Talking about milk ...
I don't know the answer to above question but the following article tries to figure it out: Milk packaging.
I always get a gallon of milk in plastic. Plastic is the only option at the supermarket. Buttermilk and cream come in cartons though. What bothers me most about the plastic is that it takes up a lot of space when stored for return to the bottle deposit. I am not sure if I could return them flattened (after stomping on them). In Germany milk is mostly sold in 1-litre square cartons, we don't have the bulk-size packaging. In the GDR we had glass bottles or the wobbly plastic bag that was put into a reusable open-top plastic container that prevented the bag from collapsing once opened. Do I have a preference? No. Size matters though because once the packaging is open you have to consume it, well you should have to. I know our milk spoils but I have heard a story from someone who left an opened milk container in the fridge for months (she forgot it at her holiday condo in Arizona) and it did not spoil. Even months later it had not even changed consistency! Yuck!
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Organic Milk
The Organic Box sells organic milk from Saxby Foods, an Edmonton business. In its latest newsletter they list all the organic dairies the milk comes from as well as some of the standards of how the cows are fed. The Edmonton Journal recently had an article on Saxby Foods too which is quite interesting. For example, does Saxby Foods not only sell their organic milk (and soon other dairy products) via independent retailers such as the General Earth's Store they also sells through the Safeway brand O Organics. As much as I dislike Safeway for being just another huge chainstore, it is the closest supermarket we live to and knowing that this milk is from local farms and processed by a local creamery makes me somewhat more inclined to buy it. Being a wholesaler the milk is also less expensive compared to other stores, unfortunately.
In the newsletter I also hear from the infamous genetically modified crops again. Since most pasture crops are already contaminated with GMO farmers are currently fighting to keep GM alfalfa out of the country. Alfalfa is at the moment still a very important food for organic cattle. If it becomes GMO contaminated organic farmers might be forced into what they usually try to avoid: feed grain. Looking at the link to the Organic Alberta Association an article catches my eye immediately: Conservatives continue to block vote on moratorium on GM Alfalfa Of course it's the effing Conservatives who spoil it, quote: “Conservatives are trying to play both sides of this issue because they know farmers want GM alfalfa stopped, but Conservatives don’t want to cross Monsanto. Presumably, Conservatives delayed the vote so that an election could save them from having to take immediate action to stop GM alfalfa.”
Too bad I can't vote and I am not convinced yet that there's enough smart Canadians to not tick the C box but this is just unbelievable. How can they even think about pleasing Monsanto, at the same time putting a large part of the organic food industry at risk of survival. Eating anything non-organic seems already almost suicidal to me and with a growing demand for organic food one really hopes the turn will come and people stop buying crap food so farmers stop growing crap food, I mean food stuffed with toxins. This would also stop the contamination of our soil, water and air with all those toxic chemicals.
In the newsletter I also hear from the infamous genetically modified crops again. Since most pasture crops are already contaminated with GMO farmers are currently fighting to keep GM alfalfa out of the country. Alfalfa is at the moment still a very important food for organic cattle. If it becomes GMO contaminated organic farmers might be forced into what they usually try to avoid: feed grain. Looking at the link to the Organic Alberta Association an article catches my eye immediately: Conservatives continue to block vote on moratorium on GM Alfalfa Of course it's the effing Conservatives who spoil it, quote: “Conservatives are trying to play both sides of this issue because they know farmers want GM alfalfa stopped, but Conservatives don’t want to cross Monsanto. Presumably, Conservatives delayed the vote so that an election could save them from having to take immediate action to stop GM alfalfa.”
Too bad I can't vote and I am not convinced yet that there's enough smart Canadians to not tick the C box but this is just unbelievable. How can they even think about pleasing Monsanto, at the same time putting a large part of the organic food industry at risk of survival. Eating anything non-organic seems already almost suicidal to me and with a growing demand for organic food one really hopes the turn will come and people stop buying crap food so farmers stop growing crap food, I mean food stuffed with toxins. This would also stop the contamination of our soil, water and air with all those toxic chemicals.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
ReSkilling Edmonton
The Prairie Chapter of the Sierra Club was host of the film White Water, Black Gold. One of their representatives, Chelsea, pointed out that they are aiming to start up an initiative called ReSkilling Edmonton. Apart from reconnecting generations its main purpose is to teach young(ish) people the skills of the elderly such as canning fruit, fixing things in the household, mending clothes etc. Might sound really boring but those are the skills that can prevent a lot of stuff from going to the landfill or food being wasted. I think I established often enough in my posts that there is no need to throw everything out because it's been used a couple of times, does not look new or is out of fashion (at least for the current season). I still fix my socks. My husband wears his T-shirts with holes in them - nothing I approve of but at least he does not simply dump them. Good thing he hates shopping. We wear all of our clothing for many years (which can make for funny deja-vues on old photos). Actually, I know quite a few people that sew and knit - way to go. But I also know people, my family, who had to knit, sew, preserve, fix for many years, until capitalism took over and brought with it plenty of cheap products. I did not learn any more how to cook because we had convenience food in the freezer. Unfortunately they jumped right onto the train and buy more than they can possibly use, throw out way too much still good stuff and don't seem to understand the consequences of these actions. They (over-)enjoy the abundance. There's a worry of mine. With poorer countries striving to reach the Western lifestyle many important skills will get lost. These people will also consume more, use more, dump more of everything. Will they get the message that this is the wrong way? Maybe if reskilling initiatives like in Edmonton grow big, they set a new trend and help to send out a warning to developing countries.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Earth Hour is no excuse to be environmentally conscious
On Saturday we had yet another Earth Hour. it's the hour of the year where you are meant to unplug appliances that aren't being used and turn off the lights. Although in several buildings of the City of Edmonton the lights were turned off the electricity usage in Edmonton went up by 1% during Earth hour. There was a hockey game at Rexall Place! Apparently Earth Hour does not work when certain sports events are on. To me, it simply proves what happens everyday everywhere over and over again - people make up excuses! There is an excuse for just about anything if you don't want to do it, no matter if it's out of laziness or a "good" reason. We all make up excuses as we go along, don't we. But if many people can't even suck it up for an hour, how are they ever meant to change the way they live?
More deaths (likely) from oil spill
Here's an article on dead dolphin's in the Gulf of Mexico. The deaths, half of them newborn or stillborn dolphins, seem to be related to the BP oil spill last year. Not much lab work has been done and the US government does not want people to know. I can only hope the issue does not get swept under the table silently. We ought to know about the deaths, the reason and if it is the oil in the water, or the chemicals to "treat" the oil, then somebody needs to be held accountable. I just had to think about two of my recent posts about the oil tankers in the Queen Charlotte Sound and the threatened Orcas off the coast of Vancouver. Surely, two things that don't go well together.
Friday, March 25, 2011
One spill, two spill, many spills
This post is related to the film White water, Black gold but looks at the transportation of crude oil via pipelines and tank ship.
Pipelines: There's one huge oil pipeline that goes from Northern Alberta through the middle of Jasper National Park all the way to Vancouver. There's been a pipeline for a long time but it has been enlarged to transport more crude in recent years. How could Parks Canada and the Canadian government ever agree to such a pipeline? The company who built it, Kinder Morgan, had a pipeline leak in the middle of Vancouver a few years ago. Imagine the road breaks open and a huge black fountain goes up right outside your door - that's what the footage from the incident looked like. Enbridge has had 8 major pipeline leaks since 1992! These two companies now want to build the Northern Gateway pipeline, 11,000 km long, from north of Edmonton across massive mountains, and important rivers all the way to Kitimat at the Pacific coast. Would you trust them? Unfortunately, the representative from the National Energy Board of Canada, asked about when a pipeline was last refused building permission, replied that she would have to go back in the records to find out when that might have happened. With other words, all pipelines get approval, no matter what the public's opinion is - given the public finds out before construction begins in order to raise their concern.
Once flown through the Northern Gateway Pipeline the oil is meant to be shipped to Asia on tank ships. Apparently, 60% of all oil is transported on tankers. They are considered fairly safe. That they are not "bomb-proof" shows one of the latest accidents of a tanker stranded and broken apart: Oil Spill in South Atlantic Threatens Endangered Penguins
This accident happened 1700 km off the South African coast near a group of isolated islands that are home to a rare species of penguins. The penguins can't be removed for treatment due to fears that they might pick up diseases that their bodies can't deal with because they have never had exposure to the virus/ bacteria. The islands are pretty inaccessible too, which does not help rescue operations but has obviously protected the penguins fairly well so far. Estimates say that 10% of the 200,000-penguin population are already covered with oil! --- Back at the Western Coast of Canada, the Queen Charlotte Sound is a maze of beautiful islands, has lots of rugged coast as well as rough weather. Would you believe there will never be a tanker accident there?
You might wonder now how the oil should be transported since I agree trucks, trains and air planes don't seem safer and the first two can't cross water. Don't do it. There is no such devastating risks in the transportation of energy from renewable sources such as solar, wind, biomass, or geothermal. Probably pipes were safer if they were kept in better shape and leaks avoided by tougher pipeline checks but the oh so irresponsible oil corporations will not take appropriate steps unless they are forced to and monitored. Would you expect this from a government that is strongly in favour of the oil industry?
Pipelines: There's one huge oil pipeline that goes from Northern Alberta through the middle of Jasper National Park all the way to Vancouver. There's been a pipeline for a long time but it has been enlarged to transport more crude in recent years. How could Parks Canada and the Canadian government ever agree to such a pipeline? The company who built it, Kinder Morgan, had a pipeline leak in the middle of Vancouver a few years ago. Imagine the road breaks open and a huge black fountain goes up right outside your door - that's what the footage from the incident looked like. Enbridge has had 8 major pipeline leaks since 1992! These two companies now want to build the Northern Gateway pipeline, 11,000 km long, from north of Edmonton across massive mountains, and important rivers all the way to Kitimat at the Pacific coast. Would you trust them? Unfortunately, the representative from the National Energy Board of Canada, asked about when a pipeline was last refused building permission, replied that she would have to go back in the records to find out when that might have happened. With other words, all pipelines get approval, no matter what the public's opinion is - given the public finds out before construction begins in order to raise their concern.
Once flown through the Northern Gateway Pipeline the oil is meant to be shipped to Asia on tank ships. Apparently, 60% of all oil is transported on tankers. They are considered fairly safe. That they are not "bomb-proof" shows one of the latest accidents of a tanker stranded and broken apart: Oil Spill in South Atlantic Threatens Endangered Penguins
This accident happened 1700 km off the South African coast near a group of isolated islands that are home to a rare species of penguins. The penguins can't be removed for treatment due to fears that they might pick up diseases that their bodies can't deal with because they have never had exposure to the virus/ bacteria. The islands are pretty inaccessible too, which does not help rescue operations but has obviously protected the penguins fairly well so far. Estimates say that 10% of the 200,000-penguin population are already covered with oil! --- Back at the Western Coast of Canada, the Queen Charlotte Sound is a maze of beautiful islands, has lots of rugged coast as well as rough weather. Would you believe there will never be a tanker accident there?
You might wonder now how the oil should be transported since I agree trucks, trains and air planes don't seem safer and the first two can't cross water. Don't do it. There is no such devastating risks in the transportation of energy from renewable sources such as solar, wind, biomass, or geothermal. Probably pipes were safer if they were kept in better shape and leaks avoided by tougher pipeline checks but the oh so irresponsible oil corporations will not take appropriate steps unless they are forced to and monitored. Would you expect this from a government that is strongly in favour of the oil industry?
White Water, Black Gold
is a film by David Lavalee, who was born & raised in Alberta, is a hiking guide on the Columbia Icefields, teacher, film maker and more. I watched this film about great Canadian waterways and the dirty tar sands yesterday at an Edmonton theatre amidst a bunch of rather old residents of the province Alberta. Alberta has been in the spotlights more and more often recently because of the disastrous environmental consequences of the tar sands operations but not much has changed. I was surprised to see lots of white haired people in the theatre. They did not match the types of person I have seen at other tar-sands-related events. I'm glad different generations get concerned and want to be informed though.
Although I have seen several oil sands films there was still something new in this one, and it was very much up-to-date, including some of the most recent tar sands issues. Of course, in the film there were lots of well-known faces such as Dr David Schindler, Dr Kevin Timoney, Dr. John O'Connor, George Poitras ... activists, scientists, authors, first nations ... there were also representatives from Suncor!, the Alberta government and the National Energy Board which was surprising because they tend to avoid these films for obvious reasons.
David Lavalee basically followed the imaginary drop of water that originates from a glacier off Mt Snowdon and follows it across the Columbia Icefield into the Athabasca River all the way to Fort McMurray and beyond to the Beaufort Sea. A lot of controversy comes up on the way. It was all there again, the toxins in air & water, the dead or deformed fish, the large number of rare cancers in downstream communities, the leaking tailings ponds stuffed with arsenic, mercury and PAHs, the destruction of boreal forest ... the lies that come with the tar sands. Apparently, the corporations in the tar sands are only allowed to take out 3% of the water flow of the Athabasca River - that's with high water though. In January when the river is frozen and the water under the ice is especially vital for the fish to survive industry wants 30% of the flow. Suncor used to have glorifying signs up along the tailing ponds road to inform visitors of their heroic tar sands operations but these signs disappeared since hundreds of birds died on the tailing ponds and Suncor was fined $3.3 Mio (half a day earnings for them). Curious visitors are not wanted any more on this road.
After the film Lavalee pointed out the reverse alchemy of using natural gas to produce tar sands oil - it's like turning gold into lead. He also added that conventional oil produced 100 barrels from the energy of 1 barrel. At the tar sand they need 1 barrel to produce only 2 barrels - where's the point? For him the tar sands are an indicator that peak oil has passed, the same as the production of shale gas is a sign that the peak of natural gas has passed - rear mirror view, he called it.
There were a lot of good quote in the film but I don't have the memory to bring them up here. One of the worst comments though came from the Suncor spokesperson at a first nation's community meeting. She apologised for not having showed up at the last meeting but the good thing about it was that instead of muffins she ordered KFC this time. Nobody smiled.
to be continued ...
Although I have seen several oil sands films there was still something new in this one, and it was very much up-to-date, including some of the most recent tar sands issues. Of course, in the film there were lots of well-known faces such as Dr David Schindler, Dr Kevin Timoney, Dr. John O'Connor, George Poitras ... activists, scientists, authors, first nations ... there were also representatives from Suncor!, the Alberta government and the National Energy Board which was surprising because they tend to avoid these films for obvious reasons.
David Lavalee basically followed the imaginary drop of water that originates from a glacier off Mt Snowdon and follows it across the Columbia Icefield into the Athabasca River all the way to Fort McMurray and beyond to the Beaufort Sea. A lot of controversy comes up on the way. It was all there again, the toxins in air & water, the dead or deformed fish, the large number of rare cancers in downstream communities, the leaking tailings ponds stuffed with arsenic, mercury and PAHs, the destruction of boreal forest ... the lies that come with the tar sands. Apparently, the corporations in the tar sands are only allowed to take out 3% of the water flow of the Athabasca River - that's with high water though. In January when the river is frozen and the water under the ice is especially vital for the fish to survive industry wants 30% of the flow. Suncor used to have glorifying signs up along the tailing ponds road to inform visitors of their heroic tar sands operations but these signs disappeared since hundreds of birds died on the tailing ponds and Suncor was fined $3.3 Mio (half a day earnings for them). Curious visitors are not wanted any more on this road.
After the film Lavalee pointed out the reverse alchemy of using natural gas to produce tar sands oil - it's like turning gold into lead. He also added that conventional oil produced 100 barrels from the energy of 1 barrel. At the tar sand they need 1 barrel to produce only 2 barrels - where's the point? For him the tar sands are an indicator that peak oil has passed, the same as the production of shale gas is a sign that the peak of natural gas has passed - rear mirror view, he called it.
There were a lot of good quote in the film but I don't have the memory to bring them up here. One of the worst comments though came from the Suncor spokesperson at a first nation's community meeting. She apologised for not having showed up at the last meeting but the good thing about it was that instead of muffins she ordered KFC this time. Nobody smiled.
to be continued ...
Declaration of Interdependence
I hope you have heard that David Suzuki just turned 75 years old! The CBC series The Nature of Things turned 50 so David Suzuki was with a special show on TV to summarise and celebrate this eventful time, eventful not only for the human species but for all others creatures on Earth as well - those who survived, of course. That's unfortunately fewer and fewer and with the way we live it does not get any better. We are actually making more and more plant and animal species in order to upkeep our high-consumption/ high-maintenance life style. Of course, Suzuki has long known some things are going wrong on this planet and has fought for many, many years to change this. He has consequently written and made a short film with his wife about the Declaration of Interdependence. It's great, it's true. Go read it, watch the film, sign it - let's change our lives for the benefit of other lives.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
It's Water (& Oil) Week!
Yes, it's time to celebrate that we still have some reasonably clean water, at least in this part of the world. Of course, a range of presentations and talks is held this week at the University of Alberta and unfortunately I have not been to any yet thanks to a 24-hour-flu spread over 2 days. Never mind, tomorrow is my turn. Yes, the film screening is about the oil sands, what else should it be about in Alberta! Here is the trailer to White Water, Black Gold so you don't forget how much beauty and ugliness co-exist - and you can make a bet on which side will win, probably still in your lifetime.
At this point I would like to make a comment about a comment posted on CPAWS Northern Alberta's Facebook page. Last week CPAWS posted a link to an article in the Globe and Mail titled U.S. think tank urges preservation of Canada's boreal forest It fits in here because the oil sands are not only wasting and spoiling Canada's water they also destroy lots of boreal forests. So here's the comment of a reader: "If Canadiens at large were aware of how significantly the boreal forest has shrunk over the last, say thirty years, they would freak. They really would. Ignorance from the part of the population has allowed the industry to clear cut their way across the continent. For humans to come to their senses there is nothing like being confronted to irreparable dammage ..."
Optimist! I'm disillusioned. No, Canadians would not freak, ignorance makes life much easier than freaking over something. How many Canadians know about the oil sands? I hope it's part of their school curriculum, so all of them. And how many freak about it? A minority!? Shrugging shoulders, saying it's bad and then forget about it (that's the usual reaction I see), does not do anything. Some bold people will admit to being oil addicted, as individual and as nation. My husband complains that the accounting systems used in Edmonton have long been thrown out in the UK and NZ as obsolete; well, environmental behaviour here is just as behind. I can't believe it's the US that comes up with the recommendation of protecting the boreal forest. Sure, if the US does not buy the oil than somebody else does. Alberta is working hard to expand into the Asian market, planning pipelines across the Alberta and B.C. to the Pacific. Enbridge is packing "the Northern Gateway Project" up as a fantastic project that will bring so much prosperity. Oh, and they plan to import condensate (something 'harvested' from natural gas) which is odd but I have not found out the reason yet (not yet read their complete brochure). I'm looking forward to tomorrow's film.
At this point I would like to make a comment about a comment posted on CPAWS Northern Alberta's Facebook page. Last week CPAWS posted a link to an article in the Globe and Mail titled U.S. think tank urges preservation of Canada's boreal forest It fits in here because the oil sands are not only wasting and spoiling Canada's water they also destroy lots of boreal forests. So here's the comment of a reader: "If Canadiens at large were aware of how significantly the boreal forest has shrunk over the last, say thirty years, they would freak. They really would. Ignorance from the part of the population has allowed the industry to clear cut their way across the continent. For humans to come to their senses there is nothing like being confronted to irreparable dammage ..."
Optimist! I'm disillusioned. No, Canadians would not freak, ignorance makes life much easier than freaking over something. How many Canadians know about the oil sands? I hope it's part of their school curriculum, so all of them. And how many freak about it? A minority!? Shrugging shoulders, saying it's bad and then forget about it (that's the usual reaction I see), does not do anything. Some bold people will admit to being oil addicted, as individual and as nation. My husband complains that the accounting systems used in Edmonton have long been thrown out in the UK and NZ as obsolete; well, environmental behaviour here is just as behind. I can't believe it's the US that comes up with the recommendation of protecting the boreal forest. Sure, if the US does not buy the oil than somebody else does. Alberta is working hard to expand into the Asian market, planning pipelines across the Alberta and B.C. to the Pacific. Enbridge is packing "the Northern Gateway Project" up as a fantastic project that will bring so much prosperity. Oh, and they plan to import condensate (something 'harvested' from natural gas) which is odd but I have not found out the reason yet (not yet read their complete brochure). I'm looking forward to tomorrow's film.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Beyond the supermarket
The above event was held today in Edmonton in order to promote better food options and their suppliers. The supermarket is certainly not the best choice for local, healthy food. The event was organised by Slow Food Edmonton http://www.slowfoodedmonton.ca/ and Just Food Edmonton http://www.justfoodedmonton.org, both organisations I had not heard about before but I am interested to find out more. After spending my morning standing along a race track in the cold though I did not actually go to this event which I regret a little now. But I still have the internet to research the participants. I am glad to know these organisations exist and that there's a growing interest in alternatives to supermarket food, that there are people seeking to find out where their food comes from and how it is grown or raised. Also, there's initiatives in the city that try to facilitate the growing of food through a city farm, community gardens and in schools. It's important that children grow up knowing that milk comes from a cow and vegetable from a field, not from the supermarket's fridge. It's even better if they can find this out with hands-on projects. This might also remind their parents that the convenience of a supermarket did not always exist.
Having almost finished the book Farm City I do miss the balcony we had at our last apartment where we had planted a few vegetables. The harvest was not big but worth a try. Admittingly, I did not research what would grow best in the conditions provided by our balcony. And having lots of burning sun did not work for everything we had planted. Novella is way more successful with her farm in the middle of Oakland, even raising chicken, rabbits and pigs. Having grown up on a farm was certainly to her advantage. In the books she points out how common it is in some Asian and Latin-American countries to have farms in the middle of a city in order to feed hungry mouths. The city of Edmonton that is intending to close the city airport does not think that far though. Instead of turning it into a park for recreation or a large city farm/ community garden they want more houses, more shops, more streets ... because this implies more revenue for the city, not necessarily better living for its residents.
Having almost finished the book Farm City I do miss the balcony we had at our last apartment where we had planted a few vegetables. The harvest was not big but worth a try. Admittingly, I did not research what would grow best in the conditions provided by our balcony. And having lots of burning sun did not work for everything we had planted. Novella is way more successful with her farm in the middle of Oakland, even raising chicken, rabbits and pigs. Having grown up on a farm was certainly to her advantage. In the books she points out how common it is in some Asian and Latin-American countries to have farms in the middle of a city in order to feed hungry mouths. The city of Edmonton that is intending to close the city airport does not think that far though. Instead of turning it into a park for recreation or a large city farm/ community garden they want more houses, more shops, more streets ... because this implies more revenue for the city, not necessarily better living for its residents.
St Patrick's Day Run
was on today in Edmonton at the Shaw Centre. It's the first run & walk, 5km and 10 km, of the season and a large number of participants showed up. I volunteered as a course marshall and was actually impressed by how many runners & walkers were there. Considering the trail conditions in the river valley, packed snow, puddles, rough ice (frozen footprints from the last thaw) it's not very competitive. Don't fall, be safe. Nobody bothered to put sand on the trail! As I was watching the 5 km participants start and finish I thought how great it is that they came out today for the purpose of raising funds for the Youth Emergency Shelter Society (YESS). I think a number of participants had not walked or ran 5 km for a long time, looking utterly exhausted by the time the returned, but they all made it. And it gives me some hope that not everybody in Edmonton is hiding from the winter.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Boat exhaust fumes harming West Coast killer whales
Killer whales being harmed by boat exhaust fumes
It took a study of 2.5 years to figure out that carbon monoxide emissions from boats off the coast of Vancouver might be harming the Orcas there. At the University of BC Cara Lachmuth tried a variety of scenarios that lead her to this conclusion. The article mentions that whale populations near Victoria and southern BC are followed by boats 12 hours daily, with recreational boats being less careful about following guidelines of whale watching than commercial boats. Noise disturbance had already been known as disruptor of the whales' mating and socializing processes. In addition, toxic chemicals from industry and food shortage (salmon) make their survival harder. Every dead whale washed ashore is found to be full of pesticides as well as heavy metals. From once 300 whales between Seattle and Vancouver only 87 are left today. Apart from the recommendation of limiting the number of boats visiting the whales or increasing the distance between boats and whales, the researchers in the article point out that the state of the whales should raise concern about the state of the overall ecosystem. With the predator on top of the food chain in utter distress everything below him is probably not faring well.
It's bad news really, although I'm a bit thinking, "Did the results of the study really come as a surprise?". No, they shouldn't, especially after all that was known about negative influences in the whales' environment already. I know whale watching is very popular but if no precautions are taken this "free-for-all" whale experience might come to an end soon. Once the whales are extinct none of the boat companies will have much reason to take sightseers out onto the water. If BC was to take any actions, hopefully more than just guidelines, they better make sure they have resources for enforcement, too. I don't know how difficult it is to stop recreational boats from getting to close to the whales and harassing them all day long but the presence of a police boat that educates and fines, if necessary, the boaters might help. It would still leave the whales exposed to plenty of carbon monoxide since Vancouver has a commercial port that sees quite a number of vessels move through the southern gulf. Corporation with the US would be helpful. If the BC government is as sluggish with the whales as Alberta with its grizzlies and caribous I don't think anything will happen to stop the Orcas from going extinct. Unfortunately it has not been said in the article if the provincial government has been approached with the study results and recommendations. I, and you, better keep an eye out for some letter action. I can imagine David Suzuki will be on that issue soon.
It took a study of 2.5 years to figure out that carbon monoxide emissions from boats off the coast of Vancouver might be harming the Orcas there. At the University of BC Cara Lachmuth tried a variety of scenarios that lead her to this conclusion. The article mentions that whale populations near Victoria and southern BC are followed by boats 12 hours daily, with recreational boats being less careful about following guidelines of whale watching than commercial boats. Noise disturbance had already been known as disruptor of the whales' mating and socializing processes. In addition, toxic chemicals from industry and food shortage (salmon) make their survival harder. Every dead whale washed ashore is found to be full of pesticides as well as heavy metals. From once 300 whales between Seattle and Vancouver only 87 are left today. Apart from the recommendation of limiting the number of boats visiting the whales or increasing the distance between boats and whales, the researchers in the article point out that the state of the whales should raise concern about the state of the overall ecosystem. With the predator on top of the food chain in utter distress everything below him is probably not faring well.
It's bad news really, although I'm a bit thinking, "Did the results of the study really come as a surprise?". No, they shouldn't, especially after all that was known about negative influences in the whales' environment already. I know whale watching is very popular but if no precautions are taken this "free-for-all" whale experience might come to an end soon. Once the whales are extinct none of the boat companies will have much reason to take sightseers out onto the water. If BC was to take any actions, hopefully more than just guidelines, they better make sure they have resources for enforcement, too. I don't know how difficult it is to stop recreational boats from getting to close to the whales and harassing them all day long but the presence of a police boat that educates and fines, if necessary, the boaters might help. It would still leave the whales exposed to plenty of carbon monoxide since Vancouver has a commercial port that sees quite a number of vessels move through the southern gulf. Corporation with the US would be helpful. If the BC government is as sluggish with the whales as Alberta with its grizzlies and caribous I don't think anything will happen to stop the Orcas from going extinct. Unfortunately it has not been said in the article if the provincial government has been approached with the study results and recommendations. I, and you, better keep an eye out for some letter action. I can imagine David Suzuki will be on that issue soon.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The other side of plastic bags
I was at the dentist yesterday for check up and cleaning. As always I got a goodie bag of tooth brush, floss, tooth paste, more floss... The little plastic bag, that I wanted to reject, had an environmental logo on it and was from EPI (www.epi-global.com). I looked it up. They claim to have found the solution to breaking down plastic bags and making them biodegradable. Of course, if you read their blog posts they make all other bags bad, especially reusable cotton and jute bags. Below are the links to those articles.
A study in the UK found that plastic bags have a smaller ecological footprint than reusable bags, unless you use your reusable bag more than 51 times. Honestly, I don't know why I wouldn't and throw my reusable bags out? They last a long time, I have had mine for years. I don't even have to worry that they rip apart while I walk home. The study also assumes paper bags are used once only. When I go to the bulk food store I take my paper bags with me to fill them with cereals, nuts, grains etc. You bet I use them more than once because they are sturdy, too. Then somewhere it says that there is a hell lot of plastic packaging around us any way so why make such a fuss over plastic bags. Because you have to start somewhere. Maybe one fine day we are all back to bulk stores and you bring your own containers. That will automatically reduce the amount of recycling, not to talk about the volume of landfills. Dream a little dream. The other article tells us that E.coli and other bacterias grow in reusable bags, a problem not occuring in plastic bags. Sure, it's a world full of idiots, isn't it. Did I have to mention that you should wash your bags once in a while? Also, didn't we just say that most of our food comes in plastic packaging already, so what's the issue? It's not that you put your bread, fruit, cheese, sausage etc. without any packaging into the tote bag. If you worry about those bacteria how can you eat anything out of a non-organic supermarket - it's full of things that are bad for you! And ever wondered about the bacteria within the supermarket, ever noticed that supermarkets are quite dirty places.
I bet people who love their one-time-use plastic bags will love those articles. I don't. They don't mention that your jute or cotton regrows but the oil for your plastic bag does not.Of course, you could take bets now what will disappear earlier - oil or land that is still capable of growing crops. If the latter wins, we'll starve to death in no time so we don't need plastic bags any longer.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/plastic-fantastic-carrier-bags-not-ecovillains-after-all-2220129.html
http://epi-global.com/blog/epi/alternative-to-plastic-bags-sparks-widespread-health-concerns/
A study in the UK found that plastic bags have a smaller ecological footprint than reusable bags, unless you use your reusable bag more than 51 times. Honestly, I don't know why I wouldn't and throw my reusable bags out? They last a long time, I have had mine for years. I don't even have to worry that they rip apart while I walk home. The study also assumes paper bags are used once only. When I go to the bulk food store I take my paper bags with me to fill them with cereals, nuts, grains etc. You bet I use them more than once because they are sturdy, too. Then somewhere it says that there is a hell lot of plastic packaging around us any way so why make such a fuss over plastic bags. Because you have to start somewhere. Maybe one fine day we are all back to bulk stores and you bring your own containers. That will automatically reduce the amount of recycling, not to talk about the volume of landfills. Dream a little dream. The other article tells us that E.coli and other bacterias grow in reusable bags, a problem not occuring in plastic bags. Sure, it's a world full of idiots, isn't it. Did I have to mention that you should wash your bags once in a while? Also, didn't we just say that most of our food comes in plastic packaging already, so what's the issue? It's not that you put your bread, fruit, cheese, sausage etc. without any packaging into the tote bag. If you worry about those bacteria how can you eat anything out of a non-organic supermarket - it's full of things that are bad for you! And ever wondered about the bacteria within the supermarket, ever noticed that supermarkets are quite dirty places.
I bet people who love their one-time-use plastic bags will love those articles. I don't. They don't mention that your jute or cotton regrows but the oil for your plastic bag does not.Of course, you could take bets now what will disappear earlier - oil or land that is still capable of growing crops. If the latter wins, we'll starve to death in no time so we don't need plastic bags any longer.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/plastic-fantastic-carrier-bags-not-ecovillains-after-all-2220129.html
http://epi-global.com/blog/epi/alternative-to-plastic-bags-sparks-widespread-health-concerns/
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Think of a farm in a window
I am currently reading a book about urban farming (Farm City by Novella Carpenter) where Novella plants fruit trees and vegetables, raises rabbits, ducks and chickens, and keeps a beehive on a vacant lot next to her apartment building. It's a very interesting book. But for all those city dwellers without a vacant lot next to their home a lady called Britta Riley came up with growing food in plastic bottels hang in the window. It's sounds crazy but seems to work as there is a community developing all over the world that tries their luck at window farming. Thanks to these people the system of how to best window farm keeps improving. A few handyman skills might be needed to set up the garden.
I have not read much about it yet but am keen on finding out what window works best. We have East and South facing windows which in a place like Edmonton guarantees us to receive a certain amount of daylight even in winter. Unfortunately, I have noticed though that the leaves of my plants tend to burn if they stand too close to the window. I do miss the balcony we had at our old place and community gardens are rather rare in Edmonton. In some European countries such as the UK or Germany it is common to have a strip of land near or in the city set up with gardens. In German we called it "Laubenkolonie". That's where city dwellers have their garden plots to grow flowers, fruit, veggies, and hang out, meet neighbours. The plots tend to have "huts" too that serve as tool shed as well as space for the family to have meals and hang out, store garden furniture and toys.
http://www.greenmuze.com/nurture/urban/2506-urban-window-farming-.html
http://www.windowfarms.org/
I have not read much about it yet but am keen on finding out what window works best. We have East and South facing windows which in a place like Edmonton guarantees us to receive a certain amount of daylight even in winter. Unfortunately, I have noticed though that the leaves of my plants tend to burn if they stand too close to the window. I do miss the balcony we had at our old place and community gardens are rather rare in Edmonton. In some European countries such as the UK or Germany it is common to have a strip of land near or in the city set up with gardens. In German we called it "Laubenkolonie". That's where city dwellers have their garden plots to grow flowers, fruit, veggies, and hang out, meet neighbours. The plots tend to have "huts" too that serve as tool shed as well as space for the family to have meals and hang out, store garden furniture and toys.
http://www.greenmuze.com/nurture/urban/2506-urban-window-farming-.html
http://www.windowfarms.org/
Stephen Harper's oil addiction
I am posting this link here in the hope more people will support the cause. David Suzuki Foundation asked a while ago to write to Harper asking to stop sudsidies to the oil & gas industry. The foundation is aiming at 5000 letters but only half of this number has been reached so far. Please sit down and write free lines, especially if you are a tax payer in Canada! The government pumps more than 1.4 billion taxpayers dollars each year into an industry that all but deserves it. Here's the link, hurry up http://action.davidsuzuki.org/subsidy
Monday, March 14, 2011
Honey, do you prefer Ironing or formaldehyde?
Lindsay Coulter, aka the Queen of Green, featured on the website of David Suzuki also write blurbs for Metro newspaper. Today she tells us that wrinkle-free shirts have been treated with formaldehyde which a) decreases the lifetime of the shirt by making the fabric brittle and b) emits fumes that can be inhaled and cause cancer. Not buying any more of these shirts is a way to avoid formaldehyde but remember it is also found in air fresheners, nail polish, carpets, furniture, kitchen cabinets and bed sheets. Leaves me thinking how hard it is to find shirts that wrinkle to start with - you see, we don't buy dress shirts very often and would need even fewer if somebody in this household was not an aspiring accountant. Never mind, men in dress shirts look good! They should know how to iron though, too.
Go, solar power, go
The nuclear power plant issues that Japan's dealing with right now are in the news everywhere so I just leave it with that. But there's obviously a movement towards solar power now. Solar power shines amid Japan's nuclear woes. Investors are chickening out from the threats associated with nuclear power in naturally unstable parts of the world (there are not many places on this planet though that can't be hit by a natural disasters). This is not the way I would have hoped for solar power to gain popularity but it's great any way. The stocks are still a different story though to the intentions and the actions (two very different things!) of governments. I love the following article: Germany becomes a real clean energy leader
Here a few facts stated in the article:
- 17% of all electricity used in German homes comes from a renewable source
- in Germany solar installations doubled in 2010 alone
- Germany is the largest photovoltaic solar market in the world, with new systems producing over 7 GWp, or approximately half of the global market
- Germany produces 16% of all wind power in the world and is Europe’s biggest user of this form of clean energy
From current to future:
- Germany aims for 35% renewable energy by 2020, and 80% by 2050
- In 2006 Sweden pledged to become an oil-free nation within fifteen years
- The United States is hoping to have 10% renewable energy by 2012, and 25% by 2050, in addition to reducing greenhouse gases by 80% in the same year (how??)
- the US's goal to become a climate change leader seems thin considering Congress is loaded down with fossil fuel loving, budget cutting happy politicians
Here a few facts stated in the article:
- 17% of all electricity used in German homes comes from a renewable source
- in Germany solar installations doubled in 2010 alone
- Germany is the largest photovoltaic solar market in the world, with new systems producing over 7 GWp, or approximately half of the global market
- Germany produces 16% of all wind power in the world and is Europe’s biggest user of this form of clean energy
From current to future:
- Germany aims for 35% renewable energy by 2020, and 80% by 2050
- In 2006 Sweden pledged to become an oil-free nation within fifteen years
- The United States is hoping to have 10% renewable energy by 2012, and 25% by 2050, in addition to reducing greenhouse gases by 80% in the same year (how??)
- the US's goal to become a climate change leader seems thin considering Congress is loaded down with fossil fuel loving, budget cutting happy politicians
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Living small
According to a recent article in the Metro small houses are becoming more and more popular, especially the Katrina cottages. Katrina cottages http://www.katrinacottagehousing.org/index.html were invented for the victims of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. They can be used as guest house, cottage, for affordable housing projects, for every day living. The reasons for this trend are the recession (high unemployment versus costs for a large house e.g. for energy), the desire "to live more ecologically and less wasteful", demographic changes (more singles). Also, with the population growing older there's plenty of people willing to downsize and lots of widows and widowers. Whatever the reason I like this trend. I would not have wanted the former trend to continue where in 55 years since 1950 the average square footage of a home went from 983 to 2,340! I know people get bigger and bigger but we can't expand forever and put concrete infrastructure up all over the place.
The Katrina Cottage can be delivered in pre-manufactured elements or be built on site. It's designed to withstand hurricanes. Pre-manufactured sounds good to me, too. Smaller houses will already have a smaller ecological footprint for using less material, consuming less space and energy, but pre-fabricated does all that again compared to the house built on-site that needs all materials delivered separately. I just found this article about "green houses" Green Prefab Homes - Prefabulous! on a website called Low Impact Living.
And I just had another thought. Cities, or all communities, should have a set percentage of houses that are allowed to be empty within the community boundaries before any other house gets erected. I don't know if such a rule exists anywhere but it certainly would stop the unnecessary expansion of suburbs while more central areas, more mature neighbourhoods, empty out. As well, it would be better to support home owners or potential buyers to renovate a house instead of just building a new one somewhere else. Neglect is not only ugly it will also contribute to the deterioration of a neighbourhood as it expands from one building to the next.
The Katrina Cottage can be delivered in pre-manufactured elements or be built on site. It's designed to withstand hurricanes. Pre-manufactured sounds good to me, too. Smaller houses will already have a smaller ecological footprint for using less material, consuming less space and energy, but pre-fabricated does all that again compared to the house built on-site that needs all materials delivered separately. I just found this article about "green houses" Green Prefab Homes - Prefabulous! on a website called Low Impact Living.
And I just had another thought. Cities, or all communities, should have a set percentage of houses that are allowed to be empty within the community boundaries before any other house gets erected. I don't know if such a rule exists anywhere but it certainly would stop the unnecessary expansion of suburbs while more central areas, more mature neighbourhoods, empty out. As well, it would be better to support home owners or potential buyers to renovate a house instead of just building a new one somewhere else. Neglect is not only ugly it will also contribute to the deterioration of a neighbourhood as it expands from one building to the next.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Natural disaster
First New Zealand, second Japan, third ?. One time after the other our lovely planet Earth demonstrates is violent forces and causes a natural disaster, as we like to call it. And every time it will not be the last time. If one thing is for sure then it is the fact that we can not tame Earth's forces. We will always be exposed and vulnerable to earth quakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and the like. Yes, they are sad events but reading the news about Japan I also had two thoughts that might be a bit weird.
The articles I read reported on three different nuclear power plants that were affected by the earth quake. Nuclear power plants! For what sane reason does a country like Japan have nuclear power plants? If the statistics are right, Japan receives 20% of the strongest earthquakes, that is a magnitude of 6.0 and up, on Earth. They experienced the devastating forces of nuclear power in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But they have nuclear power plants. Yes of course, one would think, how could they live without. Japan is a densely populated country that wants and needs energy independence, especially considering who their neighbouring countries are. Lots of people use lots of electricity and sun, wind and other renewable sources of energy have not made it big style yet in most countries. Hydro - I don't know much about Japan's rivers but a breaking dam seems less disastrous than a nuclear power plant breaking apart during an earthquake. When the infrastructure gets wrecked within minutes how would they want to deal with this kind of event? Currently, it sounds like the nuclear power plants are doing alright but how well can they be assessed under the circumstances? I was not too impressed either with the oil refineries. At least one of them has gone up in flames that reach 30 metres (90 feet) into the sky. Exactly what's needed now. They are not going to stop that from burning until the oil is gone. Lot's of oil wasted for nothing, lots of emissions for nothing but never mind most conventional oil comes from the unstable middle east where oil tends to burn for no good reason. At least nobody, like BP or Exxon, can be blamed because it's a catastrophe due to natural forces. Did somebody there think they were invincible?
We are a damn selfish species. If a natural disaster occurs we always think about the people who got hurt, not about the nature, the flora and fauna. I suppose half of all human beings think that plants and animals don't have feelings to start with. But let's face there's no food without plants and animals. So why is there never a mentioning of roughly how many animals died, if a national park or other area of outstanding ecological importance was affected for example, or if just another species got wiped out. New Zealand has lots of endangered species that only live there and nowhere else. What if the last kiwi bird got killed in an earth quake, would anybody care when that same earth quake killed people? Unlikely. Might be because we harm our nature all the time already any way, so why would we care if nature "hurts" itself. No, I don't think our planet actually thinks about that and considers the consequences, it simply does not care, just like us.
The articles I read reported on three different nuclear power plants that were affected by the earth quake. Nuclear power plants! For what sane reason does a country like Japan have nuclear power plants? If the statistics are right, Japan receives 20% of the strongest earthquakes, that is a magnitude of 6.0 and up, on Earth. They experienced the devastating forces of nuclear power in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But they have nuclear power plants. Yes of course, one would think, how could they live without. Japan is a densely populated country that wants and needs energy independence, especially considering who their neighbouring countries are. Lots of people use lots of electricity and sun, wind and other renewable sources of energy have not made it big style yet in most countries. Hydro - I don't know much about Japan's rivers but a breaking dam seems less disastrous than a nuclear power plant breaking apart during an earthquake. When the infrastructure gets wrecked within minutes how would they want to deal with this kind of event? Currently, it sounds like the nuclear power plants are doing alright but how well can they be assessed under the circumstances? I was not too impressed either with the oil refineries. At least one of them has gone up in flames that reach 30 metres (90 feet) into the sky. Exactly what's needed now. They are not going to stop that from burning until the oil is gone. Lot's of oil wasted for nothing, lots of emissions for nothing but never mind most conventional oil comes from the unstable middle east where oil tends to burn for no good reason. At least nobody, like BP or Exxon, can be blamed because it's a catastrophe due to natural forces. Did somebody there think they were invincible?
We are a damn selfish species. If a natural disaster occurs we always think about the people who got hurt, not about the nature, the flora and fauna. I suppose half of all human beings think that plants and animals don't have feelings to start with. But let's face there's no food without plants and animals. So why is there never a mentioning of roughly how many animals died, if a national park or other area of outstanding ecological importance was affected for example, or if just another species got wiped out. New Zealand has lots of endangered species that only live there and nowhere else. What if the last kiwi bird got killed in an earth quake, would anybody care when that same earth quake killed people? Unlikely. Might be because we harm our nature all the time already any way, so why would we care if nature "hurts" itself. No, I don't think our planet actually thinks about that and considers the consequences, it simply does not care, just like us.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
I say
that if you have some spare time you should join Ipsos's survey community http://www.i-say.com/ and participate in product polls. For every survey you take you get points. If you are a good consumer - don't run to the shop now! - you are likely to earn more points. I am not a good consumer, especially not of brand name products - yuck - so I forward half the surveys to my hubby who is just as bad of a consumer as I am but he at least has fun answering surveys. Oh, he got me signed up for this, thinking I'd be bored at home with my baby. Anyway, once you collected enough points you can turn them into gift cards or cash but that would be too easy. No, the reason I want you to collect those points is to turn them into donations to either the David Suzuki Foundation, the WWF, or the Nature Conservancy Canada. These are the three organisations I care about in the long lists of options. Hope nobody in the survey community is so cheap as to take the cash or gift cards. If you can't bring yourself to donate your hard-earned dollars then do it with Ipsos points, seems a good idea, doesn't it.
Bound to extinction: Alberta's caribou
Watching the documentation “Being Caribou” last autumn, sequences of both Bush presidents were shown with a 10 year lapse in between where both of them said that they did not care about protecting the caribou and their habitat, they only cared about the American people and jobs for these people. The issue was that the USA wanted to drill for oil in the calving grounds of the caribou in North-East Alaska. Why I am mentioning this? I think that attitude also applies to the Alberta government – it neither protects the caribou nor the caribou's habitat despite the fact that scientists have long realised and asked for a protection of both. You have to read the following article There's something fishy about Alberta's caribou because paragraph for paragraph it's a great article. It does mention an earlier article from February that did not go down well with politicians and the Edmonton Journal was apparently forced to apologize and rephrase it. Here's the link: Conservatives not conserving our caribou.
I don't think as long as this Conservative government exists anything in favour of the caribou is going to happen. It took 8 years to start protecting the grizzly bear in Alberta. The caribou might need to have more patience, or survival skill as for that.
The first article clearly states that the reason why the government avoids protection of endangered species and their habitat is due to certain industries, obviously forestry and oil & gas, ever the same culprits. I watched The Story of Citizens United versus F.E.C. http://www.truth-out.org/story-citizens-united-v-fec68121 last night, a project from The Story of Stuff producer Annie Leonard. It's about the USA and how corporations and big industries happily pay money to political parties in order to get their way, no matter what the people want ("the people" must be those citizens that do not work for the corporations). I don't think it's quite that bad in Alberta (and Canada) but sure enough politicians listen too closely to industry ignoring what the people want and what independent scientists say. But then again, most people just can't be bothered to do anything about it - so who do we want to blame if everything goes downhill from now on? Ourselves.
I also wonder: Who do politicians want to create jobs for when people suffer from floods and droughts & when people come down with cancers, pulmonary and heart diseases because all warnings about climate change, air and water pollution, toxins released by industry etc. have been ignored and denied; when people are so obese or ill that they can’t move? I don’t think they think that far!
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The oil is slippery out there
Reading the news these days is like wow! ten times over. WikiLeaks WikiLeaks reveals imminent Saudi oil peak tells us that peak oil is happening right now in Saudi Arabia and that the country can't help much longer meet the international demand of oil so oil prices will go up more rather than down. Forever?
Alberta is still going strong on expanding oil sands production but because it's supposed to be "greener" and "ethical" Alberta committed to "greener" oil the Alberta government had a committee set up to look into recent studies of oil sands related environmental and health issues Alberta oilsands committee calls for more rigorous monitoring . The committee found it's time to monitor these impacts more vigorously. But it's not clear to me how they want to go about it and what the actions will be if their findings are not as positive as expected, especially since the government has not put aside money for this purpose in their brand new budget. I call it a bluff, lots of talking, for sure no actions soon. In the meantime the Alberta government fast-tracks the development of a new neighbourhood in Fort McMurray since with the increase of the oil production more workers are needed and they need to live somewhere Crown Land for sale in Fort McMurray. Proving the short-sightedness of our provincial government is the fact that it can't be bothered to get money off the oil companies now in order to ensure the reclamation of the destroyed land in the future Alberta NDP raises concern about proposed land reclamation program. It seems that this government is incapable of dealing with pressing issues, or simply does not care. Let somebody else deal with it when it's even more urgent. To wait and ask for money when the operation of an oilsands mine comes to an end is plain stupid to me, because it only suits the oil company, definitely not Albertans who will have to shell out the money if the oil company fails to do so. Instead the government should get the money now and invests it in a smart way, but hang on, they are probably not even capable of doing that. After all they are spending money from the Heritage fund now to get through the recession while maintaining the lowest taxes in Canada. The Heritage Fund has been accumulated during the boom to help out with bottle necks in the budget during bad years. Do they really think it's that bad already? Oh suck it up, get the taxes up and keep that fund for the really bad times to come, climate change is not going to stop. Sure, it is meant to hit the countries that contribute little to the cause the hardest and those who contribute lots (hi, North America) not so much. Climate change to have greatest impact on those least responsible But Canada will look like a moon like landscape even without climate change if oilsands, gas and other mining operations continue big time.
Alberta is still going strong on expanding oil sands production but because it's supposed to be "greener" and "ethical" Alberta committed to "greener" oil the Alberta government had a committee set up to look into recent studies of oil sands related environmental and health issues Alberta oilsands committee calls for more rigorous monitoring . The committee found it's time to monitor these impacts more vigorously. But it's not clear to me how they want to go about it and what the actions will be if their findings are not as positive as expected, especially since the government has not put aside money for this purpose in their brand new budget. I call it a bluff, lots of talking, for sure no actions soon. In the meantime the Alberta government fast-tracks the development of a new neighbourhood in Fort McMurray since with the increase of the oil production more workers are needed and they need to live somewhere Crown Land for sale in Fort McMurray. Proving the short-sightedness of our provincial government is the fact that it can't be bothered to get money off the oil companies now in order to ensure the reclamation of the destroyed land in the future Alberta NDP raises concern about proposed land reclamation program. It seems that this government is incapable of dealing with pressing issues, or simply does not care. Let somebody else deal with it when it's even more urgent. To wait and ask for money when the operation of an oilsands mine comes to an end is plain stupid to me, because it only suits the oil company, definitely not Albertans who will have to shell out the money if the oil company fails to do so. Instead the government should get the money now and invests it in a smart way, but hang on, they are probably not even capable of doing that. After all they are spending money from the Heritage fund now to get through the recession while maintaining the lowest taxes in Canada. The Heritage Fund has been accumulated during the boom to help out with bottle necks in the budget during bad years. Do they really think it's that bad already? Oh suck it up, get the taxes up and keep that fund for the really bad times to come, climate change is not going to stop. Sure, it is meant to hit the countries that contribute little to the cause the hardest and those who contribute lots (hi, North America) not so much. Climate change to have greatest impact on those least responsible But Canada will look like a moon like landscape even without climate change if oilsands, gas and other mining operations continue big time.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Just another "superfood"
I really dislike these articles about all those foods that shrink your waist line, weight etc. (simply eat less if you are too fat) but I read the beginning of this one Lentils can help lose your belly fat because I love lentils and of course I have them in my cupboard, the organic option from a farm in Saskatchewan. Recently I chatted with a friend about dinners. She has 3 male at home (2 sons & 1 hubby) who love meat of course and aren't much into "experiments" when it comes to what they eat. In comparison I have a male at home who eats almost anything that I serve even if it is not a dish from a recipe but a mere creation out of the fridge's contents. So she was wondering if I often cook lentil dishes and I opened my cupboard and said "well, there's rice, pasta, barley, quinoa, green lentils, red lentils, couscous, buckwheat, .." I suppose we eat lentils frequently but surely not more than once a week because we have other options. She went home and decided to try a lentil dish for her lot - it went down okay.
The above article states that Canada is the world's largest exporter of lentils - so we even eat local food! It also states that lentils are not very appreciated in Canada - no, because fries & burger have taken over everywhere and with regards to Alberta there's a strong cattle industry that produces yummy, affordable (the non- organic version) beef. Lentils with beef in a stew should work though. I don't even understand when people eat a lot of processed and fast food. In Jasper we ate out for dinner, once pizza, once at Smitty's and three times at the Japanese place. After the pizza and Smitty's I thought I can't survive on this food all week - too fatty and too salty. So we went for Sushi, Udon noodles and other yummy and healthy options instead.
The above article states that Canada is the world's largest exporter of lentils - so we even eat local food! It also states that lentils are not very appreciated in Canada - no, because fries & burger have taken over everywhere and with regards to Alberta there's a strong cattle industry that produces yummy, affordable (the non- organic version) beef. Lentils with beef in a stew should work though. I don't even understand when people eat a lot of processed and fast food. In Jasper we ate out for dinner, once pizza, once at Smitty's and three times at the Japanese place. After the pizza and Smitty's I thought I can't survive on this food all week - too fatty and too salty. So we went for Sushi, Udon noodles and other yummy and healthy options instead.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Unwanted solar power?
Another issue that does not seem to come as a surprise. This article is about the USA. I don't know how it is in Canada but I can't imagine it being one smooth process that is applied country-wide. So often every province does its own thing (think alone of taxes!) they probably will not join forces to help renewable energies get an easier foothold in the market.
The article points out that the cost of installing a solar power system for a residential home could be considerably lowered if a state-wide (not even country-wide!) permit process was applied. But because every locality has its own rules & fees the environmentally-concerned user-to-be of solar power has to spend a lot more money than elsewhere, such as in Germany where there's only one process for the whole country, to get the same job done. Too bad really!
Here's the link: http://behindcurrentevents.com/?p=1275
The article points out that the cost of installing a solar power system for a residential home could be considerably lowered if a state-wide (not even country-wide!) permit process was applied. But because every locality has its own rules & fees the environmentally-concerned user-to-be of solar power has to spend a lot more money than elsewhere, such as in Germany where there's only one process for the whole country, to get the same job done. Too bad really!
Here's the link: http://behindcurrentevents.com/?p=1275
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Canada has an environment week!
I just found this out thanks to a brochure about Jasper National park. Obviously, a community like Jasper town in the middle of a very beautiful and impressive national park participates with some kind of event. This Environment week was started by the government of Canada early in the 1970 - that's quite a while ago and from what I know at a time when Canada was considered an environmental leader. That's definitely not the case anymore but the environment week has not been scraped yet by the "Harper Government".
Currently, at the website for Alberta's environment week there's only information available from last year's events http://www.environment.gov.ab.ca/edu/eweek/ Since the registration for this year's events does not start until April 1 I will have to wait a lot longer to find out what is going to happen. The Environment week is held at the end of May/ beginning of June and coincides with the UN World Environment Day whose global host will be India this year. http://www.unep.org/wed/index.asp As it is also the International Year of the Forests the official website offers some forest facts.
Having been on a guided tour through Maligne canyon near Jasper town a few days ago I remember well what our knowledgeable guide told us about forests. Forests are too dense due to the management of forest fires, basically putting the fires out. I believe he said that it would be healthy to have 150-200 trees per acre but there are 20,000-40,000 per acre in most places now. Consequently, trees do not reach their full potential (no space to grow) and all the life underneath the tree canopy is negatively effected as well. Forests need fires to exist and maintain biodiversity but human beings that like to use forests in their own way (sports & leisure activities, tourist destination, logging, living near forests) don't want the regular fires to happen. A healthy forest would burn in patches and stop burning all by itself. But a dense forest, once it starts to burn, will be a huge fire that can't stop because there's so much to "eat". It all made sense and he gave us the reasons why logging can't ever do for a forest what fires do. Mind you, fires are beneficial while logging is not, to start with.
If only 50 years ago we had known what we know now. It could have prevented a lot of mismanagement in our forests. Now the problem is not easy to fix and will come with dear consequences not only to the forests but to us as well. I think the huge fires in California and the inferno that happened in Australia are a good proof already. Anyway, I said could because there's lots of things we know now and still actions are not taken accordingly. How often do we hear after an environmental disaster, like the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, that it could have been prevented, that safety issues were known but ignored, usually due to corporate and human greed. They hoped for luck instead of taking precautions but sometimes it did not work out. I wonder how many more bad accidents it needs until we give up on the devastating way of learning the hard way and, having learnt from earlier catastrophes, take care first instead.
Currently, at the website for Alberta's environment week there's only information available from last year's events http://www.environment.gov.ab.ca/edu/eweek/ Since the registration for this year's events does not start until April 1 I will have to wait a lot longer to find out what is going to happen. The Environment week is held at the end of May/ beginning of June and coincides with the UN World Environment Day whose global host will be India this year. http://www.unep.org/wed/index.asp As it is also the International Year of the Forests the official website offers some forest facts.
Having been on a guided tour through Maligne canyon near Jasper town a few days ago I remember well what our knowledgeable guide told us about forests. Forests are too dense due to the management of forest fires, basically putting the fires out. I believe he said that it would be healthy to have 150-200 trees per acre but there are 20,000-40,000 per acre in most places now. Consequently, trees do not reach their full potential (no space to grow) and all the life underneath the tree canopy is negatively effected as well. Forests need fires to exist and maintain biodiversity but human beings that like to use forests in their own way (sports & leisure activities, tourist destination, logging, living near forests) don't want the regular fires to happen. A healthy forest would burn in patches and stop burning all by itself. But a dense forest, once it starts to burn, will be a huge fire that can't stop because there's so much to "eat". It all made sense and he gave us the reasons why logging can't ever do for a forest what fires do. Mind you, fires are beneficial while logging is not, to start with.
If only 50 years ago we had known what we know now. It could have prevented a lot of mismanagement in our forests. Now the problem is not easy to fix and will come with dear consequences not only to the forests but to us as well. I think the huge fires in California and the inferno that happened in Australia are a good proof already. Anyway, I said could because there's lots of things we know now and still actions are not taken accordingly. How often do we hear after an environmental disaster, like the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, that it could have been prevented, that safety issues were known but ignored, usually due to corporate and human greed. They hoped for luck instead of taking precautions but sometimes it did not work out. I wonder how many more bad accidents it needs until we give up on the devastating way of learning the hard way and, having learnt from earlier catastrophes, take care first instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)