Friday, December 30, 2011
Blog from my phone
This is just a test. Can I blog from my phone? merry Christmas everyone! I was really sick about 2 weeks before Christmas! I finished my Mad Science session, never made it to my potluck. I remained sick for about 5 days. I had a few good visits with my friends over the holiday and exchanged gifts. It was nice. My dad and I went to Costco to exchange a shirt for cam and we were hit and run on the wellington and roxborough intersection dont ask me how but we were backed into. We did our annual 23rd Chinese food tradition for the family and cam's gf Jaime. Christmas eve was just relaxing then went to my mom's cousin heather to visit with her family and her sister who was home from Florida. For Christmas eve went to grandma sharon's for dinner with my aunt and uncle and a few cousins good family time. On Tuesday we went to TO to see my uncle aunt and their kids the ride up was rainy but not bad. The food was good the visit was great it was still early but we decided to head home. It was an awful ride glad I was not driving. Yesterday was my dads 50 th birthday we had a birthday dinner and cake and he opened his gifts very surprised I got him the lethal weapon movies and a wii game. My mom got him an air supply cd but inside was tickets and hotel for them how nice. Today not much tomorrow is new years eve no real plans but excited for a new year to start!
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Where does our food come from? How do reduce your footprint from food intake.
In Our Ecological Footprint, food is included in the land use matrix along with the amount of land for the energy required to produce it, garden space, and crops. Food is listed in the Footprint calculations, and it should be but there are associated energy and economic costs that must be considered. Wackernagel and Rees say “tomatoes have footprints” and suggest that if we grow tomatoes in greenhouses it would be “7-9 times more productive, but 10-20 more ecological footprint per kilogram of tomatoes than open field grown tomatoes. “
Where does our produce come from? That is seriously important. Organic food may cost more, but it’s not just because it is more natural, free of pesticides, how it’s grown. Pepsi discovered that the largest chunk of the footprint of its Tropicana orange juice was not in production (squeezing oranges) or in distribution (shipping heavy liquids is fuel-intensive), but in growing the oranges with natural-gas-based fertilizer (1).
One of the easiest ways you can reduce your own footprint is buy eating locally. According to Get Local BC: “The average North American meal travels 2,400 km to get from field to plate and contains ingredients from 5 countries in addition to our own – that’s a lot of “food miles”” (2). The David Suzuki Foundation has eating locally grown food as one of the top 10 ways to reduce your ecological footprint (2).
Studies have shown that if people replaced enough imported food items with locally grown items they can actually reduce household GHG emissions by a quarter of a tonne (2). This can get tricky due to our seasons, and food availability. However there is a seasonal chart that you can download that I have attached it is for BC, be nice if we could find one for Ontario.
There are programs in place for Sustainable Seafood. I am very glad that Canada, and stores and restaurants are on board this ship. You can print out a card and take it shopping or out to eat with you (3). I have attached the chart. This chart tells you what fish is safest to eat, which you should be concerned with and which to avoid. It also tells you how the fish was caught and if it was caught using a sustainable method. I am not an avid seafood eater, due to my lack of fish growing up but as I’ve grown older I do like it, but I am picky because I don’t know what it is. The card suggests asking 3 questions: What type of seafood is this? Where was it fi shed or farmed? How was it caught or farmed?
Wouldn’t it be great if we knew where all are food came from. There should be similar efforts for produce and meat and dairy products as well. Sustainable shouldn’t stop at seafood, or cutting out meat products.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Do you believe in magic? Magic is not sustainable.
Magical Thinking
After talking about optimism and pessimism, I was reminded of an essay that my friend wrote about “magical thinking”. He defined this as the opposite of critical thinking which relies solely on evidence, magical thinking, therefore is only seeing the evidence we want to see (1). Magical thinking is something that we have trouble getting away from, it has perverted our lives and society(1). As magical thinking is only seeing what we want to see, it is no doubt that we can’t see it for what it really is, a delusion (1). Unfortunately the delusion has become politically sustainable.
Both Plan B and Our Ecological Footprint, can come off as “depressing” or “pessimistic” to “optimists”. But maybe optimists, are actually magical thinkers. Magical thinking, is to see only what we want to see, well, we don’t want to see that our world is in danger. So if we can blame something else or see nothing wrong rather than admit the problems then this magical thinking will continue. I posted an article about the Athabasca river and the Tar Sands, how scientists insist nothing is wrong with the river, when in actuality there is a lot wrong and instead of proper monitoring, they used an industry monitoring program, that keeps concluding nothing is wrong, because they don’t do proper monitoring (2).
This is a familiar tune we’ve all heard it before, DFO with Atlantic cod, scientists did stock assessments and told the government to shut the fishery down before it collapsed. But there was money in fishing and no “evidence”, but the government chose to believe what they could see fish made money, so they allowed/promoted it. Climate change, we’ve been ignoring it for too long, because we don’t want to believe the cold hard facts, or glacier melting facts if you will.
Anyone read about Koyoto these last few days? Canada’s Environment minister refuses to admit if Canada is backing out on the agreement. According to Adam Scott, Green Energy Program Monitor “Canada has consistently shown that it doesn’t take fighting global warming seriously, nothing could be more attractive than walking away. Without binding international rules, countries like Canada could continue to pollute without penalty as we slide past the point of no return” (3).
This type of thinking needs to be stopped! We need a wake up call, no more magical sugar coated thoughts, no more turning a blind eye, we have to see the evidence for what it is, not what we want to see. The world is in trouble.
1) Cody Wicks. http://heresynews.com/?p=17
Is the world half empty or is the world half full, regardless we need to save it
The Mantra of Optimism
In Rees and Wackernagel’s Our Ecological Footprint, the Optimist finds that “Ecological Footprint analysis is depressing” (1996). Dr Footnote’s response is that “acknowledging that nature has a finite capacity is not pessimistic, just realistic. “
I found that the point of Plan B is we have really exploited all of our natural resources, and that if we continue to do this there will be nothing left. We need something else: a Plan B if you will. Plan B is the response to a world exploited by humans. Although Plan B is a plan of hope, it needs to be harsh, not necessarily pessimistic but realistic. We can’t sugar coat things. We have destroyed our world and we need to save it.
The message needs to get people not just thinking but doing! Plan B is a plan of ACTION, as Brown says “Implementing Plan B means undertaking several actions simultaneously, including eradicating poverty, stabilizing population, and restoring the earth’s natural systems” (2008). Brown realizes that “we have an extraordinary challenge ahead of us, but there is much to be upbeat about.”(Brown, 2008). Plan B has already started in other countries.
Are we being optimists, in a pessimistic world? Should we be less optimistic, more realistic? Is it politically sustainable to be optimistic, realistic, or optimistic realistic? The problem is politicians can be very pessimistic, and as we’ve already discussed, optimism is feared to get less votes. Why?
Rees and Wackerngel suggests that “the footprint is a tool that facilitates learning about ecological constraints and developing a sustainable lifestyle. The earlier the humanity starts to act upon the new challenges the easier it will be” (Rees and Wackernagel, 1996). Is the Ecological Footprint a politically sustainable tool?
Is the future of energy damned? What about dams?
I think we can all agree, our energy choices are not efficient, and not sustainable. Energy is often seen as the driving force of the human enterprise. If we have enough energy we can do anything we want, like clean up the environment, irrigate deserts, build fast transportation networks, or even power highly productive greenhouses. Some believe it won’t be long before we develop unlimited energy sources. I am having trouble believing this. If we really had enough, would we use it for good, or would we use it to fulfill selfish needs. Have we developed unlimited energy sources?
Renewables are the answer, but are they enough? Brown asks “Can we expand renewable energy use fast enough? We think so” due to increases in technology increases in renewable energy should follow suit. However, “restructuring of the energy economy will be driven also by the realization that the fate of our global civilization may depend not only on but doing so at wartime speed” (2008).
Dams provide us with a great technology to use water as a resource to generate power. Hydroelectric power is historically important and has future potential due to low production costs, reliability, flexibility to meet both ongoing base electricity needs and peak demands, and relies on water as an indigenous, renewable resource(1). Ontario Power Generation (OPG) operates 65 hydroelectric stations, including 29 small hydroelectric plants, and 240 dams on 24 river systems (1). The smallest station generates just one megawatt (MW); and the largest more than 1,400 MW (1).
The construction of dams has to abide by the Fisheries Act, as they can cause Harmful Alteration Disruption or Degradation of Fish Habitat (HADD) (2). If a dam site is approved, and has no net loss of habitat then it should be environmentally safe to proceed with a dam. Even if a dam disrupts fish migration a fish ladder can be installed. Dams have huge potential, and must be continued.
Hydropower alone is not enough power, but “if the interest in tidal and wave power continues to escalate, the additional capacity from hydro, tidal and wave by 2020 could easily exceed the 500 gigawatts needed to reach the Plan B goal.” (Brown, 2008).
Corn: Food VS Fuel
In Plan B Brown says that the amount of corn needed to produce enough fuel for an SUV is enough corn to feed one person for a whole year. I find biofuels to be really fascinating, but now after hearing that I am disappointed as well. My dad works for an agriculture feed company that relies very heavily on corn. The corn is used to make feed for turkeys, which in turn will feed humans. Corn is very difficult to grow and harvest successfully. It is also expensive to grow, lots of fertilizer, irrigation costs, and lots of manual labour for harvesting, even with combines someone has to operate them. As Rees and Wackerngal say “ while modern agriculture produces more output per farmer, than traditional agriculture , it requires much more energy, materials and water per unit crop”.
The corn harvest has to take place around the same time every year, during fall months. If the season is dry, the corn is too dry, it can’t be used for the feed. If the corn is to wet, the same thing, it cannot be used for feed. This year has been particularly bad for the corn farmers. My dad says there is a very narrow range of usable corn that they can actually use for feed. If they cannot use the corn, they keep it stored in silos, and blend with better quality corn to make feed. If they can still not process the corn, different farmers and companies can come pick it up to convert to different corn products including flour, different food products and even bio-ethanol.
I really don’t know much about bio-fuels, in theory they sound great and natural. But I am not sure if they are sustainable if it takes a year’s worth of corn to feed one person to fill one tank of an SUV. I am all for sustainable fuel, but I don’t agree with taking away from food for humans, and feed for livestock.
Brown says that “even in a good year the state [of Iowa] only harvests 2.2 billion bushels. As distilleries compete for grain also used to feed livestock and poultry, Iowa could become a corn deficit state- with no corn to export to the rest of the world.” Would that really be so bad? Wouldn’t it be most beneficial to harvest to support locally, one of the ways that Rees and Wackernagel suggest to reduce Our Ecological Footprint is by buying locally grown food. So why not buy locally made fuels as well. What if each state or province produced enough to sustain themselves, then we would not need to worry about the importing and exporting costs.
I am not anti-trade, as “Ecological Footprint is not anti- trade per se. However it examines trade through and ecological lens and and reveals it’s environmental consequences”. I think we should support local farmers, rather than exporting world wide, it costs more to export than the corn is worth, which is why the price inflates.
My Pet Peeve: Pipelines
One of my biggest environmental pet peeves is the Keystone and Enbridge Pipelines. What I find most ironic is the fact that these projects are allowed to occur. You are right this is NOT SUSTAINABLE. Yet, Oil is….politically the unfortunate truth…. Pipelines would violate the Fisheries Act (1985), which “makes it illegal to harm fish habitats or fishing grounds. Environment Canada is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Fisheries Act as it pertains to spills and environmental emergencies. The following sections of the Act are relevant:
- Section 35 prohibits any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.
- Section 38(4) makes reporting of spills of deleterious substances mandatory.
- Section 38(5) establishes an obligation for owners and carriers of a deleterious substance to take reasonable measures to prevent a spill and to cleanup if a spill occurs.
- Section 38(6) provides an inspector with the authority to direct cleanup where immediate action is necessary to prevent damage to water frequented by fish.(1)
No matter how far the pipelines are from water, they still will put the rivers, lakes and even oceans at risk. Not to mention tailing ponds leaking into the water. One of the biggest concerns with the Enbridge Pipeline is that Pacific Salmon are at risk when they return to the rivers to spawn, if this happens the salmon will not spawn and die, or the eggs will die and the fish populations will not recover.
Excuse me for my slang but I find Oil extraction, pipelines and tar sands mind boggling. All the laws we have for environmental protection, assessment, water, pollution, First Nations and more all seem to mean nothing when it comes to Tar Sands and Pipelines, I guess with a price tag, these are overlooked.
Alberta tar sands companies “that everything is fine, and that all the pollution is “natural”.”(2)According to Professor David Schindler, exploiting the Alberta tar sands is polluting the river with toxic heavy metals, the oil sands industry releases 13 elements [heavy metals] considered priority pollutants (PPE) under the US Clean Water Act, via air and water, to the Athabasca River and its watershed. (2)
Schindler also said that both federal and provincial guidelines for protecting aquatic life had been exceeded for seven PPE—cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc—in melted snow and/or water collected near or downstream of development. Fish are now dangerous to eat because of toxin levels, what does that say about fish health and water quality? Again how come the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Fisheries Act are not being followed? Because the companies rely on RAMP, an industry-sponsored monitoring program that keeps concluding nothing is wrong, but they don’t do proper monitoring. Why does RAMP override the law?
Side note, where is our Prime Minister from, Calgary, Coincidence?
Sunday, December 4, 2011
There are not pleanty of fish in the sea!
This topic just breaks my heart. Its something we all know and have heard before too many times. How do we fix it? Brown suggests stabilizing our climate and our population along side our continuing effort of parks and to protect species at risk. Another student said this was not enough.
It’s not, how can it be? How can we truly achieve this? Brown says “Species of all kinds are threatened by habitat destruction”. Most habitat destruction is by humans, but also “habitat alteration from rising temperatures, chemical pollution or induction of exotics can also decimate both plant and animal species” (1). Brown also says “As the human population grows, the number of species we share the planet with shrinks”(1). All human activity impacts wildlife from cutting down forests to build homes, and industry all the species in that area have been eradicated from insects, to birds, to fish, to trees. We can argue its nature taking its course, but humans are the real problem.
The Bonbo was mentioned, however, Brown also said “The threat to fish may be the greatest of all. The principle causes are overfishing, water pollution, and the excessive extraction of water from rivers and other freshwater ecosystems.“ (1). I think we can all agree that those are not natural threats, the biggest threat to fish is the fishing industry! And we will continue to fish from the top species down, according to an article from 2006, "The way we use the oceans is that we hope and assume there will always be another species to exploit after we've completely gone through the last one,"(2). That attitude is why fisheries such as Canada’s Atlantic Cod collapsed.
This article said that historical records from coastal zones in North America, Europe and Australia show declining fish yields and declining species diversity of other kinds of seafood too (2). Areas with this biodiversity loss also tended to see more beach closures, more blooms of potentially harmful algae, and more coastal flooding (2). So this shows that disappearing species and lack of biodiversity has impacts on the environment as well, not just in the ocean but in coastal areas.
What needs to be done is proper management. Parks are used for conserving endangered species on land. What we need is more Marine Protected Areas to protect biodiversity. Black says “you also have to have good management of marine parks and good management of fisheries” (2). Marine Protected Areas refurbish biodiversity within the zone, and restores the populations of fish just outside the zone (2).
Protecting fish stocks demands the political will to act on scientific advice (2). This is something that needs to become more politically sustainable. Since there are not plenty of fish in the sea!
I think that one of the biggest concerns in sustainability today is extinction, and our activities play a role in this. I chose to bring up fisheries in this topic because Brown said the threat of extinction to fish is the greatest of all (1). I feel that fish are often overlooked as a concern when it comes to disappearing species, mammals and land animals are often most publicized. I think that it is important to conserve fish species, as fish is one of the world’s greatest fish source, and a contributing part of the economy we need it to be sustainable. Proper fisheries management and Marine Protected Areas are needed to conserve and protect the fish species. However, this is not enough politicians need to listen to scientific advice, and promote fisheries management in efforts to conserve them.
(1) Brown, L. Plan B 3.0 Mobilizing to Save Civilization. 2008. Earth Policy Institute.
(2) Black, R. ‘Only 50 years left' for sea fish. BBC News. November 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6108414.stm
Here is a cartoon to illustrate how MPAs work!
This may be a cartoon, but has the right idea, I was gonna post another picture but it was to scientific this seemed more appropriate since my post was kind of dry!
Saturday, December 3, 2011
The Coke Can Conundrum
The Coke Can Conundrum
If you have bought Coca Cola recently, you must have noticed a change in the colour of your can from the traditional red can with the Coca-Cola logo to a white can. Do you know why?
If you watch tv or have been to the movies recently, you would know that Coca-Cola has teamed up with WWF (World Wildlife Fund) to promote awareness for it’s long time icon, the Polar Bear. I am sure you know the Polar Bear is endangered. Their habitat (arctic sea ice) is at risk, due to global climate change.
Well the partnership between Coca-Cola and WWF has been around for a few years, but this new ad campaign has made it aware to the public. Which I think is great news, that Coca Cola is planning to donate $ 2 million to the Polar Bear fund over 5 years, plus match $ 1 Million. At first I felt that since Coca Cola has used the Polar Bear for years, it’s about damn time, and with all the money they make the amount seems low. I also thought, how is money going to stop arctic ice from melting. It is this kind of thinking that is why animals like the Polar Bear are going extinct in the first place.
We need to think outside of the box, the Partnership is just that, it actually promotes fresh water conservation (since water is a main ingredient in all of it’s products) and climate protection, since the company emits a lot of CO2 and plans to reduce this in efforts to halt global warming. The only way we can truly prevent the ice from melting is to reduce our CO2 and Green House Gas (GHG) emissions through daily activities and renewable energy sources. Coca-Cola is promoting change, which is the only way to fight global climate change, save the sea ice, and the Polar Bears.
So what is the problem?? Well it appears some people don’t like the white can and have complained to Coca-Cola. Why, the can is to close in colour to Diet Coke, some even claimed that Coca-Cola is trying to mix coke and diet coke or to trick customers to make them shift to Diet Coke. Some even called the colour change “sacrelige”. This has cause so much problems that Coca-Cola is actually taking them off the shelves and going back to red, with the Arctic Home design.
First of all, many products change colour for the holiday seasons, red and green M &Ms, red and green and white wrappers on most candy bars, pictures of Santa along with the regular logo. These products all taste the same, yet they do not have to be removed from the shelves, so why are customers picking on Coca-Cola?
Second, I wonder how much money that will cost them, how much carbon emissions and how much product will go to waste by doing that. I hope that money does not come out of the Polar Bear fund. By doing this I feel that Coca-Cola is being a hyprocrite, they will excrete more emissions by sending transports back to collect all the white cans, then what will they do with them, I doubt they will be recycled. I have just come across a page that says Coca-Cola intended to go to red cans with the polar bear for a Phase 2 of the Polar Bear awareness campaign. Not sure what kind of marketing is going on if this is true.
I have to quote the Toronto Star, “The white cans were supposed to last until February 2012. Instead, they’ll soon be extinct.” My question is, if people aren’t willing to accept the change in the colour of a can, how are they going to change their activiities to reduce their own emissions and carbon footprint to fight climate change.
For Related articles please see:
The Holiday Can Fact Sheet:
For More info on Polar Bears and The WWF Partnership with Coca Cola please see these:
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Wind Power Facts and Myths
I think the wind turbines are on the cover of Plan B for a reason!! I have to admit I am a Friend of Wind (1). Two months ago, I was canvassing for the Ontario Citizens Coalition for Clean and Affordable Energy (OCCAE) to spread voter awareness on Ontario’s Green Energy Act (2). One of the most common misconceptions was the effects of wind turbines. I would have people tell me they disagree with wind turbines, how it was bad for humans and farm animals. I told my supervisor and he would try to get us to prove the facts to these misinformed citizens.
There are many myths about wind power, the big concern is effects on human health. A wind turbine is powered by wind so there are no pollutants, emissions or wastes. There are no direct effects on human health, the sound that is emitted is 50 DB, louder than a whisper but quieter than a home (3). There is no evidence that the noise qualities generated by the operation of wind turbines, are causing disease or specific health conditions (4).
Wind is a natural and renewable source of power. I hate the term “fossil fuels”, I find that the term implies that the fuels have been around forever and will continue to be there in the future. I don’t agree that Wind is a quick fix to the energy problem at all. Continuing with coal, oil, and fossil fuels is deteriorating. Once one place is depleted of oil the oil cannot be replace. Wind power will always be everywhere! It is truly the way of the future, it is not a quick fix it is in it for the long haul. I am not saying it is the only answer, but wind combined with solar and other renewable sources is a great start.
Wind power and energy for that matter is definitely a sustainability issue, however if this energy is not politically survivable then it will not survive. Energy, especially wind is a very political issue. Politicians don’t like to get involved in energy issues. The main part of my role as an energy educator was to promote renewable energy and the Feed In Tariff Programs.
This was a very dangerous issue in the last election with the conservatives wanting to eliminate the Feed In Tariff and build more nuclear plants, NDP had it’s own stand on energy also. The Liberals created the Green Energy Act, and promised to continue and improve it. Voters were concerned that it could increase their taxes, but the Liberals were still voted in and I think that The Green Energy Act is one of the reasons they were re-elected. It is important for politicians to keep energy in mind, especially during election time. Energy needs to be politically survivable.
4. http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/sites/.../BlowingSmokeReport_FINAL2.pdf
Online Class Debates fuel my eco rants :)
So, over the past 2 weeks in my Environmental Stewardship class we have been debating on the topic of whether sustainability is politically survivable. We had to read 2 books prior, Plan B 3.O Mobilizing to Save Civilization by Lester R. Brown (2008) and Our Ecological Footprint by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees (1996). I will refer to them for the next few blogs along with links I have found to contribute to my points.
So many people are ignorant to renewable energy and change. So many people are from a generation where people believe the way they know is the right way, if it’s not broke don’t fix it. But sadly the reality is that it is broke, and if we keep on living the way we have been it will be broke and gone. My grandparents are the same way, they don’t agree with renewables at all.
To say that politicians think this way as well is not necessarily true. Politicians want votes, yes they do fear that green choices will lose them votes, but if that were true, all politicians would be anti-green. A lot of politicians are green, but it is votes that count. Back to our topic statement “"If sustainabiltiy is not politically survivable, then civilization - the world community - may not survive". This is the problem, sustainable choices need to be marketed to voters, we are the future generation, where not enough people vote, while the older generations make up the majority of votes, and it is their votes that are usually for less sustainable options.
It is true people fear change, especially for environmental purposes, which is why NDP and Green get less votes. As Wackernagal and Rees say “Some people are unconvinced there is a sustainability crisis at all and others are frightened of the implications of acknowledging that there is”. Looking back at the last Federal Election with NDP in second, and even the one seat of Green Party, people are looking forward to change our ways, lets hope they were thinking of the environment as one of the factors in voting. In our last Ontario election, keeping the Liberals in power will continue with the Green Energy Act and renewable energy choices.
Over the past year, there has been so many government cutbacks to environmental departments such as Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources, Parks Canada, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Energy, and so on. It just proves that the environmental sustainability is not politically survivable, which will in turn, make impossible for us and the world to survive long term. Does Rees mean environmental sustainability or sustainable development?
Lets talk sustainable development, according to Wackernagel and Rees “Sustainable Development” is defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Our Ecological Footprin, 2007). So in order for us to live sustainably we need to live within our needs and conserve for future generations, however the lifestyles we have come accustomed to is beyond our means. Its so simple, so why is it so politically unsustainable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)