Monday, February 21, 2011

Haliburton in Transition

Environment Haliburton! is investigating the Transition Initative and its application locally. This is a grassroots movement that started in Ireland and England several years ago. It has since spread around the world. The Transition movement is about communities responding to the challenges of:
1. Peak Oil….with the profound implications of the inevitable contraction of oil-based energy;
2. Climate Change …which is destabilising the planetary biosphere with implications for habitation, agriculture and food supplies;
and now
3. Economic Instability… which is reflected in rising food and transportation costs, unemployment, and the contraction of credit.

The Transition movement arose to confront these challenges and seeks to re-examine core values and essential functions of commuity life with creativity, imagination and humour . It is positive, solutions-focused, viral and fun. It provides an opportunity to improve the health and resilience of the community during the transition that awaits us.

At a meeting held on January 29th, members of Environment Haliburton! watched the video, ‘In Transition 1.0’ (http://vimeo.com/8029815). ‘In Transition 1.0’ is the first detailed film about the Transition movement filmed by those that know it best, those who are making it happen on the ground. We then discussed its relevance to the citizens of Haliburton County.

It was noted that there are already organisations in Haliburton County engaged in aspects of what Transition addresses. Local food, improved public transportation, the farmer’s market, community gardens, Healthy Communities are all aspects of Transition. Co-operation and mutual support with a positive attitude to transition is the aim.

It was agreed that we would invite a representative of an existing Transition group to describe how the Transition movement started in their community and how it might work here. We also agreed that we would invite individuals and representatives of existing organizations in Haliburton County who might be interested in learning about the Transition movement.

Environment Haliburton has invited David and Bonnie Collacut of Transition Barrie to speak and dialogue with those who come, on Saturday February 26, 10am in Room 12 at the Haliburton campus of Sir Sandford Fleming College.

Call 705-754 -9873 if you plan to attend or if you cannot, but would like to be kept informed. We are asking that you watch the video referred to above, if you can, prior to the meeting. Searching on Transition Town or Transition culture will also provide information on the the global Transition movement.

Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius power and magic in it! (Goethe)

Friday, January 28, 2011

Tree cutting bylaw coming for county - Haliburton Echo - Ontario, CA

http://www.haliburtonecho.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2951962

By Chad Ingram

Updated 20 minutes ago

The county is moving towards the establishment of a tree preservation bylaw.

County councillors voted at a Jan. 26 meeting to put out a request to the four lower-tier municipalities to delegate all or part of their powers to create bylaws surrounding the destruction of trees to the county.

The bylaw would look mainly at the destruction of vegetation in shoreline areas and county planner Jane Tousaw said putting it in the hands of the county would be the most cost-effective for all municipalities.

Tousaw said the county would incur unknown costs affiliated with licensing, site inspections and enforcement related to the process, but that if not all townships agreed to the process, there could be overlapping of duties and possible duplication of costs.

"It's a huge enforcement issue if it isn't handled properly," said Dysart et al Reeve and county warden Murray Fearrey.

Tousaw said there was a drive from the public to see action on the issue.

"There is some urgency from the public's sort of view … to go through with this policy," she said.

Tousaw said while many people want to see increased protection of shoreline vegetation, there are some who don't feel it's not the government's place to be telling them what trees they can and can't cut on their properties.

The county's various lake associations should also be called on for input, she said.

Tousaw said how far the setback would be still has to be identified.

None of the county's townships currently has a such a bylaw.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

H20 Woes: Measuring the Damage of our 'Water Footprint' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,644867,00.html

By Samiha Shafy

A Dutch hydro engineer has come up with a "water footprint." At a conference in Sweden, he and other participants discussed water waste, supermarkets filled with fruits and vegetables produced in some of the world's most arid regions and ways we can stop wasting our most precious resource.

Arjen Hoekstra didn't really stand out in the crowd of 2,000 scientists, activists, politicians and representatives of industry roaming the halls of the Stockholm trade fair. Far more attention-getting figures than the 42-year-old Dutch hydro engineer attended World Water Week in Sweden last week. Asian delegates wore glowing saris. And Indian businessman Bindeshwar Pathak drew flocks of media everywhere he went at the event after being named the recipient of this year's Stockholm Water Prize for inventing a toilet for slum dwellers.

But Hoekstra preferred to keep a low profile at the annual global conference, which focuses on water-related issues. He had nothing to prove. Still despite his apparent efforts to keep a low-profile, Hoekstra's creation served as a magnet for debate here. Hoekstra came up with the idea of the "water footprint."

10,000 Liters of Water for a Pair of Jeans

His equation is actually just a couple of numbers used to describe the amount of water that is used -- or polluted -- during the manufacture of various products. Anyone can calculate their water footprint by looking at the amount of water they use directly and then by looking at the amount of "virtual water" they use -- that is, how much water is used in the production of any goods they consume. The global average for an individual's water footprint is 1,243 cubic meters of water per year. In the US, this goes up to 2,483 cubic meters per year; in Germany it's 1,545 and in China, 702.

Hoekstra's water footprint formula has already made headlines around the world with its estimates of the amount of water that is used or abused in the simple products that are a part of our everyday lives:

140 liters of water for one cup of coffee!

2,400 liters for a hamburger!

10,000 liters for one pair of jeans!

In the dicussions and workshops in Stockholm, participants debated what sort of action should be taken as a result of the water footprint figures. The WWF environmental group first recognized the validity of the water footprint, and further conservation and environmental protection groups as well as the United Nations and the World Bank soon followed suit. Finally, even multinational companies like Nestle, Unilever and Pepsi got on board.

Virtual Water Heading In The Wrong Direction

And they all seem to agree that Hoekstra's numbers could be potentially explosive -- mainly because they make it clear how thoughtlessly water, the most precious of resources, is handled in so many areas. "Because of the international trade in water-intensive products, there are floods of virtual water flowing around the world," Hoekstra said. "And many of them are flowing in the wrong direction, going from water-poor regions to the water-rich."

Mostly these flows involve food, biofuels and cotton. Between 70 and 80 percent of all the water consumption in the world is used for agricultural purposes. The European Union, for example, contributes indirectly to the drying out of the ever-shrinking Aral Sea in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan through its cotton imports from the region. And when the Germans buy ham from Spain or oranges from Israel, they are also contributing to water scarcity in those areas. In fact, Germany, a country that has plenty of water, is one of the biggest importers of virtual water in the world.

Today, around 1.4 billion people live in areas where water is scarce. Climate change, population growth and the flows of virtual water only serve to exascerbate the problem. "By 2050, we will be confronted with the paradoxical situation of having to feed another 2.5 billion people, but with significantly less water," said Colin Chartres, director general of the International Water Management Institute, an internationally funded, non-profit organization looking into ways to improve land and water management.

'In Dry Areas There Should Be No More Agriculture'

Against that backdrop, delegates in Stockholm argued about how realistic Hoekstra's more radical ideas are. "In dry areas there should be no more agriculture," the Dutchman has suggested. His idea involves using the trade in virtual water to rebalance the earth's water budget. Instead of watering desert fields, Egypt would be better off importing beans or millet from Ethiopia, for example. And Australia, where the Outback is one of the world's most arid regions, should also cease to export virtual water in the form of meat, fruit and wine production.

The same arguments could be applied to all of Earth's dry zones -- from the Middle East to northern China and northwestern India to Southern California. Hoekstra says all of these regions could mitigate their water paucity by letting their fields dry up and importing more virtual water. "These water-poor regions need to come up with a new vision for the future," Hoekstra argued. "Just as the oil producing countries, where oil is starting to run out, have had to do."

But what would make any country abandon agriculture, altogether or partially? British environmental researcher Tony Allan, 72, first coined the phrase "virtual water" in the 1990s and he agrees with Hoekstra. "Singapore is an interesting example," he said. "They don't have water sources or agriculture. Ninety percent of their water needs are covered by the import of virtual water. The rest comes from recycling and desalination."

Rich Countries Buying Up Land To Insure Water Supplies

Of course, Allan knows that Singaporean model isn't necessarily appropriate for the rest of the world. Even he admitted that no country would voluntarily give up its agricultural practices in the foreseeable future. "But it is no longer taboo to talk about these things," he noted.

During the Stockholm workshops, experts quickly agreed that new pricing structures could steer the water trade in the right directions. Today, water prices are often distorted through government subsidies to farmers -- mainly because if the subsidies were not there, then agriculture and animal husbandry would very quickly become prohibitively expensive in those dry regions and no longer worthwhile.

Meanwhile, countries like China and Saudia Arabia are buying up large, fertile pieces of land in places like Africa, Asia and Latin America. By buying land instead of food, they are ensuring access to water in the future. The land-grabbing countries aren't alone, either -- they're competing directly with food production giants like Nestle and Coca-Cola, which have been buying up rights to water reservoirs around the world for years.

Many companies are welcoming the increasing debate about water footprints in Stockholm. It's a great opportunity for them to do something to improve their image. Indeed, several large corporations sent whole delegations to Stockholm. At the workshops, the delegates continually repeated the same message: Their employers are trying their very best to leave a smaller water footprint.

URL:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,644867,00.html

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Popular Insect Repellent Deet Is Neurotoxic

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090804193230.htm

ScienceDaily (Aug. 6, 2009) — The active ingredient in many insect repellents, deet, has been found to be toxic to the central nervous system. Researchers say that more investigations are urgently needed to confirm or dismiss any potential neurotoxicity to humans, especially when deet-based repellents are used in combination with other neurotoxic insecticides.

Vincent Corbel from the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement in Montpellier, and Bruno Lapied from the University of Angers, France, led a team of researchers who investigated the mode of action and toxicity of deet (N,N-Diethyl-3-methylbenzamide). Corbel said, "We've found that deet is not simply a behavior-modifying chemical but also inhibits the activity of a key central nervous system enzyme, acetycholinesterase, in both insects and mammals".

Discovered in 1953, deet is still the most common ingredient in insect repellent preparations. It is effective against a broad spectrum of medically important pests, including mosquitoes. Despite its widespread use, controversies remain concerning both the identification of its target sites at the molecular level and its mechanism of action in insects. In a series of experiments, Corbel and his colleagues found that deet inhibits the acetylcholinesterase enzyme – the same mode of action used by organophosphate and carbamate insecticides.

These insecticides are often used in combination with deet, and the researchers also found that deet interacts with carbamate insecticides to increase their toxicity. Corbel concludes, "These findings question the safety of deet, particularly in combination with other chemicals, and they highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the development of safer insect repellents for use in public health".

Journal reference:

Vincent Corbel, Maria Stankiewicz, Cedric Pennetier, Didier Fournier, Jure Stojan, Emmanuelle Girard, Mitko Dimitrov, Jordi Molgo, Jean Marc Hougard and Bruno Lapied. Evidence for inhibition of cholinesterases in insect and mammalian nervous systems by the insect repellent deet. BMC Biology, (in press) [link]

Adapted from materials provided by BioMed Central, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Canadian Feds Grossly Underestimate Impact of Gutting Environmental Law

Thanks to Doug Smith

Up to 14,000 projects will evade assessment over the next 2 years

June 26, 2009

CONTACT: Ecojustice
Justin Duncan, Lawyer, Ecojustice (416) 368-7533 ext 22
Stephen Hazell, Executive Director, Sierra Club Canada (613) 241-4611 ext 238; (613) 724-1908 (cell)

Two months after announcing the enactment of controversial regulations that will allow more than 2,000 projects across the country to evade legally required environmental assessments, the federal government has revealed that the number of projects being exempted from assessment will now be up to 14,000 over the next two years.

"It is clear that the Harper government is having troubles with basic mathematics," said Ecojustice lawyer Justin Duncan. "In addition to a spiralling fiscal debt, they're saddling Canadians with an environmental debt that may never be paid back."

In April, Ecojustice launched a lawsuit on behalf of Sierra Club Canada claiming that the federal government acted unlawfully in issuing two federal regulations that gut the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The Federal Court has just allowed the groups to amend their filings to challenge the expanded exemption of 14,000 projects.

The lawsuit challenges the Exclusion List Regulations that exempt thousands of projects such as highways, bridges, roads and sewer systems from facing the scrutiny of legally required federal assessments over the next two years. The lawsuit also challenges the Adaptation Regulations that unlawfully give powers to the Minister of the Environment to exempt any other project from federal environmental assessment (EA) that is funded under the Building Canada Fund.

"EA is a key tool to identify and assess the adverse environmental effects of development projects so good decisions can be made" said Sierra Club Canada Executive Director Stephen Hazell, "in throwing 14,000 economic stimulus projects out of the EA process, the federal government is effectively saying we don't want to know the environmental effects. Damn the environmental torpedoes, full speed ahead."

CEAA was passed in 1992 to promote sustainable development by ensuring that federal decision makers have good information about the environmental impacts of projects and to ensure public participation in the environmental assessment process.

The government was served with formal notice on Monday that the groups seek to amend the lawsuit to include the expanded exemption list. The case is expected to be heard in Federal Court later this year.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

The Transition Initiative | Orion Magazine

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4792

If the Transition Initiative were a person, you’d say he or she was charismatic, wise, practical, positive, resourceful, and very, very popular. Starting with the town of Totnes in Devon, England, in September 2006, the movement has spread like wildfire across the U.K. (delightfully wriggling its way into The Archers, Britain’s longest-running and most popular radio soap opera), and on to the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. The core purpose of the Transition Initiative is to address, at the community level, the twin issues of climate change and peak oil—the declining availability of “ancient sunlight,” as fossil fuels have been called. The initiative is set up to enable towns or neighborhoods to plan for, and move toward, a post-oil and low-carbon future: what Rob Hopkins, founder of the Transition Initiative, has termed “the great transition of our time, away from fossil fuels.”

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Nuclear-plant workers face elevated cancer risk

http://www.canada.com/Nuclear+plant+workers+face+elevated+cancer+risk+report/1724362/story.html

By Jeremy Warren, Canwest News ServiceJune 23, 2009

Saskatoon Star Phoenix

SASKATOON - Those working in, and living near, nuclear-power plants -- such as the one being considered for construction in Saskatchewan -- are more likely than the general population to develop cancer or die from it, according to a research paper being released Tuesday.

The 30-page Exposure to Radiation and Health Outcomes, commissioned by the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, found that chronic exposure to low doses of radiation causes the higher risk.

A 15-country, 12-year, 407,391-person study of nuclear-power workers found the employees are twice as likely to die from all causes of cancer than the general public because of the extra radiation exposure, said the report written by Saskatchewan-based health researcher, Mark Lemstra.

But in Canada, one of the 15 countries studied, reactor workers are 7.65 times more likely to die from all causes of cancer compared to non-employees, said the report. Researchers are unsure why Canadian reactor workers seem to face a higher cancer risk than those in other nuclear countries.

"We don't know why Canadians are more likely to get cancer than others,'' said Lemstra, a former researcher with the Saskatoon Health Region. "We are going to have to consider revising the protection standards of nuclear workers. ''

Another study, which looked only at cancer rates among Canadian workers, concluded nuclear-power workers are still 3.8 times more likely to die from radiation-related cancer than non-workers, said the report. "The results . . . confirm that chronic exposure to low doses of radiation are associated with an excess relative risk of cancer mortality,'' it said.

The report was presented to the Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan stakeholder conference in Regina. Lemstra cited 22 articles in the report, pared down from a review of more than 1,700 articles he found in medical databases, reference lists and on the Internet. The report found that, even outside the workplace, radiation has effects on the human population.

A German study cited in the report found children below the age of five who live within five kilometres of a nuclear facility are 2.19 times more likely to develop leukemia. "There's a simple solution: Keep children more than 10 kilometres away from a nuclear facility,'' said Lemstra.

Children are more susceptible to radiation because, in the early stages of development, their bodies are more sensitive to the effects of inhalation, ingestion and other forms of internal exposure, said the report. "The association between leukemia incidence and mortality from radiation exposure is very strong. The greatest risks are found for youth under the age of 20,'' said the report.

Health effects of nuclear power go beyond radiation. Consistent cost overruns of constructing a nuclear reactor can siphon off government money that could be spent elsewhere, according to the report. If the provincial government is responsible for all, or a percentage of, cost overruns -- a common deal between private and government partners -- there is less money for health or education spending, wrote Lemstra.

In Finland, a reactor under construction has already gone 50 per cent over its $4.2-billion budget and will cost $8 billion to finish. Based on the $10-billion estimate to build a reactor in Saskatchewan, the final tally could rise to $20 billion, and if the province is responsible for a portion of the extra costs, government coffers will be stretched thin to the detriment of other departments, said Lemstra.

``Where will this money come from? In the U.S., the costs are transferred to the public or the ratepayers,'' he said. ``We don't really have the extra money to spend on risky ventures.''

jjwarren@sp.canwest.com

Environment Haliburton