HOT ISSUES @ bpeg.ca

Here's an example of over-packaging that I thought worth passing on.

=> Read more!

Practically the entire environmental movement has been an abject failure. Rather than move the human race forward to sustainability, environmentalism has only made things “less” worse. All environmentalism does is make things a little better than they would otherwise be without such a “green” movement. Overall, as a planet, we have more pollution, more consumption, more nuclear reactors, more coal plants, more greenhouse gases, more over-fishing, more forest cutting, more chemical agriculture, more genetic modification and more light pollution than ever in all of human history. So as environmentalists lets pat ourselves on the back for making tiny improvements in a system that is inherently based on exploitive consumption and endless growth.

Which brings me to light pollution. The Bruce Peninsula Dark Sky project has been officially operating for 6 years now. In those 6 years we have made some headway. We managed to get the municipal council to “proclaim” itself a Dark Sky community (a proclamation means it is not a by-law and therefore not enforceable). New streetlights being installed will be “dark sky friendly” (what a happy term). The Lion’s Head marina retrofit will have better, more dark sky compliant lighting. Public awareness of the issue has grown and other agencies in the area have adopted Dark Sky policies of their own. It even looks like the Bruce Peninsula Environment Group might give the Dark Sky project $1500. Hooray! These funds when combined with other pledges and hopefully some funds from council, will be enough to replace 8 of the most egregious night-sky polluting lights around the marina. We are hoping these changes could take effect this year. The idea behind the marina light retrofit would be to create a demonstration Dark Sky Zone where people could get a sense of the benefits provided by a broader program. Some of these benefits would include less glare to pedestrians, boaters and drivers, less light trespass into nearby cottages, a more harmonious and aesthetically pleasing nighttime waterfront, and lower operating costs. Sounds great, eh?

Wells let’s be honest. In truth, the Bruce peninsula has more net light pollution now than ever. There are more new houses ( 126 building permits last year alone) with exterior lights, there are more new commercial buildings with lights, and there are more newly illuminated intersections than ever. In essence all the dark sky project is doing is slowing the rate of degradation of this precious element of our heritage. It is not preserving the night sky in the state it was in 2001. It is not reversing the trend of light pollution and making the night sky less polluted than it was in 2001. It is palliation.

This is a perfect example, in microcosm, of the entire environmental movement. We are full of good intentions, but we are doomed to fail before we start. It must be that way. That is the way our system of civilisation is structured. Any move towards “true” sustainability would cause the present economic and social system to collapse, go into apoplexy and lash out in every direction with extreme violence. I know it is hard to hear. I wrestled with it myself for years. But I have finally accepted that environmental initiatives, i.e true sustainability, and limitless growth are incompatible. It is evident in every natural system but our own. Overshooting the carrying capacity ( i.e. unchecked growth), leads to resource collapse, leads to crash and population correction. (Not us of course! We humans can grow and exploit forever.) There is simply no way of tinkering around the edges of this system to make meaningful changes. Sure we can make some progress in certain areas at certain locations, but overall we are fighting a losing battle.

I say fighting a losing battle, but I have to ask, “Are any of us really even fighting”?

We eat food doused in poison…we write a letter.
We see car makers make inefficient cars decade after decade…we say “How shameful” and keep driving.
We live through a 90% drop in large fish populations in the oceans…we might call a politican.
We see more nuclear plants going up in our own backyard…we change a lightbulb.
We allow every woman’s breast milk in North America to be contaminated with dioxin and flame retardants…we do nothing.

It goes on and on and on. We are not fighting back. Fighting back would imply inflicting a modicum of damage to those damaging us, or our land bases or our resources. We are not doing that. We have so accepted and inculcated this societies’ largely unspoken values that practically none of us even have the language to define what real resistance looks like.

All of us have to face the reality that those who really control this society and culture and its economic system rule by force. The sooner we break ourselves of illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when and how we are going to resist and make meaningful steps toward sustainability. Buying dolphin friendly tuna while the oceans are being strip mined will not be enough. Buying a new hybrid SUV that burns twice the fuel of a 1980 Honda Civic will not be enough (In fact it is obscene). Buying renewable energy without real conservation strategies in place will not be enough. I think it may be time to admit we have dug ourselves into a pit we can no longer “buy” ourselves out of. It is time to dig and scratch and claw our collective way back to the surface and to sanity.

What does fighting back look like to you? I know what it looks like to me. It has been in my dreams and visions for a long time. Unfortunately, attacking the sacred pillars of this culture however harmful they may be to human and non-human communities and to the landbase, will get you labelled as a radical or worse a terrorist. Just ask the member of the Earth Liberation Front serving 22 years in prison for torching 3 SUV’s at a car dealership. This is an example of a premise stated in Derrick Jensen’s brilliant new book ENDGAME. His premise reads as follows;
The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control – in everyday language, to make money- by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.
How many countless peoples have bees murdered or killed by western CEO’s in their pursuit of production. 15,000 dead at Bhopal India alone springs to mind. How many watersheds poisoned, how many species extirpated, or driven extinct, how many cultures annihilated, languages lost, how many workers killed in unsafe workplaces? All at the hands of countless unnamed CEO serving the system. The sentences?; large salaries and stock options. Burn 3 ( only 3 ) SUV’s and look forward to having 22 years of your life stolen. This is the system we are up against. This is what we must fight against. What are you going to do about it?

Some local thoughts as we discuss climate change
By: Scott Parker

You know how it is, when you get something new, such as a car or gadget, you suddenly notice everyone else who has it. That’s what it is like for me with climate change and what I see is that more and more of us “get it”. Really we have all known about climate change for years and certainly the wacky weather has been common ground for conversation, but beyond that I sense a real awakening and willingness to face the issues.

Climate change is happening at an unprecedented rate and we have good reason for concern. Many of you have seen Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” or read Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers”, both of which are excellent and describe with scientific authority climate change and the global catastrophes we face. I’d like to help by providing some information that is more local in context.

Several “what if” scenarios have been completed for our region. I’d like to draw on one that was undertaken in 2000 by Daniel Scott of Environment Canada and Roger Suffling from the University of Waterloo on climate change and Canada’s national parks, including Bruce Peninsula. Using 4 different computer models that doubled carbon dioxide (CO2, the main greenhouse gas), they developed projections for the year 2050. Depending on the model, temperature is expected to increase by 1.0 to 6.0 oC, with the highest potential increase in winter. On average, total precipitation is expected to decrease and season patterns will vary with an increase in spring precipitation (e.g., 20%) and decrease in summer (e.g., 14%). Using their analysis and a few other reports, here are some predicted effects.

As a result of accelerated evaporation, Lake Huron lake levels are projected to decrease by between 1.3 and 2.5m. Lake and stream temperatures are expected to rise and have less winter ice. We may see the drying of coastal wetlands, the northward expansion of warmer water species (e.g., white bass, white perch, black bass), temperatures may become too high for some species (e.g., stream salmonids), and the lack of protective ice cover on spawning shoals may impact whitefish and lake trout populations.

Although more energetic precipitation events (e.g., thunderstorms, blizzards) may occur, the general decrease in precipitation is expected to lower the water table and increase drought (e.g., runoff expected to decline by 6%). Wetlands could dry; with a subsequent loss in biodiversity including orchids, frogs, and turtles. Drier conditions could increase the wildfire hazard. Forest pests and disease are expected to increase (e.g., spruce budworm on balsam fir). Some species (e.g., bluebird) may respond positively to the dryland conditions. Resident birds (e.g., chickadees) may breed earlier with larger broods; however, they could reduce food for migrants. The bird migration will likely shift earlier in spring and later in fall and species may not synchronize with food availability (e.g., insect).

The number of visitors to the area could rise with the warmer temperature and lower summer rainfall. Overall, climate change will probably result in longer peak use season and higher number of visitors during the summer. The winter recreational season would likely be shortened; however, heavy lake-effect snow would increase with decreased lake ice cover (i.e., increased snow removal). We may have lower winter heating costs, but that would be offset by higher summer air conditioning costs. Health risks associated with extreme heat and air quality (e.g., ozone) are likely to increase.

Earlier studies predicted climate change would have some marginal benefits to agricultural productivity through warming and increased CO2 fertilization. However, newer reports suggest a less favourable impact because of changes in precipitation (e.g., wetter during planting/harvest and dry during growth) and the stress of extreme weather events such as heat wave, drought, and blizzard.

These computer models incorporate over 200,000 equations and in excess of 1,000 hours of supercomputer time. While they are quite sophisticated, they can not tell us exactly how and when things will happen. They have their strengths and limitations, use them as a guide.

With respect to understanding past climate change, there is evidence to be found here as well. Steve Blasco and his colleagues in the Fathom Five Underwater Research Group, discovered evidence of a sudden decrease in past lake levels by 30m in 100 years. Temperatures a few degrees warmer (increased evaporation) and less precipitation are believed to be the drivers, not an increase in surface drainage. There are also other potential sources just waiting to be unlocked. For example, some bristlecone pines of California are nearly 5,000 years old and their tree rings have been used in climate research. We also have old trees and Peter Kelly and Doug Larson have reconstructed (using living and dead material) a 2,787 year old eastern white cedar tree ring chronology from Flowerpot Island. Similar to trees we have at least one cave stalactite that according to Daryl Cowell has been putting on annual growth rings for over 10,000 years now. Since annual growth reflects environmental conditions of that year, with time and effort, it will be quite interesting to find out what secrets are trapped in each of these.

I’m convinced more of us are aware and concerned about the issue. I also think we are lucky in our community in that many folks are already making a difference. In learning more about climate change I’ve come to discover that it is different than many other environmental issues. We don’t need to wait for industry to change, like we did ozone depleting CFCs or acid rain from sulfur dioxide, it is directly within our means to reduce CO2. Significant reductions can be achieved through energy-efficiency. So consider this, seriously, on your next vehicle or appliance purchase, or where you even get your power from.

TEXT BOX

Climate Change 101

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane are called greenhouse gases because they retain the sun’s heat in the lower atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels increases the atmospheric concentrations of these gases and therefore more heat is retained.

Since the industrial revolution CO2 has increased by 30%, increasing the average global temperature by 0.7 oC. CO2 is the highest it has been in at least the last 420,000 years.

Natural climate change cycles exist. For example, the Milankovitch cycles relate the variations in the earths orbit around the sun to a 100,000 year ice age cycle. However, according to natural cycles the Earth should be cooling, but because of human caused greenhouse gases we are warming.

Drought in the Sahel, doubling of category 4 and 5 tropical storms, 20% reduction in arctic ice, coral bleaching are just examples of the impacts. Species can not adapt to the rate of change in habitat, it is unprecedented (1/5 of land-based plants and animals are at risk of extinction by 2050). As sea levels rise, due to melting glaciers and thermal expansion, the risk to coastal communities and human infrastructure is also unfathomable.

Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning by George Monbiot
This is an outstanding book for anyone who is concerned about climate change.

Monbiot is a an acclaimed columnist for the UK’s Guardian. His website, www.monbiot.com, is listed by Yahoo as the most used web site outside of the US. And he hits hard and with frankness.

He makes a compelling case for an urgent need for us to reduce our carbon emissions, and by 90%. His assessment of the science indicates that this needs to be accomplished by 2030. And he makes a strong case that starting now is essential. It was a balmy 13 degrees up here on the Peninsula today. The record for Nov 26 is 13.9 degrees. (13 degrees is 55 F for any American readers). The “normal” high, if there is such a thing anymore, is supposed to be 3.6 degrees.

He bluntly makes the moral case. Turning on a light using electricity made from fossil fuels kills. Driving a car kills. Because rising sea levels will swamp Pacific atoll nations, and deltas like Bangladesh. Or maybe the Mississippi (oh, yeah, that’s already happened). It will cause droughts in the Sahel region of Africa, leading to famine.

And he bluntly talks of the science, and uncertainties about the effect of warmer temperatures on ocean circulation. We are engaging in a Faustian pact, and he makes liberal use of this 15th century story. We are selling our souls to the devil for short term pleasure today.

Chapter 2 is the most compelling chapter, that had new information for me. The title is the “Denial Industry”, and it uncovers and reports on the many connections between the tobacco lobby, and parts of the fossil fuel lobby. Exxon was a leader in sponsoring this nefarious group, along with coal producers in the US. They came out with pseudo science pieces, from psuedo scientists, that questioned the validity of global warming. And it was just enough to cause uncertainty in the media, and in certain politicians, resulting in inaction. It worked for tobacco for a few decades. But then it fell apart with amazing swiftness.

When I first joined the workforce in 1980, smoking was allowed in the workplace. Our company was one of the first to make a “smoking room”. It moved the nastiness to one part of the building. Then we were one of the first to make smokers go outside, years before by-laws required it. Now you can’t smoke under an awning on a bar patio.

The same collapse will occur with the Denial Industry. And then action on climate change will become rapid and institutionalized. I wouldn’t want to own stocks in coal mines or coal buring utilities when that happens.

He spends several chapters describing how we can indeed reduce emissions by 90%, using the UK as his model. Carbon sequestration is a big part of his plan. He also talks of hydrogen combustion as central. But he is convinced that a 90% reduction is not only achievable, but that it can be done without a dramatic change in lifestyle. He believes that a 90% reduction can occur with a doubling in our cost of energy. If we did achieve a 90% reduction in energy consumption, and the price only doubled, we would still be saving!

I am not fully convinced he has found the only path to such reductions. And of course different jurisdictions will have different options. I think he underestimates the potential of renewable energy, especially ground source heat, solar thermal, and wind. He correctly points out that biomass is limited, but certainly that is more likely the case in the UK than Ontario. Biofuels may we be a greater part of Ontario’s solutions. He believes that we can reduce electricity consumption by 1/3 by conservation. I agree with him - this seems to be technically possible with today’s technologies. But of course a large effort is required to get there. I am not fully convinced that carbon sequestration is the answer, but would like to see us try it on some large commercial plants.

He is convinced that 90% reductions are possible, and by 2030. And he has proposals that seem plausible in almost all sectors. But he has concerns about one sector. And that is air travel. Air travel is no less efficient than travel by car on kg of CO2 emissions per kilometer. But you go much further. Not many of us will drive 5000 km for a 2 day conference, but we might fly. And as the third world develops, and people in the third world seek western travel standards, air travel will grow. He laments the fact that we simply may have to ration and reduce our air travel.

This book is a must read for anyone concerned about climate change. The science of the case is compelling. The moal imperative is clearly explained. The exposing of the duplicity of the denial industry is astonishing. And while you may have different solutions, the ones he proposes are creative, and valid. And a picture of an endpoint, that is still a satisfactory place to live, is clearly drawn

One of our members sent round a few pictures taken at the Ferndale recycling centre a couple of days ago. They show overflowing recycle bins and several bags of garbage in front as well as a disaster of all kinds of materials in the water behind the boxes.

This is a situation we have seen repeated far too many times in the past few years and it is an embarassment to all of us who care about our local environment. It would be very easy to lay blame on few or many of us for this situation but in truth we all bear some of the blame.
On the one hand many of us do in fact use the boxes to recycle materials which would otherwise significantly reduce the lifespan of our landfills. On the other hand our system of recycling has longer term flaws which we must repair.
-First of all we all must take responsibility for placing the right recyclables carefully in the right boxes.
-Secondly we all might take a minute to pick up a couple of pieces which have escaped and place them back in the boxes.
-Thirdly the boxes must be emptied more frequently to avoid the overloading often seen by our members and reported to us regularly
-Fourthly our council MUST act on its long promised changes to the location to prevent the wind blown mess around the boxes. There must be a fence placed behind the boxes to prevent material ending up in the wet ditch behind and field behind. A better placement of the boxes would be out of the wind altogether.
-Fifthly the return of boxes to Lion's Head would reduce the pressure on the Ferndale containers.
-A better system must be found to keep the area around the boxes tidy. If staff assigned to do it then it should be done thoroughly and daily if required.
Do you have any further suggestions to help clean up this mess? Please add your comments
Don