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.
Showing posts with label Exposing the Tar Sands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Exposing the Tar Sands. Show all posts
Thursday, September 30, 2010
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
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
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
Friday, May 14, 2010
Dragon's Den: Climate Optimism
The time has come.
Time for me to come out of the closet. To come clean. Time to tell the world!
I’m a climate optimist.
Yup, the secret’s out.
What I mean by this is that I’m a “glass half full” kind of environmentalist. Yes, the problems that the planet faces are daunting. Yes, the implications of global warming are scary as hell. But I’m firmly convinced that we frail and frequently irrational humans have what it takes to save our collective bacon. I’m optimistic that we are going to solve the climate problem, and it isn’t going to be as wrenching as some seem to think.
Sure, you’re saying. Smith is feeling rosy because he’s upped his daily dosage of Vitamin D. Though that may be true, my current chuffed mood is mostly due to three events this past week which, though unrelated, foreshadow betters days to come.
1. The UK election results: The new Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government in the UK has promised a very ambitious green energy and green jobs agenda. Small aside: if ambitious green-ness is de rigueur for UK Tories, why aren’t Canadian Tories getting with the programme? But more on this in a future blog.) Most interesting is the fact that the environmental platforms of all parties in the UK election were amazingly similar, and amazingly green.
Simply put, concern for the environment in Europe, including in the UK, has now officially transcended political ideologies. Like the current 100% coast to coast to coast Canadian excitement regarding the Habs’ Stanley Cup playoff chances, there is unanimity on the issue.
2. Meanwhile, back on this side of the pond, an historic climate change bill was finally introduced in the US Senate yesterday. Though many naysayers are already writing its obituary, I would humbly point out that the leading edge of the still-gushing BP oil spill haven’t even begun to hit the US coast yet. When that happens CNN will ensure that the images of oiled wildlife and destroyed fishing and tourism livelihoods are broadcast 24/7. This spill is going to get much worse before it gets better. And the best way to stop future catastrophic oil spills is to build more reliable renewable energy sources fast. You read it here on the Dragon’s Den first: this US climate bill is gonna pass.
3. The last thing making me cheery this week is much closer to home, though no less significant. Every time I go to my Facebook page now, multiple ads pop up urging me to install solar panels on my home, ‘cause the new Ontario Green Energy Act makes it financially worthwhile for people to do so. Thousands of people all across the province are now lining up to become solar (and wind and biogas and geothermal) entrepreneurs.
The common theme in all of this? The green new world has arrived. The changes we need to accomplish to both put our economy on a more sustainable footing, and to reduce planet-damaging pollution, are happening. The wind is at our back (pun fully intended!).
Time for me to come out of the closet. To come clean. Time to tell the world!
I’m a climate optimist.
Yup, the secret’s out.
What I mean by this is that I’m a “glass half full” kind of environmentalist. Yes, the problems that the planet faces are daunting. Yes, the implications of global warming are scary as hell. But I’m firmly convinced that we frail and frequently irrational humans have what it takes to save our collective bacon. I’m optimistic that we are going to solve the climate problem, and it isn’t going to be as wrenching as some seem to think.
Sure, you’re saying. Smith is feeling rosy because he’s upped his daily dosage of Vitamin D. Though that may be true, my current chuffed mood is mostly due to three events this past week which, though unrelated, foreshadow betters days to come.
1. The UK election results: The new Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government in the UK has promised a very ambitious green energy and green jobs agenda. Small aside: if ambitious green-ness is de rigueur for UK Tories, why aren’t Canadian Tories getting with the programme? But more on this in a future blog.) Most interesting is the fact that the environmental platforms of all parties in the UK election were amazingly similar, and amazingly green.
Simply put, concern for the environment in Europe, including in the UK, has now officially transcended political ideologies. Like the current 100% coast to coast to coast Canadian excitement regarding the Habs’ Stanley Cup playoff chances, there is unanimity on the issue.
2. Meanwhile, back on this side of the pond, an historic climate change bill was finally introduced in the US Senate yesterday. Though many naysayers are already writing its obituary, I would humbly point out that the leading edge of the still-gushing BP oil spill haven’t even begun to hit the US coast yet. When that happens CNN will ensure that the images of oiled wildlife and destroyed fishing and tourism livelihoods are broadcast 24/7. This spill is going to get much worse before it gets better. And the best way to stop future catastrophic oil spills is to build more reliable renewable energy sources fast. You read it here on the Dragon’s Den first: this US climate bill is gonna pass.
3. The last thing making me cheery this week is much closer to home, though no less significant. Every time I go to my Facebook page now, multiple ads pop up urging me to install solar panels on my home, ‘cause the new Ontario Green Energy Act makes it financially worthwhile for people to do so. Thousands of people all across the province are now lining up to become solar (and wind and biogas and geothermal) entrepreneurs.
The common theme in all of this? The green new world has arrived. The changes we need to accomplish to both put our economy on a more sustainable footing, and to reduce planet-damaging pollution, are happening. The wind is at our back (pun fully intended!).
Friday, May 7, 2010
Dragon's Den: The True Impact of the Oil Spill
Another in a continuing series of blogs for CBC's Dragon's Den:
The environmental event of the week, the year, and potentially the decade, is the ongoing BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. If you haven’t properly absorbed the scale of this thing, check out this, and this and this. The “world’s whitest beaches turn black” is a particularly poignant headline.
What is clear is that this is a mammoth environmental and, likely, economic disaster.
What is less clear is how this oil spill will impact the complicated US debate regarding global warming.
For months now, the US Senate has been awaiting the unveiling of a historic new global warming law. Recent reports indicate it may be finally introduced next week.
In the fractious Senate, where even the Democrats are riven by regional differences, passing this bill at the best of times would be difficult. But in the midst of the slow-motion disaster unfolding around the BP spill, all of a sudden the terrain looks even more volatile than usual.
Does the oil spill make the passage of the Senate bill less likely by shattering the fragile coalition necessary to move it forward?
Or does the spill so thoroughly highlight the desperate need to move towards a post-oil economy that it makes adoption more likely?
Only time will tell.
But it may well be that the more lasting impact of the oil spill is measured in votes won or lost on the floor of the US Senate as opposed to dead turtles and grimy seabirds.
The environmental event of the week, the year, and potentially the decade, is the ongoing BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. If you haven’t properly absorbed the scale of this thing, check out this, and this and this. The “world’s whitest beaches turn black” is a particularly poignant headline.
What is clear is that this is a mammoth environmental and, likely, economic disaster.
What is less clear is how this oil spill will impact the complicated US debate regarding global warming.
For months now, the US Senate has been awaiting the unveiling of a historic new global warming law. Recent reports indicate it may be finally introduced next week.
In the fractious Senate, where even the Democrats are riven by regional differences, passing this bill at the best of times would be difficult. But in the midst of the slow-motion disaster unfolding around the BP spill, all of a sudden the terrain looks even more volatile than usual.
Does the oil spill make the passage of the Senate bill less likely by shattering the fragile coalition necessary to move it forward?
Or does the spill so thoroughly highlight the desperate need to move towards a post-oil economy that it makes adoption more likely?
Only time will tell.
But it may well be that the more lasting impact of the oil spill is measured in votes won or lost on the floor of the US Senate as opposed to dead turtles and grimy seabirds.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Dragon's Den: The Answer Is Blowing In The Wind
One in a continuing series of blogs for CBC's Dragon's Den:
Yesterday, the United States government made a very significant, and welcome, announcement: The first offshore wind project in US waters is going ahead. The 468 mW, US$1 billion project, which was opposed by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, will see 130 wind turbines erected about 5 miles off Cape Cod. When completed it will generate enough electricity to power 200,000 homes. To give you some perspective, northern Europe already has 2,000 mW of offshore turbines with a goal of reaching 40,000 mW by 2020.
Any North American plans are still penny ante in comparison.
Why is this a significant decision? The answer is this: Wind energy, and other non-polluting sources of electricity, are the cornerstone of the new green economy. Given the devastating global warming implications of carbon dioxide pollution, we need to move to non-polluting green energy as soon as possible. And wind is a big part of that equation. A recent article in Scientific American estimated that providing ALL of the world’s energy needs from wind, water and solar by 2030 is totally feasible.
The Ontario government has started to lay plans for this transition. The new and innovative Green Energy Act here in Ontario will both result in a reduction in global warming pollution, and a resuscitation of the province’s manufacturing economy. The government estimates the first batch of contracts announced under the Green Energy Act alone will create 20,000 direct and indirect green jobs and attract about $9 billion in private sector investment. Somebody in the world is going to make the wind turbine towers, blades and complicated internal mechanisms. If we want those jobs, we’d better make sure that manufacturing happens right here in Ontario.
Oh ya. And wind energy, as opposed to coal plants – North America’s most common source of energy at present -- doesn’t kill people.
If you haven’t picked up on it yet, I’m downright excited about wind energy. Which brings me to another of yesterday’s events, the small rally held at Queen’s Park in opposition to wind turbines. As someone who slugs it out every day in defence of the environment, I’ll be the first to admit there are some bone-headed wind energy proposals out there. Top of that list is the large project proposed just offshore of the world-renowned bird area of Point Pelee. But there’s a big difference between some badly sited individual projects, and the nonsensical claims being leveled at wind power with respect to phantom “health effects”.
By and large, Bob Dylan was right (as usual): the answer is blowing in the wind.
Yesterday, the United States government made a very significant, and welcome, announcement: The first offshore wind project in US waters is going ahead. The 468 mW, US$1 billion project, which was opposed by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, will see 130 wind turbines erected about 5 miles off Cape Cod. When completed it will generate enough electricity to power 200,000 homes. To give you some perspective, northern Europe already has 2,000 mW of offshore turbines with a goal of reaching 40,000 mW by 2020.
Any North American plans are still penny ante in comparison.
Why is this a significant decision? The answer is this: Wind energy, and other non-polluting sources of electricity, are the cornerstone of the new green economy. Given the devastating global warming implications of carbon dioxide pollution, we need to move to non-polluting green energy as soon as possible. And wind is a big part of that equation. A recent article in Scientific American estimated that providing ALL of the world’s energy needs from wind, water and solar by 2030 is totally feasible.
The Ontario government has started to lay plans for this transition. The new and innovative Green Energy Act here in Ontario will both result in a reduction in global warming pollution, and a resuscitation of the province’s manufacturing economy. The government estimates the first batch of contracts announced under the Green Energy Act alone will create 20,000 direct and indirect green jobs and attract about $9 billion in private sector investment. Somebody in the world is going to make the wind turbine towers, blades and complicated internal mechanisms. If we want those jobs, we’d better make sure that manufacturing happens right here in Ontario.
Oh ya. And wind energy, as opposed to coal plants – North America’s most common source of energy at present -- doesn’t kill people.
If you haven’t picked up on it yet, I’m downright excited about wind energy. Which brings me to another of yesterday’s events, the small rally held at Queen’s Park in opposition to wind turbines. As someone who slugs it out every day in defence of the environment, I’ll be the first to admit there are some bone-headed wind energy proposals out there. Top of that list is the large project proposed just offshore of the world-renowned bird area of Point Pelee. But there’s a big difference between some badly sited individual projects, and the nonsensical claims being leveled at wind power with respect to phantom “health effects”.
By and large, Bob Dylan was right (as usual): the answer is blowing in the wind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
