Well it is still January, so I think I can still do my new year blog. It's not really resolutions though. I started this year with no real expectations or resolutions or goals, just to continue what I was doing working for Mad Science, doing online classes and looking for environmental jobs.
Before Christmas I tried to talk to a professor about grad school, but it did not go as well as I had hoped, because of my marks but I was referred to someone else for a different program. I met with her and she told me I had a good chance and should apply even though my marks are low, I have since improved and have a lot of potential. So I am applying for September, for a Masters in Environmental Sustainability at UWO, it is a one year course based program with a co-op term. I just have to write a letter of Academic Intent, I better get on that. Fingers crossed. I really hope I get in. If not, there are other options I can pursue and keep on the job hunt.
The next week, I went to an interview for a local mapping and imaging company, I wasn't really sure what they did. The interview went amazing, and I showed him a project I did that was similar to the type of mapping I would be doing, and I think that is what sold him. I was offered the job right after. Bring your portfolio, always, you never know when you might need it. I started this week. What do I do? I make maps. Well sort of, I take scans of old "Fire Maps" which are like old hand drawn maps of properties and streets, and I "geo-reference" them by putting the street layers on to the maps. I also learned this other program similar to google maps, well it uses Bing actually. It may not be an environmental job, but I like GIS, and I did take it so it is nice to finally have a job I went to school for.
I also started a new online class called Management of the Biophysical Environment, as part of my certificate in Environmental Conservation from the University of Guelph. I am excited for the topics that will be covered. It will give me a different perspective, I hope. Thats all for now. I hope I can stay on top of things now that I have a full time job, we shall see how disciplined I am.
I also wanna remain on the hunt for environmental jobs too but I have to find the time to apply. So much to do so little time.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Leaks in London
Hey. This is a post for my online class where we have to take a local environmental issue and run it through and Issue Attention Cycle of the problem, associated costs, and how people and media react to it. So here is one story that really caught my eye. I did my research and have included links below.
Issue Attention Cycle: Leaks in London
Problem Stage:
Leaks in local Shell Gas Station gasoline on two neighboring properties with historical buildings. This leak occurred in 2005, it could also be considered a post problem stage. But, the problem is that the soil and groundwater may still be contaminated. Shell bought these properties and boarded up one of the buildings. This is part of a larger problem of gasoline leaks from new or old service stations.
This is a problem because, leakage of petroleum or other products from underground storage tanks is a common cause of soil and ground water contamination (1). Contaminated sites are very often found near operating gas stations, former gas stations and other locations that store fuels in underground storage tanks (1). Between 7,500 and 20,000 underground storage tanks across Canada are thought to be leaking. Older tanks leak due to corrosion (1). The health and safety of people who live or work on or close to a contaminated site are directly at risk (1). The local natural environment is also at risk due to soil and groundwater contamination (1). Alarmed Discovery and Euphoric Enthusiasm:
The story was broke by a member of the community on his website (2), and was released by London Community News (3). The London Free Press did their own story, but it was really more of a Shell endorsement, in accordance with Ministry of Environment and the City of London (4). If the story had not broke, I wonder if they would have ever reported it to the public.
Shell has bought both properties from Murphy and Murphy Architects, in efforts to control the clean up process (4). Residents are alarmed that the sites could still be contaminated in the soil and groundwater (2). The heritage home at 777 Waterloo has been boarded up. Murphy and Murphy Architects at 775 will have to be evacuated by the end of February 2012 (3). They will be forced out of an office built in 1962, with a beautiful nature mural painted on the side (3).
Residents of the Heritage Community are concerned what effects of the soil and water means for neighboring properties, and even a school only 50 feet away. Here is a comment from the Bishop Hellmuth Community Association Facebook Page (5):
“The real order of business needs to be getting a copy of the environmental assessment to find out just how wide-spread the contamination is, what the contaminants are and what the effect will be on the kids that go to school 50 feet from the site. The health and well being of the neighbours and kids adjacent to this site is several orders of magnitude more important than building preservation issues."
The environmental concern is soil and groundwater contamination (from aquifers). Municipal, irrigation, and industrial water supplies are provided through large wells, which may withdraw water from confined or unconfined aquifers. This contamination could affect the local groundwater, London drinking water comes from Lake Huron and Erie, so that may not be a concern. Shell did tests on boreholes, which presume that aquifer contamination has occurred.
The other issue is that these are historical buildings, and once Shell puts the properties up for sale they will be at risk for demolition. Even before the sale, they are still at risk.
Residents have created a website (6) and Facebook page (5) to post news and encouraging the community to go look at the file from the London Ministry of Environment office.
Realizing the costs of significant progress:
The cost of the environmental assessment is being covered by Shell. What is unknown is what the future costs will be. Will the buyer have to maintain the site and pay for environmental assessments? These buildings are regulated under heritage permits, which allows the quality of changes made in neighbouring properties, and thus serves to protect each owner’s investment in his property. The community is really concerned. The cost of the loss of a heritage building is irreplaceable, and cause a threat to the whole heritage community.
The costs of a cleanup exceed the property’s value (1). If a site is contaminated, authorities could order anyone who has any control of the property or business to clean it up, whether or not they were responsible for the contamination (1). Anyone who has ever owned or leased the property may be ordered to participate in the cleanup, even creditors who gained possession of a contaminated property, may be required to cover some or all of the cleanup costs (1). It can be expensive and difficult to monitor the compliance of these activities. The current property owners and occupants affected by nearby contaminated sites may sue those responsible, or sue current owners who may not even have caused the contamination.
Gradual Decline of Public Interest:
Even though this leak occurred over 6 years ago, I had never head of it until now. Shell has done a pretty good job of hiding it. It has recently been getting a lot of attention due to Shell buying the properties and doing clean up. The public needs to be more informed about this issue. With the actions of the Bishop Hellmuth Heritage Community Association, I see them continuing to follow this issue and hopefully get other Londoners involved. Action from the City of London should be taken as well. I plan myself to follow this issue.
My speculation based on previous gasoline leaks across Canada. Petroleum leakages pose a threat of soil and groundwater contamination. Due to groundwater contamination, the contamination can actually spread beyond the site itself (1). This would put more properties in the area at risk, up to many city blocks to contamination (1). Leaking storage tanks at gas stations are a major source of environmental contamination (1). Environmental site assessments, the type and age of underground fuel storage tanks, leak detection and liability insurance could negatively impact the property’s environmental and economic value (1).
Due to increased awareness environmental issues, related laws and liability, if someone wants to buy these property they would require a recently completed Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments (1). Buyers will also require an accredited commercial property appraisal, a valid contamination insurance policy, and a recent tank test report (1). If contamination is detected, further levels of testing may also be required, in addition to the work being done (1).
A related story in BC explains Shell’s efforts and agreements to help buyers through the process (7). It also states that there are 20,823 sites are currently contaminated and can be found through Environment Canada’s database.
Unfortunately, like most gas leaks this will probably be added to the growing leaks list afterwards. Not sure what further action will be taken place. MOE is not required to report these. There definitely needs to be some preventative action for gas stations, rather than just a clean up the mess attitude. How do we prevent this? What sort of proactive suggestions do you have?
Links
4. http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/01/08/19216491.html#/news/london/2012/01/08/pf-19216491.html
Friday, January 13, 2012
Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel Letter of Comment
There has been a lot of talk about the pipelines lately about who can have a say, who can attend meetings. Well now, we can all have a say. Please go to the website and leave your own comment. http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/efile/LetterOfComment4.aspx
Not sure what to say? Well there are plenty of reasons to be against the pipelines, we need to seek other fuels and energy sources other than oil, BC's temperate rainforest, fisheries, freshwater supply, leaks, salmon populations, endangered species, marine mammals, First Nations, economy, people of BC/Alberta, society, culture. Here is my comment
Not sure what to say? Well there are plenty of reasons to be against the pipelines, we need to seek other fuels and energy sources other than oil, BC's temperate rainforest, fisheries, freshwater supply, leaks, salmon populations, endangered species, marine mammals, First Nations, economy, people of BC/Alberta, society, culture. Here is my comment
I am opposed to the Enbridge Pipeline. As a marine biologist, I see the pipeline as an environmental hazard. British Columbia's temperate rain forest is so pristine, and natural it is our duty as Canadians to help protect and conserve it as well as the species within it. This pipeline is a threat to forests, freshwater, fisheries, salmon populations, marine mammals, birds, and so many other already threatened animals. Oil pipelines violate the fisheries act, for working around water, environmental assessment act, and so many other federal and provincial laws for Alberta and BC. Why are laws thrown aside, or ignored for this, and what are the benefits, besides money and will the money we get out of it be more than we put in. What happened to cost-benefit analysis? These are supposed to cover not just financial costs! Also, what about the people who live along the gateway, not only First Nations, but other people as well. Their homes, jobs, society and culture are being threatened as well. There have been 170 leaks in the last 10 years, can we guarantee the Enbridge pipeline wont leak.
Back to my marine biology background, the pipeline would cross salmon spawning grounds. A leak here would be detrimental to salmon populations, salmon die after returning to rivers to spawn, if a leak occurred here salmon eggs would be destroyed, and the salmon’s habitat would be destroyed and they would not be able to return, and therefore not be able to spawn and the population would not be able to flourish. This would really hurt the native fishery, the recreational fishery, and the commercial fishery, and inturn BC’s economy which makes millions of dollars from the fishing industry.
Please think twice about this pipeline and see if it is really worth the cost that it will to British Columbia? Or to Canada? British Columbia is a Have Province, so is Alberta, but feeding Alberta's oil industry, could cause BC to become a Have Not Province, as well as Alberta if leaks occur.
Thank you,
Karleen Sirna
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
My response to Round Table Questions
So this weeks questions for the London Round table were on continuing the MicroFIT program in London and how to improve it and how to make transportation more energy efficient.
These are my ideas:
MicroFIT
These are my ideas:
MicroFIT
The MicroFit Program is great, and should be continued. The problems with it are the initial start up or installation costs. I worked for a non-profit group, during the last provincial election, to promote Onatrio’s Green Energy Act and the FIT and MicroFit Programs. What was surprising was how many people did not know about these programs. I know not everyone can have a wind turbine, but if you live in a single detached home, you could have a solar panel. I think that there should be some sort of program that would promote solar power, or help finance it. A lot of new development in and around London are being built with solar panels on the roof this is so great. What about existing developments and homes?
I think that an incentive program for landlords, residential building developer/owners. I think that apartment buildings and multi-residential homes should be targeted. If there was an incentive for buying multiple solar panels to go on the rooftops of apartment buildings, owners would be likely to be on board, because instead of paying for power, they would actually be making money off of their solar panels. This money could then be used for other things in the buildings for the tenants. If the city provided a grant to these owners then they could be able to install panels and be able to pay it back with their earnings from selling back onto the grid.
Green Transportation
I worked at a job where I was solely reliable on my own vehicle. Now I am starting a new position downtown, and I will be taking public transportation. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if buses became more green? What about electric or hybrid buses? What if the city could get funding to make buses more green? If the LTC could get a grant from the City of London or the Ministry of Transportation, or even the Ministry of Environment since it is an environmental choice. What about awarding people for taking the bus to work, instead of validating parking passes, what if a bus pass could be validated, for vouchers to local green businesses. A lot of taxis are now hybrids. What about also providing charge stations in indoor pay lot parking, for those with electric vehicles so workers could charge their vehicles while at work. People could pay for a green parking pass and be able to charge their green vehicles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)