September 25, 2008

Farmed salmon has long been a problem; the increase in sea lice caused by this practice is one of the main reasons salmon stocks are collapsing. But there are solutions. A land-based coho salmon operation in B.C. is an example of how we can create sustainable farming practices and change our relationship to the natural world. This system uses the waste from salmon to grow crayfish, wasabi, and other vegetables, making it a much more efficient system from a food production perspective. This system is being tested on both Canadian coasts by the universities of Victoria and New Brunswick, and is featured here.

However, until such practices become the norm, check out Canada's Seafood Guide by SeaChoice to make sustainable seafood choices.

Posted by Sana Khan at September 25, 2008
PermaLink | Comments(0) | Trackbacks(0)
Filed Under:

September 16, 2008

Canada's first "environmental election"

If this is Canada’s first “environmental election”, why aren’t the parties that are considered to have the most environment-friendly policies doing better? D. Simon Jackson has some thoughts at CBC.ca, in his article “It's the environment, stupid. Not just carbon taxes”.

“With week one in the bag, it seems fair to say that this is Canada's first environmental election.

“Sure, the issue is sharing the spotlight with the usual suspects — health care, the economy, and leadership — but never before have green issues played such a dominant role in the punditry, the platforms and the policy debate…”

FOR MORE on the "environmental election, visit VoteEnvironment2008.ca.

Posted by Ian Hanington at September 16, 2008
PermaLink | Comments(2) | Trackbacks(0)
Filed Under:

September 15, 2008

Ask mom and dad to save the world

By David Suzuki

They say more and more young people are failing to vote, and I can understand why. When have you heard a politician seriously discuss the kind of world where today's youth will spend their adult lives? Oh, there's a lot of posturing and name-calling, but what about really big issues like the terrifying state of the planet's oceans, the skyrocketing emissions of greenhouse gases, the extinction crisis that is wiping out tens of thousands of species every year, the terrible disparity between wealth and poverty that creates so much hatred and desperation and leads to violence and despair?

The problem is that for two years the current crop of elected people has been thinking about one thing and one thing only: the next election and how to get into power. But the important issues for young people will take years and billions of dollars to solve, and that's a political problem. Suppose scientists tell us that we have to massively reduce greenhouse gas production, and that it will cost billions but we can do it over 10 or 15 years. What politician is going to make such a commitment when he or she will immediately get dumped on by big business and interest groups, and even if the target is reached, he or she won't be in power by then? So they'd much rather build a nuclear plant to give the illusion they're doing something right away and get re-elected.

Well kids, you've got to get involved. You see, right now, politicians are focused on how to get the most votes. But you don't vote. Nor do future generations vote. For that matter, oceans, trees, fish, and soil don't vote. In my experience, it’s tough to get adults to change their behaviour or priorities, so when they see someone like me coming along, they duck out of the way. "Here comes that pain-in-the-ass Suzuki again telling me we'll have to sell our Hummer and four-car-garage home."

I understand that after people have invested the time and effort to go through school, find a job, save a bit of money to get married, and have a family, they don't like to be told they have to change their ways. Better to simply write off folks like me and not think about our message. But adults do have one vulnerability: you. They love you. So if you ask that they consider the world you will inherit, tell them that you are worried about where we are going, and demand that they find solutions, they have no choice. They are the two most important people in the world, so start with them and how they are going to vote. Tell them you want them to vote for the environment.

Posted by Ian Hanington at September 15, 2008
PermaLink | Comments(2) | Trackbacks(0)
Filed Under:

September 11, 2008

Nature…priceless

We always knew that we get clean air from trees, biodiversity from bees, and power from the sun. But who knew we were getting a free ride?

This week, the David Suzuki Foundation in association with the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, unveiled an innovative report that puts a value on the ecoservices provided by Ontario’s Greenbelt. According to the report, the 1.8 million acre Greenbelt contributes $2.6 billion worth of ecoservices to the province each year. The Greenbelt was established to safeguard key environmentally sensitive land, watersheds, and farmlands that provide essential ecosystem services and quality of life for this densely populated area of Canada.

That’s $2.6 billion worth of ecoservices that the province is getting for free, and that puts a whole new perspective on what we are doing to the environment. What nature does for us can no longer be on the periphery. Assigning values to ecoservices like climate control, water filtration and flood protection can help us and our governments, city planners and developers understand how nature sustains us as well as our impact on the environment. Download Ontario's Wealth, Canada's Future here.

Sara Wilson is the author of this groundbreaking study, and she answered some questions about the value of putting eco back into economics.

Why is it important to do this kind of evaluation of the Greenbelt?

Typically, we undervalue our environment and the services it provides. I think it’s really important to look at different systems such as the Greenbelt and identify the services they provide to see what kind of value we get from our environment. It’s something people can relate to in terms of their daily lives.

With the upcoming elections, many people are wondering where the environment fits in. How does natural capital value help understand some election issues?

One of the major issues in the upcoming election is climate change and how we’re going to deal with it. The parties are quite different in their platforms on that issue. One of the key messages of the report is that if we don’t identify a natural environment and take care of those ecoservices, then things like our health and our local food production will deteriorate. That’s the problem that occurred with climate change. We weren’t paying attention with what was going on with the environment, and we didn’t take action early enough. And now we’re having to take more drastic steps to stabilize the climate. This type of research is saying we really need to start identifying ecoservices and their values and monitoring them, making a record of what services are provided, what is needed to sustain livelihood and the ecosystems, and we need to sustain those ourselves.

What was the most surprising finding to you?

The most surprising to me was the values of pollinators, because it wasn’t something that I’d really dealt with or come across before. The Greenbelt is a unique mosaic of nature and farmland. Pollinators play a large role in maintaining biodiversity and in supporting local food productions. That was an interesting aspect because it really connected the natural areas and the farmland in terms of the ecoservices that were provided by each land use.

What is your ‘favourite’ ecosystem service?

I’d have to go back to pollinators! Without pollinators, there would be no food production, no biodiversity. They’re so small, they’re something we don’t really think about in our everyday life, but they practically support all life on the planet.

(Photo: Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation)

Posted by Sana Khan at September 11, 2008
PermaLink | Comments(0) | Trackbacks(0)
Filed Under:

September 01, 2008

Exporting bulk water is the wrong way to go

As the previous blog entry notes, the Montreal Economic Institute recently argued that exporting water in bulk from Canada to the United States would be a great way for Quebec and Canada to make money. Here's what our Quebec director-general, Karel Mayrand, and marine and freshwater conservation program director, Jay Ritchlin, had to say about it in the Montreal Gazette.

Exporting bulk water is the wrong way to go; Canada should use its abundant water to generate economic wealth

The Gazette (Montreal)
Mon 01 Sep 2008

By KAREL MAYRAND and JAY RITCHLIN

Water exports are a recurring, ever-controversial theme in Canada. From Soviet-style schemes such as the 1960s Grand Canal proposal to divert James Bay water to the United States, to more recent commercial plans to ship water from Newfoundland's Gisborne Lake and Ontario's Lake Superior, dozens of failed attempts to export water have generated thousands of pages of debate.

At a critical time when conserving our freshwater supply and safeguarding our aquatic ecosystems should be of paramount importance, the Montreal Economic Institute - a Montreal-based free-market advocacy group - is reviving this debate once again.

According to the UN, two thirds of humans will face water scarcity within a generation. The combined effect of population growth, the depletion of water resources and climate change is driving this trend. Canada receives seven per cent of the world's renewable freshwater supplies, but contains less than half of one per cent of the world's population. At first sight, exporting water from a water-rich country to quench a thirsty planet makes sense. But does it really?

A recent article in Scientific American lists five solutions to the global water crisis: water pricing; improved, more efficient irrigation; low-water sanitation; virtual water exports; and desalination of sea water. Interestingly, water imports/exports fails to make the list. This is not surprising.

The economic case for exporting water still has to be made. Moving large quantities of water over long distances, whether by pipeline, ship or road, is expensive and the cost increases exponentially based on quantity, distance and the price of fuel. The price of water at the end of the pipe is likely to be much higher than alternatives such as water-saving technologies, demand management, or desalinisation. It is clear that any large-scale water-diversion project would need to be massively subsidized.

Moreover, exporting water is a low-added-value activity that would not create many jobs or economic opportunities. Exporting virtual water (water embedded in the goods and services we export) makes much more sense. For example, producing a kilogram of wheat requires 1,000 litres of water. Our abundant water is a key comparative advantage for Canada - provided that we manage it sustainably. Why would we want to give it away?

Trading water also carries the risk of losing control over our own resources. There is a great deal of uncertainty as to the status of water in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Some fear that if we start exporting it, water might be considered a traded natural resource falling under the purview of the agreement. This would mean that once we open the tap, NAFTA provisions would make it virtually impossible to close.

In practice, this means that Canadians would have to compete with other water users across the continent in the allocation of resources within our own watersheds. NAFTA could confer rights to water users and investors located thousands of kilometres from a Canadian watershed. It would also place limits to the capacity of the federal and provincial governments to manage and protect our water resources.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of water exports is their potential impact on watersheds and ecosystems. Proponents of water exports base their rationale on the notion of surplus water that is lost to the sea and the fact that water shipments would be equivalent to a drop in a bucket.

But the science is clear: There is no such thing as surplus water. Ecosystems and humans need all available water. The impact of large water diversions or the cumulative impact of numerous water withdrawals will certainly affect our water resources and ecosystems. This impact could be devastating in some areas. The risk is even greater when one considers the likely impact of climate change on our water resources, especially in the Great Lakes basin, which is so vulnerable to evaporation.

Exporting water therefore carries important social and environmental risks, as well as limited potential economic benefits. Canada has historically used its abundant water resources to generate economic wealth. In the process we have become key exporters of virtual water, but we have seen our natural resources depleted and polluted, and our aquatic ecosystems altered by decades of neglect.

Instead of trying to export bulk water, we should take on the national challenge of restoring this key Canadian resource for the benefit of future generations.

Karel Mayrand is the David Suzuki Foundation's director-general for Quebec. Jay Ritchlin is the foundation's director for marine and freshwater conservation.

Posted by Ian Hanington at September 01, 2008
PermaLink | Comments(5) | Trackbacks(0)
Filed Under: