David Suzuki Foundation - Science Matters

Celebrating our natural wealth on Canada Day

Fri, 03 Jul 09 07:00:00 UT

The environmental challenges facing Canada are daunting – the lack of a credible plan to address climate change, the overreliance on tar sands to fuel our energy needs and economy, the snail’s pace with which we work to protect endangered species and their habitat, including iconic wildlife like polar bears and caribou.

But Canada Day got us thinking about all we have to celebrate. Thanks in large part to the efforts of individual Canadians, First Nations, and environmental organizations, our municipal, provincial, and federal governments have made some great strides to protect Canada’s natural heritage.

Just last month, the federal government and the Dehcho First Nation announced a plan to permanently protect more than 30,000 square kilometres of boreal wilderness in Nahanni National Park Reserve in the Northwest Territories. That’s an area the size of Vancouver Island!

The announcement came on the heels of a new law introduced in Ontario that legally commits the government to protect at least half of the province’s northern boreal forest, as well as a promise by Quebec premier Jean Charest to do the same in that province. Canada’s boreal forest is globally significant, even though most Canadians know less about its majesty and plight than about other conservation battlegrounds, such as the Amazon or Indonesia’s tropical rainforests.

Misunderstood as a foreboding landscape of black flies, bogs, and “rocks and trees and trees and rocks and water” (to quote comedy group the Arrogant Worms), the boreal’s ecological values leave one awestruck. This is a forest that spans the nation, like a great green cloak, from Newfoundland to the Yukon. It is larger than all of the other great forests of the planet, including the Congo Basin, the Amazon, and the Russian Taiga.

The boreal stores more freshwater in its wetlands and lakes and more carbon in its trees, soil, and peatlands than anywhere on Earth. It supports three billion migratory songbirds, the world’s largest herds of caribou, millions of waterfowl and shorebirds, and abundant populations of large predatory animals, including wolves, grizzly bears, polar bears wolverines, and lynx. And it is home to hundreds of First Nations communities that depend upon the region’s ecosystems for their livelihoods and rich culture.

The boreal isn’t the only place we’ve seen good news lately. The federal government has also made some moves to protect aquatic wildlife in our oceans, lakes, and rivers.

Last month, it issued a recovery strategy for the endangered North Atlantic right whale, which included identifying the 80-tonne mammal’s critical habitat – the habitat it needs to survive. Under Canada’s Species at Risk Act, the identification of the whale’s habitat triggers protection.

The government is also working to protect critical habitat for killer whales off the B.C. coast, though it took a lawsuit by the David Suzuki Foundation and other organizations to convince the government to act. We’re cautiously optimistic that the whales may finally get the legal protection they need to survive.

Different levels of government in Canada have protected or committed to protect hundreds of thousands of hectares of forests, tundra, rare grasslands, lakes, rivers, and other terrestrial, freshwater, and ocean ecosystems. This is cause for celebration on this 142nd anniversary of Confederation.

But in the midst of the monumental landscapes that will forever be wild, one story that really inspires us is that of Canada’s most unusual new park. This year the city of Guelph established the world’s first pollinator sanctuary on a former landfill site on the edge of town. Heaps of rotting garbage within a sarcophagus of soil and clay are being restored with native vegetation to create much needed urban habitat for perhaps the hardest-working species on the planet: insect pollinators. Many of these critters are declining throughout Canada as a result of sprawl, pesticides, global warming, and intensive agricultural activities.

Canadians have always celebrated the spectacular natural bounty that makes ours one of the most beautiful and prosperous nations on Earth – from oceans and coastlines to mountains and foothills to prairies and grasslands. Conserving our land and waters is a gift to the planet, though much more needs to be done to protect the richness of wildlife and wilderness with which we are blessed, especially in our oceans, as less than .5 per cent of Canada’s vast marine realm has legal protected status. If we continue to work together, we can ensure that we and our children and grandchildren will have much to celebrate long into the future.

Web links:

Announcement for the expansion of Nahanni National Park:
http://cpaws.org/news/archive/2009/06/nahanniforever.php

Special exhibition on boreal photography:
http://www.harbourfrontcentre.com/respect/photos.cfm#

Announcement for the inclusion of critical habitat in the recovery strategy of the Atlantic Right Whale:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/latestnews/dsfnews06180901.asp

City of Guelph’s Pollinators Park:
http://guelph.ca/living.cfm?itemid=76710&smocid=2142

Consumer demand spurs a corporate sea change

Fri, 26 Jun 09 07:00:00 UT

News and Tips

Right Whale wins protection. Yay!

Read David Suzuki's eco-tips
.
Check out "The Big Picture" by Dr David Suzuki and Dave Robert Taylor

Protecting our planet is no longer seen as a fringe activity. Most people now consider themselves to be environmentally aware and are taking steps to help. Caring for the environment has become mainstream – it’s the “new normal”. And that’s refreshing!

The environmental problems we face today are so serious that people from all sectors of society must work together to solve them. That’s why it’s so heartening to see an increasing number of corporations pitching in to protect nature and our planet’s ecosystems. From restaurants to grocery stores to clothing retailers, businesses are looking for ways to make their operations more sustainable and environmentally responsible. They’re taking tangible steps by offering better choices to consumers.

One of the best things about the growing number of environmentally responsible initiatives is that they demonstrate how powerful individual citizens can be. Businesses respond to consumer demand, and the right demands can result in real benefits for the environment. Some of the changes we’ve seen as a result of consumers using their power include reusable grocery bags, hybrid cars, locally grown and organic food in stores, products and clothing made with recycled materials, green buildings, and sustainable seafood in restaurants and stores.

So much can be achieved when people work together. Researchers at universities and environmental organizations often conduct studies and provide information. Citizens take that information and change their daily behaviour, sometimes by encouraging businesses to act on this new knowledge. Businesses respond by changing their practices and offering more sustainable choices. This in turn causes their suppliers to improve the way they produce their products.

One quickly growing consumer trend that has been satisfying to me is the increasing demand for sustainable seafood. My grandparents came to Canada from Japan because of the abundance of fish in our oceans. My most cherished childhood memories are of camping and fishing in B.C. But over the years, I’ve seen a lot of changes. Many of the fish species that were once so abundant are now in decline, with some facing extinction.

At the David Suzuki Foundation we’ve worked hard over the years with our allied organizations in the SeaChoice program to scientifically assess which fish and seafood species are still thriving and which are threatened by overfishing and habitat loss. We’ve also looked at aquaculture practices to see which ones provide food without harming the environment and which have unacceptable impacts like spreading parasites and disease to wild fish.

We’ve also been working with fisheries, aquaculture producers, and governments to translate the demand for sustainable seafood to real change in the oceans. After all, the end goal is to protect species and marine ecosystems.

We’ve used this information to inform people about the best and worst choices for seafood. And individuals have responded by demanding that stores and restaurants start offering sustainable choices and refraining from carrying species that are at risk or that are produced in a way that is harmful to the environment or to other species.

Fortunately, the tide has started to turn across Canada. Many chefs, restaurants, and seafood distributors are working with SeaChoice and other sustainable seafood programs to offer better options.

Recently, the Overwaitea Food Group, which operates 117 stores in 80 communities in Western Canada, agreed to collaborate with the David Suzuki Foundation and the SeaChoice initiative on a sustainable seafood program for its stores. The grocery chain is now working with us to develop and implement a six-point sustainability plan for buying and selling seafood. We’re at the beginning of the journey, but we commend Overwaitea for demonstrating leadership and committing to help improve the health of our oceans.

It was especially gratifying to hear the grocery chain’s president, Steve van der Leest, say that he chose to work with SeaChoice because when they started looking for experts to help out, we had the “best science” they could find.

Mr. van der Leest knows that switching to more sustainable seafood comes with challenges, including the fact that some sustainable fish can be more expensive than non-sustainable options, but he noted at a news conference that “Doing the right thing always pays off.”

We couldn’t agree more. People everywhere should know that they can help businesses do the right thing by asking them to offer sustainable choices and by supporting businesses that do.

Canada’s urban mega-regions: landscapes of opportunity or regret?

Fri, 19 Jun 09 07:00:00 UT

According to author and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the world is flat. By this, he means the planet has effectively become seamless as a result of globalization and the interconnections brought about by email, cheap transcontinental flights, and the easy flow of goods and services across borders.

Economic geographer Richard Florida believes otherwise. In his best-selling book, Who’s Your City?, Dr. Florida argues that the world is a “spiky place”, characterized by a concentration of economic activity, innovation, and resulting prosperity in a relatively small number of urban hotspots around the planet. These include world-class cities like Prague and Berlin and massive urban regions such as Greater Tokyo and the powerhouse corridor that runs from Boston through New York to Washington D.C. (which he calls “BosWash”). Together, these latter two mega-regions generated a massive economic output of $2.2 trillion last year.

Gardens and
Green Weddings

Two green thumbs up for the David Suzuki Digs My Garden contest

Give to a Green Wedding registry

Check out "The Big Picture" by Dr David Suzuki and Dave Robert Taylor

“In terms of both sheer economic horsepower and cutting-edge innovation, today’s global economy is powered by a surprisingly small number of places,” Dr. Florida writes. “The tallest spikes – the cities and regions that drive the world economy – are growing ever higher, while the valleys – places that boast little, if any, economic activity – mostly languish.”

This is especially true in Canada. Despite being a vast nation of mountains, forests, and ice, where wilderness and wildlife feature prominently in what Dr. Florida calls our “nature-loving, outdoorsy culture”, Canada is an urban society. Close to 80 per cent of Canadians live in cities, and more than half of our country’s economic wealth is generated in five metropolitan areas (Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, and Montreal), while rural and resource-based communities in the nation’s heartland remain economically vulnerable.

Dr. Florida believes the concentration of people, and especially newcomers, in these urban areas has generated many desirable benefits, such as scientific advancements; explosions of creativity in art, writing, and music; and thousands of jobs in the emerging green-tech sector.

Yet, although cities in Canada have clearly emerged as centres of human capital, their growth has had a correspondingly devastating impact on natural capital – ecosystems such as forests, wetlands, and rivers that sustain the health and well-being of the very people who live there.

Forests in urban settings, between cities, and in the countryside illustrate the importance of natural capital. They ensure that steep slopes remain stable, that flood risks are lower, and that drinking water comes out of the tap filtered and clean. But rapid population increases and extensive development associated with these urban hubs is placing unprecedented pressure on natural areas, leading to a loss of fertile agricultural soils, forests, wetlands, estuaries, and other ecosystems.

Take the Golden Horseshoe, an expansive area encompassing the Niagara Peninsula, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, and the region’s anchor, the Greater Toronto Area. Nearly a quarter of Canada’s population lives here, in the fastest growing region in North America. Dr. Florida heaps praise upon this densely populated corridor, citing its successful high-tech companies, access to venture capital, world-class universities, ethnic diversity, and lively arts and culture.

It is a vibrant place. But this mega-region has come together largely in an unplanned mess of urban sprawl. A once diverse mosaic of woodlands, wetlands, towns and villages, and productive farmland has been replaced with a seemingly endless expanse of built-up areas, crisscrossed with hydro-lines and highways, and pockmarked with trophy homes.

A David Suzuki Foundation report released last year concluded that an alarming 16 per cent of farmland in the Greater Toronto Area was lost to urban encroachment between 1996 and 2001. This represents the loss of thousands of hectares of some of the most fertile soils in all of Canada, something we should all be concerned about if we want to maintain local food security and minimize the environmental costs, such as long-distance transportation, of the food we eat.

Both of us spent part of our childhoods in Ontario’s Golden Horseshoe. And although we’re nearly a generation apart in age, we have fond memories of the place before it became one of the world’s urban mega-regions. We believe that while urban growth and development can foster wealth-generation, innovation, science, and the cultural achievements that Dr. Florida and other urbanophiles like him praise, only “smart growth” can enhance our quality of life while preserving the natural environment and our precious agricultural soils.

What should we do with our car company?

Fri, 12 Jun 09 07:00:00 UT

If you’re a Canadian taxpayer, you’re now the proud part owner of a failing automobile company, thanks to the federal and Ontario governments. They’re generously giving General Motors $10.5 billion of your money for an 11.7 per cent share in the company.

Former CIBC World Markets chief economist Jeff Rubin calls it an “investment in obsolescence.” The author of Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization, recently told the Tyee news website, “We should be investing in the future, not the past, making a huge capital investment to build buses and public transit.”

Gardens and
Green Weddings

Two green thumbs up for the David Suzuki Digs My Garden contest

Give to a Green Wedding registry

Check out "The Big Picture" by Dr David Suzuki and Dave Robert Taylor

He’s not alone in his thinking. South of the border, where the U.S. government is giving GM a whopping $50 billion for a 60 per cent share of the company, filmmaker Michael Moore wrote, “The only way to save GM is to kill GM.”

He goes onto say that doesn’t mean killing the infrastructure. “If we allow the shutting down and tearing down of our auto plants, we will sorely wish we still had them when we realize that those factories could have built the alternative energy systems we now desperately need,” he writes. “And when we realize that the best way to transport ourselves is on light rail and bullet trains and cleaner buses, how will we do this if we've allowed our industrial capacity and its skilled workforce to disappear?”

How indeed? One thing is certain: We don’t want GM to go back to “business as usual”. This is a company that has fought every progressive move to improve safety and reduce the environmental impact of vehicles, from seat belts and air bags to fuel-efficiency standards. The usual argument has been that any progressive move would drive the price of cars up to the point where the company would go out of business. Well, guess what? Maybe if GM had spent more money on keeping up with the times than on lobbying and court challenges and building SUVS and Hummers, it wouldn’t be facing bankruptcy today.

GM executives have also argued in the past that the markets should dictate their actions and governments should stay out of the way, but they now seem to have made a u-turn when it comes to government involvement!

Well, we now own part of GM. Shouldn’t we have some say in what becomes of it? Will the U.S. and Canadian governments show some imagination and foresight and turn this crisis into an opportunity?

Mr. Rubin and Mr. Moore are right: Our future is in fuel-efficient cars, buses, and trains, and in green energy. (And even private automobiles may eventually be a thing of the past; the idea of using of a tonne of metal and many litres of fossil fuel to get one person to the grocery store or work is more than a bit absurd.)

We often hear arguments that a major shift in our manufacturing base is not possible – it will be too costly and take too much time. But, as Michael Moore points out, in 1942, GM quickly switched from building cars to producing planes, tanks, and weapons for the war effort. The emergency we face today is no less severe; in fact, it is more so. And we have better technology now.

Likewise, when the Soviet Union launched its first Sputnik satellite in 1957, the U.S. spared no amount of money or effort to get people into space and eventually onto the moon.

And despite arguments that we can’t afford green technologies, governments didn’t have much trouble finding billions – or trillions – of dollars to bail out banks and car companies that were largely the authors of their own problems. Where are our priorities?

The need for a cleaner future is here. The technology is here. The opportunity is here. All that’s required is some will and imagination from governments and corporations. We can no longer rely on diminishing fossil fuel supplies. Our very survival depends on developing more sustainable technologies, transportation, and products that don’t pollute the air, water, and soil.

We don’t need more Cadillacs and Hummers. We need a new way of looking at our world.

What we do to the oceans we do to ourselves

Fri, 05 Jun 09 07:00:00 UT

Our planet with its atmosphere is an exquisitely interconnected system of ocean, air, and land. Water flows through all of it and keeps it – and us – alive. Water continually cycles above, on, and below the Earth’s surface, driven by the sun’s energy. It evaporates from the seas, transpires from plants and soil, flows from glaciers and aquifers, and falls as rain or snow. It covers 71 per cent of the Earth’s surface. It can be liquid, gas, or solid. And it regulates the planet’s temperature.

Part of the way water maintains a fairly steady surface temperature on Earth is by mixing with carbon dioxide to create a heat-trapping blanket in the atmosphere. But when we pump too much carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the air and water, it upsets the balance.

Gardens and
Green Weddings

Two green thumbs up for the David Suzuki Digs My Garden contest

Give to a Green Wedding registry

Check out our guide to Sustainable Sushi

Even though our oceans and atmosphere are vital to all life, we often treat them as waste-disposal sites. We are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the plants on land and in the oceans can reabsorb and process, and so it builds up, trapping more heat and causing the planet’s long-term temperature to rise.

Many of consequences have been widely reported, but global warming’s effect on the oceans hasn’t garnered the attention it deserves. As well as raising the temperature of the oceans, increased carbon dioxide concentrations cause acidification. The oceans absorb and store carbon, which makes them a good hedge against climate change. But when too much carbon ends up in the ocean, the ocean’s pH levels fall and the water becomes more acidic.

Scientists warn that this could have a significant impact on coral reefs, perhaps even wiping them out entirely. If the reefs disappear, half of all life in the oceans will go with them. The process that affects corals – lower pH levels hindering their ability to calcify their skeletons – will also reduce the ability of phytoplankton to form calcium carbonate in their shells and skeletons. This, in turn, will reduce the ocean’s ability to absorb and store carbon, leading to increased global warming.

Despite the warnings from scientists, ocean acidification hasn’t been a big part of climate-change negotiations. That may change. In May, delegates from 76 countries at the World Oceans Conference in Manado, Indonesia – many of them island or developing nations that will feel the greatest impact of ocean acidification – drafted a resolution to put the issue on the agenda at the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.

Let’s hope they succeed in waking up the world to this serious issue. We can’t continue to ignore the state of our oceans. Of course, acidification – caused mainly by what we put into the air – is only one problem we’ve created for our oceans. We are also dumping a lot of crap (often literally) into our seas.

One of the most sickening images is of the giant plastic islands swirling in five ocean vortexes. One in the North Pacific is estimated to be larger than Quebec. Now a group of scientists and conservationists is planning to visit the vortex in an effort to figure out how to clean it up.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme, 13,000 pieces of plastic are floating in each square kilometre of ocean, and much of it accumulates in the five large swirling ocean gyres.

Marine animals eat the plastic as it breaks down, and contaminants work their way up the food chain, all the way to humans.

It offers hope to see the scientists looking for answers to this problem, and it’s good to see nations coming together in an attempt to address ocean acidification. But we must all do more to prevent these kinds of problems from occurring in the first place. We can do this by reducing our waste and emissions and by encouraging governments to show more leadership in protecting the Earth and oceans that cover most of its surface.

The oceans are where life is thought to have originated, as is indicated by the saltiness of our blood. The oceans flow through our veins and continue to give us life. Half of the oxygen we breathe comes from the oceans. What we do to the oceans we do to ourselves. It’s something to keep in mind as we celebrate World Oceans Day on June 8. The theme this year is “one ocean, one climate, one future.”

B.C.’s trophy hunt is unbearable

Fri, 29 May 09 07:00:00 UT

For millennia, aboriginal people have hunted wildlife for food, traditional purposes, and trade. But coastal First Nations in British Columbia argue that killing a threatened animal simply for the thrill of it is foreign to their culture.

We call it sport, as if the animals had entered into a life and death game. At a recent news conference held by opponents of the grizzly and black bear hunts on the B.C. coast, Haida leader Guujaaw said, “It’s not right that anyone should make a sport of killing.”

I agree. Grizzlies are officially designated as a threatened species, and black bear subspecies on the B.C. coast are among the most diverse in North America, ranging from the spirit or kermode bear to the Haida black bear. Yet, the B.C. government has ignored pleas from First Nations and conservation groups and has continued to allow these majestic animals to be killed for sport, even in many parks and protected areas and in the Great Bear Rainforest.

The results are devastating. In the 30 years that the government has kept records, close to 11,000 grizzly bears have been killed in B.C., 88 per cent of them by sport hunters. Many are big-game hunters from the U.S. and Europe who pay thousands of dollars to kill a bear in B.C., since these marvellous bruins no longer exist in their own home countries.

First Nations have shared the land with bears for thousands of years. According to Guujaaw, “Bears are as much a part of the environment as we are.” Indeed, the bears that feed, breed, and roam among the archipelago of islands and lush mainland valleys of British Columbia play important roles in the ecosystems they inhabit.

For example, bears, like other large predatory animals, help regulate prey populations such as deer, and so prevent overgrazing in forests. Bears feeding on salmon in streams also distribute the nutrients from the fish carcasses across the forest floor. It is a direct transfer of nutrients from the ocean to the forest, and one of the reasons why coastal forests are so rich in biodiversity and why the trees grow to such monstrous sizes.

The ethical and scientific reasons to end the sport hunt are compelling, but so too are the economic arguments. This is particularly true for aboriginal communities that see the non-consumptive use of bears, such as bear-viewing, as potential sources of employment and income for their struggling communities. In 2003, a study by the Centre for Integral Economics showed that grizzly-bear viewing brings in twice the income for coastal communities as the trophy hunt. One bear-watching operation in Knight Inlet alone grossed over $3 million in direct revenue in 2007 – more than all trophy-hunting revenue combined.

“Each bear killed is one less bear that tourists will pay top dollar to photograph,” said Dean Wyatt of the Commercial Bear Viewing Association at the news conference. “Only a total ban on trophy hunting will ensure that bear populations can support the high-end viewing operations that add valuable income to coastal communities.”

Protecting opportunities for aboriginal businesses to participate in the multi-million dollar eco-tourism industry in B.C. must be a priority for government. Art Sterritt, executive director of the Coastal First Nations Turning Point Initiative, argued that government must manage bears to promote sustainable tourism. “This is not a sustainable industry,” Sterritt has said of trophy hunting. “It is jeopardizing the sustainable industries we are trying to create.”

Killing bears for sport makes no sense scientifically, but it is also unethical and immoral to hunt these animals so they become a head on a wall or rug in front of a fireplace when tourists are willing to pay for the chance to photograph them alive and in the wild. Most British Columbians agree. A 2008 McAllister Research poll found that 79 per cent of B.C. residents believe that to kill a bear simply for the thrill of it is reprehensible and that the practice should end.

Today, the only place you’ll find a grizzly bear south of Wyoming is on California’s state flag. It would be more than a shame if all we had left to remember these magnificent animals in B.C. were a few films and First Nations carvings.

Canada: petro-state or prosperous nation?

Fri, 22 May 09 07:00:00 UT

Imagine a Canada with an abundance of nature and wildlife, clean air and water, healthy citizens, and a prosperous economy. Sounds close to what we have, doesn’t it? But it may not be for long if we keep heading down the road we’re on.

Author Andrew Nikiforuk has argued that Canada is becoming a petro-state. “Without long-term planning and policies, Canada and Alberta will fail to secure reliable energy supplies for Canadians, to develop alternative energy sources for the country, or to create valuable resource funds for the future,” he writes in his best-selling book Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent. Because of the response of Alberta to Pierre Trudeau's National Energy Plan, Canada doesn't even have a national energy plan.

Gardens and
Green Weddings

Two green thumbs up for the David Suzuki Digs My Garden contest

Give to a Green Wedding registry

Check out our guide to Sustainable Sushi

The reality is that our government is putting all its eggs in one basket, relying on the tar sands to fuel the economy. And although the government has at least come around to acknowledging that global warming is a problem, it hasn’t acted as if it’s a problem worthy of much attention. Its energy and environmental policies show that it is willing to let the economics of the fossil fuel industry trump concern for our common future.

That was made clear with the release of an audit report by the federal environment and sustainable development commissioner on May 12. Scott Vaughan’s report found that the government has overstated expected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, is unable to monitor actual reductions, lacks transparent plans, and is failing to meet its international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.

The audit also found that the government is failing to adequately protect fish habitat. Vaughan charged the government with not knowing much about fish habitat in Canada, failing to implement some parts of the 23-year-old policy, and failing to even identify what it must do to stop harmful pollutants from being discharged into waters where the fish live.

This ongoing failure on the part of those elected to serve our interests is bad from both an environmental and an economic standpoint. A briefing note prepared for Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt last fall and recently obtained by Canadian Press warns that a lack of clarity and certainty regarding the government’s climate change policies is jeopardizing investment in Canada’s energy sector. The government promised new regulations more than two years ago but now says it is “reworking” its plan.

The briefing note says the government should have policies that facilitate investment in green equipment, buildings, and infrastructure.

But it appears that the government is really only interested in facilitating the ability of the fossil fuel industry to squeeze every drop of oil out of the ground until we are left with depleted energy supplies, devastated landscapes and polluted waters, and an economy that can’t compete with those of nations that have invested in renewable energy.

Our policies around oil extraction aren’t even that good. Mr. Nikiforuk argues in Tar Sands that, “Neither Canada nor Alberta has a rational plan for the tar sands other than full-scale liquidation.” With a more rational policy, he argues, “the tar sands could fund Canada's transition to a low-carbon economy.” Instead, “Feeble fiscal regimes have enriched multinationals and given Canada a petrodollar that hides the inflationary pressures of peak oil,” making Canada “nothing more than a Third World energy supermarket.”

It really is a case of short-term gain for long-term pain – and even the gain is only for a few foreign multinationals and their friends, and not for Canadians who should have more say in our energy future and in how our resources are managed.

And what about the long-term pain? Well, a recent report from the Lancet and the University College of London, Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change, notes that climate change is the biggest global health threat we face. The consequences include increased spread of disease as malaria-carrying mosquitoes move to higher altitudes, declining crop yields leading to food shortages, water shortages and illness related to poor sanitation, housing shortages, more extreme weather events such as flooding, and increased population migration.

And those are just the health consequences. Mass extinctions of animals and plants, dying oceans, and ravaged economies are also in our future if we don’t smarten up.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. In Canada, especially, we can still turn things around if we move quickly. Citizens across the country have been showing they care, by making changes in their lives to reduce their carbon footprint. Now it’s time to let our elected leaders know that we expect at least as much from them.

We must fight the alien invasion - for the sake of biodiversity

Fri, 15 May 09 07:00:00 UT

Last year, customs officers at the Vancouver airport got a surprise when they checked the luggage of a woman returning from China. They found 70 live Shanghai hairy crabs!

Meanwhile, people in England seem reluctant to flush unwanted goldfish down the toilet. So they give them a new home in the Thames River.

Back in Vancouver, if you walk through Stanley Park this summer, you'll come across a pretty spot called Beaver Lake. It's covered in water lilies and is home to red slider turtles and bullfrogs.

What's the common thread? It's all about invasive alien species. These are plants and animals that end up in an environment where they weren't previously found – usually with help from humans – typically causing harm to the native species and ecosystems they interact with.

Most invasive species share ecological characteristics that give them an edge over native flora and fauna in competing for resources such as nutrients, light, physical space, water, and food. These characteristics include the ability to reproduce quickly and disperse throughout the environment, as well as tolerance to a range of habitat conditions.

Thus, although the hairy crabs may have been destined for the cooking pot, as the woman claimed, customs officers couldn't take that chance. Environment Canada notes that the crab is one of the 100 most invasive species in the world. They compete with native species for food, they tunnel into riverbanks and dikes, causing erosion, and they carry parasites that can make people sick.

The Thames goldfish also compete with native species for food and transmit diseases to competing species.

In Beaver Lake, the lilies are speeding the demise of the lake itself, rotting and decaying in the fall and turning the lake into a bog.

Fish & Mom

Celebrate World Oceans Day!

Send a Healthy Future Gift Card

Check out our guide to Sustainable Sushi

The United Nations has declared May 22 as the International Day for Biological Diversity, and this year's theme is invasive alien species. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity notes that these plants and animals constitute "one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, and to the ecological and economic well-being of society and the planet."

Introduction of a species from one environment to another is nothing new. Early European explorers and settlers brought with them to North America livestock and grains that weren't previously found here, as well as stowaway Norway rats and numerous diseases.

But globalization and human movement have increased the spread of invasive species worldwide. As with plants and animals introduced by European settlers and explorers, today's invasive plants and animals are sometimes deliberately introduced – often for food or decorative purposes – and are sometimes accidentally introduced, as with zebra mussels and invasive plants spread when ships empty their ballast in Canadian waters.

As well as competing for resources, many alien species kill and feed on native plants and animals. They can also alter habitats, making them uninhabitable to plants and animals that previously lived there. And they can breed with native species and weaken the gene pool. The economic impacts can also be severe, as when, for example, valuable food crops or species are wiped out.

Because they enter in so many ways, these invaders can’t be stopped through laws alone – although laws can help when it comes to things such as regulations governing where and when ships' ballast water can be dumped.

Education is one of the best ways to slow the spread. Often people are unaware of the consequences of introducing new species to an ecosystem.

Cooperation at local and international levels is also essential. Canada joined the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992 and developed the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy in 1995, with the goal of monitoring and controlling importation of alien species.

Once an introduced species has established itself, it is extremely difficult to eradicate. Targeted control is commonly used where species have already been introduced. This can range from removing the alien species to using pesticides or herbicides to introducing native predator species.

We should all become aware of alien invasive species and the ways they are spread. Many communities have volunteer programs to get rid of these species. In Vancouver's Stanley Park, people volunteer to pull out the invasive English ivy that has grown throughout the park, choking many of the park's native plants.

We can't entirely stop the spread of these alien invaders, but we can all pitch in to make sure we keep our ecosystems as healthy and natural as possible.

U.S. sets example for endangered species protection

Fri, 08 May 09 07:00:00 UT

Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama completed his first 100 days on the job. During this brief period, his administration has acted to reverse many of the failed and destructive policy decisions of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

President Obama is giving the American people hope that positive change is possible. If only we were being offered the same kind of hope here in Canada.

Fish & Mom

Celebrate World Oceans Day!

Send an e-card to your Mother

Check out our guide to Sustainable Sushi

The U.S. president has rejected the rigid dogma of previous U.S. leaders in moving to loosen restrictions on Cuba and offering to engage in peaceful dialogue, rather than threats and counter threats, with Iran. He has injected billions of dollars into science and overturned the Bush administration’s ban on embryonic stem-cell research in an effort to return the nation to its historical leadership role in scientific inquiry and discovery.

On the environment, he has appointed an outspoken advocate of ocean conservation to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, signed into law protection for over two million acres of wilderness, and made clear his intention to combat climate change, including a willingness to force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient and less-polluting cars.

Obama’s commitment to implement the U.S. Endangered Species Act has received far less attention. Earlier this year, the U.S. government restored key endangered species protections that were stripped away by George Bush in the waning days of his administration. In particular, President Obama has reinstated rules that will ensure that government decisions or activities that might harm endangered species receive independent scientific scrutiny before they are allowed to go ahead.

In announcing the change, President Obama said: “Throughout our history, there’s been a tension between those who’ve sought to conserve our natural resources for the benefit of future generations, and those who have sought to profit from these resources. But I’m here to tell you this is a false choice. With smart, sustainable policies, we can grow our economy today and preserve the environment for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.”

The president’s support for the Endangered Species Act signals a 180-degree turn for the U.S. government. Under George Bush, the U.S. did just about everything in its power, including breaking the law, to eviscerate this critical piece of environmental legislation, enacted, ironically, by another right-wing Republican, Richard Nixon, more than 30 years ago.

President Obama’s support for the legal protection of endangered species couldn’t have come at a more pressing time. Scientists are united in their belief that the planet is in the midst of a biodiversity crisis on par with earlier mass extinction events in the Earth’s history. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, some 16,000 of known plant and animal species are currently threatened with extinction, including 12 per cent of birds, 23 per cent of mammals, and 32 per cent of amphibians.

In fact, some scientists believe the effects of climate change alone could result in the premature extinction of 15 to 37 per cent of species within our children’s lifetime – by 2050. Because we likely know about only a fraction of all species on Earth, this does not encompass the many unidentified or undiscovered species that will vanish before we even learn of their presence.

Sadly, our own government leaders have not come close to matching President Obama’s leadership on endangered species. Canada has had legislation protecting endangered species for six years, but our government has failed to implement the law, called the Species at Risk Act, according to a report card released recently by the David Suzuki Foundation and its allies.

The report found that only one animal, a tiny snail the size of a kernel of corn that lives in a few hot springs in an existing protected area, has received the full conservation measures required under the Species at Risk Act. At the same time, some 550 other species, including caribou and killer whales, are wasting away in legal purgatory while the feds dilly-dally on completing and implementing recovery plans that are necessary to prevent their extinction.

When it comes to environmental problems such as climate change and species extinction, the attitude of our “leaders” here in Canada seems to be that we have plenty of time before we have to act. But as our neighbours to the south are finally beginning to realize, that’s not the case. The more we delay, the more severe the problems will become and the more difficult it will be to address them. Our own survival depends on the planet’s ability to provide us with clean air, water, and food. We must act now. And, yes, we can!

It’s no great sacrifice to protect the environment

Mon, 04 May 09 07:00:00 UT

I recently read an article about a woman in Spokane, Washington, who doesn’t like phosphate-free dishwashing detergents. Phosphate-containing detergents are banned in Spokane County because of their negative impact on the environment, so the woman drives 45 minutes to Idaho where phosphate detergents are still sold. The article also notes that the woman has a five-year-old daughter. I’m astounded.

People often argue that protecting the environment will require too many sacrifices. Is this what they mean? That they would risk their children’s futures because they can’t be bothered to rinse their dishes before putting them into the dishwasher?

Phosphates are added to cleaning products because they help cut grease and get rid of food particles on dishes. But they also have enormous negative impacts on rivers, streams, and lakes. By fertilizing the waters, phosphates can cause massive algae blooms that starve the water of oxygen and choke aquatic ecosystems, killing fish, amphibians, insects, and plants. Phosphates have been banned from laundry detergents in most places for a number of years now, but consumers have resisted moves to ban them from dishwashing detergents.

The article notes that the Spokane River is one of the most endangered in the U.S. and that phosphate pollution from the county’s main wastewater treatment plant has been reduced by 14 per cent since the dishwasher-detergent law was passed in July. But apparently this woman doesn’t care if the river is devoid of life when her daughter grows up – as long as her dishes are spot-free!

The woman claims to be “environmentally conscious”. I guess she means that she cares about the environment only when it is convenient for her. This is a good example of the kind of challenges faced by people who really do care about the environment and the future. Part of the problem may be that some people can’t really relate their own behaviour to the consequences. Think of parents with asthmatic children who continue to smoke in the house or drive SUVs. Others are simply not willing to make even the smallest sacrifices when it comes to protecting the environment. Yet, for the most part, no real sacrifices are required.

At the David Suzuki Foundation, we hear almost daily from people who thought it would be difficult to get up a bit earlier and expend a bit more energy to cycle to work instead of drive, for example. But they soon found that the benefits of cycling – from getting in better shape to enjoying the outside world – far outweighed any of the negative consequences.

It’s more about changing the way we think than about giving something up. If we take a broader, more long-range view of things, we see that we usually gain more than we lose when we make changes in our lives to protect our surroundings.

We see the same kind of resistance to things like a carbon tax. Never mind that market forces play a far greater role in fuel-price increases than a carbon tax ever will! People see that they might have to pay a few pennies more at the gas pump or for home-heating bills and they immediately cry that they will have to give up their cars and freeze in their homes during winter.

But we see immediate and long-term benefits from putting a price on carbon. People find ways to conserve energy, companies invest in technologies that use renewable energy, and we end up with less pollution and fewer emissions that contribute to global warming.

We live in consumer societies, especially here in North America. We’ve become convinced that we have to keep replacing our goods with newer and “better”, often over-packaged, products. We dispose of things even before they have broken down. And the world suffers for it. People sometimes accuse me and other environmentalists of wanting to send us back to living in caves and scrounging for roots and berries. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We can lead lives that are even more fulfilling on a cleaner planet where more people have access to clean air, water, and food. All it takes is some imagination and some forward thinking. If we really cared about our world and about our children and grandchildren, we would be willing to make some sacrifices to make the world a better, healthier place. But in most cases, the sacrifices are as illusory as some of the benefits we think we are deriving from our rampant consumerism.