David Suzuki Foundation

Oil spills pose unacceptable threats to marine life

2017-10-19T19:00:00Z

(Photo credit: Ria Tan via Flickr)

]]> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says oil pipelines have no place in B.C.'s Great Bear Rainforest. Opponents of the approved Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to the West Coast and the cancelled Energy East pipeline to the East Coast argue pipelines and tankers don't belong in any coastal areas. Research led by the Raincoast Conservation Foundation confirms the threat to marine mammals in B.C. waters from a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic is considerable.

]]> After examining potential impacts of a 15,000-cubic-metre oil spill in B.C. waters on 21 marine mammals, researchers concluded most individuals would be at risk and a few local populations wouldn't survive. Baleen whales, for example, are highly susceptible to ingesting oil because they breathe through blowholes, filter and eat food from the ocean surface and rely on invertebrate prey. Oil residue can stick to the baleen, restricting the amount of food they consume.

Resident and transient killer whales, sea otters and Steller sea lions were most likely to see a drop in population levels from an oil spill. Killer whales are especially vulnerable because of their small populations, low reproductive rates, dietary specialization, long lives and complex social structure. The 76 southern resident killer whales off the B.C. coast, Canada's most endangered marine mammal, are particularly threatened by oil spills, as well as ship strikes and underwater noise that hinders their ability to feed and communicate.

If Trans Mountain's Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion proceeds and an oil spill occurs, the study estimates it would affect between 22 and 80 per cent of these whales' critical Salish Sea habitat. They already face severe chinook salmon prey shortages and other challenges. In court, opponents argued that adding pipeline and tanker impacts to the mix could lead to their extinction.

Following the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Prince William Sound, a unique pod of north coast orcas vanished forever. Nine of the 22 whales died and remaining pod members didn't produce any living offspring.

All marine mammals are vulnerable to oil spills because they surface to breathe. If that happens in a spill, oil can adhere to their bodies, and they can inhale toxic vapours and ingest oil. Marine mammals exposed to oil spills may suffer damaged airways, congested lungs, stomach ulcerations, eye and skin lesions, weight loss and stunted growth. When whales and dolphins surface to breathe, oil can restrict their blowholes and airways. When seals and otters try to clean oil matted on their coats, they ingest it. They also lose heat because spilled oil ruins their natural insulation, so they can die of hypothermia.

Even indirect exposure to small amounts of oil chemicals known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can have profound toxic effects on animals and fish, particularly the young. Two years after the Exxon Valdez spill, mortality rates in pink salmon eggs were 96 per cent higher than pre-spill levels. Researchers estimated that shoreline habitats such as mussel beds could take up to 30 years to recover fully.

Chronic oil pollution from ships travelling off Canada's coasts kills hundreds of thousands of seabirds every year. In the late 1990s, an estimated 300,000 birds died annually off Newfoundland's coast alone.

No technology will adequately clean most oil spills, especially diluted bitumen. Unlike conventional crude, bitumen can sink if spilled in water, according to a 2016 study by the National Academy of Sciences. It also found that current regulations and spill-response techniques can't manage the unique behaviour and higher risks of a bitumen spill. Tar balls sink to the bottom or hang in the water column, eluding conventional booms used to contain oil spills.

An Oil Tanker Moratorium Act before Parliament recognizes that B.C.'s north coast ecosystems and local economies must be protected from oil spill risks. B.C.'s new government will argue in its case against the Kinder Morgan pipeline that the federal government failed to evaluate the project's risks to the marine environment -- a breach of its obligation to consider the national interest.

It's certainly not in the interests of any marine mammal, especially endangered ones, to add more shipping traffic or increase oil spill risks -- nor is it in keeping with our Paris Agreement commitments to shift away from fossil fuels. Let's hope that the Kinder Morgan project goes the way of the Energy East pipeline.

]]>

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

It's time to nix neonics

2017-10-12T20:00:00Z

(Photo credit: Mark Dodd via Flickr)

]]> The Canadian government is banning plastic microbeads in toiletries. Although designed to clean us, they're polluting the environment, putting the health of fish, wildlife and people at risk. Manufacturers and consumers ushered plastic microbeads into the marketplace, but when we learned of their dangers, we moved to phase them out.

]]> Why, then, is it taking so long to phase out the world's most widely used insecticides, neonicotinoids? Scientists have proven they're harming not only the pests they're designed to kill, but also a long list of non-target species, including pollinators we rely on globally for about one-third of food crops.

Neonics are systemic pesticides. Plants absorb and integrate them into all tissues -- roots, stems, leaves, flowers, pollen and nectar. First introduced in the 1990s, they now account for one-third of the global pesticide market. Agricultural applications include leaf sprays, and seed and soil treatments. They're also used for trees, turf products, and flea and tick treatments for pets.

We've known about neonics' harmful impacts on pollinators and ecosystems for years, but this summer, two major scientific releases added significantly to the ever-growing body of research proving widespread use of these toxic chemicals must stop.

On September 18, the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides -- an international group of independent scientists convened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature -- released an update to its 2015 Worldwide Integrated Assessment of the Impact of Systemic Pesticides on Biodiversity and Ecosystems. The 2017 update takes into account more than 500 additional peer-reviewed studies, revealing broader impacts and reinforcing the 2015 conclusions that neonics represent a major worldwide threat to biodiversity, ecosystems and the services nature provides.

On October 6, task force scientist Edward Mitchell and an interdisciplinary team from the University of Neuchâtel and the Botanical Garden in Neuchâtel, Switzerland, published a study in Science, which found three-quarters of the honey produced throughout the world contains neonics. Although concentrations were below the maximum authorized for human consumption, they surpassed levels proven to affect bees' behaviour, physiology and reproductive abilities.

Conducted in 2015 and 2016, the study analyzed 198 honey samples from around the world, searching for the five most common neonics: acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. Seventy-five per cent contained at least one, with proportions varying considerably by region. The highest levels were in North America (86 per cent), Asia (80 per cent) and Europe (79 per cent), with the lowest in South America (57 per cent).

Thirty per cent of all samples contained a single neonicotinoid, 45 per cent contained between two and five and 10 per cent contained four or five. Regulators don't tend to consider the "cocktail effects" of contamination by multiple neonics. The impacts on bees, humans and other organisms are still undiscovered, but I bet they won't be good.

These new findings restate the need to stop all mass-scale systemic pesticide use. Maintaining the status quo means continuing environmentally unsustainable agricultural practices. After all, the latest science also shows that in many cases, neonics provide little or no real benefit to agricultural production. Instead, they decrease soil quality, hurt biodiversity and contaminate water, air and food. They can't even be relied on to decrease farmers' financial risk or assist significantly with crop yields.

What are governments doing with this information?

In 2013, the European Union imposed a moratorium on certain uses of three neonics on bee-attractive crops: imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. The EU is now considering extending the moratorium. Meanwhile, the new French biodiversity law aims to ban all neonics starting in September 2018. North American regulators, meanwhile, have failed to recognize the urgent need to prevent neonics from further contaminating the environment.

Health Canada's Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency; has proposed phasing out one neonic, imidacloprid, but not until 2021 at the earliest -- possibly as late as 2023. While industry continues to lobby Ottawa to continue using the toxic chemicals, environmental groups are calling for faster phase-out plans and an end to neonic use.

If we care about the quality and security of our food sources -- and the species and ecosystems they rely on -- the time for neonics is over. Sustainable and affordable agricultural and pest management practices exist. It's time to ban bee-killing pesticides.

]]>

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Happy two-year election anniversary. Now where's the climate action?

2017-10-11T23:27:31Z

(Credit: Canadian Pacific via Flickr)

]]>

SPEAKING POINTS

Tell them you live in their riding and talk a bit about yourself (you are a mother, concerned citizen, scientist, immigrant, indigenous person, voter, etc.).
Wish them a happy two-year election anniversary.
Tell them why climate change concerns you (impacts from increases in extreme weather, air quality, sea level rise, extinctions, climate refugees).
Ask them if they will follow through on the climate action that is most important to you:

- stopping pipelines and fossil fuel expansion
- increasing the price on carbon
- putting methane from fracking
- supporting and investing in renewable energy
- ending fossil fuel subsidies
- expanding transit and active transportation
- adopting a national zero-emission vehicle standard

Explain that we won't be able to realize the potential of Canada's renewable energy and clean technology industries unless we stop supporting and investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure.
Leave them your name and phone number and ask them to reply to confirm how they will fight for bold climate action before the next election.

TIPS FOR THE CALL

Use a headset or hands-free --This will give you both hands to take notes about what was said.
Be polite but firm-- MPs are our elected representatives. They will likely be happy to hear from engaged constituents. Be polite and direct. Make sure to ask for a response.

]]>

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Bye-bye, bug splatter: Is this the new silent spring?

2017-10-05T20:00:00Z

(Photo credit: Peter Miller via Flickr)

]]> Masses of monarch butterflies fluttering across Toronto's waterfront. Painted ladies (often mistaken for monarchs) descending on Montreal. Combined with the hottest September ever recorded in the Great Lakes region, it's been a strange time in Eastern Canada. We should savour the joys of these captivating critters while we can, because their future -- and that of insects generally -- is uncertain.

]]> Many Ontarians noticed this year's unexpected monarch bounty. It's difficult to determine population size during migration, but after two decades of fewer and fewer sightings, the number of monarchs this summer has been astounding. Hundreds of thousands are now flitting to Point Pelee, where they congregate, before heading across Lake Ontario to begin their 4,000-kilometre journey back to the alpine Mexican forests, where their great-great-great grandparents began in March.

Why have monarchs had such a stellar summer? For the past few years, they've faced a number of climate-related calamities, from winter storms in Mexico to scorching heat in their breeding grounds in Texas, the U.S. Midwest and Southern Canada. Widespread herbicide and pesticide use has been linked to dramatic declines in monarchs and the milkweed host plants they depend on.

This year they've had great conditions throughout their journey. Even the weirdly wet summer that put Toronto Island and many beaches underwater appeared to be a boon, as it ensured wildflowers were in full bloom, providing plentiful nectar to fuel their return trip.

The painted ladies stopover story is different, though also related to strange summer weather. Scientists believe shifting weather patterns and winds pushed the thousands of butterflies that descended on the Montreal area to the ground by as they migrated from the northern boreal region to the southern United States.

The unexpected appearance of charming critters like monarchs and painted ladies could cloud a greater issue: the dramatic loss of less alluring insect species, such as moths, fireflies, beetles and hover flies. Monarchs and honeybees have increasingly been in the media spotlight, but as University of New Brunswick ecologist Joe Nocera noted in a recent Science magazine article, "We have a pretty good track record of ignoring most noncharismatic species."

In the article, writer Gretchen Vogel describes what entomologists call "the windscreen phenomenon." Many people recall having to clean bugs from car windshields during drives through farmland and countryside. Today, it seems drivers everywhere are spending less time scrubbing and scraping.

Although bug splatter reduction is anecdotal, a growing body of research shows many once-common insects are declining. A study published in Science found most known invertebrate populations have dropped by 45 per cent over the past four decades. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reports the U.K. has seen a 59 per cent decline in insects since 1970. Global estimates point to a 40 per cent reduction of all pollinating insects.

As reporter Tom Spears asks in an Ottawa Citizen article, "So, who cares about bugs?" It's a fair question. Many of us were raised to disdain, or even fear, critters. Numerous species remain unloved or fly below our radar.

As we learn in elementary school, honeybees and wild bees pollinate much of our food. We are now coming to grips with the alarming consequences of losing pollinators, even if it's been difficult to diagnose the multiple causes. Insects also provide a host of other essential services, from making soil healthy and controlling pests to being a nutritious food source for birds. A 2006 study suggests wild insects provide ecological services worth $57 billion annually.

Beyond any economic value, these species are irreplaceable parts of the natural world. We must acknowledge and remedy their quiet decline before we experience the next "silent spring," a term popularized by scientist Rachel Carson, who noticed in the 1960s that widespread pesticide use was killing songbirds.

As we move into fall, I encourage you to take note of the bugs in your life. Many are now flitting to warmer climates or crawling into crevices and burrows to wait out the winter. Given the rapidly changing climate, we don't know what impact the next hurricane, Arctic vortex or 35 C September day will have on charismatic and not-quite-as-appealing insects. So, savour the moment, monarch lovers. And let's redouble our efforts to make our communities more green and resilient.

]]>

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Environmentalism is a way of being, not a discipline

2017-09-28T20:00:00Z

(Photo Credit: www.protectpeel.ca via Flickr)

]]> I'm often introduced as an environmentalist. I prefer to be called a father, grandfather, scientist or author, as these terms provide insight into my motivation. Environmentalism isn't a discipline or specialty like law, medicine, plumbing, music or art. It's a way of seeing our place in the world and recognizing that our survival, health and happiness are inextricably dependent on nature. To confront today's environmental crises, everyone -- garage mechanics, construction workers, dentists, politicians and judges -- has to see the world through an environmental lens.

]]> I recently attended an event with a panel of outstanding athletes and artists who had become activists on various environmental issues. The moderator asked what role awe had played in their commitment. Their answers revealed how inspiring it is to experience that sense of awe in the face of nature's beauty.

I couldn't help thinking that two more words should have been added to the discussion: humility and gratitude. As the panel grappled with the issue of ecological degradation, the idea emerged that all we need is to be more aware so we can use science and technology to solve the crises.

We're clever animals -- so smart that we think we're in command. We forget that our inventions have created many crises. Atomic bombs represented an incredible scientific and technological achievement, releasing the power within atoms. But when the U.S. dropped them on Japan in 1945, scientists didn't know about radioactive fallout, electromagnetic pulses or the potential for nuclear winter. Those were discovered after we used the weapons.

Swiss chemist Paul Mueller won a Nobel Prize in 1948 for his discovery that DDT was a potent insecticide. Many years after the compound was put into widespread use, biologists discovered a previously unknown phenomenon: biomagnification up the food chain.

When people started using chlorofluorocarbons, no one knew they would persist in the environment and float into the upper atmosphere where the sun's ultraviolet rays would cleave away chlorine-free radicals. As a geneticist, I only learned about the protective ozone layer when other scientists reported that chlorine from CFCs was breaking it down.

Our knowledge of the biological, chemical and physical components of the biosphere and their interconnections and interactions is too limited to enable us to anticipate the consequences of our inventions and intrusions. Nevertheless, we look to our creativity to lead us to a better world with nanotechnology, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, geoengineering and space travel.

What we need is humility. Clever as we are, nature is far more creative. Over 3.8 billion years, every species has had to evolve ways to find food, water and energy, and to dispose of wastes, find mates, reproduce, avoid predators and fend off parasites and infections. Nature offers myriad solutions that we have yet to discover. If we had the humility to learn from nature, using an approach called "biomimicry," we would find far more and better solutions.

The Canadian Cancer Society recently reported that half our population will develop cancer. This isn't normal, but it shouldn't surprise us. After all, we have synthesized hundreds of thousands of new molecules that have never existed on Earth. Most have never been tested for their biological effects and tens of thousands are now used in products and enter our waste stream.

When we dump this vast assortment of new molecules into air, water and soil, we can't anticipate how they might interact within living organisms or what their long-term consequences might be. Throwing more money into cancer treatment and research will not alone stem the disease. To arrest the cancer crisis (and it is a crisis), we must stop using the biosphere as a garbage can or sewer for these new molecules.

Along with humility, we should be grateful for nature's generosity, something I've learned from Indigenous peoples. They acknowledge the source of their well-being, clean air, clean water, clean food and clean energy -- all things that are created, cleansed or replenished by the web of life around us. In the urbanized industrial world we inhabit, we tend to think the economy is the source of all that matters to us, and so we have little regard for what we're doing to the natural systems that sustain us. It's time to see with new eyes.

]]>

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Oxford County breaks new ground with rural "zero-energy" building

2017-09-27T20:50:36Z

Credit: Zachary Cox

]]> "We're definitely pushing the envelope with this new facility," says Melissa Abercrombie, manager of engineering services for southern Ontario's Oxford County. "If it works out, and we meet our target, it will be the first building in Canada to receive 'net-zero' certification from the New Buildings Institute."

]]> Abercrombie is talking about a $1.8 million office building designed for Oxford's waste management staff and set to open in early 2018. She calls it a "net-zero energy" structure because solar panels placed next to it will produce enough juice to cover its power needs and those of an adjacent landfill operation. The project is visionary because it changes the very notion of what buildings are about. No longer just electricity users, they're becoming (in equal measure) electricity generators.

Power from the solar panels will be sent to the grid and provide the county with a credit on its monthly hydro bill. The project is more than just a climate solution; it also saves Oxford money.

The county is planning to run student tours at the facility and hopes to create interactive displays on energy efficiency and renewables.
"It's an opportunity to teach kids and their parents how they can reduce energy use in their own homes," Abercrombie explains. "We're showing what's possible."

The zero-energy building is the latest installment in Oxford's plan to provide all its energy -- for electricity generation, heat and transportation -- from renewable sources by 2050. The county is the first Ontario municipality to embrace such an audacious goal.

I ask Abercrombie why this energy revolution is happening in Oxford, as opposed to anywhere else in the province. "Our warden and councilors see electric vehicles and renewables as the way the world is going," she explains. "We as [county] staff can move these projects forward because we have the backing of the political leadership."

Abercrombie is also motivated at a personal level: she feels "a lot of pride" about Oxford's innovation.

The county's chief administrative officer, Peter Crockett, believes Oxford is an energy innovator because local residents want it to be.

"We decided as a community where we wanted to go and established the vision and leadership -- and found the courage -- to make it a reality," Crockett says, emphasizing that the decision to go green came after extensive community consultation and buy-in.

Crockett also points to the county's farming roots. "Farmers are entrepreneurs. They're risk-takers -- they're open to new technology," he says. "And they care about the environment because they rely on it for their well-being."

Climate change mitigation, cost savings, educational opportunities... the rewards of zero-energy buildings are many. Pioneers such as Oxford experience them first -- but with residents' support and politicians' commitment, these structures can be built across Canada and all of us can enjoy their benefits.

Power up Canada with renewables

]]>

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

CO2 and food: We can't sacrifice quality for quantity

2017-09-21T20:00:00Z

(Photo credit: Tom Shockey via Flickr)

]]> Bigger isn't always better. Too much of a good thing can be bad. Many anti-environmentalists throw these simple truths to the wind, along with caution.

]]> You can see it in the deceitful realm of climate change denial. It's difficult to keep up with the constantly shifting -- and debunked -- denier arguments, but one common thread promoted by the likes of the Heartland Institute in the U.S. and its Canadian affiliate, the misnamed International Climate Science Coalition, illustrates the point. They claim carbon dioxide is good for plants, and plants are good for people, so we should aim to pump even more CO2 into the atmosphere than we already are.

We've examined the logical failings of this argument before -- noting that studies have found not all plants benefit from increased CO2 and that most plants don't fare well under climate change-exacerbated drought or flooding, among other facts. Emerging research should put the false notion to rest for good.

Several studies have found that, even when increased CO2 makes plants grow bigger and faster, it reduces proteins and other nutrients and increases carbohydrates in about 95 per cent of plant species, including important food crops such as barley, rice, wheat and potatoes. A 2014 Harvard School of Public Health study, published in Nature, found that increased CO2 reduced the amount of valuable minerals such as zinc and iron in all of them.

Another study, by Irakli Loladze at the Catholic University of Daegu in South Korea, looked at 130 species of food plants and found increased CO2 caused calcium, magnesium, potassium, zinc and iron concentrations in plants to decline by an average of eight per cent, while sugar and starch content increased.

As a Scientific American article points out, billions of people depend on crops like wheat and rice for iron and zinc. Zinc deficiency is linked to hundreds of thousands of deaths, mostly children, and exacerbates health issues such as pneumonia and malaria. Iron deficiency, which causes anemia, is responsible for one-fifth of maternal deaths worldwide.

Part of the problem with the industrial agricultural mindset and the denier argument that CO2 is plant food or "aerial fertilizer" is the idea that bigger and faster are better. These studies illustrate the problem with the climate change-denial argument but, in its pursuit of profit, industrial agriculture has often made the same mistake. Plants -- and now even animals like salmon -- have mainly been bred, through conventional breeding and genetic engineering, to grow faster and bigger, with little regard for nutrient value (leaving aside anomalies like the not-entirely-successful "golden rice"). But higher yields have often resulted in less nutritious fruits and vegetables.

Genetic engineering's promise was increased yields and reduced need for pesticides, but studies show it has fallen far short of that ambition. A 2016 National Academy of Sciences study, as well as a New York Times investigation, found no evidence that genetically engineered crops increased yields over conventional crops. Although insecticide and fungicide use on GE crops in the U.S. and Canada has decreased, herbicide use has gone up to the point that overall pesticide use has increased. France, which doesn't rely on genetically modified crops, has reduced use of all pesticides -- 65 per cent for insecticides and fungicides and 36 per cent for herbicides -- without any decrease in yields.

The "golden rice" experiment shows that plants can be engineered for higher nutrient value, but that hasn't been the priority for large agrochemical companies.

As for carbon dioxide, we know that fossil fuel use, industrial agriculture, cement production and destruction of carbon sinks like wetlands and forests are driving recent global warming, to the detriment of humanity. The one flimsy argument climate change deniers have been holding onto -- that it will make plants grow faster and bigger -- has proven to be a poor one.

Like life itself, science is complex. Reductive strategies that look at phenomena and reactions in isolation miss the big picture. Our species faces an existential crisis. Overcoming it will require greater wisdom and knowledge and a better understanding of nature's interconnectedness. Tackling climate disruption and feeding humanity are connected. It's past time to ignore the deniers, reassess our priorities and take the necessary measures to slow global warming.

]]>

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Can emissions shrink while the economy grows?

2017-09-14T20:00:00Z

(Photo credit: Walter via Flickr)

]]> What does climate change have to do with economic growth? Canada's prime minister and premiers signed a deal in December to "grow our economy, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and build resilience to the impacts of a changing climate." The Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change outlines plans for carbon pricing, energy-efficient building codes, electric vehicle charging stations, methane emission regulations and more.

]]> Is the framework correct in assuming we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and grow the economy? If not, which should be given precedence?

These questions come at a pivotal moment in Canadian climate action. The Pan-Canadian Framework marks the first time Canada's first ministers have endorsed a national plan to tackle climate change. It opens the door to a game-changing carbon price that will make reducing greenhouse gas emissions the smart, cost-saving choice for businesses and individuals.

However, a recent Nature Climate Change article claims, "No major advanced industrialized country is on track to meet its pledges to control the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change." Canada pushed for ambitious targets during the 2015 Paris climate negotiations, but even the framework won't put us on track to meet our pledged reductions.

Rather than being an outcome of climate action, economic growth may prevent us from reaching climate targets. A July 2017 study in Nature Climate Change concluded that the world only has a five per cent chance of keeping global average temperature from increasing beyond 2 C. On a positive note, the authors found economies worldwide will likely become more energy-efficient, and low-carbon sources like wind and solar will make up a growing share of the mix.

But economic growth will likely cancel out these advances. For every megatonne of emissions reduced through efficiency and clean energy, another megatonne will be produced because of economic expansion. Our economies will get bigger almost as fast as they get cleaner and emissions will not drop quickly enough to stave off catastrophic climate change.

Economic growth has been the primary goal of every Canadian government, provincial and federal, for decades. Leaders' speeches are peppered with references to it. Election campaigns are filled with promises of economic expansion. Pity the politician who presides over an economic downturn.

Rarely do we stop to ask what economic growth means. In short, it's a year-to-year increase in production, distribution and consumption, as expressed by gross domestic product.

If GDP strikes you as a poor indicator of well-being, you're not alone. The late U.S. politician Robert F. Kennedy once remarked that GDP "measures everything, except that which makes life worth living." It's a flawed indicator of progress.

The Pan-Canadian Framework expresses optimism that we can reduce emissions while expanding the economy. This promise of "green growth" is popular because it offers something for everybody. It maintains a commitment to economic growth while claiming greenhouse gas emissions will drop. But, as the Nature Climate Change study asserts, "green growth" is likely an oxymoron.

"Degrowth" advocates argue that tackling climate change requires shrinking the economy. A planned slowdown of the economy would be achieved by implementing shorter workweeks and more holidays and encouraging low-consumption lifestyles.

"Agrowth" advocates such as environmental economist Jeroen van den Bergh argue that we should ignore GDP altogether, and instead evaluate progress using indicators such as literacy, employment, rates of diabetes and heart disease, water and air quality and climate stability. If GDP happens to go up while these indicators improve, so be it. If GDP goes down while other measures of well-being increase, what have we truly lost?

When the Pan-Canadian Framework is implemented, some economic sectors will likely grow. Companies that offer low-carbon energy sources, energy-efficient products and opportunities to offset or store greenhouse gas emissions will prosper. Other sectors, like coal mining for power production, will shrink. We may or may not have "clean growth," but we will have a cleaner economy and a better shot at preventing or mitigating climate change's most harrowing effects.

If moving beyond the Pan-Canadian Framework is at odds with growing the economy, let's make sure our elected officials have their priorities straight. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions should take precedence over economic growth.

]]>

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

People just like you are living off the land

2017-09-11T22:55:29Z

]]> "In a world of more than seven billion people, each of us is a drop in the bucket. But with enough drops, we can fill any bucket." ~ David Suzuki

Métis singer-songwriter/university student/beekeeper Liv Wade and Christi Salyn, who runs a property management business, own and operate Heartfelt Farm on Salt Spring Island, B.C.

Liv grew up in the country. Christi was a city kid. Their mutual love for nature, animals and a healthy, sustainable lifestyle brought them together to grow food and enjoy the benefits of being close to the land.

]]> Where did you learn to run a successful farm?

Liv: From the time I could walk, I was around animal care/farm life -- in 4H and on my aunt and uncle's farm. I was in a serious car accident while living in Vancouver. I decided to connect back to where I felt myself the most -- to nature, animals and family -- to heal. I also took a beekeeping program.

Christi: I had many homes and jobs on farms. My first job on Salt Spring was in a natural food store on a 10-acre farm. I felt inspired to learn all I could about the lifestyle. I asked endless questions to old farmers. I collected hundreds of books at garage sales and thrift stores.

How is your way of life healing?

Liv: Spending time in nature focuses you to be aware. If I go into my hives and I'm not present, I'm not going to do a thorough job. The bees won't be as healthy to do their work. On the farm, if you're not aware of the animals/plants needs, they won't thrive and neither will we!

Christi: This life is healing for me on so many levels, from the health benefits of eating farm-grown food to the effects of animal relationships. This lifestyle pushes you to see what you are made of in ways you couldn't imagine. It's helped me to feel proud of what I can accomplish. This last eight years I've built up nutritious soil through a composting program using farm waste!

What are the greatest lessons you've learned?

Liv: Since running the farm with Christi, I've learned to let go at the end of each day and to listen carefully. My connection to the land has taught me that nature is sacred and should be respected. I've also learned to reach out to the community, as there are others out there with incredible knowledge to share.

Christi: My biggest lessons come with births and deaths. Olivia and I have been through many of both. We provide our animals with a great life. And while most times are enjoyable, sometimes hard things happen. In celebrating the joys and braving through tragedy, I get to meet different aspects of myself. I learn to let go and I learn how to dig deep when I feel I have nothing left. Olivia is by my side doing it all with me, always reminding me "we got this."

How does Heartfelt Farm promote sustainability?

Liv: When I share what we are trying to do daily, it piques others' interest and inspires them to try, too.

Christi: Our focus is self-sustainability and sharing knowledge with others, not off-farm sales. We grow as much of what we consume as we can. We connect with other farmers to ask and give advice on everything from growing and raising crops to processing and preserving.

What have been your challenges?

Liv: We've faced discrimination as women and as a lesbian couple. We welcome young to old on the farm to learn basic skills. For the most part, people respect what we're doing.

Christi: People sometimes do a double take when I load up a hay trailer or take out my chainsaw to fall a tree. But their reactions just make me smile.

What's your advice for sustainable, self-sufficient living?

Liv: Start with something, even if it seems small and insignificant. Build your knowledge base by connecting with your local community and reading books. Educate yourself. Take local workshops/classes.

Christi: Just do it. I lived in the city for the first 25 years of my life, only ever owned a cat and didn't like getting dirty. I started reading books, talking to farmers and went through lots of trial and error. The work is hard but the benefit is great. I have never been happier or healthier.

Do you know someone who deserves recognition for doing exceptional work protecting nature? Nominate a green leader from your community by commenting on this blog or through the Queen of Green facebook.

Sincerely,
Nikki Sanchez, a fellow Queen of Green

]]>

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Nature offers solutions to water woes and flood risks

2017-09-07T19:18:43Z

(Photo Credit: Jill Carlson (jillcarlson.org) via Flickr)

]]> When the Aztecs founded Tenochtitlán in 1325, they built it on a large island on Lake Texcoco. Its eventual 200,000-plus inhabitants relied on canals, levees, dikes, floating gardens, aqueducts and bridges for defence, transportation, flood control, drinking water and food. After the Spaniards conquered the city in 1521, they drained the lake and built Mexico City over it.

]]> The now-sprawling metropolis, with 100 times the number of inhabitants as Tenochtitlán at its peak, is fascinating, with lively culture, complex history and diverse architecture. It's also a mess. Water shortages, water contamination and wastewater issues add to the complications of crime, poverty and pollution. Drained and drying aquifers are causing the city to sink -- almost 10 metres over the past century!

"Conquering" nature has long been the western way. Our hubris, and often our religious ideologies, have led us to believe we are above nature and have a right to subdue and control it. We let our technical abilities get ahead of our wisdom. We're learning now that working with nature -- understanding that we are part of it -- is more cost-effective and efficient in the long run.

Had we designed cities with nature in mind, we'd see fewer issues around flooding, pollution and excessive heat, and we wouldn't have to resort to expensive fixes. Flooding, especially, can hit people hard in urban areas. According to the Global Resilience Partnership, "Floods cause more damage worldwide than any other type of natural disaster and cause some of the largest economic, social and humanitarian losses" -- accounting for 47 per cent of weather-related disasters and affecting 2.3 billion people over the past 20 years, 95 per cent of them in Asia.

As the world warms, it's getting worse. Recent floods in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Nepal have affected more than 40 million people, killing more than 1,000. One-third of Bangladesh is under water. In Houston, Texas, Hurricane Harvey has killed dozens and displaced thousands, shut down oil refineries and caused explosions at chemical plants. Some say it's one of the costliest "natural" disasters in U.S. history.

Although hurricanes and rain are natural, there's little doubt that human-caused climate change has made matters worse. More water evaporates from warming oceans and warmer air holds more water. Climate change is also believed to have held the Houston storm in place for longer than normal, and rising sea levels contributed to greater storm surges.

A lax regulatory regime that allows developers to drain wetlands and build on flood plains has compounded Houston's problems. The city has no zoning laws, and many wetlands and prairies -- which normally absorb large amounts of water and prevent or lessen flood damage -- have been drained, developed or paved over. President Donald Trump also rescinded federal flood protection standards put in place by the Obama administration and plans to repeal a law that protects wetlands. Compare Houston to Amsterdam and Rotterdam, which sit below sea level. Regulation and planning have helped the Dutch cities lower flood risk and save money.

As climate disruption accelerates in concert with still-increasing greenhouse gas emissions, people are looking for ways to protect cities from events like flooding. In China, authorities are aiming to make them more sponge-like. A Guardian article explains: "Designers will concede to the wisdom of nature to ensure water is absorbed when there's an excess: instead of water-resistant concrete, permeable materials and green spaces will be used to soak up rainfall, and rivers and streams will be interconnected so that water can flow away from flooded areas." As well as offering flood protection, the measures will also help prevent water shortages.

Cities worldwide have employed many of these flood-protection measures, including in the U.S. If China goes beyond its 16-city pilot project, it will be the largest-scale deployment of such combined measures ever.

Restoring natural areas costs much more than protecting them in the first place, more intense and frequent storms and floods can still overwhelm natural defences, and growing human populations will further stress resources, but restoring natural assets is a start.

Ultimately, we must work with nature to prevent and adapt to problems such as flooding, water scarcity, wildfires and climate disruption. When we work against nature, we work against ourselves.

]]>

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook