I read this article in The Record a while ago and quite liked it, apart from the comments some dumbhead posted below: Ottawa should heed local green initiatives
The article is about Canadian government's stance on the Kyoto Protocol, their behaviour at the United Nations Climate Change Conference and Harper's environmental ignorance. Although a lot of Canadians probably (hopefully) shook their heads at all of those, I'm sure there are, tragically but true, Canadians who share the government's and prime minister's stand. Alone this sentence from the article makes me wonder how much idiocy is still left (lots, too much): "Environment Canada’s 2011 report on Canadian emissions showed that we will increase our output of greenhouse gases by 18 per cent by the end of this decade, with continued upwards momentum." Who's proud of that?
Canada is looking to export oil to China, meantime the USA is having their own internal fights over the Keystone XL pipeline. Others again suggest to build refineries in Canada and use the oil here instead of selling it. For the greedy oil companies in the tar sands just nothing moves fast enough.They want to expand until they've ruined half of Alberta (and Saskatchewan). Subsidies for citizens who'd like to support alternative energies have been cut, as in the case of solar power. The "Environment Minister" Peter Kent gave his go-ahead for Brewster's Glacier Discovery Walk in Jasper National Park and more Disney-esque attractions are already in the planning for another national park. What's next? My hope is that people boykott all of it!
The author of the article points out that local, municipal and provincial initiatives can take actions towards a more sustainable life but all of them will have a hard time considering the lack of support from the feds. The important sentence here is possibly, "Demonize the government all you want, but do not use that as an excuse for inaction." Unfortunately, there's only so far you can get with these initiatives and I am sure more people would think about change towards an environmentally-friendly behaviour if the government set a good example, or let's say if the government pressured its citizens into it. It's good to see there's optimism but the power of polluting corporations in this country goes way to far.
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
There was no green thing back then
I figured I actually do quite a few things the way they were done in the "earlier days". So if I can survive the old fashioned way, why can not every else too, no matter their age?
Friday, September 16, 2011
Read the news - still no good ones
I happened to have a look into the paper today. I have not read much the news since I returned to Edmonton because they are upsetting and I was proven right again today. The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council suggests that "70,000 grey seals should be killed over a one- or two-year period to test the hypothesis that the animals are preventing recovery of groundfish in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence." What???
In the 1990s the cod stocks collapsed due to overfishing by human beings, not by seal, but now they want the seals to be killed because the cod does not recover!!?? Apparently fishermen have been complaining that the "hungry seals have hindered the recovery of cod stocks". I bet they are hungry and I can't blame them because it is not their fault. They are victims too. It's again one of these cases where our species has messed around far too much with nature and now puts the blame for not being able to quickly enough continue their exploitation on a different animal species. I can't belief somebody dared to make such a stupid suggestion.
The other upsetting point obviously is the search for a new Premier of Alberta. Elections are held on Saturday. Does not matter who it's going to be all candidates want to expand the oil sands and do more business with Asia because there is a growing opposition in the US to a planned pipeline. One candidate cautioned that there are not enough refineries and therefore the oil sands growth should only be moderate until the maximum value can be achieved. Along with that comes a demand for Alberta's very own immigration law to get more workers in to help with the expansion of the oil sands. A man called Ted Morton said that economical growth must come without polluting air, land and water. He's not going to win. No change for the better in sight then. Alberta, one fine day you will have to suck up your mistakes.
There was a recent study done on commuting times in Canada. Edmontonians have the shortest commute to work from all Canadians. That came as a surprise and the city of Edmonton is all proud of it. My explanation for this "win" is that Edmonton - sprawl, sprawl, sprawl - devotes a lot of space to streets, roads, bigger roads and back alleys. Don't walk, don't cycle, just drive. Traffic lights are timed to keep motorized vehicles going even if that means that pedestrians might have to wait up to 3 minutes to get a green light. That's not only frustrating it adds up to a lot of time once you need to cross at more than one light. Having rented a car recently I must say I was astonished how many errands I could run in a single day. It would take me at least a week by any other means.
In the 1990s the cod stocks collapsed due to overfishing by human beings, not by seal, but now they want the seals to be killed because the cod does not recover!!?? Apparently fishermen have been complaining that the "hungry seals have hindered the recovery of cod stocks". I bet they are hungry and I can't blame them because it is not their fault. They are victims too. It's again one of these cases where our species has messed around far too much with nature and now puts the blame for not being able to quickly enough continue their exploitation on a different animal species. I can't belief somebody dared to make such a stupid suggestion.
The other upsetting point obviously is the search for a new Premier of Alberta. Elections are held on Saturday. Does not matter who it's going to be all candidates want to expand the oil sands and do more business with Asia because there is a growing opposition in the US to a planned pipeline. One candidate cautioned that there are not enough refineries and therefore the oil sands growth should only be moderate until the maximum value can be achieved. Along with that comes a demand for Alberta's very own immigration law to get more workers in to help with the expansion of the oil sands. A man called Ted Morton said that economical growth must come without polluting air, land and water. He's not going to win. No change for the better in sight then. Alberta, one fine day you will have to suck up your mistakes.
There was a recent study done on commuting times in Canada. Edmontonians have the shortest commute to work from all Canadians. That came as a surprise and the city of Edmonton is all proud of it. My explanation for this "win" is that Edmonton - sprawl, sprawl, sprawl - devotes a lot of space to streets, roads, bigger roads and back alleys. Don't walk, don't cycle, just drive. Traffic lights are timed to keep motorized vehicles going even if that means that pedestrians might have to wait up to 3 minutes to get a green light. That's not only frustrating it adds up to a lot of time once you need to cross at more than one light. Having rented a car recently I must say I was astonished how many errands I could run in a single day. It would take me at least a week by any other means.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Suburbia live
Last week I visited a friend in Cochrane near Calgary. She lives in a new development on the outskirts of the town with a gorgeous view to the Rockies. Apart from the view there was not much to this development. Far away from anything you depend on your car. My friend admitted that if she was to walk shopping she'd have to carry her groceries uphill for 40 minutes. You better be a fitness-fanatic to do so. The houses were large but close to each other because gardens were practically non-existent. Since all houses are on dead-end streets there's no through traffic and therefore no sidewalks. It seems safe to walk on the street but how am I going to teach my child not to do it? For being a large house it had only 3 smallish bedrooms. Even the wardrobe between the living area and the garage was bigger than the bedrooms. Unless you host dozens of people regularly I don't see why you would want extremely spacious living roomS.
It was my first trip from Edmonton to Calgary and luckily I did not have to go right into Calgary as Cochrane is located Northwest of it. I drove Stony Trail though, a new road around the outskirts of Calgary that helps you avoid going through the city. At the moment the road is surrounded by barren, of nature cleared land but soon there will be neighbourhoods everywhere as beginnings can already be seen. It's not looking beautiful. I said to my husband, in Alberta the population must be expected to double very soon or who is going to live in all those houses? I would not want to. Despite the fact that Calgary has an apparently pretty good LRT (Light Railway Transit) system these new neighbourhoods will not be connected right away. There's a Park & Ride (in driving terms) nearby but even those massive (ugly and space-consuming if built as a single level) parking lots can only take so many cars. In Edmonton Park & Rides opened last year in the two locations where new stations were opened and residents still complain that unless you are there at 7 AM you can't get a spot until 3 PM when the first commuters go home again. So Albertans will keep driving for many years to come - don't complain about gas prices!
The new federal government just looks stupid to ask oil companies why petroleum prices are high. It's a free market, you can do it as long as somebody pays the price. Besides, the oil industry is highly supported and subsidised by exactly this Conservative government - so shut the f*** up!
It was my first trip from Edmonton to Calgary and luckily I did not have to go right into Calgary as Cochrane is located Northwest of it. I drove Stony Trail though, a new road around the outskirts of Calgary that helps you avoid going through the city. At the moment the road is surrounded by barren, of nature cleared land but soon there will be neighbourhoods everywhere as beginnings can already be seen. It's not looking beautiful. I said to my husband, in Alberta the population must be expected to double very soon or who is going to live in all those houses? I would not want to. Despite the fact that Calgary has an apparently pretty good LRT (Light Railway Transit) system these new neighbourhoods will not be connected right away. There's a Park & Ride (in driving terms) nearby but even those massive (ugly and space-consuming if built as a single level) parking lots can only take so many cars. In Edmonton Park & Rides opened last year in the two locations where new stations were opened and residents still complain that unless you are there at 7 AM you can't get a spot until 3 PM when the first commuters go home again. So Albertans will keep driving for many years to come - don't complain about gas prices!
The new federal government just looks stupid to ask oil companies why petroleum prices are high. It's a free market, you can do it as long as somebody pays the price. Besides, the oil industry is highly supported and subsidised by exactly this Conservative government - so shut the f*** up!
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The big oil spill near our back yard
Did you hear about the latest oil spill right here in Alberta? It's the by far biggest oil spill in Alberta in the past 30 years, the second one in the last week alone (yes, it happened last Friday and only got into the news today!!!!), and it happened "within the traditional territory of the Lubicon Cree, who lead a largely subsistence lifestyle within the pristine ecology of northern Alberta's boreal forest." Reading alone the quote I wonder why on Earth is a pipeline in this area?
It's unclear yet how long the clean-up will take. My sarcasm tells me that this is due to the fact that corporations in Canada pay enormous tax rates and it's therefore likely that the culprit oil company has little spare cash to deal with the issue quickly and responsibly! Five days have past and the extend of the incident is unknown - who are you trying to fool?
The suggestion of the David Suzuki Foundation is to get of oil and find alternative energy sources - sorry, but with a strongly oil-addicted leader of this country this seems an overly ambitious suggestion so why don't we keep doing business as usual and ignore what happened while pumping further subsidies into the oil & gas industry. Long live Stephen Harper!
It's unclear yet how long the clean-up will take. My sarcasm tells me that this is due to the fact that corporations in Canada pay enormous tax rates and it's therefore likely that the culprit oil company has little spare cash to deal with the issue quickly and responsibly! Five days have past and the extend of the incident is unknown - who are you trying to fool?
The suggestion of the David Suzuki Foundation is to get of oil and find alternative energy sources - sorry, but with a strongly oil-addicted leader of this country this seems an overly ambitious suggestion so why don't we keep doing business as usual and ignore what happened while pumping further subsidies into the oil & gas industry. Long live Stephen Harper!
Friday, April 15, 2011
Oil & gas spills happen "all the time"
Now it's official, after most of us have probably long guessed it. Americans are so addicted to oil that they knowingly put their natural environment at risk, at huge risks and don't give a s***. Yes, things often go terribly wrong but nobody blinks an eye because it has become business as usual. One could think the attitude is: Keep the cars rolling, keep the industry polluting, and hopefully the worst hits after me. (Might be helpful if you are of old age already).
Oil & gas spills happen "all the time"
Oil & gas spills happen "all the time"
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
White Water, Black Gold
Just a little add-on I almost neglected.
During the White Water, Black Gold Q&A- period three natives got up commenting on the tar sands issue. One lady with her family from Fort MacKay made the point that the native communities downstream are the most affected but are often ignored even though they are real people. A tall man with very long thick white hair raved and ranted in a first nations language that nobody understood. The third person's favourite words were moral corruption and he went on about how the oil corporations, politicians of all levels, industries related to the oil industry suffer from moral corruption. His speech ended with the conclusion that every Canadian is (morally corrupted and) responsible for what happens in Northern Alberta through their vote at elections. Hence his request to the film maker to produce a film about moral corruption before the next election. Lavalee responded that this was a very tight time line.
I don't think the tar sands will fall or rise with elections as long as there are income taxes, health care, education and similar issues that are much more personal and dear to the average Canadian than something happening somewhere north that can be pushed out of one's mind far more easily than the next visit to the doctor, the next tuition bill, ...
During the White Water, Black Gold Q&A- period three natives got up commenting on the tar sands issue. One lady with her family from Fort MacKay made the point that the native communities downstream are the most affected but are often ignored even though they are real people. A tall man with very long thick white hair raved and ranted in a first nations language that nobody understood. The third person's favourite words were moral corruption and he went on about how the oil corporations, politicians of all levels, industries related to the oil industry suffer from moral corruption. His speech ended with the conclusion that every Canadian is (morally corrupted and) responsible for what happens in Northern Alberta through their vote at elections. Hence his request to the film maker to produce a film about moral corruption before the next election. Lavalee responded that this was a very tight time line.
I don't think the tar sands will fall or rise with elections as long as there are income taxes, health care, education and similar issues that are much more personal and dear to the average Canadian than something happening somewhere north that can be pushed out of one's mind far more easily than the next visit to the doctor, the next tuition bill, ...
Sprawling from Grace
is another documentary I watched recently. It's a US-American production which was very different from The Nature of Things. It hardly dealt with the suburb itself but went straight onto automobiles and petroleum because suburbs only exist due to the car and cars need gas. Here a few bites and pieces:
China plans 65,000 miles of expressways as more and more Chinese own a car. Even a marginal increase in cars will be devastating. The car culture in US is a near-disaster, it’s a guaranteed disaster in a populous country like China but China still tries to copy the US living structure. China has 4 times more people than the US but today the US still uses 3 times more oil. China takes the money that it gets from producing Walmart merchandise and spends it on oil from Alberta, Venezuela and Libya.
Each US American consumes 5 times more oil (20 lbs) per day than oxygen (4 lbs). US Americans spend an average of 25% (another expert said 19%) of their income on automobiles – the most expensive transportation system in the world. Rich people spend about 5% of their income on their car, poor people about 40%. Consequently poor people often have to give up something that they could have spend the money on but decided to invest their limited financial resources into a car, for whatever reason.
Cars suggest freedom, safety, and achievement, cars are the icon of the American dream and every little boy dreams of driving a car one day. We actually define ourselves by the name of our cars - Explorer, Venturer, ... and whatever they are called. If you build a highway system you get congestion & pollution. With the growing population there’s not space to accommodate all the cars & have places with character (suburbs have none). Commuting times keep increasing with more cars on the road & people living further away from work. Automobiles cause 1/3 of all US greenhouse gases.
"Suburbia" is a car-depended living arrangement, where you have to drive to work, to shop, to get services, to run simple errands, to take the kids to school & other activities. It's also the greatest mis-allocation of resources in the history of the world because we know that it is the living arrangement that does not have a future. As we are trying to get out of this "stuckness" we keep putting more resources into trying to solve the problem by doing the same thing ... growing outwards. Besides, upkeeping the ageing infrastructure costs society a lot of money and adds on to the federal debt. If you had to commute by foot, public transit, or bike ... you would not live in the suburbs. Generally, living in suburbia requires trade-offs, so why not rethink city design, car efficiency, and public transit – and find other arrangements for daily life in America?
Every year 30 billion barrels of oil are consumed worldwide. Experts predict an increase to 45 billion barrels in 2020 – but consumption will outpace production. Peak oil is about the rate of delivery not the resource availability. With most of the easy-to-reach conventional oil gone, most of the oil that’s left will be expensive and difficult to get too – currently we don’t have the ability to increase supply as fast as demand. Consequences of the great gas shortage in the 1970s were cuts in the speed limit, car pooling, and switching factories from oil to natural gas and coal. But this happened when the US had lots of time and money which now they don’t have any more.
China plans 65,000 miles of expressways as more and more Chinese own a car. Even a marginal increase in cars will be devastating. The car culture in US is a near-disaster, it’s a guaranteed disaster in a populous country like China but China still tries to copy the US living structure. China has 4 times more people than the US but today the US still uses 3 times more oil. China takes the money that it gets from producing Walmart merchandise and spends it on oil from Alberta, Venezuela and Libya.
Each US American consumes 5 times more oil (20 lbs) per day than oxygen (4 lbs). US Americans spend an average of 25% (another expert said 19%) of their income on automobiles – the most expensive transportation system in the world. Rich people spend about 5% of their income on their car, poor people about 40%. Consequently poor people often have to give up something that they could have spend the money on but decided to invest their limited financial resources into a car, for whatever reason.
Americans think, thanks to advertisement, everything is choice instead of circumstances of reality! Peak oil climate change and a few other big issues aren't choice though. One wonders what are they willing to scarifies? In the film some interviewed Americans still said they didn't believe that the US will run out of oil.
There is the temptation to maintain oil resources through military actions but it will not work – it's too expensive and too intense. Venezuela is already past its oil peak and quality of oil is bad, the US itself has nearly no oil left, Canada has the tar sands but it’s expensive to produce. The US needs a new energy policy since heavy unconventional oil can not take the place of light conventional oil. There’s still lots of coal (I wished there wasn't), hydro, sun, wind to generate energy from. But there’s no single solution/ energy source that could keep up the level of oil usage. There's the dillusional thinking that the unmaintainable can be maintained for example through technological advancement. In the meantime, resources will be wasted to prop up our current comfortable living until the last one realises that when you have a shortage of energy you can't simply replace it with technology. Technology requires energy.
It takes political will to break the concept that cars are more important than pedestrian. Americans have to figure out what kind of life to they want to have, what kind of activities they want to pursue, what kind of spaces they need. Then they have to fit the buildings in. Ideas include giving a suburban city a centre, that city planners need to be walking planners, that public transit must be a "first class" alternative to get people out of cars. The city & transit planning need to go hand in hand to create "living local" that benefits people & environment. The good quality of life needs to be there for everyone not only for certain (rich) parts of city. Poorer people will be better off with public transit because they save the cost of having a car & spend it on something more valuable to them like health, education, travel.
Finally there's the option to wait until the pain arrives and change then but it will be awefully expensive. Or you can change now while the US still has the strength and energy to do it without facing so much pain and it will work better - unfortunately it's harder to sell to people too. If politicians started change now it would prepare cities better for the future and make them more competitive. The knowledge, information, and expertise is there already. But there's a lack of vision, a lack of realisation how psychologically rewarding and economically sustainable a life without car & oil dependence could be.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Tapped
is a US American documentary from 2009 about bottled water and you can find out more at: www.tappedthemovie.com
The film is split into the issue of where the water comes from and then the bottles. Communities in water-rich states of the US are rallying against Nestle (a Swiss corporation), Pepsi & CocaCola who steal their drinking water. In some states, according to the legislation, water is practically free for anyone and so these companies come and pump as much as they can to later sell it at a huge profit. These companies even kept operating the year (2007?) that over 30 states were facing dorught conditions and municipalities restriced water usage. I understood their rage but I also kept thinking: don't buy bottled water! It's such a logical consequence that will put the corporations out of that business! It still leaves them in the need for water to produce coke and other pop drinks/ sodas but it would help a lot.
Don't buy bottled water.
Why is bottled water so big? - In 1989 it became possible to put water into lightweight, cheap, clear PET bottles. Bottled water became a huge commodity and private corporations have not stopped making their profit of it.
Don't buy bottled water.
One of my favourite quotes in the film goes something like this: We have all become like big toddlers .. that need to know constantly that there's something there; we want it individualized, personalized, we don't want to have take care of it, just throw it away. We want it immediately available and convenient otherwise we'll have a fit. -- It explains why most of us do not reuse a (BPA-free!) bottle that can be simply refilled from the tap. I do of course.
Don't buy bottled water.
Advertisement makes us believe that bottled water is purer & healthier than tap water. 40% of all bottled water in the US is simply filtered tap water and due to "processing" and packaging not better than tap water. Different tests have found bacterial contaminants, arsenic, benzene, vinyl chloride, styrene, phthalate, and other carcinogenic substances. Why is this? Municipalities have to test their water several times per day to insure its safety - Pepsi & Co. don't have to do this. Even when these companies do their own tests on water sources and products they don't have to make them public. The government does not help either. In all of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) there's only one person looking after bottled water regulations, and she has other responsibilities too. The FDA only regulates products that move between states, so if water is bottled and sold in the same state the FDA does not care about it. Unfortunately consumers have too much faith in a self-regulated industry!
Don't buy bottled water.
Now the bottles are usually made of PET or PETE which requires a substances that derives from the refining process of crude oil which tends to come with cancer-causing "by-products". The production of plastic bottles contaminates water!!! & air. Big sturdy bottles often contain Bisphenol A (BPA). The review of 700 studies concluded though that BPA is related to diabetes, breast & prostate cancers, obesity, liver diseases, diseases of the uterus, brain disorders (hyperactivity), low sperm count and more.
Don't buy bottled water.
Once the bottle's been used it needs to go somewhere preferably into recycling. While worldwide 50% of all beverage containers get recycled it's only 20% in the US. And who pays for it? Often the municipality that provides safe tap water. In some states there's a deposit. It's proven that deposits ensure bottles are returned for recycling. The bottled water industry prefers curbside recycling though and ignores the fact that 50% of Americans don't have access to curb side recycling. Consequently millions of bottles each year are incinerated releasing dioxin, or end up in landfills and in the ocean! Another great quote: The beach of the future does not have shells, corals and sand - it has a plastic cover!
In the Pacific two garbage patches have been located, one in the East, one in the West. That's where due to currents plastics have accumulated from Asia and America. The same applies to other oceans! In 2008 researchers found 48 times as much plastics as planktons in these garbage patches. A researcher resumed: Bottled water might be good in disaster relief but is a disaster in every day use.
Don't buy bottled water.
The film is split into the issue of where the water comes from and then the bottles. Communities in water-rich states of the US are rallying against Nestle (a Swiss corporation), Pepsi & CocaCola who steal their drinking water. In some states, according to the legislation, water is practically free for anyone and so these companies come and pump as much as they can to later sell it at a huge profit. These companies even kept operating the year (2007?) that over 30 states were facing dorught conditions and municipalities restriced water usage. I understood their rage but I also kept thinking: don't buy bottled water! It's such a logical consequence that will put the corporations out of that business! It still leaves them in the need for water to produce coke and other pop drinks/ sodas but it would help a lot.
Don't buy bottled water.
Why is bottled water so big? - In 1989 it became possible to put water into lightweight, cheap, clear PET bottles. Bottled water became a huge commodity and private corporations have not stopped making their profit of it.
Don't buy bottled water.
One of my favourite quotes in the film goes something like this: We have all become like big toddlers .. that need to know constantly that there's something there; we want it individualized, personalized, we don't want to have take care of it, just throw it away. We want it immediately available and convenient otherwise we'll have a fit. -- It explains why most of us do not reuse a (BPA-free!) bottle that can be simply refilled from the tap. I do of course.
Don't buy bottled water.
Advertisement makes us believe that bottled water is purer & healthier than tap water. 40% of all bottled water in the US is simply filtered tap water and due to "processing" and packaging not better than tap water. Different tests have found bacterial contaminants, arsenic, benzene, vinyl chloride, styrene, phthalate, and other carcinogenic substances. Why is this? Municipalities have to test their water several times per day to insure its safety - Pepsi & Co. don't have to do this. Even when these companies do their own tests on water sources and products they don't have to make them public. The government does not help either. In all of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) there's only one person looking after bottled water regulations, and she has other responsibilities too. The FDA only regulates products that move between states, so if water is bottled and sold in the same state the FDA does not care about it. Unfortunately consumers have too much faith in a self-regulated industry!
Don't buy bottled water.
Now the bottles are usually made of PET or PETE which requires a substances that derives from the refining process of crude oil which tends to come with cancer-causing "by-products". The production of plastic bottles contaminates water!!! & air. Big sturdy bottles often contain Bisphenol A (BPA). The review of 700 studies concluded though that BPA is related to diabetes, breast & prostate cancers, obesity, liver diseases, diseases of the uterus, brain disorders (hyperactivity), low sperm count and more.
Don't buy bottled water.
Once the bottle's been used it needs to go somewhere preferably into recycling. While worldwide 50% of all beverage containers get recycled it's only 20% in the US. And who pays for it? Often the municipality that provides safe tap water. In some states there's a deposit. It's proven that deposits ensure bottles are returned for recycling. The bottled water industry prefers curbside recycling though and ignores the fact that 50% of Americans don't have access to curb side recycling. Consequently millions of bottles each year are incinerated releasing dioxin, or end up in landfills and in the ocean! Another great quote: The beach of the future does not have shells, corals and sand - it has a plastic cover!
In the Pacific two garbage patches have been located, one in the East, one in the West. That's where due to currents plastics have accumulated from Asia and America. The same applies to other oceans! In 2008 researchers found 48 times as much plastics as planktons in these garbage patches. A researcher resumed: Bottled water might be good in disaster relief but is a disaster in every day use.
Don't buy bottled water.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Remember the Gulf oil spill?
Of course, you do, everyone does. It only happened last year and the consequences are still coming up and will keep coming up for years to come but a few people seem to have forgotten all about it - those in charge. Despite Gulf oil spill, rig owner executives get big bonuses is an article from today on how Transocean celebrates "the best year in safety performance in our company's history". Every sane person will shake her/ his head now in disbelief but yes it's true. At Transocean the top people think they deserve a lot of extra cash for their great performance in 2010. Maybe, losing 9 workers in one oil rig explosion and being involved in the worst oil spills ever is not a big deal after all. I don't think these people should be running this type of company, if any at all.
Monday, March 28, 2011
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 ...
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Get ready for Beyond Petroleum Day!
Don't fill up your tank on February 19!
Beyond Petroleum Day was initiated last year after the big BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Activist Jeff Birmingham, a former Albertan, is the driving force behind this worldwide one-year-event. You may have noticed that this day abbreviates to BP day, which is not coincidence! The day aims to boycott the oil and gas industry and make people think about renewable energy sources instead. The Facebook page is actually quite interesting, reporting on issues of the oil & gas industry, such as when an oil company gets fined, and alternatives to gas and oil.
I think it is great opportunity to have such a day, especially to have it thanks to the initiative of an ordinary person. Since it's new I doubt many people will participate. You know how many people still drive on car-free day and how many have an appliance switched on during Earth hour and how many shop on buy-nothing-day. More than one, SIGH! I wished that the oil companies would cooperate and close their gas stations for Beyond Petroleum day. They are not going to lose out because people will just fill up another day but such an action would probably make more people aware of this day to start with. Personally, I'm once more glad not to own a car so I don't even have to think about filling it up, or digging it out of the snow, or scratching ice of the windows, for that matter.
Beyond Petroleum Day was initiated last year after the big BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Activist Jeff Birmingham, a former Albertan, is the driving force behind this worldwide one-year-event. You may have noticed that this day abbreviates to BP day, which is not coincidence! The day aims to boycott the oil and gas industry and make people think about renewable energy sources instead. The Facebook page is actually quite interesting, reporting on issues of the oil & gas industry, such as when an oil company gets fined, and alternatives to gas and oil.
I think it is great opportunity to have such a day, especially to have it thanks to the initiative of an ordinary person. Since it's new I doubt many people will participate. You know how many people still drive on car-free day and how many have an appliance switched on during Earth hour and how many shop on buy-nothing-day. More than one, SIGH! I wished that the oil companies would cooperate and close their gas stations for Beyond Petroleum day. They are not going to lose out because people will just fill up another day but such an action would probably make more people aware of this day to start with. Personally, I'm once more glad not to own a car so I don't even have to think about filling it up, or digging it out of the snow, or scratching ice of the windows, for that matter.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
We are in the Water for Life Decade
Yes, that came to me as a surprise as well. I had not noticed although it started already back in 2005! That means we are more than half way through this decade. I found out thanks to a talk that will be held at the Royal Alberta Museum by Robert Sandford. He has written several books on water issues and is considered a Canadian water issues expert. All of the following links are from organisations or projects that he is somehow involved in. And as great as all these initiatives are I am somewhat disappointed that I had not heard of any of them before. So how successful will they be, I wonder?
The water for life decade is a program of the United Nations and deals with lots of water related issues such as scarcity, financing, quality, access, water in cities .... http://un.org/waterforlifedecade/background.html In 2010 the UN also started a Decade for deserts and the fight against desertification. 2011 is the year of forests and March 22 is World Water Day.
These websites are especially for Canadians with information on the fresh water situation in Canada, how they are approached by politicians and how we can change our own behaviour to save water.
http://www.flowcanada.org/
http://www.goblue.org
One or the other corporation has set up a grant program and support network for community initiatives and organisations like Evergreen and Tide. Some aim specifically at water related issues, others help with the protection of our environment in general:
http://www.unilever.ca/sustainability/Environmental_sustainability/Community_partnerships/
http://bluewater.rbc.com/index.php
Then there's the scientific side to the issues:
http://www.wwcrc.ca/
The Western Watersheds Climate Research Collaborative is a non-profit organization established in association with the University of Lethbridge. The mission of this collaborative is to establish a broad scientific basis for understanding and
responding to climate related impacts in the Canadian West.
http://www.waterinstitute.ca/ The Alberta water institute has to deal with some oil sands related water issues of course: http://www.waterinstitute.ca/accelerating_dewatering_of_oil_fine_tailing.htm
That's a paragrpah that caught my attention on Flow:
The water for life decade is a program of the United Nations and deals with lots of water related issues such as scarcity, financing, quality, access, water in cities .... http://un.org/waterforlifedecade/background.html In 2010 the UN also started a Decade for deserts and the fight against desertification. 2011 is the year of forests and March 22 is World Water Day.
These websites are especially for Canadians with information on the fresh water situation in Canada, how they are approached by politicians and how we can change our own behaviour to save water.
http://www.flowcanada.org/
http://www.goblue.org
One or the other corporation has set up a grant program and support network for community initiatives and organisations like Evergreen and Tide. Some aim specifically at water related issues, others help with the protection of our environment in general:
http://www.unilever.ca/sustainability/Environmental_sustainability/Community_partnerships/
http://bluewater.rbc.com/index.php
Then there's the scientific side to the issues:
http://www.wwcrc.ca/
The Western Watersheds Climate Research Collaborative is a non-profit organization established in association with the University of Lethbridge. The mission of this collaborative is to establish a broad scientific basis for understanding and
responding to climate related impacts in the Canadian West.
http://www.waterinstitute.ca/ The Alberta water institute has to deal with some oil sands related water issues of course: http://www.waterinstitute.ca/accelerating_dewatering_of_oil_fine_tailing.htm
That's a paragrpah that caught my attention on Flow:
"The Federal government has responsibility over various aspects of water including navigable waters and inland fisheries, interjurisdictional waters and federal lands and waters - such as military bases and First Nations reserves. At one time, the Federal government was keen to address fresh water concerns. They created institutions with a specific water focus (i.e., the Inland Waters Directorate and the Canada Centre for Inland Waters); passed legislation (i.e., Canada Water Act, 1970) and signed international agreements (i.e., Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 1972). Notably, the Government outlined its commitment to water through the Federal Water Policy, tabled in 1987.
Federal interest in water, however, has declined over the last couple of decades. The Inland Waters Directorate, for instance was disbanded in the early 1990s and despite the significant amount of resources dedicated to developing the Federal Water Policy, few if any of the recommendations were ever implemented in a meaningful way."
Big SIGH! Canada, you will have big problems one day if your resources keep being used so recklessly and without consequences. Generally, I would not want to burden the government with regulating every aspect of our life, including all natural resources. But as we know all too well industry does not take care of the resources they use as much as they should and not even the little man in the street does. But if the little man in the street does care he has still limited power. E.g., I can't go and buy a river and dictate that nobody uses the water, or determine how the water should be used and returned to the river. But the government can. I like to believe the government is not stupid enough that they don't realize the urgency of protecting our fresh water. Their ignorance is there for certain reasons. In Alberta the governent now is proud to have set up a committee to investigate the environmental impacts of the tar sands operations but it will take lots of time until first results come up and actions will be taken. I still doubt the indepence of that committee and I think they aren't in any rush because the province depends on the tar sands and does not want to hinder their development. I think this country needs a massive natural catastrophe, like a big wake-up call, to realize things aren't right the way they are.
Federal interest in water, however, has declined over the last couple of decades. The Inland Waters Directorate, for instance was disbanded in the early 1990s and despite the significant amount of resources dedicated to developing the Federal Water Policy, few if any of the recommendations were ever implemented in a meaningful way."
Big SIGH! Canada, you will have big problems one day if your resources keep being used so recklessly and without consequences. Generally, I would not want to burden the government with regulating every aspect of our life, including all natural resources. But as we know all too well industry does not take care of the resources they use as much as they should and not even the little man in the street does. But if the little man in the street does care he has still limited power. E.g., I can't go and buy a river and dictate that nobody uses the water, or determine how the water should be used and returned to the river. But the government can. I like to believe the government is not stupid enough that they don't realize the urgency of protecting our fresh water. Their ignorance is there for certain reasons. In Alberta the governent now is proud to have set up a committee to investigate the environmental impacts of the tar sands operations but it will take lots of time until first results come up and actions will be taken. I still doubt the indepence of that committee and I think they aren't in any rush because the province depends on the tar sands and does not want to hinder their development. I think this country needs a massive natural catastrophe, like a big wake-up call, to realize things aren't right the way they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)