international lead on BPA action back in 2008. With last week’s announcement that France has suspended the sale of baby bottles containing BPA (French), and news that New York State is well on its way to doing so, Canada’s early action is being justified by growing global BPA action.

So in addition to Canada’s banning of BPA in baby bottles, here’s an updated list of who’s doing what (at least, as far as we know) regarding BPA laws across the world:

COUNTRIES

• France has suspended the sale of baby bottles containing BPA
  
• Denmark has issued a temporary ban on BPA in products for children three and under and it has passed a resolution to ban it in baby bottles
  
• Belgium and the United Kingdom have each introduced bills
  
• Two bills have been introduced in each federal United States (U.S.) house – one of the bills proposes the Food and Drug Administration limits BPA in food and beverage containers, while the other proposes the Consumer Product Safety Commission end the sale of other BPA-containing food-contact products

U.S. STATES

• Over 20 state legislatures have introduced bills, including California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas
  
• The Senate of New York legislature passed a BPA bill banning BPA baby bottles, sippy cups, pacifiers, and straws with the companion bill awaiting passage in the Assembly
  
• Both houses of the Vermont legislature have passed a BPA bill restricting BPA in reusable food and beverage containers, infant formula, and baby food containers
  
• Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Maryland, and Connecticut have signed BPA bills into law, with Connecticut going further than Canada by banning BPA from all reusable food and beverage containers, infant formula, and baby food cans and jars

CITY/COUNTY

• Suffolk County, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Albany County, New York; and Schenectady County, New York have restricted the sale of products made with bisphenol A.

3rd Time’s the Charm (We Hope): Proposed Consumer Product Safety Act Back Again

It’s happened – the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act was reintroduced into the House of Commons for the 3rd time on June 9, 2010. It was first known as Bill C-52 (which was dropped when the federal election was called in 2008) and then Bill C-6 (which was dropped when Parliament prorogued in March 2010), but is currently known as Bill C-36.

This proposed Act is an update to the 40 year old Hazardous Products Act and would finally bring Canada in line with Europe and the United States. As per this CBC article, the Bill has support from industry and environmental groups.

Although the House of Commons is currently not in session, we’re hoping for swift passage in the fall when the MPs return.

Learn about the new proposed Act by visiting this Health Canada website.

Keep up-to-date on this law in the fall and other toxics happenings throughout the year by signing up for our monthly Toxic Nation Enews.

Oil's Not Well

Yesterday, I spent time with Jerome Ringo, a long-time activist and former oil worker from Louisiana. He's witnessing the Gulf oil disaster unfold around his home - the suffocating oil-soaked birds, the protective marsh buffers dying, the fear of hurricane season. He's in Toronto to talk about how this needs to serve as a wake up call for Ontario and others to reduce dependence on dangerous and polluting oil.

It used to be that talking about getting off oil was seen as a fringe view of peak oil theorists and some radical environmentalists. But now, in the wake of the tragedy unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, people are asking: What would it actually take to get off oil?

The oil industry and their proponents in government would have us believe that it just isn't possible. Yet solutions are at hand to transition our transportation system away from oil to clean energy sources, and Ontario can act now to kickstart that transition.

Each year, Ontarians send between $13-22 billion dollars out of province to buy oil. To put that amount into perspective, the price tag for Metrolinx's regional transportation plan is $2 billion per year, and the 2010 Ontario budget for education is $23 billion. We're shipping out vast sums of wealth to create jobs in other places.

Here are some quick numbers we've pulled together on Ontario's oil addiction:

- Global warming pollution from transportation in Ontario in 2008: 61 million tonnes

- Global warming pollution emitted by the entire country of Portugal, population 16,803,952: 60 million tonnes

- Number of passenger vehicles in Ontario in 2008: 7.2 million

- Kilometres driven each year by passenger vehicles: 113 billion

- Electricity needed to power all passenger vehicles for one year: 22.6 million megawhatthours

- Electricity generated in Ontario in 2009: 139 million megawhatthours

- Wind potential in Ontario: 1,711 million megawhatthours

- Number of wind turbines needed to power Ontario’s passenger transportation: 3,767

- Percentage of Ontarians that support laws and policies to accelerate a transition from oil to other energy sources, even if it means changing how people use transportation: 67%

- Percentage of Ontarians support spending by government to transition from oil to electric vehicles, with funding from new fees and taxes on oil and gas pollution: 62%


So what if we invested in building effective public transit and the infrastructure for electric cars instead of sending all that oil money to other places? We could keep jobs here in Ontario - building trains, producing green energy, manufacturing electric vehicles - and reduce smog and the amount of time we spend in traffic.

It's within our reach. Israel and Denmark are already making the game-changing investments needed to get off oil. In Ontario, powering all passenger transportation by electricity would take about 16% of electricity generated in the province. But, because electric vehicles mainly charge over night when electricity demand drops, going electric wouldn't require that much new generation. For example, it has been estimated that 65% of passenger vehicles in the U.S. could be converted to electric without additional generation because they would charge at night.

We as consumers can't do it alone. We need governments to adopt laws and policies to spur the transition away from oil, and to invest in infrastructure needed rather than new highways. Ontario has the potential to lead in building a greener, oil-free transportation system, and the time to start is now.

Gillian McEachern
Program Manager
Environmental Defence

Tone Deaf?

With the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez worth of oil spilling into the U.S. Gulf every four days, you can't help but wonder about the timing of the Western Premiers in lobbying to reduce regulatory oversight in Canada - in large part for oil and gas projects.

A key part of President Obama's Oval Office address two days ago came when he said the U.S. needs an offshore regulator that "that acts as the oil industry's watchdog not its partner."

Here in Canada we have similar issues of coziness between our regulators and the oil and gas industry. This is evidenced in the fact that they barely ever say "no" to proposals. Another example is from a Canadian landowners group that recently attended a conference where they were surprised at the chummy relationship between regulators and the industry.

Will it take a similar BP-like disaster in Canada before we too get serious about regulatory independence? Meanwhile, will the gung-ho tar sands government in Ottawa go along with Stelmach et al at this time of heightened public anxiety over how industry is run? Let's see.

Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence

McGuinty and Charest to move on cap and trade

Protecting the environment was a major point of discussion at the joint Ontario-Quebec Cabinet meeting held in Quebec City today. Premiers McGuinty and Charest agreed to develop the regulations needed to implement cap and trade, reaffirming their commitment to transition both provinces to a clean energy economy.

Putting a price on global warming pollution through cap and trade is an important tool for reducing emissions, and we're glad to see Ontario and Quebec agreeing to take the next step.

Manitoba and British Columbia have also committed to implementing a cap and trade system. With the federal government continuing to use the U.S. as an excuse for inaction, provinces are stepping into the void.

As President Obama said yesterday in his Oval Office address:

"We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny."

Now is the time to break our addiction to oil.

Gillian McEachern
Program Manager
Environmental Defence

Obama Spills Into Quebec

Last night U.S. President Obama gave an Oval Office address about the BP spill, rightly pointing out that the bigger message it sends us is that we need to break our addiction to oil.

At the same time, the Quebec and Ontario Premiers began meeting in Quebec City, and both underlined the need to move ahead on regulating large polluters in the transition to a clean energy economy. They too are taking the lesson of the BP spill to heart.

Unfortunately, this continues to stand in stark contrast to what we are hearing from Ottawa. A British diplomat is the latest to push the boundaries of what is usually said and not said in those overly polite circles (following the Mexican President) by contradicting Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice who has an intentionally overly rosy view of progress on climate change.

The one line from the Oval Office address that stood out as the exact opposite of what the Canadian federal government believes is when Obama said this: "the one approach I will not accept is inaction."

Right now it seems that any hopefulness we have in Canada must come from provincial capitols. Let's see what comes out of the joint Ontario/Quebec cabinet meeting today, and what those governments will do to follow through quickly on ending our addiction to oil.

Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence

Gulf doesn't green the tar sands

Today Jeff Rubin, former chief economist for CIBC World Markets, criticized tar sands promoters for surfing the disaster unfolding in the Gulf to green the image of the tar sands.

We absolutely must avoid the risk of an offshore oil spill in Canada. But, we can't trade one type of risk for another. As Rubin points out, there's nothing clean about producing tar sands oil. It pollutes the water and air, drives up Canada's global warming pollution and threatens the health of people living downstream.

The toxic 'tailings ponds' are leaking over 11 million litres a day, enough to fill the Toronto Skydome two and a half times each year. And by 2012, the planned expansion of the tar sands will mean 25 billion litres of toxic tailings will leak into surrounding waterways each year, enough to fill the Skydome 16 times.

Canada already has its own toxic oil spill.

And, despite the recent PR push by the oil industry, the environment impacts are getting worse not better. Heck, it took them twenty years to figure out how to plant trees. That hardly garners confidence.

The Gulf oil spill should instead spur government action to transition away from oil to clean energy. Canada is getting left behind as other countries invest in electric cars, high speed trains and renewable energy. We can't afford to wait to catch up.

Gillian McEachern
Program Manager
Environmental Defence