Littering is Lame

I haven't blogged lately.  Not really sure what I have been busy doing. I hurt my elbow 2 weeks ago but other than that I guess I am just lazy. This weeks roundtable question was on littering.

This week's question focuses on the issue of litterbugs and what we can do about them. Traditional approaches to managing litter such as clean-up projects act as a temporary solution to remove the litter and do little to prevent its recurrence. The annual London Clean & Green campaign is a perfect example of a program that works for a couple of weeks, then attention to litter apparently peters out over the rest of the year.

 Probably because of our early spring this year, the unsightliness of litter seems to be everywhere. It is especially visible around bus stops, major roadways, and even in neighbourhoods and parks. Plastic bags, paper cups and wraps, small and large, are quite literally in the air. Litter, of course, is a very visible example of the "tragedy of the commons". If it's public property; just toss it, somebody else will pick it up -- or not. Instead of shoving that pop can or plastic bottle in your purse, bag or jacket and putting it in the blue box when you get home, somebody will pick it up -- or not. Littering is a nasty habit for people acting out social disaffection, self-centred behaviour, or simply not caring. Managing litter in London consumes financial and human resources that would be better directed to more productive activities.

Does litter bother you, or are you resigned to it? What can we do, if anything? Run education campaigns, call out by-law enforcement, post photos online, seek cooperative action from community groups, businesses and business associations, or nothing at all? What's the answer? 

Litter really does bother me and it bothers me that so many people are resigned to it or chose to ignore it.  If I buy a chocolate bar or drink or whatever if I cannot find a garbage can I keep the wrapper until I get home or find one.   Now I don’t go out of my way to pick up garbage but I really wish I did this.   There are garbage cans downtown or around the city, usually near bus stops, so really there is no excuse for littering.   I live in Summerside and when I do see garbage around my street or at the park I do try to pick it up and throw it out.  I assume it is from kids. 

 I think that action should be taken in the form of education from posters or pamphlets, but will these just become garbage themselves.   Perhaps if people actually understand the effects or impacts of garbage they will stop and even help clean it up.  Littering on the street could be carried to the sewers via rain and wind and end up in our Thames River, which people already believe is polluted but is actually improving and they should care about polluting it not only because of the chemicals it could release but fish or wildlife could choke on it, or it could wreck habitats of fish or turtles or other creatures. 

If people are caught littering by law enforcement why not enforce a ticket and a small fine, maybe then it would actually be taken seriously.   Yeah there are harsher crimes but littering is a real issue too, it would be hard to track but maybe it could work.   I have had friends post photos and status’ regarding littering to their facebook pages, one even claimed she cleaned up garbage at the bus stop but the can was full so they tried to bring it on the bus to throw out and the driver yelled at her and told her to take it off the bus. 

Maybe we need proper city maintenance of the garbage cans on city property, as well as street clean ups, but how much of this could be controlled and how often.  Perhaps community or environmental groups could get involved, organize clean ups regularly and for these groups to also encourage people to stop littering.  Just some food for thought!  There is no excuse for littering, its bad for the environment, the community and our own health.  Its not only not pretty its rude.  Would you like it if someone littered on your lawn, no so why are you doing it?

Round Table Febraury Questions

Here is this month's round table questions

Over last 90 years, the City has promoted two kinds of water conservation plans: 1) forced conservation, like metered water (since 1920),storm drainage and sanitary sewer charges  (since 1993), and alternate day water restrictions (since 1988) during the summer, and 2) natural conservation, when residents are encouraged to purchase low flow shower heads, low flush toilets, tankless water heaters, rain barrels, etc. In the future, the City may also consider a third conservation alternative: providing rebates and subsidies to promote water conservation devices such as those listed under natural conservation or modified rates for certain water users (e.g., low income). Conservation has been even more successful than City officials originally contemplated, particularly since the mandatory "environmental charge" was introduced in 1993 - later becoming the storm and sanitary charge. Since 2001, average annual household water use has dropped by 27% in response to the rising rates. Engineering officials at the City are now concerned about low total revenues coming from the sewer and water rates charges.  How should the City of London deal with water conservation? Is water conservation worth it since ratepayer conservation has not led to reduced consumer water bills, in general. Indeed, annual increases to water and sewer rates between 7% and 9% have been typical in the last few years. What do we do about the dilemma of rising water and sewer rates in the face of sustained consumer conservation?   Each year there are a number of one day, environmental events. Earth Hour, for example, is a standalone event and focuses on a single hour in early spring. In the case of Earth Day, three weeks later, the City promotes a series of community events as part of London Clean & Green.  Which of the following one day, environmental events do you look forward to, if you do? What do you like or dislike about them? Is the environment properly promoted at these events, or should the City ignore these events? Are Londoners properly motivated to do something about the environment by recognizing and promoting these one day events, or do you think most people overlook these dates?   March 15, Bottled Water Free Day March 22, World Water Day March 31, Earth Hour May (any one day), IMatterMarch June 5, World Environment Day June 6, Clean Air Day (Canada) August 14, Blackout Day (Ontario) September 12, International Plastic Bag Free Day September 22, World Car Free Day First Wednesday in October, International Walk to School Day

Answers

1.     Water conservation is a very important issue, and is recently been getting a lot more attention with the revival of the Thames Rivrer.  Although water conservation is not directly linked to reduced consumer water bills.  The sewer and water rates are increasing.   Water rates are connected to water consumption and use, where as storm water sewage rates are connected to the snow melt and rain drainage from the streets.  So why should citizens have to pay for that?  This water is returned back to the river and the charges help to fund the storm sewer pipe system, all other municipal drainage systems, facilities for storm water management systems, erosion control programs related to the drainage and river systems in the City, upkeep and repairs to the Springbank Dam.  If a person has a sewer connected to their property, they must pay the sewer charge, now citizens without a drain have to pay unless in a rural home.  

So how do we deal with this dilemma, the prices are raising but how do we keep citizens interested.  Why not tell the citizens how their contribution is improving drainage efforts with pamphlets, thank them for their contributions.  How about showing them how they are helping to improve water quality in the Thames which is important to the health of the watershed, fish and ecosystem of the Forest City.   Explain that the Thames water health even though we don’t get our drinking water from it is still connected to our drinking water and it is important to ensure good storm drainage to keep it healthy.  Public education and outreach is important if people understand what they are paying for and what it contributes to they will be less likely to complain about the charges and be happy that they are making the difference by small charges that they are already paying. 

2.     Environmental Events in London, the truth is I had no idea there were so many.  I would like to get involved, I just read that there is a Thames River Clean up on Earth Day by the Friends of the Thames and I would like to be a part of it this year.  I usually do the Earth Hour with my family will do an hour of candle light play a board game, the sad thing is we should do it more often.   

I think that London should promote these events more to try to get Londoners involved, using local news papers (London Free Press, London Metro, London Community News), posters, flyers, social media are all great tools that should be used to get these events more aware.   I just found two environmental groups on facebook that I saw mentioned in today’s paper Thames Region Ecological Association and Friends of the Thames.  But just previously I was complaining that I didn’t think London had any water awareness groups turns out I didn’t know where to look.  How can we make these groups and events more accessible to the public?   Perhaps a directory and schedule of events. 

Burnt Church Native Rights or Fishing Rights?

As a Canadian citizen we have rights that are given to us by the federal government.  But what happens when these rights are threatened by the very government, which granted us these rights for merely being citizens?  Now I know that I am proud to be Canadian, but if I were to trace back my heritage somewhere along the line my ancestors were immigrants.  It is those immigrants who were welcomed to this country by the First Nations.  They exchanged rights in the form of treaties to use the resources on the land and waters including hunting and fishing.  These treaties were signed by agreements of peace and friendship over 250 years ago.  The First Nations of Burnt Church were merely exercising their right to fish and had their rights revoked by the federal government. 

The Dorsey Model of Conflict will be used to determine the conflicts surrounding the Mi'kmaq First Nations from the Burnt Church reserve and their fight for the rights to fish freely.  There are four causes of conflict that must be addressed. 

1.     Differences in knowledge and understanding. 

There was a difference in knowledge and understanding of the treaty rights between the First Nations and Non Natives as well as between the First Nations and the Federal Government.  The Non Natives do not know what the treaties mean and they believe all Canadians should have the same rights.  The First Nations know that they have a right to fish and that this right was in the original treaty in 1752 and has since been reconfirmed in subsequent documents thereafter.  The government does know the rights stated in the treaty but they believe these should be put into a modern context.  The government needs to take on a more understanding role.

2.     Differences in Values

The First Nations have their own set of values they live off the land and waters and use the resources to provide for their family.   They have been fishing, hunting and gathering sustainably for 11,000  years in efforts to conserve the stocks for future generations.   The First Nations of Burnt Church have hunted and fished for years and it is these traditions that are passed on to their children.   The Non Natives believe that they have fished for years and that commercial fishing is a livelihood that their parents and grandparents have passed on to them.   For the Mi'kmaq people fishing isn’t a livelihood it is a way of life.  It is a necessity to provide food and income for their families. 

The federal government was at odds with the First Nations because it is their responsibility to enforce government policies.  If someone fishes out of season or out of bounds or without a license it is considered a federal offense, and therefore legal action must be taken.  The government was only doing what they thought was the law, and that all Canadians should be subject to the same laws. 

3.     Differences in the distribution of benefits and costs.

The Mi'kmaq did not have licenses to fish, but they did have permits that were granted in the 1752 treaty.   Some Natives decided to give this up, or to stop fishing after the cod collapse in order to help conserve the fish stocks.  The Federal Government actually bought back the First Nations permits and licenses.  The First Nations did not get their permits back and were forced to get licenses if they wanted to continue to fish.  These licenses cost $ 50,000 before the Marshall incident and the prices went up there after.

The First Nations are the only group in Canada with a recognized inherent right to fish, but these rights do not always guarantee access.  The majority of the Mi’kmaq are on social assistance and cannot afford such high costs.  

The Non-Native commercial fishermen were making more income from fishing and could afford licenses.   However after the cod collapse, they were forced to chose other species to focus on, which included lobster and were granted the majority of the licenses to a fishery previously dominated by the First Nations.   The Non Native Fishermen had substantially more vessels and more traps.  The First Nations were only allowed to have 4 traps per individual.  Communal licenses were awarded to the Mi’kamaq. 

When the government pressed charges on the First Nations, they could not afford the legal costs, the government then provided them the funding for their legal costs.  This right was not continued in the next fishing season.

4.     Differences due to personalities and circumstances of interested parties

The First Nations, Non Natives, DFO and RCMP are all at odds with each other, or at war as the movies states.   The First Nations wanted to exercise their legal right to fish freely.   The Non Natives did not really believe that this was about their rights but to compete for fishing with them.   This caused hatred, racism and even protests against the First Nations in a community which was formerly very friendly with one another.  The Mi’kmaq and the commercial fishermen used to fish the waters together as brothers and were very understanding to one another they were united as Fishermen.  After the Burnt Church crisis they were very negative towards the Mi’Kmaq even aggressive bringing guns on to the waters. 

The DFO and RCMP were now monitoring the fishery very closely, but they were not doing so fairly.  They watched as the Non Natives and Natives were at war on the waters.  The Peace Rangers of Burnt Church were called to intervene between the two groups.   When they did, the RCMPs went after the Peace Rangers and attacked the natives, tipped boats, seized traps and used physical violence.  Then charged them with assault instead of fishing charges.   This was not right, the government and RCMPs were abusing their positions of power. 

Conclusion

To be honest this is the first time I have really analyzed this situation and I am really ashamed at the Federal Government of Canada.   I cannot believe that it not only allowed this but actually were the cause of the Burnt Church Crisis.   In the movie it was said that the First Nations need to take action and initiative in order to have their say in their fisheries. 

What Burnt Church needs is Community-management for the fishery this already exists in the in-shore ground fishery in parts of southwestern Nova Scotia. DFO allocates quotas to designated areas, but locally created fishing organizations work together to guide and coordinate the fisheries management for natives and non natives alike (1).  The Fishermen of Southwest Nova Scotia took a different approach, instead of violence native and non-native fishing leaders in sat down face-to-face to deal with the issues facing the groundfish fishery, as well as their differences (1).  After coming together both the Natives and the Non Natives of Southwest Nova Scotia Fishery realized they both wanted the same thing “ecologically sound, community management of the fisheries, based on democratic self-governance  or in the case of First Nations, self-government” (1).   The community of Burnt Church needs to take this sort of initiative in order to keep the peace, and protect the resources.  

1. 

Stiegman, Martha. United we Fish The fight against the privatization of the fisheries is creating new alliances between native and non-native fishing communities in southwest Nova Scotia. 2003. Adapted from an article that originally appeared in Alternatives Journal: Canadian Environmental Ideas and Action, 29:4 (2003). http://www.alternativesjournal.ca

http://www.forumonpublicdomain.ca/united-we-fish.

Trying to get to the bottom of the Candain Seal Hunt

So I am starting to see a lot of posts regarding the seal hunt in the last few days, and I am getting angry.  Now instead of focusing on all the controversy, lets try to get to the bottom of the hunt, the history, and a few common misconceptions.  I wrote this post about a month or so ago for a friend's website haven't seen it up yet, so I thought now is as good a time as any to inform my friends and followers what the seal hunt is all about.  I am still trying to understand why it is still occurring in Canada.

As March approaches, Canada will soon be faced with an “age old, yearly tradition”, the Seal Hunt.  The hunt occurs from November to May, with the bulk of it occurring in March.  This topic is very controversial and sensitive to Canadians. With 69 % of Canadians opposed to the hunt, why does the government continue to allow and even promote it? A friend of mine brought up the point it depends whether you are from the east coast or not.  We need to know the history, and the facts, and try to get to the bottom of this once and for all. 

History

Seal hunting was an Inuit tradition dating back almost 3000 years ago.  In the early 1700s, European Settlers from the North Shore of the St. Lawrence and the northeast coast of Newfoundland began hunting seals commercially.  By the late 1700s, offshore hunting began.  The early commercial hunters were hunting for seal oil, it was used for lamps, cooking oil, processing of leather and soap.  I am going to go out on a limb here and say seal oil is outdated so why is this continuing? Seal Pelts, have been used traditionally for Inuit clothing, they are still popular in Norway, Greenland, Russia and China.  Seal meat is also part of traditional Inuit diet, and a delicacy in the above countries. 

Did you know the Newfoundland seal hunt almost disappeared during the Second World War, due to the seal boats being used over seas, the decline continued into the 1950’s.  After Newfoundland became a province in 1949, sealing became less necessary for economic survival. So why didn’t it die out?  I cannot find a clear answer on that.  My guess seal fur became fashionable, and so the hunt “bounced back” (I guess because the timelines don’t provide any reasoning.) In the 1960s the seal hunt became public, resulting in anti-sealing activism. In the 1980s, EU bans seal products and the seal market collapses, in response Canada bans hunting of blue back and white coat seals.

 In the 1990s, the collapse of the Cod Fishery, left many fisherman at an economic loss and so they in turn joined the hunt.   The hunt was then subsidized in an effort to provide the fishermen with income to make up for their loss of cod fishery. Instead of the hunt dying down the government invested millions promoting the sealing effort.  DFO claims that they have not subsidized the hunt since 2001 and that the hunt is economically viable.  So the hunt has continued since making about 16 million a year, killing 200,00--300,000 seals.

What about the First Nations?

We all know that the Inuit eat seals, and use seal pelts for clothing.  But are they involved in the “Traditional Commercial Hunt”? The truth is the First Nations kill only about 10,000 seals a year, less than 1 % of the seals killed. The Inuit use all the parts of the seals for food and fur for their own traditional purposes.  This is allowed and most Canadian groups are not actually concerned with the natives hunting.  I agree and believe that the First Nations should be allowed to hunt if anyone is.  The majority of hunters are actually white commercial fishermen from the east coast, who hunt to supplement their income when fishing is down. 

Activism

There are many groups that are anti-sealing and anti-seal hunt.  This should be great news right?  With activism comes “animal rights groups” that are anti killing animals, they care more about the fact that the seals are cute and should not be slaughtered, rather than the actual consequences.  I agree, but cuteness is unfortunately not a big enough factor, and these groups don’t have all the facts.  A lot of them think that it is Canada’s indigenous people involved in the hunt, and that the government is funding the hunt. 

Seal Product Bans

Europe has banned fur and fur products.   Other countries have started doing so as well.  Even China, has started banning seal meat from Canada.  However, the US wants to take it a step further and ban all Canadian Fish products. I do not agree with this, this would take away from fishermen’s incomes, who are not hunting.  Also most exported fish are from the west coast, since the east coast stocks have been in jeopardy since the collapse.   This is an unfair way to stop the hunt. But what is unfair that Canada allows it.

Seals vs Cod Science

Seals are predators in the oceanic food web, and are often blamed for the seal cod collapse.  The truth is both harp and grey seals actually do eat cod (about 3 % of their diet) but they also eat predator fish of cod.  Seals also face predation themselves from polar bears, killer whales, sharks, and humans (obviously).  There is no scientific proof that the seals are responsible for the cod collapse, and to allow the hunt or cull in response to this is a backwards attempt to solve the problem. 

The truth is overfishing, and a lack of listening to scientists is what caused the cod collapse, not seals.  The government feels responsible but instead of admitting their mistake, they promoted the hunt as way to overcome the economic loss from fishing, and they continue to allow it by producing one-sided reports.  Scientists agree that there are many uncertainties in the seal-cod dynamics but that seals and cod exist in a complex ecosystem, where there are no simple solutions to the recovery of cod stocks.

Seals play an integral role in northwest Atlantic ecosystems by helping all fish populations to thrive. Harp seals are opportunistic feeders, and consume only small amounts of many different species.  In a 2011 report by DFO, Minister Ashfield tries to justify a cull of grey seals, but the report clearly states that a cull could easily wipe out the remaining cod stocks. Since Grey seals consume many predators of cod, cod stocks are recovering in the area with the highest number of grey seals.

Conclusions

The Seal Hunt is an outdated process that needs to stop, Canadians are against it, so is the rest of the world, so why is the Canadian government continuing to support it. Humane Society International (HSI) Canada says: “A grey seal cull will serve nothing more than the ambitions of political opportunists playing to certain sectors of the fishing industry”.   The problem with the Seal Hunt has become so political, where Canadian politicians fear they will lose votes if they cut it, regardless of how they look to the rest of the world. 

Links

http://www.hsi.org/world/canada/news/releases/2011/11/ashfield_promotes_grey_seal_cull_111011.html - %5B14%5D

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/misc/seal_briefing_e.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/05/05/f-seal-hunt.html

http://www.hsicanada.ca/wildlife/seals/seal_myths_and_facts.html

http://www.hsi.org/world/canada/news/releases/2011/11/ashfield_promotes_grey_seal_cull_111011.html

http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/jf00/sealtimeline.asp#five

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/seal-phoque/reports-rapports/facts-faits/facts-faits_tl-eng.htm

http://www.speakupforblue.com/ocean-solutions/is-the-canadian-seal-hunt-worth-it

http://www.harpseals.org/about_the_hunt/faqs.php

http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2009/07/wwww_2.html

http://www.sealsandsealing.ca/view.php?id=33&type=1

http://www.thesealfishery.com/index.php

http://antisealingcoalition.ca/blog/tag/subsidies/

 

New year, new job, new class, new oppourtunities for 2012

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.  

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

1. http://www.buildingexperts.ca/html/environmental_assessment.html

2.  http://www.altlondon.org/

3.  http://www.londoncommunitynews.com/2012/01/ground-contaminated-under-heritage-buildings/

4. http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/01/08/19216491.html#/news/london/2012/01/08/pf-19216491.html

5. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bishop-Hellmuth-Community-Association/259508917441443?sk=wall&filter=1

6. http://www.bishophellmuth.org/site/

7. http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/09/13/shell-gas-station-leak/

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

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