A balanced perspective on Fiji Water

One of my friends, ES, sent me a link to an article on Fiji Water. The article presents a balanced perspective (certainly more balanced than my previous blog post) on Fiji Water discussing the importance it plays for economic development. Some quotes:

"Even though it's shipped from the opposite end of the globe, even though it retails for nearly three times as much as your basic supermarket water, Fiji is now America's leading imported water, beating out Evian."

"Rakiraki has experienced the full range of Fiji's water problems—crumbling pipes, a lack of adequate wells, dysfunctional or flooded water treatment plants, and droughts that are expected to get worse with climate change. Half the country has at times relied on emergency water supplies, with rations as low as four gallons a week per family; dirty water has led to outbreaks of typhoid and parasitic infections."

"When such practices are criticized, Fiji Water's response is simple: "They don't have a ton of options for economic development," Mooney told U.S. News & World Report, "but bottled water is one of them. When someone buys a bottle of Fiji, they're buying prosperity for the country." Without Fiji Water, he said, "Fiji is kind of screwed."

Read more here: http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/fiji-spin-bottle?page=1

Also, check out the website of the Fiji Embassy in the US. At the top of the page, you can see an image of a Fiji Water bottle: http://www.fijiembassydc.com/

Could green energy take a hit from Ontario's government probe?

The Ontario government is in trouble. Again.

The Ontario Provincial Police is conducting a criminal investigation in some dirty business dealings between public sector staff and private sector firms. The public sector staff in question belong to the Ontario Realty Corporation, a corporation that lies under the authority of the Ministry of Energy & Infrastructure.

Uh oh. For proponents of green energy in Ontario, this could be worrying. A friend of mine, SH, posits that if any of the alleged improper business dealings are focused on the province's renewable energy program, the whole green energy movement in Ontario could be sunk beyond repair.

There is a chance that renewable energy could be involved. The government has given plenty of exclusive renewable deals to major private firms, most notably Samsung. The rhetorical push for community energy has not been followed by approvals for such projects, while private sector firms are receiving everything they need. These events have pissed off a lot of people. But have they been illegal? Time will tell.

If so, it is likely that green energy in Ontario would take a massive hit. The streamlining of approvals, reduction of effective public participation and the provincial supersession of municipal authority under the Green Energy Act have triggered opposition exponentially. Try to find an area in rural Ontario where opposition to a wind farm is not strong. Politically, the Progressive Conservatives have called for a moratorium on wind turbine development.

As ambitious as the government's program is, it has done much to help their popularity. This is far from the government's only concern. People are already angry about the HST, the deficit, scandals at E-Health and OLG and a plethora of different issues. Even other green programs have taken a hit, most recently the new Eco Fee, resulting in the government and Stewardship Ontario pointing fingers at one another.

Let's hope that green energy isn't involved in another government scandal, especially a criminal one.

Some Links on High Speed Rail in China

High Speed Rail (HSR) is major source of discussion today in fields such as Urban Planning, Transportation Engineering, Public Policy and Economics to name a few. Several countries (with the exception of Canada) are currently constructing or expanding their high speed rail networks. China has the world's longest high-speed rail network with 6,920 kilometres (see map) and will expand to 13,000 kilometers within the next three years. This won't be cheap.

Spending billions of Yuan on HSR construction should mean that ticket prices should be high to recover operating and maintenance costs, right? Well, in theory, but prices need to be competitive with airlines otherwise people won't use HSR. This will prove to be a challenge for the Chinese government as they will have to consider a number of incentives such as subsidizing fares to ensure that HSR is affordable for its citizens. Some argue that fares should be high at first to recover revenue to pay for operation and maintenance. An interesting debate indeed.

I blog about this and share links because HSR growth in China will help stabilize the country's greenhouse gas emissions in its transportation sector. It will (over the long-term) decrease demand for airlines services, it will advance China's transportation network, foster a greener ethic in its citizenry (insofar as HSR prices are affordable). The infrastructurist blog writes

"high speed rail has fully infiltrated the population, and it’s only getting bigger — by 2020, there will be HSR lines connecting every Chinese city with more than 500,000 residents, meaning that 90% of the country’s population of 1.3 billion will have HSR access." This is good, but will it be affordable?

To read about HSR competition with airlines, see here.

A blog post on HSR vs airlines in China, see here.

An interesting financial analysis criticizing HSR in China, see here.

For a critical commentary from HSR riders in China, see here.

Key message: HSR has the ability to drastically ameliorate China's national transportation system and significantly cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. It is a very sustainable transportation solution as we have seen in Europe and Japan. However, if tickets prices are too high and made unaffordable, ridership will be low and the billions of Yuan spent on HSR will be seen as a waste of money and hence anger a lot of people. HSR ticket prices need to be comparable (or cheaper) than airline tickets, this will require a lot of work on the policy front.

Water in China: Part II

Water quality in China is in need of desperate revitalization. For such a large developing (arguably now developed) country that has made immense economic progress over the past 20 years, it is no surprise that water quality has been a victim of such economic development. As discussed in part 1, the priorities of economic growth in China have superseded the priorities of environmental protection and ecological balance. Like part 1, all of the information in this post is derived from Peter Gleick's "China and Water" publication.

As reported by Peter Gleick, there is not a lot of information or data available on China’s water quality. However, China’s State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have published some data on China’s water quality and have made it available to the public. The data and resources reveal that many of China’s rivers are grossly polluted by human and industrial wastes. An uncounted number of aquatic species have been driven to extinction. An estimated 20,000 chemical factories, half of which are along the Yangtze River (China’s longest river) are dumping uncontrolled or marginally controlled pollutants into China’s rivers.

In 2006, nearly half of China’s major cities did not meet state drinking water quality standards. China’s 10th 5-year plan (2001-2006) mandated the construction of thousands of new wastewater treatment plants, yet a 2006 survey by SEPA revealed that half of the new plants actually built were operating improperly or not at all. In 2005, China’s experienced 1,400 environmental pollution accidents of which half involved water pollution. Water quality has been deteriorating in main rivers including the Songhua, Hai He, and Huai He rivers.

On a positive note, drinking tap water in Beijing has been declared “safe” under the country’s new national drinking water standards for 106 contaminants in spite of some local complaints about its taste. Unfortunately, the OECD has reported that hundreds of millions of Chinese are drinking water contaminated with inorganic pollutants such as arsenic and excessive fluoride including toxins from untreated factory wastewater. Some concerned farmers, living in contaminated regions grow grain with poor water quality, sell that grain and purchase grain from other parts of China they believe have safe water.

Make no mistake about it, untreated wastewater is so problematic affecting every facet of life including social, economic and personal development. Approximately 4.4 billion tons of untreated or partially treated wastewater are dumped into the Huai He River annually.

Now over to the positive and promising. So, we know that wastewater treatment is indeed a critical indicator of public health, environmental and economic progress. Even countries like the U.S. have had issues treating certain contaminants to improve water quality. Wastewater progress must be concomitant with the country’s other development indicators as it plays an indispensable role in ameliorating social and personal well-being.

Fortunately, the government has recognized this challenge and has pledged to commit more capital and labour towards the construction of more wastewater and water treatment plants. The country is also looking at private companies from abroad to assist with wastewater financing and construction.

“More traditional water-supply and treatment infrastructure is also being built rapidly, including water and wastewater treatment plants. Officials announced plans to build ten sewage disposal plants in northwest China’s Shaanxi province, along the Weihe River, the largest tributary of the Yellow River. Another 30 plants are to be built by 2010”.

In one agreement, French Water Company Veolia has set up a joint French-Chinese venture to build a series of water projects, including urban and industrial wastewater treatment plants, desalination facilities, water-treatment equipment, and water-management services in the northern city of Teda. This is just one example, other joint ventures will become more commonplace as the Chinese turn to foreign technical expertise to assist with such essential water projects to improve water quality. What is now needed is a clear institutional and legal framework committed to reducing industrial waste and using a more sustainable approach to water management.

While massive water companies like Veolia and Suez have earned notorious reputations –namely because of water privatization—they will nonetheless have an important role to play in countries like China for increasing public health standards and taking China into a more prosperous water future.

The final part of the series will feature discussion around the economics of water in China along with the importance of public participation in water projects.

The wacky world of wind energy opposition...

 So what do you hate about wind turbines?

Are they too imposing? Too loud? Do they kill too many birds and bats? Maybe you're worried that the low-frequency vibrations will cause headaches, faint or even cancers? Or maybe you're pissed off that the Ontario government is happy to give wind developers extra revenue directly from your wallet?

I bet it's because a list of bird mortalities from Ontario's Wolfe Island reads strikingly similar to a list of the dead at Auschwitz.

Sadly, this is an actual -- and outrageously distasteful -- comparison I have come across this summer from the representative of a major anti-wind community group. The development of wind energy in Ontario has generated a lot of opposition to wind. Unfortunately, passionate opposition brings out the worst in people. Or, as the case may be, brings out the worst people.

Ridiculous claims are not uncommon in the growing world of wind opposition. I have personally come across a story from a woman who claimed that her friend, who lives next to an industrial wind turbine, had to shovel up hundreds of dead birds every few mornings from her yard. Sure. Others I have spoken to have come across people who compare the impact of new wind turbines with the rape and murder of community members. Some of the members of these groups even suspect that the OPP and RCMP have tapped their phones and track their emails. Something tells me that they're a little too busy with real life. Oh, and the G20.

Unfortunately, these quacks are giving wind opposition a bad name. If a project is proposed, the looney tunes will headline the opposition, stirring up all sorts of anger, but ultimately eroding credibility and limiting the role of healthy, rational conversation and debate. The right wing Tea Party Movement in the United States is comparable.

You see, not all wind development is good. There is a good way and a bad way. Right now, lots of developers are doing it the bad way. Half-hearted public meetings; total ignorance of the local community; scoffs at concerned local governments and a purely economic focus. They, however, can not be entirely blamed for this. The provincial government, through the Green Energy Act, has made it perfectly legal to hold marginal public meetings and ignore municipal governments. In fact, it's almost encouraged, in the name of streamlined approvals and preventing any more climate change.

The major pro-wind groups, like the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA), immediately associate every bit of opposition with the wild claims held by the quacks I talked about earlier. Moreover, both CanWEA and the government have created an atmosphere of extremes: either you support wind power with us or you're against it along with the Holocaust comparison folks.

This isn't fair. Just because wind energy represents all sorts of good like 'green energy', energy independence and renewability, does not mean we can simply throw opposing arguments to the ground. There needs to be a reasonable conversation and the burden for such a transition falls on both sides. The government needs to stop being so antagonistic or it's going to find itself deeper in what is already a deep hole of political turmoil, and the crazy anti-wind people need to shut up and stay out of it. Do you really think anyone is going to listen to you if you compare wind turbine development with the Holocaust?

A professor at Trent once told me -- in a rather accusational way, I might add -- that I am pro-wind. I corrected her and told her that I am actually only pro-wind if it is done right. That means effective public consultation and even participation, designing the projects appropriately and making sure the risks and benefits of the project are distributed equally with both developers and the surrounding community. I'm not a gung-ho, wind at all costs kind of guy and I don't believe she is a crazy anti-wind whacko.

There is a right way to do it and a wrong way. Let's try to figure out the right way.

Image Credit: Soul Online

Not every windy area needs wind energy...

Wind energy is all the rage. If most proponents of renewable energy development had their way, wind turbines would be put up in every region of the world. Governments would be encouraged to implement wind energy systems as quickly as possible and provide significant economic incentives (such as feed-in-tariffs) at high cost. The Al Gores of the world would think this great. Why on earth isn't everybody doing it?

I also thought this way up until I started doing work on my Honours Thesis earlier this year. The health and aesthetic concerns of wind turbines aside, it seemed odd to me that more governments in Canada weren't jumping on the wind energy bandwagon in quite the same fashion that Ontario was. Ontario, after all, recently introduced the Green Energy Act, which includes very high rates provided for generators of wind-sourced electricity.

My thesis included a study of Manitoba, Alberta and Nova Scotia in addition to Ontario. Although each province had significant wind resources -- it is quite windy -- some have a lot more wind energy than others. In Manitoba particularly the rates were quite low and much of it can easily be explained by its current electricity system. Hydroelectricity makes up 98% of all electricity generated in Manitoba and the province generates much more than it uses. Hydro, although not considered green by some, is generally emissions-free, extremely reliable and long-lasting. With the exception of diversifying its generation makeup, Manitoba has no real reason to build wind turbines.

The other three provinces have currently and historically relied on fossil fuel-based electricity generation, primarily from coal, natural gas and even petroleum. In response to climate change and the desire for renewable energy technologies -- and in Ontario's case, reducing air pollution -- these provinces have had considerable incentive to move away from fossil-fuel generation and towards wind energy. It makes sense for them, even if it means putting lots of money into it.

For places like Manitoba that don't really need wind energy, they shouldn't invest into it. Just because wind energy is the trendy thing to do with energy these days does not mean it belongs everywhere.

Canada's era for high speed rail?

I have been doing a lot of reading these days on high speed rail (HSR) technology and its potential implementation in Canada. Both the U.S. and Canada are far behind the EU and Japan in terms of achieving any efficient and effective high speed rail network. In fact, while both Canada and the U.S. have not started building high speed rail, President Obama has at least announced $8 billion in grants for the country's first national, high-speed intercity rail service.

Bringing about HSR is a huge investment. Paul Langan, founder of High Speed Rail Canada, continues to provide many compelling arguments and very insightful analysis into the numerous benefits associated with HSR. To view more information about HSR in Canada, please visit Paul's website: http://highspeedrail.ca/.

In the U.S., models project job creation of 1,750 jobs per year over 25 years and estimated savings of over 2,700 tonnes of CO2 per year in the U.S. The California High-Speed Rail Authority estimates its planned line will save 12.7 million barrels of oil per year by 2030, even with future improvements in auto fuel efficiency.

Another projection by the Center for Neighborhood Technology calculated that passengers would (assuming all proposed U.S. HSR lines were built) take 112 millions HSR trips in the U.S. in 2025 (when it is projected to be complete). This would result in 29 million fewer automobile trips and nearly 500,000 fewer flights. Domestic flights and the inter-state highway system in America have a huge carbon output and only exacerbate air pollution in urban areas. Such an HSR system would significantly improve transportation in the U.S. and alleviate pressure on domestic flights.

Let's turn to Canada. There are two corridors in Canada that are well suited for HSR: the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor and the Calgary-Edmonton corridor, both of which have good population density and sufficient traffic. A tonne of studies have been completed demonstrating the advantages of HSR in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Indeed, a 1995 study shows that by 2025, with the implementation of HSR, specifically 300 km/h technology, annual emissions of CO2 and carbon monoxide related to inter-city travel within the corridor would drop by 24% and 11% respectively. That's significant especially given the importance of sustainable transport in this era of climate change.

Another study shows how HSR lines require less space to move a greater number of people than present highway systems. The 2004 Van Horne Institute Study on the Calgary-Alberta high-speed potential line shows that 16,000 people can be moved using only 30% of the space of a four-lane divided highway- which can only move 10,500 passengers. Less space for transportation infrastructure means more space for wetlands, preservation sites and forested areas.

There are so many studies out there that have thoroughly investigated the merits of HSR. While much of this is hypothetical, based on models and predictions, it really boils down to money. The Province of Ontario is currently not well positioned to fund such an HSR line (Windsor-Quebec City). However, the Province should collaborate with Quebec and the feds for building this project. It would make travel times considerably faster and cost less than the current Via rail system. For example, a trip from Ottawa to Guelph (328 KM) takes about six and a half hours with the current Via rail train and costs $200. HSR, would cost $175 for this trip (based on a model) and would probably take only three hours (that's right, half the time of the Via train!)

If not in Ontario, Alberta might be better positioned to lead our nation with an HSR line. This line (would be Canada's first) would provide evidence of its many benefits (job creation, cutting down on automobile dependence, more efficient use of space) and perhaps an impetus to kick start other HSR lines across the country.

Canada is a vast nation with a small population density. Alas, this makes HSR less appealing. However, given the importance of transportation in the 21st century, given the great potential for job creation, and given what other nations are doing (China is now building 7,000 kilometers of dedicated HSR routes), it is time for Canada to jump on board and build its first HSR line.

For a comprehensive summary regarding the pros and cons of HSR, I would encourage you to read David Levinson's blog, the transportationist. Dr. Levinson is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Minnesota and is regarded as one of the smartest thinkers on transportation in the U.S.

More to come on HSR.

Guest Entry: Does anyone know about Bill C-474?

By: Emmalea Davis

Does anyone know about Bill C-474, because it just broke a record in Parliament this past Wednesday, when it passed its second reading in the House? The Bill is a Private Members Bill, proposed by an NDP representative from British Columbia’s Southern Interior, Alex Atamanenko. Titled “An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations”, it proposes that all genetically engineered organisms are subject to a market analysis as part of the approval process undertaken by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) under the Seeds Act. On Wednesday after a close – 153 to 134 – vote, the Bill became the first proposing changes to the rules regarding genetically engineered (GE) organisms to make it past a second reading in the House.

Since 2001, more than ten Private Members Bills have been set before the House of Commons, with only two even being selected for debate (2001 and again in 2008). Both of these were regarding mandatory labelling of GE foods, and both were defeated (126-91 and 156-101, respectively). Wednesday was the first time a Bill regarding GE foods was voted on, and supported, twice. It has now moved on to the Agriculture Committee, for study and likely amendments, before it will once again be voted on in the House. 

If approved, the Bill would move onto the Senate for review and voting, and hopefully pass into law. Fingers crossed that Parliament doesn’t get prorogued again, before the House has time to consider the final draft coming out of the Agricultural Committee, which is what happens to far too many Bill these days.

Whether you are for or against, or don’t even care, about GE organisms, this Bill should interest you. Not only is it breaking Parliamentary records, but it is also the first time Parliament has acknowledged (through their support for a Bill like this) that perhaps Canada’s regulatory system regarding these “Novel Foods” isn’t perfect. 

The call for a market analysis before approving these new organisms comes out of the current problems faced by Canadian flax farmers. In September of 2009, Germany discovered GE contamination in flax shipped from Canada. By November over 34 countries were reporting contamination from our flax, and Europe and Japan (our largest and third largest flax export markets – with the US in second) closed their markets. Today, though the markets are open again, farmers have to pay for 3-tier testing, once in Canada and then again when the shipment gets to Europe. If any contamination is detected, the shipment is sent back. Canada is the world’s largest flax exporter, and flax farmers have seen prices drop over 1/3, while at the same time are having to pay for multiple tests to certify their seeds and harvest are contamination-free. 

Even worse, 2009 was a record year, and Canada now has a ridiculous surplus of flax which no one (aside from the US) wants. This same scenario played out in 1998 for Canadian canola farmers, and due to huge contamination issues Canadian organic canola farmers lost their certification – for good.

The scariest piece about the flax issue is that the source of contamination (CDC Triffid Flax) was deregistered and thought to be entirely destroyed in 2001, when flax farmers protested its approval for sale in Canada due to fears that just this sort of scenario might take place. Though the flax was determined to be “substantially equivalent” (and therefore safe) to conventional flax, flax farmers were so upset that its creator, the University of Saskatchewan, agreed to its deregistration. (Call me cynical, but if it had been Monsanto or Dupont the farmers would likely have had a much bigger fight on their hands.) Regardless, eight years later, no one knows how the contamination by a strain thought to be eliminated has managed to ‘infect’ so many farmers’ fields – especially considering the seed was never sold commercially.

Bill C-474 is not about opposing GE technology, nor placing unnecessary red-tape in the approval process. It is about ensuring that farmers will be protected from this happening again, by forcing the CFIA or the proponent of the new organism to ensure that there will be a market for both crops (conventional and engineered), even if contamination occurs. If this assessment had been done in the case of flax, it is likely it would never have been approved for field testing (in open fields in Saskatchewan from 1989-1995). 

We know that pollen and seeds can’t be contained. We know that Canada is far more permissive with this technology than most of our trading partners, and we know that we are likely not going to change either of those facts anytime soon. The most important thing we can do, at this point, is to make sure our farmers, who are already under severe economic burdens, are protected. And that they no longer are responsible for paying the price when our technology gets away from us.

For anyone interested in seeing how their MP voted on Wednesday, click here. And you can find out more about the Bill and the flax issue here or from a more anti-GE perspective here. 

The Tories pull a few quick ones...

Environmental politics don't seem to emanate too widely here in Canada, and the Conservatives would love to keep it that way. The two most recent happenings on the environmental front are case in point.

Although publicly released earlier in March, the intricacies 2010-2011 budget were not fully released until a few days ago. In these new details, it was revealed that the federal environmental assessment process was, in almost every sense of the word, being gutted.

When projects are applying for federal government approval, they are normally required to complete an environmental assessment. These assessments, though not free of problems, tend to take at least one year and review each nitty, gritty aspect of a project's impact on the environment. The process is in many ways the strongest line of defence against environmentally unfriendly projects. The new regulations, which were tacked on to the bottom of a budget bill in a particularly sneaky fashion, gives the Environment Minister authority to reduce what parts of a project need to be subjected to an assessment.

Quite simply, the most damaging parts of projects like those in the Oil Sands, wouldn't need to go through a full environmental assessment. This has undoubtedly been a keen interest of the governing Conservatives for some time, so to some this is not all that surprising. However, it is the fact that this aspect wasn't publicly released that is very bothering.

The second dent of the day came when the government announced that the possibility of entering into its extremely popular ecoENERGY home retrofit program was coming to a close. Most programs come to an end, but it was especially alarming that the deadline to enter the program was midnight of the same day the deadline was announced, leaving people to scramble to have assessments done that day. The date was arbitrary and largely unforeseen. For service providers, this means a lot of their clients -- many of which had scheduled months before for a home visit -- will be left without a home visit.

This is also mischievous because the program itself does not end until March of 2011, so the government will still brag about the program. It is true that the program can take over a year to complete in its entirety, but a little more notice would have been nice. Cancelling the program, which has been extremely popular since its creation under the previous Liberal government, has always been controversial (and delayed) because of its popularity. Cancelling it in concert with its very popular Home Renovation tax credit is sure to piss some people off, especially in this time of 'economic stimulus'.

It is not a secret that this government does not consider the environment a priority, but they should at least be upfront about it, rather than pulling sneaky tactics like this.  

Why would you cut a Conservation Authority?

Conservation authorities are absolutely critical to the success of watershed and regional planning. When I think of organizations that endeavour to promote environmental stewardship and responsible development, conservation authorities are the first thing that come to my mind. I am not sure how familiar our readers are with Conservation Authorities (CAs) not to be confused with chartered accountants. This post will provide some information. Trent Emeritus Professor of Geography, John Marsh, wrote an excellent letter to the editor on this topic found here.

CAs ensure that housing development is built in a way that minimizes impact (usually runoff from construction) on water quality, watersheds, native species, aquatic species and other. They have intimate knowledge of environmental issues within the communities that they operate. Without conservation authorities, it would be much easier for developers to build their sub-divisions and housing projects with minimal consideration for the environment.

I blog about this because the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority (ORCA) is currently under pressure from being dissolved. Specifically, the township of Asphodel–Norwood (located in Peterborough County) wants to cut the CA. Asphodel-Norwood Township council wants to put the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority out of business. Last week, Council passed a motion to dissolve the conservation authority. They're acting on a recommendation made by the Peterborough County Landowners Association. Landowners association? Are you really surprised? As mentioned, without CAs, the development process is much easier and less resisted.

The thought of putting a conservation authority out of business is not only absurd, but borders on stupidity. We always talk about the importance of more sustainable communities and the need to ensure that our water is safe and our environment protected. Well, in Ontario, Conservation Authorities are our community-based environmental experts. They use integrated, ecologically sound environmental practices to manage Ontario’s water resources on a watershed basis. They also help in maintaining secure supplies of clean water and protect communities from flooding.

The good thing is that CAs are backed by the Conservation Authorities Act which is provincial legislation that ensure the conservation, restoration and responsible management of water, land and natural habitat through programs that balance human, environmental and economic needs. The key here is “balance” something developers do not always like.

The Otonabee Region Conservation Authority has been around since 1959. I actually interviewed them for my thesis on water management and planning issues. I found them to be very professional, insightful and knowledgeable about the critical environmental issues in the area.

Landowners associations or developers in general may very well oppose such community-based organizations like ORCA. They think that ORCA slows down the development process and interferes with their “business”. Well, ORCA’s "business" is to provide analysis and recommendations on how to build around a watershed and environmentally sensitive sites. ORCA's recommendations are in the best interest for the community, the natural environment and native species- all of which are threatened by unmonitored and rampant housing development.

Key message: We should feel honoured and lucky to have conservation authorities in our province. Their expertise and presence has hitherto been critical for environmental protection and ensuring that our water supplies are safe and not threatened by development.

An environmental military...

In my class this morning we watched clips from an episode of Whale Wars, a series that follows the radical anti-whaling actions of the environmental group, Sea Shepherd. The group uses a decades old sea-faring vessel, aptly named the Steve Irwin, to hunt down whaling fleets and stop them from hunting whales. A variety of tactics are used, including fire hoses, ramming and even non-toxic, environmentally friendly homemade stinkbombs that make it impossible to work on the deck of the ship.

Sea Shepherd is one of a select few environmental groups that go to such radical and violent lengths to take action and get their message across. Indeed, its founder, Paul Watson (the original founder of Greenpeace and senior member until they kicked him out for his violent strategies) has long said that the traditional forms of protest often lead to no action whatsoever.

The tactics employed by Sea Shepherd are indeed dangerous, but they are also fairly militaristic. Some members of the crew of the Steve Irwin have formal naval experience. In a way, Sea Shepherd represents a very small navy (it has some other ships as well) and it has even titled its fleet, Neptune's Navy.

It has got me thinking. What if Sea Shepherd could grow bigger? What if donations swelled to such a degree that they could purchase even more ships and even more advanced equipment? Soon enough, Sea Shepherd could have itself a solid fleet capable of holding considerable influence. Theoretically, it could have a navy larger than most other countries in the world (mind you, the sophistication and militaristic specialization of the vessels might be lacking).

And what if some other environmental groups with similar radical action plans got involved and their budgets expanded hugely? They could amass the equivalent of a small air force with planes and helicopters. Sea Shepherd already has at least one helicopter. Again, theoretically, some kind of informal environmental military could be established.

Of course, what the intentions of such a force would be would certainly influence the rest of the world's response to it. For instance, Sea Shepherd's actions on whaling and fishing vessels have resulted in arrest warrants been put out in particular countries, though not in its home base of the United States. It has yet to attract enough attention to be considered overly dangerous and require a global response. Of course, if this hypothetical military force started doing more than hassling whalers, more people might start to take notice.

And whether or not such a force could actually find a market in which it could do its work is also an important question to ask. Much of the success of Sea Shepherd has come because it is working towards a specific cause and also working primarily in the global policy grey zone: international waters. This hypothetical force would probably want to expand its mandate, but expanding too far could get it into trouble, especially if much of its work didn't happen outside national boundaries.

It is an interesting proposition, but is marred by countless factors: How would you finance it? Where's the line between 'direct action environmental group' and 'dangerous vigilantes'? What happens if it actually goes to battle with another major force, like a private security force or even a national government?

Now, I would imagine it highly unlikely that the world's globalized security forces would let something like that form. After all, Sea Shepherd is not a sovereign state and national governments would not have to go through the same international process to shut it down -- not that sovereignty always stops them, but that's beside the point. Moreover, who knows whether groups like Sea Shepherd would even want to participate in something that grew beyond its current mandate, size and scope. And I very much doubt that any force of this nature would want to kill anyone.

In light of such an unlikely formation, I can see two semi-legitimate uses for this hypothetical environmental paramilitary force. First, it could serve as a private security force. The United States government, for example, has been using a private security force in Iraq for several years, although it is subject to a great deal of controversy. Theoretically, the environmental force could do contract work for organizations or causes that it sees fit to help. Say some e-waste activists can't get a certain government to stop shipping its e-waste to China even if it is blocked under international law, so instead it decides to stop the ship using direct action by blockading the ship with the paramilitary fleet. But considering that Paul Watson prefers volunteers for Sea Shepherd work -- volunteers have a greater interest and aren't doing it simply for the paycheque, he argues -- he probably wouldn't want to contract his work out for money.

The second application I could see for such a force would be as the de-facto enforcers of international laws. Sea Shepherd already acts in that regard with specific international laws. One of the biggest problems with international laws, after they have been signed and ratified, is global enforcement. Other than groups like the United Nations Security Forces, there are few or no global security forces to uphold international laws. This hypothetical force could do that for environmentally-related international laws, at least to some degree. Of course, the formal complexities of such an idea are well beyond the scope of this post.

I'll finish by noting that by no means am I advocating for such an environmental paramilitary force, but merely exploring the idea. I certainly prefer peaceful and non-violent solutions to problems, but we all know that that doesn't always work.  

Goodbye US Climate Bill, Hello Carbon Tax?...

Barack Obama and the Democrats were sent a hefty blow the other day when, in a surprising turn of events, a Republican nominee was able to win the Massachusetts Senate seat left vacated by the late Edward Kennedy. Having a Democrat win the seat was initially seen as an inevitability, but it was not to be so.

The big talk these days is that this win for the Republicans could sink the huge health care bill currently being put together by congress because this Republican win puts 41 Republicans in the Senate, enough to filibuster any bill.

But the next big ticket item on Obama's agenda is a climate bill in the Senate, which's main component is a cap-and-trade system. Considering how long it has taken the health bills to get this far, most aren't expecting the climate bill -- one barely got through the House of Representatives -- to get too far in the next year. That year-long time frame is very important. In November, the Americans go to the polls for the Midterm elections, where several Senate and House seats are up for grabs. Considering how much popularity Obama (and by association, the Democrats) has lost over his first year, many are expecting the Republicans to gather up most of those seats.

The US climate bill is almost by definition guaranteed to be disliked by Republicans -- to be fair, some are very willing to do something about climate change -- but many Democrats (especially those from the coal-producing states) are opposed to the climate bill. Such contention makes passing the bill especially difficult, and even more so to pass something that will be in any way moderately effective. Indeed, the most optimistic of realists are expecting something very watered down, with multiple exemptions for certain emitters and low emissions reduction targets.

To many, the climate bill might as well be off the table, at least until after the midterm elections. Stephen Hill, a professor at Trent, thinks it could possibly return in a year or so without a cap-and-trade system, but rather a carbon tax. Americans are even less encouraged by new taxes than Canadians, and we all saw how the carbon tax went over here in the last federal election. But interestingly, some of the most environmentally-unfriendly companies in the US, like Exxon-Mobil, are in support of a carbon tax.

To the naked eye, this seems highly unlikely. But these companies see the writing on the wall and some kind of climate-related legislation is bound to come into play relatively soon -- if anything, the EPA will use its power to regulate greenhouse gases. Under a cap-and-trade system the price of carbon fluctuates and businesses can never be too sure how hard it will hit their balance sheets each year. For companies that are huge and have less than impressive carbon emission histories, such fluctuation could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. A carbon tax, however, is predictable, which is highly valuable to businesses. Moreover, the cost of the tax is borne both by industry and consumers, so businesses don't take as much of the hit. And for the more cynically-minded, it is much easier to influence the price of the tax when the government controls it (see coal, gas & oil lobby) than when the market has control.

But Obama likes the cap-and-trade, and so do the Democrats (for the most part). For now it looks like very little will come about, but who knows about the future? We can only hope the EPA starts to wield its axe or Congress puts something together. I'm not feeling too optimistic about the latter...      

Looking ahead in 2010…

Copenhagen Conference = millions of emissions released into atmosphere + millions of dollars spent + non-legally binding targets + more cynicism in the climate change sphere.

Not to go on rant about the troubles and challenges of Copenhagen, but I vehemently believe that global targets on emissions are too hard to implement! For a long time, I have argued that cities need to play a much more active role in combating climate change. 50% of the world’s population now live in urban environments- growing cities around the world have their own problems with pollution, transportation and waste management, but they also have innovation, ideas and talent.

I hope this decade witnesses a rise in municipal leadership; especially in the Canadian environment. In Canada, we know that energy consumption and emissions reduction are subject to decisions by all three levels of government; the federal government sets environmental standards and impact assessments, provinces have constitutional authority over natural resources, and municipalities directly influence transportation, land use and housing. We should be trying to overcome this inherent complexity in multilevel governance relationships within Canada, specifically over climate change.

If cities were given more power and funding from the feds (because cities have no money) we could very well see some critical changes in our transportation systems, air pollution strategies, waste diversion programs like recycling and composting and housing design that incorporates energy efficiency and renewable resources. All of these endeavours are possible to administer at the city level, insofar as our municipal leaders actively engage with the private sector to advance change on the environment and economy. There are countless examples of cities that have gone the extra mile to address climate change, remember “wisdom way solar village”?

Also, whatever happen to energy audit programs that were once successful in cities such as Waterloo? Energy audit programs are just another example of how cities can significantly address climate change. Homeowners would love to learn about how they can live comfortably while concomitantly cutting down on energy usage.

I think cities need to have access to funding, especially for administering energy audits to ensure that the actions stimulated by the incentive are most appropriate or provide the best return for homeowner investment. Local climate action from cities and municipalities are indispensable in the fight against climate change. Cities must start forming partnerships with their utility companies, consulting firms and other stakeholders to share the costs and increase local awareness. This is how citizens at the local level can be more engaged and hence more willing to make changes to their everyday lives.

Key message: Progress on climate change action requires local participation where people feel engaged and learn about practical ways to do the right thing for the planet. This may be buying a more efficient dishwasher, making solar energy more viable or having access to waste diversion programs for example. The interests at the grassroots can only be sustained if the city is willing to provide resources, incentives and enact policies that are progressive for our planet.

Mixed land uses: Downtown Peterborough...

As part of a class assignment, I recently submitted a letter to Peterborough’s Director of Planning and Development Services. It was a letter regarding Peterborough’s downtown and how it can greatly benefit from incorporating mixed land uses. By mixed land uses, I mean combining commercial and residential units together to optimize space and make the downtown more compact. Below, you will find a compressed version of the letter:

As a student studying geography and the environment and learning about the importance of urban densification for sustainability and economic efficiency, the present growth in Peterborough concerns me. I recommend that the city use an intensification strategy to bring about more mixed land uses in the downtown area. Intensification is a common urban planning strategy for achieving compactness, using land more efficiently by increasing the density of development and activity.

I believe that such an undertaking will help boost the economic vibrancy of the local economy and increase the densification of the urban growth centre, ultimately benefiting both the environment and the economy.

Without stifling the city’s housing market, new commercial development in the city should be mixed with residential units. Mixed land use reduces the probability of using a car for commuting, shopping and leisure trips because jobs, shops and leisure facilities are located nearby. This would be a win-win for Peterborough’s local economy as residents would be living closer to local business and retail stores and farther away from the Big-Box stores like Wal-Mart and Future Shop.

As an example, Harvey’s fast food restaurant at the corner of Sherbrooke and Water Street has tremendous potential to turn into a mixed land use development. Located next to the Otonabee River and in the heart of downtown, it can integrate local businesses, retail, restaurants and residential uses. In addition, such a development would replace the eye-sore that currently occupies the land and turn it into a more compact, liveable and sustainable form.

By mixing commercial and residential units, not only would the city increase the densification of the downtown, but it would be ensuring that many services are within a reasonable distance, thus encouraging cycling and walking. Other environmental benefits to this would include a reduction in air pollution and traffic congestion, as well as to stimulate the interaction of residents, by increasing pedestrian traffic and generally improving neighbourhood charm.

By mixing land uses, we are increasing the number of people concentrated within an existing urban area, and thus these people are now living closer to businesses, public amenities and even recreational activities. Recreational activities would include parks, beaches and campgrounds. Therefore, this might generate more revenue for the restaurant, and stimulate more business activity for other services and commercial establishments, thereby directing a greater flow of capital towards Peterborough’s local businesses and less towards Big-Box stores around the sub-divisions.

One of the main objectives of Peterborough’s new amendment to their Official plan is to provide greater choice in housing types to meet the needs of people at all stages in life. I would challenge developers by saying that housing and commerce will increasingly be concentrated in the urban area; so exploring multi-unit housing complexes near the downtown can be profitable.

As other cities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe increase their urban densities through more compact and mixed use development, Peterborough will face pressures to follow suit.

Key message: Developing Peterborough into a more economically and environmentally sustainable city is a process that might take many years; however, engaging private developers on this matter is a good first step.

Where'd the Otonabee River go?...

Well, it has finally happened. All the Maude Barlows and Tim Shahs of the world were right all along about the water crisis. Peterborough has run out of water.

I kid, of course. But considering the state of the Otonabee River over the past few weeks, it wouldn't be too surprising.

I was probably as surprised as anyone else when I walked downtown by the waterfront to find a dainty little stream where the mighty Otonabee River used to be. The water levels were down drastically, as the few small islands of the Otonabee all of a sudden looked like overbearing mainland. Worst of all -- aesthetically, at least -- was the unfortunate state of the exposed ground that had formerly been river-bottom. The weirdly coloured muddy surface was not a particularly desirable replacement for the river.

But more of a problem was the fact that there was very little water left. So where did it go?

Well, as it turns out, some emergency repairs had to be done on one of the locks south of Lansdowne. Clearly the necessary repairs warranted more than a couple folks hopping in with SCUBA gear with a hammer and nails in hand, so the federal authorities (who manage the lock system) decided to drain the thing. Apparently, this involves draining the river several kilometres upstream, too.

The pictures I've included are from outside my house just north of downtown on the Otonabee. The river was down between two and three metres and looked considerably different. Some islands have been exposed, a big patch of mud lies covered with seagulls and ducks and the river's edge has a tidal feel to it. The river looked much worse farther south. Compare the third with the fourth, which are taken from the same area.

Draining a river several metres is not without its risks. In an interview with the Peterborough Examiner, Trent professor Tom Whillans outlined several of the environmental effects this could have. Many of the concerns are focused on the impacts it might have on wildlife. According to Whillans, all sorts of creatures are at risk, but only if the river bed area freezes for an extended period. Lucky for the fishes and turtles, this December has been usually warm. I knew there was a silver lining to the Tar Sands projects.

The water levels appear to be back to normal now and the timing couldn't be better. The snow is finally coming down and it is expected to stay, for a few days at least.

So the crisis is averted. Phew. That I know our water is OK, I think I'll go water my driveway for the day...  

G&M Rejects: The Questionable Future of Ontario's Green Energy Act...

I've started taking it upon myself to submit pieces to the Globe & Mail. Anyone can do this, simply by submitting a 700-word piece to comment@globeandmail.ca on any topic they would like. However, the likelihood of actually getting published is fairly small. They get roughly 30 of these submissions per day and many of them come from people who frequently write for different news outlets. But it's worth a shot. They give you about a two week window to decide if they will print it. Sadly, my two weeks are up. So here it is: 

It may only be a few months old, but Ontario’s landmark Green Energy Act (GEA) legislation could soon find itself in hot water. Environmentalists and green energy advocates alike might very well choose to dispel such a statement amidst their victorious celebrations, but let us not ignore the political realities of the GEA. While much of the legislation’s content is not particularly controversial and quite popular, it faces pressure for a few key reasons.




The first such reason is cost. The government is allocating $5-billion over a three year period to the GEA, much of which will be put towards investment in the current electricity infrastructure. Investment in the system is absolutely necessary, but some might say that a few billion dollars in only a few years might be pushing it. Regardless of the appropriateness of the government spending, billions of dollars worth of investment in a new program will almost always breed critics. Furthermore, the significant conservation programs and hefty Feed-in-Tariffs that will spur renewable energy development – the other two fifths of the GEA budget – have left those in opposition to the act chomping at the bit, most notably Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives. The criticisms range from overvaluation of the conservation programs to the unfair market distortions that will be created by government subsidies, but it is clear that the GEA is not a political lovefest in Ontario.

Dalton McGuinty’s government could very well suffer from some of the GEA measures. This is what GEA proponents should really be worried about. It is not too surprising, as any large, progressive legislation is often fraught with political risk. From within the GEA itself, the risk stems from the centralized and streamlined approvals process for renewable energy projects that removes the autonomy of the local municipalities. While touted by its proponents as a mechanism of efficiency, this particular tool of the GEA could backfire as local opposition to green projects swells. Indeed, during a well-packed community meeting in October in Manvers, Ontario, a proposed wind farm was heavily scrutinized by the 500 strong crowd. But the criticism wasn’t just reserved for the wind project itself; the crowd, residing in a Liberal-controlled riding, took direct aim at the McGuinty government and its support for projects like this. Manvers is only one of a growing many places where the GEA will really touch some nerves.


The biggest risk lies within the factors the GEA has no control over. That is, the current state of affairs of Dalton McGuinty’s government. The E-Health scandal, high unemployment rates and a severely hindered economy have done little to raise the public confidence of the provincial government. Indeed, an unprecedented $25-billion move into the red could spell political disaster. Interestingly, this budget shortfall does not even account for the money expected to be doled out in the GEA. At best, several of the grand ambitions of the GEA will have to be revised or dropped outright for lack of funds. The next provincial election is not for another two years, but if a the PCs manage to regain power in Ontario, you can be sure that a good chunk of the GEA will be changed significantly, if not removed.

But the trouble for the GEA does not stop there. Its most vehement political supporter, Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, “Furious” George Smitherman, announced his plan to resign in March to run in Toronto’s mayoral race. If anything is proposed to happen to the GEA, he won’t be around to stop it. Eyeing the budget shortfall, some of his colleagues in Cabinet that he so passionately fought off when proposing the GEA will seek to cut up the more flexible and politically viable aspects of the act. Unfortunately, these pieces might be some of the most progressive.

The GEA is indeed a landmark decision and the Ontario government should be applauded for implementing it. The sweeping measures taken will help to ensure a beneficial and efficient transition to a green energy future for the province. But in today’s political and economic climate, nothing is completely written in stone. Take advantage while you can because the Green Energy Act might be a limited time offer.

Climate change contrasts: The frustrating reality...

Trent University recently launched its Centre of Knowledge in the Environment, which consisted of two days of speakers and environmentally-focused events throughout the community. I had the pleasure of taking part in several of these events, most notably a meeting with Bharrat Jagdeo, the President of Guyana.

Mr. Jagdeo was speaking later that evening as the keynote speaker for the launch, but a group of students and faculty were able to meet with him earlier in the day to discuss some of his initiatives, particularly what he and his country are offering in the global climate change arena.

Guyana sits in the northern part of South America and is largely made up of rainforest. The destruction of the rainforest in South America has been one of the key tenets of the global environmental movement for decades and as the global climate change debate unfolds, it is becoming clear that deforestation is one of the biggest players. Indeed, approximately 20% of the world's GHG emissions are a result of deforestation, as huge amounts of CO2 are released to the atmosphere through the process of cutting them down. More importantly, the forests, which use CO2 to grow, can no longer capture and sequester large amounts of CO2, leaving more to sit in the atmosphere and warm the climate.

Guyana, however, is providing the world with an unprecedented offer. Rather than making an absolute killing on its rainforest resources and harvesting all of it, it is offering to conserve its rainforest in exchange for a substantial amount of funding from the developed world. Using a variety of variables, Guyana estimates that the amount of funding required would be equivalent to $4/tonne of CO2. If put on some of the world's pre-existing carbon markets (ex. EU) it would be a steal, as a tonne of CO2 is currently trading in the $20 range.

What Mr. Jagdeo is really offering is a different way to value our environment. The true costs of exploiting our environment have long been evident, but these days it is really being brought to the forefront of the mainstream mind. If we can put a formal economic value on something that has up until now been without a one, it will allow things like forests to be integrated into our economies and hopefully discourage unsustainable environmental exploitation.

It was certainly an inspiring discussion. Here in front of us was a real-life world leader talking about real-world stuff. This man will be going to Copenhagen and meeting with other world leaders to try to convince them to buy into this system. Some called it refreshing to hear a world leader being so proactive about the climate issue. Indeed, it is certainly better than what you hear about in Canada.

Just today, the Globe & Mail reported that Canada's Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, has effectively quashed any hope of Canada signing on to any global GHG reduction agreement that many are hoping will be forged in Copenhagen this December. Instead, Prentice considers the meeting act as a catalyst to smooth out future meetings where an agreement can be formalized. Considering the success of the last big climate agreement, Kyoto, Copenhagen may very well turn out to be a bust.

The Canadian federal government's position is not unique. Plenty of other countries are not prepared to legally commit to significant emissions reductions.

It is certainly disheartening to realize that the inspiring Guyanan President you meet one day will be pitching his wonderful ideas to the likes of unenthusiastic Jim Prentice types.

Stern on contemporary issues surrounding climate change...

Does everyone remember the Stern review on the economics of Climate Change? It was a 700-page report produced by Nicholas Stern, an economist in Britain. Released in October 2006, Stern wrote this paper to convince the British government and the world in general, that not taking action on climate change will have serious repercussions on the world economy. His two big buzz words were “mitigation” and “adaptability”.

Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions could be done through environmental taxes, carbon trading schemes and the more technological carbon capture and storage (CCS), which Chris has touched on in the past. Adaptability refers to the sustainable changes that we (mainly developed world) must make to our lives to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. This includes everything from driving less to minimizing our use of air conditioning. Adapting to new conditions brought about by climate change can be difficult, but these changes are critical for the well-being of our planet.

This video features an interview between Allan Greg and Stern. It is quite lengthy (27 minutes) but I encourage you to briefly look through it. Stern talks about his new book "The Global Deal" and gives insight into some of the real issues that surround climate change today. There are several interesting points that come out of the interview but the only one I will touch on is Canada’s role (Canada's role in the video starts at 21 minutes and 15 seconds). In brief, Stern says that Canada’s must have more of a leadership role on the equity aspects of climate change.

Being more vocal on deforestation for instance (deforestation accounts for 20% of global emissions) can set an example for developing countries who clear cut their forests. Canada’s abundance of forestry is highly advantageous from an economic point of view, but adopting more sustainable policies and showing the world that we actually care about our trees, can go a long way.

Stern also points to the massive renewable energy potential for Canada, especially for wind. Developing technologies in Canada like carbon capture or more efficient automobiles can demonstrate the feasibility of these technologies and create an impetus for other countries to explore them. Why should we explore them? We have money for research and development in Canada. Alas, money is not sufficiently allocated to these areas.

I guess anyone can ignore Canada’s leadership seeing as we are one of the highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. Nonetheless, collaborating with other countries and being more vocal on the numerous problems associated with deforestation can be highly useful. Maybe Canada’s role on deforestation policies will be better solidified at Copenhagen.

Key message: Climate change is complex. Collaboration on this issue is of fundamental importance.

Is the environmental attack on the Oil Sands going to make any headway?

A recent article in the Globe and Mail signalled that the fate of the hyper-destructive and very profitable Alberta Oil Sands might well be tipping in favour of those opposed to them. The article outlines the role the Norwegian state-owned oil company, Statoil, who has invested over $2B in the Oil Sands, is having in the country's federal elections.

Norway, from an international standpoint, is widely regarded as a friendly, progressive country, similar to its counterparts in Scandinavia. And even its historic oil industry -- Norway is the world's first country to employ a one-way CCS project -- is among the more respectable groups in the sector.

So being involved in the Oil Sands is sure to raise some eyebrows and rustle some feathers. The negativity of Statoil's involvement in the Oil Sands is so heavy that it could play a major role in the federal election as candidates from nearly every party are promising to carefully examine the role of Norway's state-owned company. One prominent leader is already offering to create environmental laws that would make it impossible for Statoil to even come close to getting involved with anything like the Oil Sands.

Norway is not the only one rethinking its involvement in Alberta. Even the Chinese government, whose state-owned oil enterprise is heavily invested in the Oil Sands, is looking at what's going on. The article also mentions that several Chinese journalists are on their way to take a tour of the areas surrounding the Oil Sands to witness the environmental destruction of the place.

But before we start to think that the tables have really turned and the Oil Sands are on their way to being shut down, let's just put a few things in perspective.

Statoil is state-owned. Generally speaking, state-owned energy companies have a lot more to answer to than their purely private contenders, especially in a country like Norway. The Chinese, although to a much lesser degree of social & environmental responsibility, are also state-owned. The downside is that the majority of investment in the Oil Sands is private. Private companies often, but not always, answer only to their shareholders who often, but again, not always, only want to make more money. The Oil Sands make money. Lots of it.

Secondly, keep in mind that it is election time in Norway. For those of us who have followed election campaigns, they are filled with promises. Often, these promises are politically charged and do not always come to fruition. Considering the length of time it would take to get out of there and the investment losses, the task of pulling out would be very difficult. I would not be surprised if this issue slowly fades away after election fever winds away.

Thirdly, and almost in summation, the Oil Sands are very, very lucrative. They are profitable for those involved and beneficiaries range from international partners (the United States) to domestic governments (Alberta). The Alberta government has certainly signalled more than once how little it really cares about the environmental consequences and its internal bureaucratic systems (see Andrew NikiForuk's Tar Sands) are far from being pro-environment. Furthermore, the Conservative stronghold of Alberta is almost insurmountable and if the current policies of both the Alberta and Federal Conservative government's is any indication, these policies are not going to change quickly.

And I wouldn't put too much money on Obama making a big deal about the Oil Sands anytime soon. His hands are full with his health care reform plan and any fight with the Oil Sands would surely have short-term economic consequences, which is the last thing he needs as the U.S. economy is starting to recover. Right now, he has bigger, more homegrown fish to fry.

I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, but the Oil Sands are big. Very big. I do not deny the environmental, economic and health damages due to the Oil Sands, but tackling such a beast is so complex and in my opinion, nearly impossible. However, I would urge those already fighting to shut down the Oil Sands to keep on doing what they're doing, as anything helps in the struggle against them.

But in some ways we need to be a bit realistic and make the best out of an already awful situation by looking more into conservation strategies, renewable energy markets and to pressure our elected officials. Perhaps we could at least reduce the demand for oil in this country. But really fighting the Oil Sands seems like a steep moutain to climb.

I can only hope I'm wrong.

Canada's new man in Washington...

Don't be too surprised if there are a few more beer summits at the White House in the next few years. Yesterday, Canada's current longest serving premier, Manitoba's Gary Doer, announced he would not seek office again in the province's next election.

As it turns out, it was not the desire to golf or sit around at the cottage after serving as premier for ten years that led Doer to step down, but instead his new appointment as Canadian Ambassador to the United States announced today. Doer will replace Michael Wilson, who has served since 2006 and is most recently remembered for his alleged leak to the Canadian media during the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign that Barack Obama had no intention of carrying through with his promise to re-evaluate NAFTA. (So far, it seems as though he was probably right).

Gary Doer is by far one of Canada's most popular premiers and is very highly regarded in Manitoba. He and his NDP party have won three consecutive majority governments, a success which is often attributed to Doer's left-centrist approach. Much of his success is also chalked up to his pragmatic, very sociable approach to life. He is the type of guy you would share a few laughs with over a beer and is the farthest you could get from a run-of-the-mill, stiff politician.

For those of us in the green camps, having Doer represent Canada's interests in the US is something to excite ourselves over. Doer is a relatively pro-green politician. He has consistently been a strong supporter of the Kyoto Accord, enacted several water-protection and conservation laws and gotten together with several other provinces and states to form a series of international and interprovincial cap and trade accords. It is the latter accomplishments that will transfer to Doer's new post in the US.

He has been a supporter of a North American cap and trade system for some time and his presence in Washington is a signal that the Harper government is really serious about joining onto Obama's ambitious climate change strategy. This is of course, if Doer is given plenty of slack from the Prime Minister's leash. But the two of them seem to be pretty chummy already. Although something tells me Doer will have a lot more fun hanging out with the Obama gang. We can just hope his good-natured approach will offer some aid in the climate agenda.