Tuesday, May 8, 2012

PM Inconsistent on Use and Abuse of Budget Implementation Bills | Green Party of Canada

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/20711
OTTAWA – Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands today stated that Stephen Harper has been blatantly inconsistent in his attitude relating to the content and purpose of Budget Implementation Acts.
“While Leader of the Opposition in 2005, Stephen Harper held some clear principles about what was acceptable and what was not when introducing a budget bill,” said May.  “He has reversed these entirely in his 421-page Bill C-38, which he is using as a policy black hole.”
In the spring of 2005, both Harper and NDP leader Jack Layton threatened to bring down Paul Martin’s Liberal government because Environment Minister Stephane Dion wanted to make one amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act – in order to clarify the government’s power to regulate greenhouse gases.
Harper was clear in his opposition to using the Budget Implementation Act to change laws.
“This is an attempt by the government to get unlimited power to impose multi-million-dollar fines on any basis, without any parliamentary approval or discussion, whatsoever.  It is completely unacceptable,” Harper stated in the House of Commons.
He then went on to clarify:  "This is a back-door way ... a dangerous way of proceeding, and it will certainly not have the support of this party.”
“At one time in his political career, Harper understood that changes in law and policy, especially relating to the environment, did not belong in the Budget Implementation Act.  One crucial reason is that the Act will be analyzed by the Finance Committee, which does not have the expertise to examine non-finance issues.
“In light of his former stand, Harper’s burying of the destruction of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Kyoto Implementation Act, the gutting of the Fisheries Act, along with the undermining of  the Species at Risk Act and more in Bill C-38 is all the more shameless,” said May. 



--  

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Anti-environment measures tucked into Liberal budget bill - thestar.com

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1166667--anti-environment-measures-tucked-into-liberal-budget-bill

Clayton Ruby
What is Premier Dalton McGuinty hiding in your budget bill? The legal ability to hurt Ontario’s most vulnerable species, that’s what.
Ontario appears to be echoing the mood of the federal government, which also used its budget bill to introduce significant changes to environmental protection laws, a move that had less to do with budgets and more to do with undoing transparency, accountability and environmental responsibility.
Likewise, the Ontario Liberals have buried several proposed changes in their new budget bill that strike at the heart of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA), a piece of legislation this government proudly touted a mere five years ago.
The province’s backsliding on the protection of Ontario’s endangered wildlife is surprising from what has been a pretty darn good government. And it ignores reality: once-common species, like the barn swallow and the monarch butterfly, are now increasingly rare.
Here are the proposed changes that this government doesn’t want you to know about.
First, McGuinty introduces an open-ended list of exemptions to the law — rarely a good sign in legislation promising protection for Ontario’s most vulnerable plants and animals. Sweeping new powers permit the government of the day to exempt private landowners from the requirement to protect endangered wildlife or habitat. Yet most species at risk are found in southern Ontario, and most of southern Ontario is securely in private hands. In other words, protection will be exempt in the region where you find the highest concentration of endangered wildlife.
Second, right now if development harms a threatened or endangered species or its habitat, that work can only proceed if the owner creates alternatives so that the species is better off than before. This way, the wheels of economic growth can keep turning, but the owner has to make meaningful attempts to conserve declining species. The budget gives industry free reign to operate without regard to this protection. Habitat, we can do without you!
Third, the 2013 deadline to complete plans to protect and re-establish plants and animals whose populations have plummeted so dramatically they will disappear from the province — and in some cases the country — has been taken out. With no legal teeth, who could expect that such plans will ever move forward?
Ontario’s ESA was passed in 2007 with the support of almost all MPPs. It has gained international acclaim and helped build McGuinty’s reputation as a man who cares for our heritage. The act sets clear requirements for basing decisions on the best scientific information available, yet it provides a great deal of flexibility in how these protections are implemented.
Take the widening of Highway 400 near Parry Sound.
On the face of it, a wider highway would not be good news for the endangered animals in the area. But thanks to some fairly modest measures, like special fencing and crossing culverts, the new highway is significantly less lethal than the old highway. It’s also safer for drivers, who don’t need to swerve to avoid turtles or other creatures. Clearly, proper environmental planning does not bring development to a grinding halt.
Yet this gutting of the ESA is unrelated to any major budget commitment. They are just anti-environment measures tucked into a hefty finance measure solely to escape the scrutiny that would otherwise be guaranteed by the Environmental Bill of Rights, which requires public input into changes in Ontario’s environmental laws.
The Liberals used to tell Ontarians that they believed in collaborative planning designed to protect species and habitats and avoid problems down the road. If they’ve changed their minds, let them publicly wear it. We need that debate out in the open, not buried in the fine print of a spending bill.
Clayton Ruby is one of Canada’s leading lawyers, an outspoken proponent of freedom of the press, and a prominent member of the environmental community.

Canada's 'pearl' of Arctic research hit with funding freeze

http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+pearl+Arctic+research+with+funding+freeze/6352101/story.html#ixzz1q8qtuXOK

Atmospheric scientist Pierre Fogal headed north in February to help check on Earth's protective ozone layer high in the Arctic stratosphere.
But he spent much of his time on his knees dealing with burst water pipes and frozen sewer lines at Canada's beleaguered Arctic research station.
Then this week, the electrical system malfunctioned, says Fogal, site manager for PEARL, the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Laboratory at the northern tip of Ellesmere Island.
The station, now limping along at half power and a chilly 10 C inside, is one of the world's premier observatories for tracking the health of the Arctic atmosphere. The station houses millions of dollars worth of scientific equipment used to monitor the ozone layer, greenhouse gases and pollution swirling around the polar vortex.
But it has been a bad year. Unusually frigid weather has taken a big toll on the station's plumbing and power system, and the chilly financial wind blowing out of Ottawa has left PEARL in dire financial straits.
Federal grants that have kept the station running continuously since 2005 have run out, forcing the science team that runs PEARL to shut it down, at least temporarily.
With no money for salaries, the station's three operators were let go in December.

See more

http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+pearl+Arctic+research+with+funding+freeze/6352101/story.html#ixzz1q8qtuXOK

 

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Hope in the Age of Collapse | Thoreau Farm

Orion magazine recently published a piece by Paul Kingsnorth titled "Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist"
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6599/

His "confessions" inspired a dialogue with Wen Stephenson of the Thoreau Farm Trust.
http://thoreaufarm.org/2012/04/hope-in-the-age-of-collapse/
includes a link to the video "Welcome to the Anthropocene"

Useful at a time when the climate scientists are saying it's too late to stop major climate change

Kingsnorth is one of the founders of the Dark Mountain Project,
http://dark-mountain.net/

This is a summary of the founders views

"These are precarious and unprecedented times. Our economies crumble, while beyond the chaos of markets, the ecological foundations of our way of living near collapse. Little that we have taken for granted is likely to come through this century intact.

We don’t believe that anyone – not politicians, not economists, not environmentalists, not writers – is really facing up to the scale of this. As a society, we are all still hooked on a vision of the future as an upgraded version of the present. Somehow, technology or political agreements or ethical shopping or mass protest are meant to save our civilisation from self-destruction.

Well, we don’t buy it. This project starts with our sense that civilisation as we have known it is coming to an end; brought down by a rapidly changing climate, a cancerous economic system and the ongoing mass destruction of the non-human world. But it is driven by our belief that this age of collapse – which is already beginning – could also offer a new start, if we are careful in our choices.

The end of the world as we know it is not the end of the world full stop."

Faulty premise underlies Budget 2012 “streamlining” of environmental review process | iPolitics

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/04/04/simon-dyer-faulty-premise-underlies-budget-2012-streamlining-of-environmental-review-process/

"If you followed coverage of the federal budget last week with an eye to environmental issues, you could be excused for thinking Canada's environmental review process is a tangled web of unnecessary red tape that is stifling investment in Canada's energy sector.

Building on the theme that Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has been doggedly repeating in stops across the country, last week's federal budget documents argued the environmental review process needs to be unraveled in order to attract capital and keep Canada's economy moving forward. It would make sense if it weren't based on such a phony premise.

To illustrate the need to slash all that red tape, the government repeatedly points to Exhibit A: the fact that it took six years for the federal government to approve the Total Joslyn oilsands mine. Six years does seem like a long time — until you consider one important fact: mid-way through the process, the oilsands company behind the project chose to completely change its approach to extracting the bitumen from the oilsands and managing the resulting tailings waste, and submitted a new application for the project, essentially hitting re-set on the regulatory review."
<more>

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/04/04/simon-dyer-faulty-premise-underlies-budget-2012-streamlining-of-environmental-review-process/

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Sandra Steingraber Breaking Up with the Sierra Club

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/newsfrom187/entry/6799/

Sandra Steingraber, after learning that the Sierra Club had taken $25 million from Chesapeake Energy, wrote a letter severing her relationship.
Chesapeake Energy is one of the largest gas-drillers in the world.

Breaking Up with the Sierra Club

March 23, 2012, by Sandra Steingraber

Orion‘s search for a more truthful relationship between humans and the natural world occasionally calls for the expression of outrage. The more we learn about a gas-drilling practice called hydraulic fracturing—or “fracking”—the more we see it as a zenith of violence and disconnect, impulses that seem to be gathering on the horizon like thunder clouds.

Long-time friend and Orion columnist Sandra Steingraber has been particularly vocal about the dangers of fracking. Her columns in recent issues of the magazine have frequently been dedicated to the issue; and last year, after receiving a Heinz Award for her work, Steingraber donated the cash prize to the fight against fracking in her home state of New York.

In February, Time magazine broke the news that the Sierra Club, an old and respected environmental defender, had, for three years, accepted $25 million from Chesapeake Energy, one of the largest gas-drillers in the world. (In 2010, Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s new executive director, refused further donations from the company.) The story prompted Steingraber to write an open letter to the Club, posted below. We invite you to read the letter, which testifies to the confusion, fear, and outrage that’s pouring out of communities in gasland—but which is also, importantly, a bold call to courage.

***

No right way is easy. . . .We must risk our lives to save them.
—John Muir, Sierra Club’s founder


Dear Sierra Club,

I’m through with you.

For years we had a great relationship based on mutual admiration. You gave a glowing review of my first book, Living Downstream—a review that appeared in the pages of Sierra magazine and hailed me as “the new Rachel Carson.” Since 1999 that phrase has linked us together in all the press materials that my publicist sends out. Your name appears with mine on the flaps of my book jackets, in the biography that introduces me at the speaker’s podium, and in the press release that announced, last fall, that I was one of the lucky recipients of a $100,000 Heinz Award for my research and writing on the environment.

I was proud to be affiliated with you. I hoped to live up to the moniker you bestowed upon me.

But more than a month has past since your executive director, Michael Brune, admitted in Time magazine that the Sierra Club had, between 2007 and 2010, clandestinely accepted $25 million from the fracking industry, with most of the donations coming from Chesapeake Energy. Corporate Crime Reporter was hot on the trail of the story when it broke in Time.

From the start, Brune’s declaration seemed less an acknowledgement of wrongdoing than an attempt to minister to a looming public relations problem. Would someone truly interested in atonement seek credit for choosing not to take additional millions of gas industry dollars (“Why the Sierra Club Turned Down $26 Million in Contributions from Natural Gas Interests”)?

Here, on top of the Marcellus Shale, along the border between Pennsylvania and New York—where we are surrounded by land leased to the gas industry; where we live in fear that our water will be ruined, our mortgages called in, our teenage children killed in fiery wrecks with 18-wheelers hauling toxic fracking waste on our rural, icy back roads; where we cash out our vacation days to board predawn buses to rallies and public hearings; where we fundraise, donate, testify, phone bank, lobby, submit public comments, sign up for trainings in nonviolent civil disobedience; where our children ask if we will be arrested, if we will have to move, if we will die, and what will happen to the bats, the honeybees, the black bears, the grapevines, the apple orchards, the cows’ milk; where we have learned all about casing failures, blow-outs, gas flares, clear-cuts, legal exemptions, the benzene content of production fluid, the radioactive content of drill cuttings; where people suddenly start sobbing in church and no one needs to ask why—here in the crosshairs of Chesapeake Energy, Michael Brune’s announcement was met with a kind of stunned confusion.

The Sierra Club had taken money, gobs of it, from an industry that we in the grassroots have been in the fight of our lives to oppose. The largest, most venerable environmental organization in the United States secretly aligned with the very company that seeks to occupy our land, turn it inside out, blow it apart, fill it with poison. All for the goal of extracting a powerful heat-trapping gas, methane, that plays a significant role in climate change.

Climate change: identified by The Lancet as the number-one global health problem of the 21st century. Children, according to the World Health Organization, are among its primary victims.

It was as if, on the eve of D-day, the anti-Fascist partisans had discovered that Churchill was actually in cahoots with the Axis forces.

So, I’ve had many weeks now to ponder the whole betrayal and watch for signs of redemption from Sierra Club’s national leadership. Would it be “coming clean” (to quote the title of the executive director’s recent book)?

Freed from the silence that money bought, would it now lend its voice in support of environmental groups in New York State that seek a statewide prohibition on fracking? Would it come to the aid of those in Pennsylvania calling for a halt to the devastation there?

Would it, at the very least, endorse the modest proposal of Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy, who recommend a national moratorium on fracking until human health impacts are researched?

And would Michael Brune humbly ask forgiveness from antifracking activist Lisa Wright, formerly on the executive committee of the Sierra Club’s Finger Lakes chapter? As recently as last May, in response to a direct query from Wright, who had become suspicious, Brune wrote, “I do want to be clear about one thing: we do not receive any money from Aubrey McClendon, nor his company Chesapeake. For that matter, we do not receive any contributions from the natural gas industry. Hopefully this will alleviate some concerns.”

The answer to all of the above questions: No.

So, Sierra Club, call some other writer your new Rachel Carson. I’ll be erasing your endorsement from my website.

And take back these words, penned by your own fierce and uncorruptible founder, John Muir, that have hung for years by my writing desk:

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature’s peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The wind will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.

There is no peace in the mountains and hills over the Marcellus Shale. No glad tidings. The forests of Pennsylvania are filled with chainsaws, flares, drill pads, pipelines, condensers, generators, and the 24/7 roar of compressor stations. The wind that blows east from the gas fields carries toluene, benzene, and diesel exhaust. Sunshine turns it all into poisonous ozone. Storms send silt into trout streams from denuded hillsides and cause good people to lie awake at night, worried about overflowing impoundment pits full of neurotoxic chemicals and overturned frack trucks full of carcinogens.

Even now, plans are being laid to transport 88.2 million gallons of liquid propane and butane to caverns that lie beneath the idyllic New York lakeshore where my ten-year-old son was born. (“This transaction is yet another example of the successful execution on our plan to build an integrated natural gas storage and transportation hub in the Northeast,” says the company called Inergy.) When you tramp through the fields and forests where I live—40 percent of the land in my county is leased to the gas industry—cares don’t drop off like autumn leaves. They accumulate like convoys of flowback fluid laced with arsenic, radium, and barium with no place, no place to go.

And, yes, they are fracking in Rachel Carson’s beloved Allegheny County, too.

The hard truth: National Sierra Club served as the political cover for the gas industry and for the politicians who take their money and do their bidding. It had a hand in setting in motion the wheels of environmental destruction and human suffering. It was complicit in bringing extreme fossil fuel extraction onshore, into our communities, farmlands, and forests, and in blowing up the bedrock of our nation. And I can’t get over it.

So, here are some parting words from the former new Rachel Carson.

The path to salvation lies in reparations—not in accepting praise for overcoming the urge to commit the same crime twice. So shutter your doors. Cash out your assets. Don a backpack and hike through the gaslands of America. Along the way, bear witness. Apologize. Offer compensation to the people who have no drinkable water and can’t sell their homes. Whose farm ponds bubble with methane. Whose kids have nosebleeds and mysterious rashes. Write big checks to the people who are putting their bodies on the line in the fight to ban fracking, and to the grassroots groups that are organizing them.

Finally, go to Washington and say what the Sierra Club should have said in 2007: Fracking is not a bridge to the future. It is a plank on which we walk blindfolded at the point of a sword. There is no right way to do it. And the pirates are not our friends.

Sincerely,

Sandra Steingraber

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Low-tech Magazine

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/

A wonderful website subtitled
"Doubts on progress and technology"