Issues | David Suzuki Foundation

Electromagnetic Radiation and Fields

2012-02-16T13:39:58Z

(Credit: Leo Reynolds) via Flickr

]]> Electric devices and infrastructure and wireless communication are hallmarks of modern life. The proliferation of these technologies in recent years has dramatically increased our exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR), or electromagnetic fields (EMF). While the science on the health impacts of this form of radiation is inconclusive, many people are concerned about how long-term exposure to excessive EMR may impact human health and nature.

About electromagnetic radiation
EMR is a form of energy with both electrical and magnetic fields that travels in waves. Wavelength and frequency vary depending on the source. There are many sources of EMR, both natural and human, but the term is sometimes used more narrowly to refer to emissions from wired and wireless electric technologies. EMR from these sources is in the non-ionizing range of the electromagnetic spectrum. In other words, it does not carry enough energy to break chemical bonds. EMR is greatest close to the source and decreases quickly with distance from the source.

(Credit: Scientific American)

]]> The ubiquity of wireless communication technologies can result in near-constant exposure to low levels of EMR close to the source.

Health concerns
The full picture of chronic health risks associated with long-term exposure to EMR at present levels is not yet fully known -- in part because the proliferation of wireless technologies is relatively recent. The World Health Organization maintains that "no adverse health effects are expected." However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified extremely low frequency EMR (associated with power lines) and radiofrequency EMR from cell phone use as possible human carcinogens.

Compared to cell phones, radiofrequency EMR exposure from other wireless devices is lower -- because other devices are typically located farther away from the body -- but in some cases continuous. Other wireless devices, such as smart meters, transmit only intermittently. PG&E claims that EMR exposure from a home electricity smart meter transmitting intermittently for 1000 years is equivalent to one month of typical cell phone use. IARC has not drawn any conclusions about an association between cancer and radiofrequency EMR from sources other than cell phones.

In 2007, an independent, international collaborative of 14 scientists and public health and policy experts reviewed more than 2000 studies of health effects from EMR (the Bioinitiative project). They concluded, "Chronic exposure to EMF is associated in some scientific studies with increased health risks that vary from impaired learning, headaches, mental confusion, skin rashes, tinnitus and disorientation to a variety of cancers, and neurological diseases like ALS and Alzheimer's." The Bioinitiatve Report is probably the most comprehensive literature review on the subject, but some critics claim it is one-sided.

A smaller number of studies hint at possible environmental impacts of EMR. In one, scientists found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby, suggesting that EMR may play a role in colony collapse disorder. Another study linked Wi-Fi exposure to tree leaf damage. The results of these studies are considered preliminary and inconclusive.

Electrosensitivity -- Some individuals experience immediate and sometimes intense adverse health effects in the vicinity of devices that emit EMR. This phenomenon is very rare and not a generally recognized medical diagnoses but, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has acknowledged the need to accommodate individuals with environmental sensitivities, including electrosensitivity, as with other disabilities.

The David Suzuki Foundation does not have a specific position on EMR. We recognize that some applications of wireless technology have environmental and health benefits but note the early warning issued by the European Environment Agency:

"There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments. Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives."

What you can do
If you are concerned about health risks from EMR, here are some ways to reduce your exposure:
• Limit the number and length of cell phone calls and use "hands-free" options instead of holding the phone to your ear.
• Increase the distance between yourself and wireless devices.
• Avoid superfluous wireless transmissions. For example, turn off WiFi when not in use.
• Turn off wireless devices at night or keep them out of the bedroom.
• Monitor the levels of EMR in your home (Toronto Hydro will provide this monitoring equipment to customers who are concerned, other monitoring equipment is also commercially available)

Other sources of information
Canadian Cancer Society
Prevent Cancer Now (petition)

Fraser River fish habitat threatened by gravel extraction

2012-01-17T10:03:18Z

Approximately 280,000 cubic metres of gravel accumulated in the active channel of the river. This was largely offset by significant losses (4 million cubic meters) of over-bank sand on islands and river edges, resulting in little net gain of sediment. (Credit: janheuninck via Flickr)

]]> B.C.'s Fraser River has become the battleground for the gravel industry and conservation groups fighting to protect one of the world's most productive fish habitats.

The Fraser has been a source of gravel for B.C. construction for decades. However, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) placed a moratorium on gravel extraction in the mid 1990s due to concerns about fish and fish habitat. Not long after the freeze, the B.C. Provincial government began to argue that gravel removal from the Fraser was necessary for flood protection as "massive" gravel accumulations were, allegedly, causing the river bed to rise. A series of public meetings was held to debate the issue and experts were called in to assess the scope of the problem.

]]> Dr. Michael Church, a professor of Geography at the University of British Columbia, provided the most compelling testimony on how gravel and sand enter and move through the gravel reach. He estimated that while approximately 280,000 cubic metres of gravel accumulated in the active channel of the river, this was largely offset by significant losses (4 million cubic meters) of over-bank sand on islands and river edges, resulting in little net gain of sediment.

The B.C. government and proponents of the gravel industry incorrectly interpreted this to mean that 280,000 cubic meters of gravel and sand entered the gravel reach each year and merely "piled up" in the river causing a rise in riverbed elevation that would, over time result in increased flood risk. These groups argued that lives and property were at risk and pushed for DFO to lift the moratorium on gravel extraction.

In 2004, a five-year federal-provincial agreement was reached to allow removal of up to 500,000 cubic metres of gravel in each of the first two years and up to 420,000 cubic metres in the following three years. The agreement was touted as a long-term plan for reducing the flood hazard risk in the lower Fraser River.

Critics argued that gravel removal was only taking place in areas where it was easily accessible to industry and that removal from the targeted areas provided no flood protection benefits whatsoever. In addition, fish and fish habitat were paying the price. In one case, at a location known as Big Bar, removal operations undertaken in 2006 resulted in the de-watering of thousands of salmon redds (nests) and the demise of possibly millions of young salmon which were just about to emerge from the gravel. There was evidence to suggest that similar losses of fish had occurred at other sites as well.

The Fraser River is also home to the white sturgeon, listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as endangered, with gravel removal identified as one of the key threats affecting this species.

Making Policy Live

2011-11-23T05:23:19Z

]]> Making Policy Live is a series of six documentary videos celebrating innovative local initiatives in B.C.'s Lower Mainland that are protecting and restoring nature in their communities.

Establishing Rouge National Park

2011-11-07T07:23:12Z

(Credit: Vivian Choi via Flickr)

]]> Canadians are bound to wilderness through culture and history. But in our increasingly urban lives, nature often feels distant, and Canada's iconic national parks seem especially remote.

The David Suzuki Foundation is working to change this. As the first major project based in our new Toronto office, we intend to help connect residents of the Greater Toronto Area with nature by helping create Rouge National Park -- North America's largest urban park and the first urban national park in Canada.

]]> The proposed park would include more than 6,000 hectares of nationally and ecologically significant lands on Toronto's eastern border, including parts of Scarborough, Pickering, and Markham. It would also include the existing municipally managed Rouge Park, a 36-metre cliff, the region's best remaining wetland, and two National Historic Sites.

The park would follow the Rouge River from its source in the Oak Ridges Moraine to Lake Ontario, giving millions of nearby residents, especially young families and new immigrants, access to wilderness.

Although the Rouge is close to Toronto, most locals don't know about it. And as its funding dwindles and surrounding development continues to grow, many people are pressuring Parks Canada to take on its management. Foundation staff will work closely with Parks Canada, as well as community groups, farmers, and some local advocates who helped curb urban sprawl in the 1990s by creating Rouge Park.

The Foundation will conduct a natural capital valuation of the area, like we did for the Ontario Greenbelt. We'll assess the services that the ecosystem provides for free -- like water filtration and carbon storage -- and estimate how much they would cost to replace. This will give us a better idea of the ecosystem's economic value and provide a compelling argument for its protection.

We aim to make the Rouge watershed the urban jewel of the national parks system, with stable funding and governance to protect its rich ecological, cultural, and agricultural heritage. And for millions of GTA residents, it will be a reminder that nature is not a destination -- it's in their own backyards.

Carbon tax or cap-and-trade?

2011-07-19T11:08:49Z

]]> What is a carbon tax or carbon fee? Pricing carbon emissions through a carbon tax is one of the most powerful incentives that governments have to encourage companies and households to pollute less by investing in cleaner technologies and adopting greener practices. A carbon tax is a fee placed on greenhouse gas pollution mainly from burning fossil fuels. This can be done by placing a surcharge on carbon-based fuels and other sources of pollution such as industrial processes.

A carbon tax puts a monetary price on the real costs imposed on our economy, our communities and our planet by greenhouse gas emissions and the global warming they cause. A shift by households, businesses and industry to cleaner technologies increases the demand for energy-efficient products and helps spur innovation and investment in green solutions.

Under this system, the price to pollute sets the strength of the economic signal and determines the extent to which green choices are encouraged. For example, a stronger price on emissions will lead to more investment in cleaner energy sources such as solar and wind power. And although a carbon fee or tax makes polluting activities more expensive, it makes green technologies more affordable as the price signal increases over time. Most importantly, a carbon tax gets green solutions into use.

Carbon taxes in action

Many industrialized countries have used carbon taxes to discourage fossil fuel emissions and promote clean energy. For example, Sweden has used a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since 1991. Although a suite of other policies has also been used, the Swedish Ministry of Environment estimated the carbon tax has cut emissions by an additional 20 per cent (as opposed to solely relying on regulations), putting the country on target to achieve its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. Sweden's carbon tax has been credited with spurring the innovation and use of green heating technologies that have significantly phased out burning oil for heating.

Although some critics claim a carbon tax would damage the economy, Sweden's carbon tax is a hefty $120 per tonne of carbon pollution. Since the carbon tax was introduced, Sweden's economy has grown by more than 44 per cent, and the country recently ranking second in the world on economic competitiveness.

In Canada, B.C. and Quebec use carbon taxes as part of their strategies to reduce emissions and encourage investments in energy-efficiency and renewable energy.

Our report Provincial Power Play details these and other provincial climate efforts.

What is a cap-and-trade system?

In a cap-and-trade system, government puts a firm limit, or cap, on the overall level of carbon pollution from industry and reduces that cap year after year to reach a set pollution target. As the cap decreases each year, it cuts industry's total greenhouse gas emissions to the limit set by regulation, and then forces polluters that exceed their emissions quota to buy unused quota from other companies

The government creates and distributes pollution quotas, most fairly through an auction. This creates an incentive for firms to reduce their emissions and be able to sell rather than purchase pollution quotas. Under this system the market determines the price of quotas.

In this way, the emission cap ensures that total pollution goes down and companies are given an economic incentive to find better ways to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and support clean energy.

Cap-and-trade in action

Cap-and-trade has been used successfully in the U.S. to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide, two key ingredients responsible for acid rain. Since the early 1980s, this cap-and-trade system has reduced acid rain-forming emissions by nearly half, which has led to a healthier environment.

The European Union has had a cap-and-trade system in place since 2005 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from about 10,000 large industrial emitters.

To reinforce global efforts and overcome inaction by Canadian and U.S. federal governments, seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces have formed the Western Climate Initiative, a regional effort to reduce emissions and grow the global clean energy economy. So far, California, Quebec and B.C. have signalled their intentions to move ahead with cap-and-trade regulations to reduce industrial greenhouse gas pollution in January 2012.

This provincial leadership could play an important role in determining Canada's success at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. With powerful partners like the State of California, the eighth largest economy in the world, it could also form the blueprint for North America's response to global warming.

Carbon tax or cap-and-trade?

There is much discussion about whether a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system is the best way to put a price on greenhouse gas pollution.

The simple answer is that it depends on how each system is designed. The design will determine the environmental and economic effectiveness. For example, how strong is the economic incentive (i.e., the carbon price) to reduce emissions and switch to cleaner energy? To which emission sectors does the system apply? And how are the revenues used? Are they invested in green infrastructure or corresponding tax breaks?

If both approaches are well-designed, the two options are quite similar and could even be used in tandem. The David Suzuki Foundation believes this price should be applied broadly in the Canadian economy, but that it can be done either through a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system or a combination of the two.

What's important is that the price on carbon pollution provides an incentive for everyone, from industry to households, to be part of the solution. Ultimately, the critical factor in reducing heat-trapping emissions is the strength of the economic signal. A stronger carbon price will kick-start more growth in clean, renewable energy and will encourage adoption of greener practices.

Pros and cons

Both cap-and-trade programs and carbon taxes can work well as long as they are designed to provide a strong economic signal to switch to cleaner energy. However, some differences exist.

Cap-and-trade has one key environmental advantage over a carbon tax: It provides more certainty about the amount of emissions reductions that will result and little certainty about the price of emissions (which is set by the emissions trading market). A carbon tax provides certainty about the price but little certainty about the amount of emissions reductions.

A carbon tax also has one key advantage: It is easier and quicker for governments to implement. A carbon tax can be very simple. It can rely on existing administrative structures for taxing fuels and can therefore be implemented in just a few months. In theory, the same applies to cap-and-trade systems, but in practice they tend to be much more complex. More time is required to develop the necessary regulations, and they are more susceptible to lobbying and loopholes. Cap-and-trade also requires the establishment of an emissions trading market.

A Carbon pricing solution for Canada

A groundbreaking study by one of Canada's leading economic and environmental firms shows that Canada's economy can still grow by almost 20 per cent over the next decade while the country dramatically reduces its greenhouse gas pollution by about half. The study shows that Canada could take decisive action and still continue to enjoy strong net job growth and other economic benefits. By 2020 Canadians would save more than $5.5 billion each year at the gas pump because of more efficient vehicles, more public transit and shorter commutes.

Carbon pricing

2011-07-18T16:56:13Z

Carbon pricing makes polluting activities more expensive and green technologies more affordable.

]]> Pricing carbon emissions The problem: It's free to pollute
Many environmentalists and economists agree that putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is one of the most powerful tools we have in the fight against climate change. That's because pricing carbon pollution addresses one of the fundamental problems in Canada: there are currently no limits to the amount of pollution that can be spewed into the atmosphere and there are no costs associated with this pollution.

Just as we pay a fee to throw our garbage into the landfill, connecting a cost to pollute the atmosphere creates an incentive to avoid polluting and spurs innovation in cleaner technology.

The two most commonly discussed methods of pricing carbon are a carbon tax and cap-and-trade approach. Both approaches, if well-designed, are among the most powerful incentives governments have to encourage companies and households to pollute less and invest in cleaner choices. Although both these tools make polluting activities more expensive, they make green technologies more affordable.

Carbon pricing through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system can improve fairness since it is based on the "polluter-pay principle", where individuals and companies are faced with the full social costs of their actions

Benefits of putting a strong price signal on carbon pollution

Fight climate change
By putting a strong price on carbon through a carbon tax or a shrinking cap on emissions, governments can save lives and protect communities from the threat of climate change, including extreme weather events like flooding and intense drought. This action can also transform Canada's industrial facilities into leaders in energy-efficiency and cutting-edge clean technologies. This is critical because about half of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions come from industry sources.

Save lives with cleaner air
Action to reduce fossil fuel pollution will also reduce smog, save lives and reduce the risk of disease such as asthma. The Canadian Medical Association estimated that in 2008 Canada's air pollution was responsible for 21,000 premature deaths, 92,000 emergency room visits and 620,000 visits to a doctor's office. Today, between 15 and 20 per cent of Canadian children suffer from asthma.

Create thousands of jobs in clean energy
Lastly, our federal and provincial governments could position Canada at the forefront of the clean-energy economy, one of the fastest-growing industries in the world, with an annual growth rate of 30 per cent during the past decade. This global trend offers an exciting opportunity for Canada to be the "build it" nation when it comes to solutions to global warming versus being the "buy it" nation of clean technologies if action is delayed.

Fuelled by rising demand for clean, secure energy sources, investment in clean energy technologies totalled $243 billion worldwide in 2010. The clean-energy sector has also been one of the most resilient during the recent global recession as countries around the world have pursued low-carbon infrastructure and clean energy as a primary strategy for economic recovery.

More Efficient
Many Canadian business leaders are in favour of carbon pricing, as it offers a flexible and least-cost approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A carbon tax and/or cap-and-trade system can encourage rapid cost-effective investments to reduce emissions, through actions such as investing in a green technology or changing behaviours or business practices.

Carbon pricing is crucial but must be supported by other solutions

Pricing carbon emissions forms the foundation of any effective government strategy to reduce global warming emissions, but it must be supported by other solutions. A credible climate action plan must also include energy-efficiency standards for buildings and vehicles, financial incentives for home-energy improvements and renewable energy, and investments in public transit. These solutions are essential to get clean, renewable energy and sustainable transportation technologies into use in Canada.

It's also important to ensure that a carbon-pricing system is fair to low-income households, which are at risk of being disproportionately affected because a larger share of their incomes goes toward energy bills. However, a well-designed carbon-pricing approach can protect low-income families by recycling a portion of the revenues back to low-income households.

Are your cosmetics guilty of causing bodily harm?

2011-05-12T14:45:58Z

A special thanks to Pull Focus Film School and the creative team of Leslie Kennah and Dylan Hartley.

]]> Stuff we use daily -- shaving cream, shampoo, toothpaste -- could be our most intimate experience with pollution. Watch this video, avoid the dirty dozen ingredients in your personal care products, then tell our decision makers to clean up their act.