Skip to main content

Blogs

Trouble in the Forest

Published by

A just published report from Greenpeace warns against a potential "carbon bomb" that could detonate through the over logging of Canada's Boreal Forests.

As the largest terrestrial biome, the boreal-taiga is particularly sensitive due to harsh climactic conditions and poor soil that prevail over its huge land area. This leads to stunted growth towards the tree line at its northern boundary, but also mixed forests towards the south. It is also largely unprotected, with more than 50 per cent allocated to logging in the form of clear cuts.

Greenpeace, the Rainforest Action Network, Forest Ethics, and local organization such as Earthroots have alternatively taken on Macmillan-Bloedel (now owned by Weyerhaeuser), Kimberley-Clark, Staples, and other companies that use boreal-derived products with some success. Staples has gone from being a laggard, to a company that earns respectable grades for its use of recycled products. However, with strong demand for their products, the timber industry still has a long way to go in ensuring a sustainable harvest. The Greenpeace report further raises the alarm over Canada's overall forest policy, and the potential dangers of tampering with an often forgotten, but vital biome.

Canada goes Rogue

Published by

On April 2, Toronto Star revealed that Canada played the central role in thwarting a Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council resolution asserting water as a human right. In what could have been a landmark declaration protecting communities from the threat of expropriation or profiteering, water rights activists including respected environmental and civil society leaders from Canada left with a sense of foreboding, ever more fearful that without a clear verdict from the Council, corporate interests will increasingly take precedence over the right to life in a water-stressed world.

Sadly, this US-backed stance (with Canada possibly playing the role of proxy, as the US does not hold a seat in the body) is only the latest affirmation of the accelerating corporate tilt of Canadian policies in the international arena as witnessed recently in climate change talks in Bali. As acerbically noted last December by Peter Gorrie, talks like those held in Bali or for that matter in Geneva are beginning to follow a predictable script:

Long days of desultory talks are followed, as departure time looms, by chaotic – often angry – marathon negotiations. When agreement is almost at hand, Russia, pretty much invisible to that point, raises a furious complaint, only to be mollified by what amounts to a pat on the head.

Canada dominates the Fossil of the Day awards for obstruction, even though, as at the just-completed 13th annual meeting in Bali, it might have spent most of the two-week event on the sidelines. The United States remains intransigent until the last minute, when it dramatically relents.

A deal is made. It never exceeds the lowest expectations. Officials praise it; environmental advocates express disappointment.

While this trend preceeds the current government's gutting of climate change initiatives (Canada fell far behind its Kyoto commitments years ago), it has grown worrisome with Canada now joining a small but influential group of obstructionist countries who actively resist international initiatives and obligations. This was most odiously embodied in September 2007 by our stunning rejection alongside the US, Australia, and New Zealand of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This also led the Conservative minority government to favour the "Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate" in April 2007 as a strictly voluntary, technology-based alternative to Kyoto, making good on their promise to pull out of Kyoto's binding emission reduction targets.

While one may take umbrage from the fact that such treaties are often toothless and wildly ineffective, the "take my marbles and go home" attitude reflects a certain contempt for the international state system in favour of a looser and more opportunistic coalition of actors that reflect the interests of particular alliances such as NATO and governments with strong corporate ties. Moreover, the disrespect extends to the countless Canadians drawn from civil society who have played important roles in the treaty making process. Most alarmingly though, it represents a dramatic shift from a country that has for many years inhabited the respectable terrain of a consensus-forging middle power in the international imaginary, to a more naked role as a loyal lieutenant of Empire and servant of big business. Back to the Future indeed.

The Carbon Con?

Published by

Up until a decade ago, the concepts of carbon offsetting and carbon trading were deeply controversial. They were largely seen within the environmental community as a dangerous free market hijacking of the greenhouse gas problem that would allow rich countries and polluters to escape from the consequences of their actions while buying credits of dubious worth from less industrialized and thus less polluting regions of the world.

Unfortunately, this criticism has grown silent as Al Gore, who disappointed environmentalists in his eight years as Vice-President, has successfully rehabilitated his image in recent years. There is much to commend with his resurrection, as he has taken principled stands against the Iraq War, in defense of the US Constitution and science-based reasoning, and of course, his tireless advocacy on climate change. He has become the Oscar and Nobel-prize winning hero he never could during his tragic run for the presidency in 2000. However, one thing has not changed -- he remains a steadfast advocate of the emissions trading or "cap and trade" system, which he played a large role in introducing to Kyoto before the US abandoned the treaty in 1997.

Recently, the UK-based Independent, one outstanding newspaper that has covered climate change extensively, reiterated these critiques as voiced by mainline environmental and indigenous rights groups. Here's a sample of what they said:

"Taking a dodgy accounting proposition, which is that you can somehow identify the amount of carbon that any given new bit of forest picks up out of the atmosphere and sequesters, and make that correspond somehow to emissions elsewhere," is how Greenpeace sees carbon offsetting, according to its senior climate adviser Charlie Kronick. "It can't be done. The methodology is poor, and the logic isn't very good either. Once the carbon you've put in from fossil fuels is up there, nothing is going to make it go away."

Friends of the Earth's Marie Reynolds points out that not only is offsetting no substitute for real emissions cuts, but there is no guarantee, when you plant a tree, what the future of that tree will be. Robin Oakley, Greenpeace's climate and energy campaigner, agrees: "The issue with offsetting is that, fundamentally, it doesn't undo the damage done by carbon pollution. The vast number of players in the offsetting market are not reducing emissions in any accountable or measurable way."

In some cases, local people, far from benefiting, suffer when huge new plantations spring up. Survival International campaigner David Hill says: "Numerous reports show how indigenous peoples have suffered as a result of carbon projects: invasion of their land, evictions, the destruction of villages and crops, reduced access to or destruction of traditional resources, and violent conflict."

For a more detailed look at the history and record of the carbon trading concept, it would be worthwhile to check out the book, Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power, which through numerous case studies and economic analysis finds the entire regime to be both "ineffective and unjust." Sobering reading indeed.

Pangea Day and Our Networked Society

Published by

Pangea DayOn May 10, the first ever Pangea Day is being organized in communities around the world to screen films made by ordinary people for ordinary people. The event aims to build compassion and tolerance by bridging once formidable human borders through the power of visual media.

There is no doubt that the campaign includes some slick and affective outreach, perhaps a given since talented filmmakers, big thinkers, and even movie stars are at the helm of this ambitious project (Jehane Noujaim, director of the critically acclaimed documentary Control Room donated her TED prize money to this event). The use and deployment of new media is also impressive, as seen in their geo-assisted "meet-up" strategy of both decentralizing and propagating the event to hosted house parties.

Moreover, with the ubiquity and relative affordability of sophisticated electronic devices and internet access in all corners of the globe, this project has a real potential to leapfrog technological limitations that have diminished the effectiveness of such UN/MTV-type campaigns in the past. Here's one of their slick ads:

However, the potential downsides of these technologies, which Pangea Day indirectly promotes as democratization tools, should also be considered. In addition to the mountains of toxic waste produced by the high turnover of consumer electronics (check in with the Basel Action Network), the new networked society that Pangea Day celebrates may have dangerous unintended consequences. The possible rise of an "attention deficit disorder"-like approach to issues that sees a rush of enormous immediate interest but an evaporation of long-term commitment has been raised by some, although also disputed by others. The same is true of the notion of balkanization of the internet community, where group polarization tends to occur in highly politicized and rambunctious web forums and blogs (this would entirely upend the Pangea Day concept). Whether this has an impact on day-to-day behaviour or whether this only further reflects the democratizing potential of the web, has yet to be studied.

Regardless, the fact that Pangea Day sparks these thoughts is a step forward. And hopefully we'll be seeing some challenging works that break new ground rather than rehashing a very hokey and very cloying "We are the World/Live Aid" style event.

Trash Talk today, on CBC’s The Current, with MP Bob Mills

Published by

[photopress:Capetown_car1.jpg,thumb,alignright][photopress:Captetown_car2.jpg,thumb,alignright]Wow! Bob Mills knows about garbage, land-fill, incineration and gasification, and he is passionate about them. His interview with Anna Maria Tremonti was really interesting. In the last few years, I spent 4 months of sabbatical and research time in Sweden, so I am well aware of what various European countries are doing with things like co-generation around incineration and mining of garbage dumps. The "con" position, to the gasification technology being expounded by Bob Mills, was provided by Clarissa Morawski, the principal of CM Consulting.

Bob Mills and his wife aren't the only people with a passion for recycling and garbage. In my Applied Plant Ecology and graduate courses, students invariably do seminars and papers on garbage, e-waste, etc. and, on my holidays, I always look out for how people deal with garbage and recycling.

In Cape Town, South Africa, you know that garbage is a valued resource for the very poor, who live in the shanties of the Cape Flats, because they turn it into unbelievable art, that they sell to tourists. Here's a true piece of modern, African art, that I bought from a street vendor in 2004. He and his family had walked into South Africa from neighbouring Zimbabwe, to escape the troubles. He did not make this, he was merely the seller, but I did not bargain with him for any of what I bought (and I do know how to bargain). This is a 15 cm long model of a VW Beetle. It's made from an aerosol can of bug spray. The wheels are made from bottle caps of Schweppes sparkling lemon, and Golden Pilsner beer. I doubt whether the average Canadian who, in 2002, was estimated to have produced 383 kg of residential solid waste, could be this creative with their garbage.

Dawn R. Bazely

[photopress:capetown_car3.jpg,full,centered]

We Are the New Radicals

Published by

[photopress:book.jpg,full,alignright]“We are the New Radicals: A Manifesto for Reinventing Yourself and Saving the World” (McGraw Hill, New York) is a new book by Julia Moulden. I first heard of it while listening to CBC radio’s Sounds Like Canada where Moulden was describing this movement of baby boomers and others that are positive, constructive and hopeful, and are choosing to give something back to the world through their work. That is that they are doing good and making a difference by doing more than simply volunteering and philanthropy. I love this idea! Not only is it a feel good story of some 30 million Americans that are part of this movement, but there is a strong business case to be made as well. As employees achieve success and move up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the needs to solve problems and be creative are more pertinent. Having a job that allows one to give back can be more engaging and rewarding than traditional work and can give companies an upper hand in the war-on-talent with higher retention rates, as well as giving them more productive employees. This book may contribute to the changing face of the workplace, especially on the CSR (corporate social responsibility) front as companies may choose to take on more ownership of their social or environmental initiatives to be able to meet the changing needs of their employees. Although it is nice to be able to do volunteer work in one’s own free time, this can sometimes be a challenge. Doing good while at work has the added benefit of making it somewhat easier to achieve work-life balance.

There will be a New Radicals Soirée April 15th in Toronto to celebrate the launch of the book, complete with food by Jamie Kennedy.

Earth Hour has Come and Gone

Published by

Well Earth Hour is over and there has been no shortage of opinions on the effectiveness of the event in various media sources. The point was awareness and stemming from that, hopefully, an understanding of ways individuals and groups can make a difference. In the Excalibur it was stated that York would not participate in the event, citing security concerns. These concerns are legitimate, but perhaps the University could look more deeply into unnecessary lighting on campus and dimming the lighting in certain areas. Other, Ontario universities participated to varying degrees. In light of the recent carbon offsetting inititative at York, which has involved administrative recognition of the need for university practices to reduce their ecological footprint, it is not unrealistic to think the university could explore options to reduce its energy consumption. In the Toronto Star on Saturday, there was a feature page on what HBC has been doing to reduce its carbon footprint. In addition to participating in Earth Hour, the company has made extensive strides into other environmentally sustainable intiatives. They are continuing to retrofit stores and distribution centres with T8 lighting (highly efficient) and Building Automation Systems (BAS). BAS are store level central tracking systems that monitor daily consumption and minimize energy use by controlling lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation. Through these and other initiatives, HBC has reduced its emission intensity by 20.5%, which is an emission reduction of 146,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Before thinking that this might be corporate greenwashing, HBC's efforts have been commended by National Resources Canada and BC Hydro, which has designated HBC as one of only nine companies to be a Power Smart Certified Energy Efficiency Leader. Check out www.hbc.com/globalmind to see these intiatives and others underway at HBC to become a socially responsible corporate citizen. Some of these efforts would be worth looking into for an institution like York that desires to become practically engaged in sustainability efforts. Earth hour may be over, but its legacy should involve fundamental and practical changes that are realistic through the increased awareness brought about by these events.

Gore’s $300 million gamble

Published by

Former vice-president and eco-warrior Al Gore has just announced that the Alliance for Climate Protection, an NGO he founded, will spend upwards of 300 million dollars in an advertisement and citizen mobilization blitz ("we" campaign) during the upcoming presidential election campaign and beyond.

Here's an example of one of the ads:

Perhaps the largest and most expensive campaign of its kind, Gore hopes to mobilize enough support among average Americans of all stripes to force politicians to take climate change seriously. Such an effort was sorely lacking when the Clinton-Gore Administration watered down and finally walked away from Kyoto as it faced certain defeat in the House and Senate in the 1990s.

However, such a campaign faces huge hurdles that have derailed new environmental legislation in the past. Many of the most ardent opponents of environmental legislation are themselves insulated from democratic pressures due to the vagaries of American congressional system, where smaller states with low populations hold disproportional power (each of the fifty states is represented by two senators regardless of their population). Along with an industry-friendly administration over the past eight years, the US government's regulatory bodies have been gutted, environmental laws reversed, and scientists across the country demoralized due to the government's ideological intransigence.

The next president will need to repair the enormous damage, let alone advance a progressive environmental agenda. At the very least however, none of the frontrunners on both sides are climate change skeptics and Gore's groundbreaking strategy can be witnessed by his strange bedfellows ads:

A clip aired on CBS showed the Reverend Al Sharpton sharing a sofa with the conservative preacher Pat Robertson. The two men acknowledge they agree on almost nothing - barring the need to deal with global warming.

Other spots will feature the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, alongside Newt Gingrich, the conservative Republican who once held the same post.

The support from such conservative figures as Gingrich and Robertson marks a victory for Gore in his efforts to make global warming a cause for all Americans: evangelical Christians and fiscal conservatives as well as those on the left.

Incidentally, Gore will be in Montreal this weekend.

Excellent Water Articles in today’s Globe and Mail’s Report on Business Mag

Published by

There are 3 excellent articles by Andrew Nikiforuk, John Lorinc, and Eric Reguly, plus a book review of Dry Spring by Chris Wood, in this morning's business mag. They all discuss how demands for water in Canada (and the world) are impacting the environment, business and ordinary people. It's well worth the price of today's newspaper (And, no, I am not being paid by the Globe to promote their paper!). The first, Liquid Asset, by Andrew Nikiforuk, is a great follow-up to the recent doc about the Tar Sands, aired on CBC. If you haven't yet read Vandana Shiva, Maude Barlow and Marq de Villiers, these articles will get you up to speed on the issues, fast.

When we began collaborating with colleagues from the National University of Mongolia, I was really struck by how little water Prof. Sonya Nergui used when she washed her hands in the sink at my house! Water conservation and respect for water is utterly ingrained in her culture. Canadians can learn an awful lot about water conservation from our Mongolian friends and colleagues.

What’s your March Break ecological footprint?

Published by

At current rates of resource consumption, we need at least 2 more planet earths to sustain our North American lifestyles. The NGO, Learning for a Sustainable Future (LSF), develops sustainability curriculum content for schools across the country, and since their offices are in IRIS, I am constantly awed by their hard work and innovation. Now, I have two school-aged children, and therefore, some first hand experience through the homework that I see, of which sustainability issues are being integrated into classrooms and which aren't. I recently chatted with LSF Director, Pam Schwartzberg, about the fact that the biggest contributing factor to the ecological footprint of students in many Ontario schools is likely to be any family vacations that involve airplane travel. So, I wondered what sustainability education was doing to address this. Now it's one thing to vermicompost in class, but what would happen if little Johnny or Jane, in Grade 5, demanded that their March Break ski/Florida etc. vacation be cancelled, in order to reduce their family carbon emissions? And how likely is this to happen? I certainly hope that a conversation about the relative ecological footprint of local travel versus flying (or, if doing that, an understanding of how to purchase reliable carbon offsets) could be stimulated through current sustainability school curricula.

My older daughter and husband have flown for March Break and I am of the opinion that they should carbon offset their flights. In contrast, my March Break involved a rather more local trip to Niagara Falls. Given the limited outdoor options that exist in Niagara Falls in March, I decided to become a sustainability detective with my younger daughter ("BORING", she told me), and to search for evidence of our reduced holiday footprint. I was delighted to find that every toilet I inspected in both of the Niagara Falls hotels that we visited was a low-flow loo. The worst aspect of the trip, from an ecological footprint perspective, were the "meal-deal" components of the hotel package, which seemed to consist of huge meals and huge portions of steak. I couldn't eat it, and it certainly made me feel guilty, especially when one considers what most families around the world get to eat in one week (What the World Eats - Time). Check out this photo of our doggie bag - at least 8 oz of uneaten steak leftover from a family meal for 3 adults and 1 child. But, there were veggies, although simply boiling them did not make them very appetizing. Gordon Ramsay would not have been impressed.

I would love to see the emergence of challenges, in which, following classroom and school-wide calculations of ecological footprints, entire schools or classes compete to reduce their collective footprint. It would also be fascinating to use these calculations to explore the nature of the relationship between overall prosperity/family income level of the school population with the mean ecological footprint of a student in the school. I predict that the same kind of trend that we see globally, would emerge at local scales, with students in wealthier Toronto neighbourhoods having much higher ecological footprints than their counterparts in lower income neighbourhoods. Dawn Bazely

css.php