I'm sure Garrett Brown is a well-meaning guy, but his full page ad out today, appearing in dailies at the cost of a pretty penny, is a bit, well, underwhelming.
Garrett works with the tar sands industry on restoration, and is trumpeting the fact that due to breakthrough research, they are now planting trees as part of their restoration efforts, after they strip mine an area.
But, er, planting trees as a breakthrough?
We clearly have a long, long way to go. The newspapers can only rub their hands at the prospect of all that ad revenue they will get with every little thing the tar sands industry tries out.
Meanwhile, the planet burns.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Monday, May 31, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Hold Your Breath!
In response to a new report on air pollution in the tar sands released by Environmental Defence today, an Alberta government spokesman claimed of a spike in hydrogen sulphide:
"It's a nuisance issue, it's an odour issue, it's not a health issue," he said. "If you look at our overall air quality numbers, they're showing that 95 per cent of the time the air quality is good."
We found that air pollution in the tar sands region was at levels above what the Alberta government considers safe, known as "exceedances", 1,556 times in the 2009. High hydrogen sulphide levels were the main culprit.
Yet the World Health Organization says that exposure has respiratory, neurological and cardiovascular effects in humans, and that seniors and children are most at risk. Because of the serious toxic effects of exposure to high concentrations for very short time periods, it recommends that all exposure should be avoided. That hardly sounds like a mere nuisance issue, and residents in nearby Fort McKay have been raising concerns about the health impacts of that rotten egg smell wafting into their community on a routine basis.
The growing air pollution problem of the tar sands is another example of the federal government dropping the ball on its responsibility to protect the environment and human health. Three years ago, Prime Minister Harper promised to put mandatory caps on particularly harmful air pollution from industry. But with still nothing in place to clamp down on pollution, tar sands companies are pumping more and more dangerous pollutants into the air.
The spike in hydrogen sulphide is part of a larger trend. We found that the tar sands industry released almost double the amount of volatile organic compounds (which includes highly carcinogenic pollutants like benzene) in 2008 than it did in 2002, and nitrogen oxides rose by 50%.
If air quality is good 95% of the time as the Alberta government claims, will residents be asked to just hold their breath for the 5% of the time it's bad? It's time for the federal government to live up to its promise and put a cap on air pollution from the tar sands.
Gillian McEachern
Program Manager, Climate and Energy
"It's a nuisance issue, it's an odour issue, it's not a health issue," he said. "If you look at our overall air quality numbers, they're showing that 95 per cent of the time the air quality is good."
We found that air pollution in the tar sands region was at levels above what the Alberta government considers safe, known as "exceedances", 1,556 times in the 2009. High hydrogen sulphide levels were the main culprit.
Yet the World Health Organization says that exposure has respiratory, neurological and cardiovascular effects in humans, and that seniors and children are most at risk. Because of the serious toxic effects of exposure to high concentrations for very short time periods, it recommends that all exposure should be avoided. That hardly sounds like a mere nuisance issue, and residents in nearby Fort McKay have been raising concerns about the health impacts of that rotten egg smell wafting into their community on a routine basis.
The growing air pollution problem of the tar sands is another example of the federal government dropping the ball on its responsibility to protect the environment and human health. Three years ago, Prime Minister Harper promised to put mandatory caps on particularly harmful air pollution from industry. But with still nothing in place to clamp down on pollution, tar sands companies are pumping more and more dangerous pollutants into the air.
The spike in hydrogen sulphide is part of a larger trend. We found that the tar sands industry released almost double the amount of volatile organic compounds (which includes highly carcinogenic pollutants like benzene) in 2008 than it did in 2002, and nitrogen oxides rose by 50%.
If air quality is good 95% of the time as the Alberta government claims, will residents be asked to just hold their breath for the 5% of the time it's bad? It's time for the federal government to live up to its promise and put a cap on air pollution from the tar sands.
Gillian McEachern
Program Manager, Climate and Energy
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Dragon's Den: View from Down Under
Hello from Down Under, where I’m speaking about my book at the Sydney Writers’ Festival and jet-laggedly watching the sun rise over Sydney Harbour.
There’s a great assortment of environmental thinkers at this year’s Festival. My co-author Bruce Lourie and I are doing a panel later today with Bill McKibben who is here to talk about his new book “Eaarth” (an unusual title that he suggested to the crowd last night should be pronounced with an Arnold Schwarzenegger-style Austrian drawl). I had dinner with Tim Flannery last night, who chaired a great session on climate change politics post-Copenhagen. Raj Patel is also here, whose book “The Value of Nothing” is a trenchant critique of the unsustainability of our current economic model.
What’s really struck me being here in Australia – and I knew this already but it’s different seeing it close up – is the eery similarity between the environmental debate in Canada and Australia. As in Canada, the Australian federal government is paralyzed by the issue at the moment and whatever progress is occurring is happening at a State (or in Canada’s case, provincial) and municipal level.
As in Canada, where the companies running Alberta’s tar sands get whatever they want from the federal government, the coal lobby in Australia remains retrograde and extremely powerful.
And in the morning newspaper’s, there are even striking similarities between the kneejerk backlash to wind energy in both countries. In Ontario, the province’s Medical Officer of Health’s definitive ruling that there are no demonstrated links between wind turbines and health concerns has failed to satisfy the more strident wind energy opponents. And near Melbourne, a particular case study illustrates the danger of an ad hoc approach to siting new wind developments (which, thankfully, we’ve moved beyond in favour of a single, objective, provincial regulation in Ontario).
What does all this underline? That the environmental challenges we face, and the solutions we need, are truly global in nature. What’s true in the Great White North, is true Down Under. We have to find our way together.
There’s a great assortment of environmental thinkers at this year’s Festival. My co-author Bruce Lourie and I are doing a panel later today with Bill McKibben who is here to talk about his new book “Eaarth” (an unusual title that he suggested to the crowd last night should be pronounced with an Arnold Schwarzenegger-style Austrian drawl). I had dinner with Tim Flannery last night, who chaired a great session on climate change politics post-Copenhagen. Raj Patel is also here, whose book “The Value of Nothing” is a trenchant critique of the unsustainability of our current economic model.
What’s really struck me being here in Australia – and I knew this already but it’s different seeing it close up – is the eery similarity between the environmental debate in Canada and Australia. As in Canada, the Australian federal government is paralyzed by the issue at the moment and whatever progress is occurring is happening at a State (or in Canada’s case, provincial) and municipal level.
As in Canada, where the companies running Alberta’s tar sands get whatever they want from the federal government, the coal lobby in Australia remains retrograde and extremely powerful.
And in the morning newspaper’s, there are even striking similarities between the kneejerk backlash to wind energy in both countries. In Ontario, the province’s Medical Officer of Health’s definitive ruling that there are no demonstrated links between wind turbines and health concerns has failed to satisfy the more strident wind energy opponents. And near Melbourne, a particular case study illustrates the danger of an ad hoc approach to siting new wind developments (which, thankfully, we’ve moved beyond in favour of a single, objective, provincial regulation in Ontario).
What does all this underline? That the environmental challenges we face, and the solutions we need, are truly global in nature. What’s true in the Great White North, is true Down Under. We have to find our way together.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Top Doc gives turbines a clean bill of health
A definitive ruling has come from the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health on the impacts of wind turbines on human health. In a report released earlier today, Dr. Arlene King, Ontario's Chief Medical Officer announced that “The scientific evidence does not demonstrate any direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects according to a new report from of Health.”
The report (available here), was prepared with technical support from the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Council of Ontario Medical Officers of Health. The study reviewed existing literature (from 1970 to present) on wind turbines and health from scientific journals, documented case studies and other sources.
The report came after concerns have been expressed by members of the public and municipalities about possible effects of wind turbines on public health. While the report said there were reports of perceived adverse health impacts, these reports were not documented in scientific literature and the studies had severe methodological limitations due to bias and lack of exposure data, to name a few.
Given this important new evidence we need to move forward in developing Ontario’s wind resources, while ensuring that certain guidelines are strictly upheld. All types of development, noisy or not, need to be planned appropriately. As with gas power plants, 400-series highways and skyscrapers, there are places where wind turbines, hydro dams and biogas plants might not be appropriate, but decisions need to be based on scientific and measurable standards.
The report (available here), was prepared with technical support from the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Council of Ontario Medical Officers of Health. The study reviewed existing literature (from 1970 to present) on wind turbines and health from scientific journals, documented case studies and other sources.
The report came after concerns have been expressed by members of the public and municipalities about possible effects of wind turbines on public health. While the report said there were reports of perceived adverse health impacts, these reports were not documented in scientific literature and the studies had severe methodological limitations due to bias and lack of exposure data, to name a few.
Given this important new evidence we need to move forward in developing Ontario’s wind resources, while ensuring that certain guidelines are strictly upheld. All types of development, noisy or not, need to be planned appropriately. As with gas power plants, 400-series highways and skyscrapers, there are places where wind turbines, hydro dams and biogas plants might not be appropriate, but decisions need to be based on scientific and measurable standards.
Shooting the Messenger
Why tackle the problem when you can tackle those talking about it instead? Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice is going after the very cautious National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy for daring to suggest that Canada ranks near the bottom of the G8 countries when it comes to low carbon performance.
The problem Mr. Prentice has, though, is that it doesn't matter how many messengers you shoot if your record sucks. So far, all he has done in the positive column is to copy the U.S. on auto standards, because he had to.
Otherwise, he has successfully stalled any action on large polluters and cut programs that were helping renewable energy and housing retrofits. Our report shows that he is costing Canadians tens of thousands of jobs by failing to keep up with other countries in the transition to a clean energy economy.
Canadians can only be jealous looking across the pond at those other Conservatives who just took power in the UK. They just released their "programme for government" which in stark contrast to the Canadian Conservative government embraces a wide range of action on climate change. Do we shoot those Conservative messengers too?
Meanwhile, the Harper government remains stuck in its ideological bunker, keeping climate change off the G8/G20 agenda by saying that anything other than the economy is a "sideshow."
Yet, as David McLaughlin, president and CEO of the Round Table said: "...in a low-carbon world, the environment is the economy."
Until Harper and Prentice grasp that truth, Canada will continue to fall behind the rest of the world.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
The problem Mr. Prentice has, though, is that it doesn't matter how many messengers you shoot if your record sucks. So far, all he has done in the positive column is to copy the U.S. on auto standards, because he had to.
Otherwise, he has successfully stalled any action on large polluters and cut programs that were helping renewable energy and housing retrofits. Our report shows that he is costing Canadians tens of thousands of jobs by failing to keep up with other countries in the transition to a clean energy economy.
Canadians can only be jealous looking across the pond at those other Conservatives who just took power in the UK. They just released their "programme for government" which in stark contrast to the Canadian Conservative government embraces a wide range of action on climate change. Do we shoot those Conservative messengers too?
Meanwhile, the Harper government remains stuck in its ideological bunker, keeping climate change off the G8/G20 agenda by saying that anything other than the economy is a "sideshow."
Yet, as David McLaughlin, president and CEO of the Round Table said: "...in a low-carbon world, the environment is the economy."
Until Harper and Prentice grasp that truth, Canada will continue to fall behind the rest of the world.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
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!).
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Today's Shooter in Foot - CME
The interesting and disturbing phenomenon of people voting against their own interests - particularly in the U.S. - has been fairly well explored, but aren't Canadian business people supposed to be rational actors when it comes to their economic interests?Not entirely, it turns out. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters (CME) have joined tar sands interests in a big lobby push on Parliament Hill this week, pushing the one sided argument that tar sands means all economic upside. But, in doing so, is CME actually acting against the interests of its own members? Well, could be, if "manufacturing" and "exporting" are what it's all supposed to be about.
As we've explored before, because of expanded tar sands production, Canada is succumbing to "Dutch Disease," a term coined in the 1970's to describe the hollowing out of the Netherlands' manufacturing base when a major natural gas find pushed up the currency rate and priced its products out of international markets. The Canadian dollar now tracks closely with the price of oil, and with increasing scarcity, will go ever higher over time, thereby making the products of Canadian manufacturers more expensive vis-a-vis their international competitors.
One study found that 42 per cent of recent Canadian manufacturing job loss was due to our petro-dollar. The Government of Ontario estimates that a sustained 5 cent change in the dollar affects about $6 billion in Ontario's GDP. The Government of Quebec recently flagged the petro-dollar issue in its budget.
So, the question is whether CME lobbies on behalf of all of its members, or only those involved in the tar sands. If we are to have healthy manufacturing and exporting in Canada, we need to cure our Dutch Disease.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
