The Big Wild referred in its latest newsletter to two articles that kind of aim for opposite goals - one to protect the caribou, the other one to simply not care about caribou for industry's sake.
The first article from Globe and Mail reports on the newly established Boreal Business Forum that will try to ensure that the 21 member companies of the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) take actions towards meeting the goals of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. The (unfortunately only) three-year-agreement was signed last year and aims to protect much needed habitat for caribou and other species as well as to implement more sustainable wood harvesting practices.
The nine companies that make up the forum are consumers of the FPAC's products. They include newspaper and magazine publishers, office supply retailers, and consumer products companies such as Kimberly-Clark; Lowes, Rona Inc., Office Depot; Axel Springer AG, Time Inc., The Globe and Mail and Hearst Corp.
From the article: The signing of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement “represented a historic milestone in the environment-forestry debate. But like many agreements, signing is not the end point – it’s the start,” said Yalmaz Siddiqui, director of environmental strategy at Office Depot. “As a business that uses forest products from Canada … we look forward to working with [the signatories] to achieve the desired outcomes of the agreement,” Mr. Siddiqui said.
Let's hope for the best.
Meanwhile in Ontario, the Ministry of Natural Resources, lead by the Honourable Linda Jeffrey, announced plans to exempt all industries from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for most of the caribou habitat in Ontario. This proposal, when enacted, would effectively remove all legal protections under the ESA for caribou. The Ministry is jeopardizing the recovery of caribou in Ontario and failing to uphold its North American-leading Endangered Species Act.
There is nothing Honourable about that intention! First of all there should not be any exemptions to this act because it beats its whole purpose. Second, the North American-leading act makes me roll my eyes. I do not know the act in word and detail but it makes it sound to me that it's kept rather vaguely so to ensure no endangered species gets overly protected. Considering North American recklessness with nature - in the name of progress and economic growth of course - I wonder how hard it can be to be leading in any environmental issue in North America. Yes, I'm sarcastic again. This woman ought to be fired. Ontarians will shriek now that they don't need more unemployment and I wonder if this step of the ministry has something to do with getting certain industries back on track. Quote: Ontario has spent the last three years and significant public resources to create massive exemptions for industry instead of implementing the ESA to protect species and using the tools contained in the Act to assist with industry compliance. The Big Wild was therefore so kind as to pre-write a letter to Linda Jeffrey and you should click and sign it, too, now.
Showing posts with label endangered species. Show all posts
Showing posts with label endangered species. Show all posts
Sunday, May 1, 2011
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?
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.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
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!
Friday, January 21, 2011
Something worth watching
I always want to write up another bigger post e.g. on hemp and then some small things get into my way. You got to watch this video about Earth and us, it's really beautiful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY59wZdCDo0 Now, are you already helping the environment?
I'm on the email list or Facebook page of David Suzuki Foundation, The story of Stuff, The Big Wild, CPAWS Northern Alberta, Nature Conservancy Canada, and well the Alberta government. So it's very interesting, that's how I learn a lot and find out about what people like me currently complain about to some politicians or so. So in the newsletter of The Big Wild for example it was just pointed out that Alberta and BC are the only Canadian provinces without any endangered species protection legislation. A BC initiative of different environmental groups wants to change that: http://www.protectbiodiversity.ca/species/ They have 1900 endangered species after all, that's a big number, who would have thought. Did you know there are turtles in BC? I really hope theyt get the legislation. Well, Alberta, even if tried, would not get it, not with this government that tries to slash the Parks Act to get more industry in. Is it election time yet?
I'm on the email list or Facebook page of David Suzuki Foundation, The story of Stuff, The Big Wild, CPAWS Northern Alberta, Nature Conservancy Canada, and well the Alberta government. So it's very interesting, that's how I learn a lot and find out about what people like me currently complain about to some politicians or so. So in the newsletter of The Big Wild for example it was just pointed out that Alberta and BC are the only Canadian provinces without any endangered species protection legislation. A BC initiative of different environmental groups wants to change that: http://www.protectbiodiversity.ca/species/ They have 1900 endangered species after all, that's a big number, who would have thought. Did you know there are turtles in BC? I really hope theyt get the legislation. Well, Alberta, even if tried, would not get it, not with this government that tries to slash the Parks Act to get more industry in. Is it election time yet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)