Science Matters | Blogs | David Suzuki Foundation

Ontario's wildlife needs continued protection

2013-05-23T13:30:00Z

Witness the sage grouse in Alberta: almost 90 per cent of its Canadian population died off between 1988 and 2006 because of habitat destruction caused mainly by oil and gas development. (Credit: USFWS Pacific Southwest Region via Flickr)

In the early 1970s, a significant shift occurred in the relationship between North Americans and the world we live in. People started to recognize that nature's bounty isn't bottomless and that human activities often strain the Earth's limits. Across Canada and the U.S., faced with society's perpetual penchant for economic growth as an end unto itself, many people started to advocate for protecting nature lest it be irreparably broken by our actions.

A 1970 Vancouver benefit concert against nuclear testing in Amchitka, Alaska, launched Greenpeace. Earth Day also started that year. The famous picture taken from space by Apollo 17 astronauts, revealing the Earth to be a finite and vulnerable 'blue marble', was shared with the world in 1972.

In 1973, the U.S. recognized that resource extraction, development and land conversion were destroying wildlife homes and ranges to the point that their continued existence was at risk. It passed the Endangered Species Act, to protect plants and animals from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation."

Canada's Species at Risk Act wasn't passed until 2002. But Ontario, in keeping with the trend of the times, introduced legislation in 1971, and then revised it, passing an improved Endangered Species Act in 2007, which scientists and conservationists now consider the gold standard of wildlife protection law in Canada and beyond. Unlike the U.S., much of our country is crown land, managed by provincial governments on behalf of citizens. In other words, government stewards nature on our behalf.

The primary mandate of these acts is to protect the areas species need to survive. In Canada, habitat loss and degradation are the primary causes of decline for more than 80 per cent of listed species.

Sadly, we seem to be entering a new phase: environmental deregulation. Now, when habitat needs to be protected to ensure the survival of a species, government and industry often balk and backpedal. This signals a failure to understand that we depend on nature for our well-being and survival. The web of living things cleanses, replenishes and creates air, water, soil and photosynthetic energy. Species in danger of extinction inform us that our activity is undermining the very life support systems of the planet.

Witness the sage grouse in Alberta: almost 90 per cent of its Canadian population died off between 1988 and 2006 because of habitat destruction caused mainly by oil and gas development. But the Alberta government refuses to curb economic growth and protect the areas it needs to survive and recover. Witness the changes the federal government made last year to the Fisheries Act, controversially weakening the law so only a few select categories of fish will receive legal protection from industrial development. And now, Ontario is poised to weaken its Endangered Species Act by creating a range of exemptions so industry will not have to follow its habitat-protection requirements.

A recently released scientific study proves that endangered species legislation really works. According to the U.S. Center for Biological Diversity's report, scientists estimate that, were it not for the Endangered Species Act, at least 227 species would likely have gone extinct. The report notes the act wasn't merely saving plants and creatures from extinction; it also facilitated recovery for more than 100 at-risk species, including the American crocodile, whooping crane and black-footed ferret.

Despite the evidence that endangered species laws are effective, governments in Canada are proceeding with deregulation and abdicating their responsibilities for wildlife habitat protection, often quietly. After all, only a few environmental watchdogs such as the David Suzuki Foundation are looking out for creatures that otherwise have no voice.

But our governments underestimate the public. The federal government likely wagered few would pay much attention when it stripped protections from the Fisheries Act and Environmental Assessment Act. But concerned citizens not only noticed, they protested loudly across the country.

Now, we have an opportunity to be heard before a change is made, as the government of Ontario has not yet passed its proposed exemptions to the Endangered Species Act. Politicians need to know that people care about at-risk plant and wildlife populations. You can make a difference by calling cabinet ministers or MPPs to let them know you oppose the deregulation trend. Visit http://www.protectendangeredspecies.ca/ to learn more.

Bean leaves, bedbugs and biomimicry

2013-05-16T13:30:00Z

Scientists often come up with new discoveries, technologies or theories. But sometimes they rediscover what our ancestors already knew. A couple of recent findings show we have a lot to learn from our forebears -- and nature -- about bugs.

Modern methods of controlling pests have consisted mainly of poisoning them with chemicals. But that's led to problems. Pesticides kill far more than the bugs they target, and pollute air, water and soil. As we learned with the widespread use of DDT to control agricultural pests and mosquitoes, chemicals can bioaccumulate, meaning molecules may concentrate hundreds of thousands of times up the food web -- eventually reaching people.

As Rachel Carson wrote in her 1962 book Silent Spring, using DDT widely without knowing the full consequences was folly. She showed it was polluting water and killing wildlife, especially birds, and that it could cause cancer in humans. Her book launched the environmental movement but did little to change our overall strategy for dealing with bugs. Although DDT was banned worldwide for agricultural purposes in 2001, the chemical is still used to control insects that spread disease.

Recent research shows that widespread use of pesticides like DDT may have caused us to ignore or forget benign methods of pest control. Because the chemicals were so effective, infestations were reduced and there was little interest in non-toxic methods. But bugs evolve quickly and can become immune to pesticides. That's true of bedbugs, the now ubiquitous critters that are showing up around the world in homes, hotels, schools, movie theatres -- even libraries.

But a method used long ago provides an effective and non-toxic weapon against the pests, according to a U.S. study in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface. The authors looked into the once-common Eastern European practice of spreading bean leaves around a bed to control bedbugs;. What they found was fascinating.

"During the night, bed bugs walking on the floor would accumulate on these bean leaves, which were collected and burned the following morning to exterminate the bed bugs. The entrapment of bed bugs by the bean leaves was attributed to the action of microscopic plant hairs (trichomes) on the leaf surfaces that would entangle the legs of the bed bugs," the scientists, from the University of California, Irvine, and University of Kentucky, wrote.

They discovered that after bugs get caught up in the hooked plant hairs, they struggle to escape, and in the process vulnerable parts of their feet are pierced by the hooks, permanently trapping them. The research focuses on a way to replicate this. "This physical entrapment is a source of inspiration in the development of new and sustainable methods to control the burgeoning numbers of bed bugs," the researchers wrote, adding that the method "would avoid the problem of pesticide resistance that has been documented extensively for this insect."

Other research has literally dug up pest control methods that go back millennia. An international team of archeologists recently found evidence that people living in South Africa almost 80,000 years ago made bedding out of insect-repelling plants.

According to the journal Science, the research team found 15 different layers containing bedding made from compacted stems and leaves of sedges and rushes, dating between 77,000 and 38,000 years ago. One layer of leaves was identified as River Wild-quince, which contains "chemicals that are insecticidal, and would be suitable for repelling mosquitoes." The archeologists also found evidence that people often burned the bedding after use, possibly to remove pests.

These are just two examples of what we can learn from our ancestors and from nature. Because natural systems tend toward balance, the fascinating field of biomimicry has developed to explore what nature can teach us. It's aimed at finding "sustainable solutions by emulating nature's time-tested patterns and strategies," according to the Biomimicry Guild website. "The goal is to create products, processes, and policies -- new ways of living -- that are well-adapted to life on earth over the long haul."

Maybe the truest sign of human intelligence is not to learn how we can shoehorn nature into our own agenda, but to see how we can better find our own place in nature.

Tiny Bhutan redefines "progress"

2013-05-09T13:30:00Z

The people of Bhutan see that money and hyper-consumption aren't what contribute to happiness and well-being (Credit: Christopher Michel via Flickr)

My parents lived through the Great Depression of the 1930s and were profoundly affected by it. They taught us to work hard to earn a living, live within our means, save for tomorrow, share and not be greedy and help our neighbours because one day we might need their help. Those homilies and teachings seem quaint in today's world of credit cards, hyper-consumption and massive debt.

Society has undergone huge changes since the Second World War. Our lives have been transformed by jet travel, oral contraceptives, plastics, satellites, television, cellphones, computers and digital technology. We seem endlessly adaptable as we adjust to the impacts of these new technologies, products and ideas. We only become aware of how dependant on them we are when they malfunction (work comes to a standstill when the network goes down) or don't exist (when we visit a "developing country"). Most of the time, we can't even imagine a way of living beyond being endlessly occupied with making money to get more stuff to make our lives "easier".

But some people have had the benefit of directly comparing a simpler way with the accelerated societies we've created. In the mid-20th century, the tiny Kingdom of Bhutan, hidden deep in the Himalayas between China and India, emerged from three hundred years of isolation. In 1961, the third king of Bhutan started sending students to schools in India. From there, some went on to Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and other universities. The first of their nation to encounter Western society after three centuries of separation, those young people clearly saw the contrast in values. Upon returning to Bhutan, they expressed shock that, in the West, "development" and "progress" were measured in terms of money and material possessions.

At a 1972 international conference in India, a reporter asked Bhutan's king about his country's gross national product -- a measure of economic activity. His response was semi-facetious: He said Bhutan's priority was not the GNP but GNH - gross national happiness. Bhutan's government has since taken the concept of GNH seriously and galvanized thinking around the world with the notion that the economy should serve people, not the other way around.

In 2004, Crown Prince Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, who became king in late 2006, said, "There cannot be enduring peace, prosperity, equality and brotherhood in this world if our aims are so separate and divergent -- if we do not accept that in the end we are people, all alike, sharing the earth among ourselves and also with other sentient beings."

In July 2011, Bhutan introduced the only resolution it has ever presented at the United Nations. Resolution 65/309 was called "Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development." The country's position was "that the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental human goal" and "that the gross domestic product...does not adequately reflect the happiness and well-being of people." The General Assembly passed the resolution unanimously. It was "intended as a landmark step towards adoption of a new global sustainability-based economic paradigm for human happiness and well-being of all life forms to replace the current dysfunctional system that is based on the unsustainable premise of limitless growth on a finite planet."

That empowered Bhutan to convene a high-level meeting. I was delighted when its leaders asked me to serve on a working group charged with defining happiness and well-being, and developing ways to measure these states and strategies. Prime Minister Jigmi Thinley even cited the David Suzuki Foundation's 'Declaration of Interdependence' as an inspiration for the proposal.

The Bhutanese understand that well-being and happiness depend on a healthy environment. They vow to protect 60 per cent of forest cover in their country, are already carbon-neutral (they generate electricity from hydro) and have vowed to make their entire agriculture sector organic. They have snow leopards, elephants, rhinos, tigers and valleys of tree-sized rhododendrons -- and know their happiness depends on protecting them.

The people of this tiny nation see that money and hyper-consumption aren't what contribute to happiness and well-being. I'm proud to be part of the important initiative they've embarked upon, and look forward to the work leading up to a presentation to the UN by 2015.

Canada is ready for a transformative energy experience

2013-05-02T13:30:00Z

Finding smarter ways to power our societies is something we can and must do. (Credit: Lance Cheung via Flickr)

Some people think a widespread shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources is not practical or even possible. You've probably heard the arguments: wind doesn't always blow, sun doesn't always shine, the technology's not advanced enough, installations take up too much space, we need sources of baseload power that can only come from fossil fuels or nuclear power. And so we carry on, rushing to squeeze every last drop of oil and gas from the ground using increasingly difficult and destructive methods like fracking, deep-sea drilling and oil sands extraction, with seemingly little concern for what we'll do after we've burned it all.

A lot of research is challenging those skeptical assumptions, including some by the David Suzuki Foundation, working with the Trottier Energy Futures Project. "Canada has vast renewable energy resources in the form of hydropower, solar, wind energy, and biomass, as well as geothermal, wave, and tidal resources that are many times larger than current or projected levels of total fuel and electricity consumption," the recent Trottier report, 'An Inventory of Low-Carbon Energy for Canada', concludes.

Those findings are confirmed by research and experience elsewhere in the world. A study by engineers at Stanford University reports, "it is technically and economically feasible to convert New York's all-purpose energy infrastructure to one powered by wind, water and sunlight," and doing so "shows the way to a sustainable, inexpensive and reliable energy supply that creates local jobs and saves the state billions of dollars in pollution-related costs."

An article in the New York Times; points to research by the Paris-based International Energy Agency, showing, "Thirteen countries got more than 30 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2011."

The Stanford study's lead author, engineering professor Mark Z. Jacobson, told the New York Times, "You could power America with renewables from a technical and economic standpoint. The biggest obstacles are social and political -- what you need is the will to do it."

It would be even less of a challenge in Canada. Thanks in part to our abundant hydro resources, we produced more than 63 per cent of our electricity with renewable sources in 2011. The U.S. produced 12.3 per cent.

The biggest obstacles in shifting to clean energy may be social and political, but one of the greatest challenges is creating a "smart" electricity grid. As Trottier Project managing director Ralph Torrie says, we'll have to replace our antiquated grid with one that "will use information technologies to balance a wider range of supply sources, energy storage, interprovincial transfers of electricity and a wide variety of energy management and efficiency tools." Because the current system is due for an overhaul, now is an ideal time to invest in reconfiguring it.

Other challenges include the costs and the impacts of renewable energy installations on ecosystems and wildlife. And with biofuels, the sustainability of source materials and effects on land and food supplies must also be considered. But these are far from insurmountable. Fossil fuel and nuclear power sources are also extremely costly and have far greater environmental impacts. And many studies show that moving to renewables creates jobs and contributes to economic health.

The recent Trottier study looked at Canada's potential in the context of reducing energy-related greenhouse gas emissions by 8o per cent by 2050 -- a necessary target if we are to do our part to combat climate change. Reaching that target will also require becoming more efficient in the ways we produce and consume fuels and electricity. This means looking at our individual behaviours as well as considering our habits and practices for everything from public transportation to building design to manufacturing.

Sure, it will be a challenge. But the alternative -- to carry on polluting air, water and soil and putting our future at risk with global warming -- isn't pretty. We've faced and overcome many challenges before. When people have mobilized resources in the past, we've been able to accomplish a lot in relatively little time -- from defeating the fascist threat in the Second World War to putting people on the moon.

Finding smarter ways to power our societies is something we can and must do.

Stressed at work? Add a daily dose of green

2013-04-25T13:30:00Z

Is your office bad for your health and well-being? Unfortunately, a growing body of scientific evidence says yes. (Credit: foodomat via Flickr)

Is your office bad for your health and well-being? Unfortunately, a growing body of scientific evidence says yes.

The modern workday pose -- fingers on keyboard, slight slouch, glassy eyes fixed on glowing screen, bathed in unnatural light -- can drain vitality, happiness and creativity. Designed to maximize efficiency, this sterile setup actually reduces productivity and job satisfaction.

In fact, modern workplaces are the main reason adults now spend about 9.3 hours a day sitting. Medical journal The Lancet estimates this unprecedented level of inactivity is causing 5.3 million deaths a year worldwide, similar to smoking -- prompting the Harvard Business Review to suggest 'Sitting is the smoking of our generation.'

The good news is that researchers have built an increasingly persuasive case for what most of us know intuitively: nature is good for us. Being regularly immersed in a natural setting can reduce stress while boosting immunity, ingenuity and energy.

As neuroscientist Marc Berman explains, adding a daily dose of green to your routine may be the best prescription for dealing with workday stress. His research shows that even simple, brief interactions with nature can improve cognitive control and mood.

Why does green time reduce stress? Various studies suggest exposure to natural settings stimulates "soft fascination" -- something New York Times reporter Gretchen Reynolds describes as "a beguiling term for quiet contemplation, during which directed attention is barely called upon and the brain can reset those overstretched resources." Hard fascination, by contrast, is stimulated by bright, loud activities like watching TV or sports, which require little or no effort but don't allow for mental rest.

Researchers at the University of Michigan estimated that memory performance and attention span can improve by 20 per cent after an hour in nature, while University of Rochester studies concluded that being outside for 20 minutes a day is enough to boost vitality. And a new study from Scotland demonstrated brain fatigue can be eased with just a 10-minute walk in the park.

But how can we fit more green time into our hectic schedules?

The David Suzuki Foundation has a solution. The 30×30 Nature Challenge asks Canadians to commit to spending at least 30 minutes a day in nature for 30 days in May. Participants can take the 30×30 pledge at davidsuzuki.org/30×30Challenge and receive tips about how to add green time to their routines.

Finding your nature fix can be easy. Hold your next meeting outdoors -- maybe make it a walking meeting. Invite colleagues to have lunch in a nearby park. Take the scenic route home and go for a walk in a neighbourhood green space along the way. Stop to smell the flowers and take notice of critters, trees and plants. Skip the gym, and head outside for a jog or bike ride.

Even if you can't make it outside for a daily dose of nature, simple changes inside can help make you happier and healthier. As Alan Logan and Eva Selhub document in their book Your Brain on Nature, workers in windowless settings are more anxious, hostile and depressed than colleagues on windowed floors. Increasing natural light within the workplace has been linked to improved productivity and contentment. Researchers in Texas even found employees in offices with plants or green-space views felt greater job satisfaction and reported a higher overall quality of life.

Increased exposure to nature also leads people to nurture closer relationships and build stronger community bonds. When Capilano University professor Joe Kelly spent at least an hour a day outside each day this March, he observed that "free of the distractions and background noise present in the city, the serenity of nature provides a perfect venue to connect with others."

Even the world's worst boss should know employees who are less stressed and healthier are more productive. So why not sign up for the 30×30 Nature Challenge -- and encourage your office mates to join? Challenge your entire company to head outside for 30 minutes a day for 30 days. And be sure to take part in the surveys before and after. Tell us how you feel. Does regular time in nature make you calmer? More alert? Happier? Let's all get into the nature habit. It can make our lives better.

Wind power opponents may be blowing hot air

2013-04-18T13:30:00Z

When it comes to wind power, we have to be careful to ensure that impacts on the environment and on animals such as birds and bats are minimized, and we should continue to study possible effects on health. But we must also be wary of false arguments against it. (Credit: Tim Wilson via Flickr)

Opposition to windmills often centres on health effects, but what is it about wind power that causes people to feel ill? According to recent research, it may not be the infrasound from wind-energy installations but, oddly enough, the warnings from opponents.

For a study published in the American Psychological Association's Health Psychology journal, researchers from New Zealand's University of Auckland showed readily available anti-wind-power film footage to 27 people. Another 27 were shown interviews with experts who said infrasound, such as that created by wind turbines, can't directly cause negative health effects. Subjects were then told they would be exposed to two 10-minute periods of infrasound, but were actually only exposed to one.

After both real and "sham" exposure, people in the first group were far more likely to report negative symptoms than those in the second. In fact, subjects in the second group reported "no symptomatic changes" after either exposure. According to the researchers, "Results suggest psychological expectations could explain the link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints."

Another study, which has yet to be published, shows people living near wind-power installations report more health problems during anti-wind campaigns. Researchers from Australia's Sydney University found only 120 complaints from people living within five kilometres of the country's 49 wind farms between 1993 and 2012. But 68 per cent were from people living near five wind farms targeted by anti-wind-farm groups, and 82 per cent occurred after 2009, when wind-energy opponents started highlighting health scares in their campaigns.

The power of suggestion can be extremely effective, especially when it comes to human health. Unfortunately, in the case of wind energy, this can delay or even stop wind-power installations that are a necessary part of the shift from polluting fossil fuels to clean energy, as has happened recently in Canada.

In fact, science shows that wind energy does not negatively affect human health in any significant way. An independent panel convened by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection reviewed the available research and released a report last year. It found no scientific evidence to support most claims about "Wind Turbine Syndrome", infrasound effects and harm blamed on wind power such as pain and stiffness, diabetes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, hearing impairment, cardiovascular disease and headache/migraine.

At worst, there is some evidence that wind installations may cause annoyance and sleep disruption. But most of the resulting minor effects can be overcome by regulations governing how close windmills are to residences. In Ontario, the required setback is 550 metres. At this distance, audible sound from windmills is normally below 40 decibels, which is about what you'd find in most bedrooms and living rooms.

On the other hand, we know that using fossil fuels for energy has profound effects on human health -- and on the economy. The Canadian Medical Association reports that in 2008 air pollution in Canada was responsible for 21,000 premature deaths, 92,000 emergency room visits and 620,000 visits to a doctor's office. And a new study by the Pembina Institute found that "health impact costs associated with burning coal for electricity in Alberta are close to $300 million annually."

According to Pembina researchers, "Coal plants are a major source of toxic air contaminants, including mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, and particulate matter. The study shows that in Alberta each year this pollution contributes to over 4,000 asthma episodes, over 700 emergency visits for respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, and around 80 hospital admissions, with chronic exposures resulting in nearly 100 premature deaths."

Factor these costs into the equation, and coal and other fossil fuels don't seem like the bargain they're purported to be -- especially considering the sector is subsidized by about $1.9 trillion a year worldwide, according to the International Monetary Fund. With the costs of renewable energy coming down, and the technology improving, more and more research shows that switching from fossil fuels to clean energy is feasible.

When it comes to wind power, we have to be careful to ensure that impacts on the environment and on animals such as birds and bats are minimized, and we should continue to study possible effects on health. But we must also be wary of false arguments against it.

Muzzling scientists is an assault on democracy

2013-04-11T13:30:00Z

Protesters at a rally against Bill C-38, a bill which guts environmental laws and cuts funding for environmental departments. (Credit: Ryan leef / leadnow via Flickr)

Access to information is a basic foundation of democracy. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms also gives us "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication."

We must protect these rights. As we alter the chemical, physical and biological properties of the biosphere, we face an increasingly uncertain future, and the best information we have to guide us comes from science. That scientists -- and even librarians -- are speaking out against what appear to be increasing efforts to suppress information shows we have cause for concern. The situation has become so alarming that Canada's Information Commissioner is investigating seven government departments in response to a complaint that they're "muzzling" scientists.

The submission from the University of Victoria's Environmental Law Centre and Democracy Watch alleges that "the federal government is preventing the media and the Canadian public from speaking to government scientists for news stories -- especially when the scientists' research or point of view runs counter to current Government policies on matters such as environmental protection, oil sands development, and climate change" and that this "impoverishes the public debate on issues of significant national concern."

The complaint and investigation follow numerous similar charges from scientists and organizations such as the Canadian Science Writers' Association and the World Federation of Science Journalists, and publications such as the science journal Nature. Hundreds of scientists marched on Parliament Hill last July to mark 'the death of evidence'.

The list of actions prompting these grievances is long. It includes shutting the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area, axing the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, eliminating funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences and prohibiting federal scientists from speaking about research on subjects ranging from ozone to climate change to salmon.

All of this has been taking place as the federal government guts environmental laws and cuts funding for environmental departments through its omnibus budget bills. It has justified those massive environmental policy changes in part by saying the review process was slow and inefficient, but research by scientists at the University of Toronto, published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, "found no evidence that regulatory review in Canada was inefficient, even when regulators had an ongoing load of over 600 projects for review at any given time."

The government appears determined to challenge any information, person or organization that could stand in the way of its plans for rapid tar sands expansion and transport and sale of raw resources as quickly as possible to any country with money.

The results have been astounding. An Environment Canada document leaked to the Climate Action Network states, "Media coverage of climate change science, our most high-profile issue, has been reduced by over 80 per cent."

In the environmental movement, we've become accustomed to attacks and attempts by government and its proxies to silence us. We've been called everything from 'radicals' to 'un-Canadian' to 'money-launderers' Federal Treasury Board President Tony Clement even blamed the David Suzuki Foundation and me for opposition to the proposed TransCanada west-to-east pipeline, a project we have yet to say a word about! Some of the ongoing media slurs have been even sillier. Are they that threatened by credible scientific research that might stand in the way of their current liquidation policies?

Canada is a large country with the longest coastline in the world, and is particularly sensitive to climate fluctuations, especially in economic sectors like agriculture, fisheries, forestry and tourism. We aspire to be an "energy superpower". Surely, understanding the effects of climate change should be at the top of our agenda.

In a truly open and democratic society, ideas, policies and legislation are exposed to scrutiny, debate and criticism. Information is shared freely. Governments support research that makes the country stronger by ensuring its policies are in the best interests of the people. A government that values its citizens more than its industrial backers does not fear information and opposition.

Countries where governments hold a tight rein on information, shut down or stifle research that runs counter to their priorities, and demonize and attack opponents are never good places to live. We have to make sure Canada doesn't become one.