Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying

Stelmach: The fact that Albertan soliders have died in Afghanistan should absolve us from our Kyoto commitments

Daveberta has a great post today describing how Ed Stelmach - responding to questions raised about the UN's investigation into Canada's unwillingness to comply with its Kyoto obligations - argued that Alberta should be absolved from its responsibility to help Canada meet its climate targets under the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol because Albertan soldiers are dying in Afghanistan. Seriously.

From the Canadian Press article,

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is bristling over the United Nations threat of sanctions against Canada for failing to meet a Kyoto Protocol deadline on greenhouse-gas reporting.

Stelmach says Canada is doing its part for United Nations-backed military efforts in Afghanistan and the timing of these threatened sanctions appears to be insensitive.

"Does it bother me a bit? Yes it does," Stelmach said Thursday. "We´re in Afghanistan and just lost another soldier."

Wow. Between this and the "wind turbines kill 30 000 ducks a year" bit, it seems like the main focus of Stelmach's mandate is to embarrass Albertans on an international scale. He appears to be unaware that the mission in Afghanistan is actually a NATO-led and Canada -- not Alberta -- signed on to it, and even if that were the case his logic would still make little sense. If anyone ever thought that the Alberta government's arguments around climate change were based on sound scientific policies or rational thought, this and the Mark Jaccard report the Alberta government finally released today should have completely dispelled that notion.

I think this raises another interesting point, too: if Alberta wants to have its own embarrassingly ineffective climate change plan, it should have to go and defend it on the international stage like every other jurisdiction. At this point, Canadian provinces operate more like independent nations than European countries in this respect anyway. Could you image Canadian provinces getting along enough to burden share like the EU did?

So why don't we send Stelmach and his compelling arguments to Poland in Decemeber for the next meeting of the signatories to Kyoto? Hell, he can even take along Knuckles to back him up.

Back to the dead ducks

When Premier Stelmach finally stopped drooling out comments about wind turbines and the evil Sierra Club, I thought that writing fodder on this subject had just about come to an end. However, yesterday in the letters section of the Journal I saw about a square foot of backlash towards citizens like us here at AGRDT who've been impolite enough to raise a stink over this whole issue, which kind of got the gears turning. Adding to this, today I was forwarded this piece of nonsensical sanctimonious tripe (penned by Ian Robinson for the Calgary Sun -- surprising, I know) that, as you can probably tell from the description I gave it, riled me up enough to write one more post on this issue.

There upshot of most of the letters in the Journal and Robinson's piece (if there is one; he rambles from topic to topic, the only common thread seeming to be his desire to malign "enviro-whackos") is that, in the big scheme of things, the death of 500 ducks isn't a big deal. Many more are killed by wind turbines/hunting/cats/cars/houses each year, so we should just forget about this (and, presumably, go on with strip mining the rest of the province.)

Talk about missing the point. I completely agree that the death of 500 ducks, in itself, is nothing to get too upset about. But the big issue with this incident isn't the ducks per se; it's that we ever allowed an enormous, poisonous lake that can more-or-less instantly kill an entire flock of ducks unless it's surrounded by constantly-firing noise cannons to ever exist in the first place. The unfortunate death of these ducks simply brought that to light in a very visible way. The communication I've seen that has been critical of this incident has consistently conveyed this idea, but people like Robinson seem to be more worried about painting "enviro-whackos" as a bunch of bleeding hearts who guilelessly personify all living creatures like a bunch of misguided children than actually thinking about what they're saying or writing.

Here's a few numbers to illustrate my point: in 2004 there were 622 murders in Canada. In that same year, a 160 762 Canadians died from either  circulatory diseases, cancer, or respiratory diseases. Using the logic of Robinson and his ilk, we could safely conclude that murder isn't a problem in Canada, so we should just go on our merry way without being burdened with the unseemly task of figuring out how we can improve things.

The problem with this logic, of course, is that it's really stupid -- it ignores the fact that there is some sort of underlying problem with our society that is causing the murders. Although simply not worrying about this would undoubtedly make it easier to sleep at night, it would unfortunately do absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

I'll agree with Robinson and say that the death of 500 ducks in itself doesn't constitute a tragedy. What's truly tragic -- and what this incident illustrates -- is the sorrowful extent to which our governments have allowed our environmental stewardship to degrade.

Syncrude's Dead Ducks: update

Don't worry about the toxic chemical lakes that cover over 50 square km of former Boreal forest, are growing by 1 million litres a day, and that we have no idea how to get rid of, folks! Wind turbines are our real problem. At least that's what Ed Stelmach says in a piece of logic and integrity that make me think his brain and heart, like several hundred hectares of our province, are full of carcinogenic sludge. According to this story in the Globe,

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is down playing the deaths, saying that wind turbines kill 30,000 birds annually.

If anyone needed any more proof that Ed Stelmach doesn't care about the environment, this is it. Instead of confronting this issue, he flippantly quotes a meaningless and inflammatory statistic to attempt to minimize the debacle. Of course, this isn't at all surprising coming from a man who's government has chosen to spend $25 million in attempt to convince people everything's okay without actually making it okay first. In fact, I'd say it's a shining example of the supposed "integrity" that his supporters love to prattle on about.

Were it not so infuriating, it would be hilarious to watch Stelmach stumble through yet another incident with his characteristic media savvy. Prior to the above bombshell, Stelmach likened himself to David in a battle against the Goliath that is evil, all-powerful, and notoriously deep-pocketed environmental movement:

“The $25-million is small compared to the combined money of the various lobby groups,” said the premier. “In terms of David and Goliath, I've been in this position before and now I'm here, so I recognize the challenges.”

(From this story in the Globe.)

There you have it folks, your premier Ed Stelmach. When a flock of ducks dies by landing on an oil company's giant toxic slough, his default position is say it isn't a big deal, defend the oil company, and attack the environmental groups who dare use it as an example of poor environmental stewardship by self-righteously and incomprehensibly framing himself as the underdog. Like I said, I'd laugh at this were it not so completely depressing coming from the man that runs my province.

If anything, at least we can take solace in the fact that the unfortunate death of the 495 ducks was not completely in vain, as there is no question that the international news coverage of this tragic episode has more than negated any potential positive effect from the dishonest $25 million PR campaign. Quack heard around the world, indeed.

Some thoughts on hypocrisy

It's been a pretty eventful couple of weeks for people interested in Alberta environmental issues. We've seen Ed Stelmach's $25 million dollar greenwashing campaign swing into action, the cheeky interruption of Stelmach's Premier's Dinner speech by Greenpeace activists, and, most recently and visibly (notice the source I link to), the death of approximately 500 ducks that landed in one of Syncrude's several, massive, and highly toxic tailings ponds (these, I might add, being a fine example of the environmental stewardship that our government is spending vast amounts of taxpayer money to promote.*)

Because this blog doesn't often allow me the opportunity to directly berate people, I often find myself duking it out in the comments section below news stories on either the CBC News or Globe and Mail websites. In light of all of the action this week I've been especially busy, and I've noticed a common thread in the arguments posed in these forums, typically by conservative types, that makes my blood boil: the notion that people like the Greenpeace protesters, for example, are "hypocrites" because they drove to the Shaw Conference centre/were wearing shoes with rubber in them/performed their action in a room heated by natural gas/know someone that works at a gas station. The idea is that this "hypocrisy" somehow invalidates the arguments of these people because they're not "putting their money where their mouths are."

The only problem with this argument is that in western society it is impossible -- short of walking into the forest naked -- to put one's money where one's mouth is in this respect.  As an example, I type this on a computer composed largely of petroleum byproducts that's being powered by coal-generated electricity while I sit in a natural-gas-heated room, with the energy for this typing coming from food produced with fossil fuel-powered machinery. Are these oil-industry critical  words invalidated because I'm indirectly using oil to produce them?

I don't think so, because it is impossible to produce these words otherwise -- just as there was no practical way for Greenpeace interrupt the Premier's dinner or for David Suzuki (another very popular target for accusations of this sort for having the audacity to use a bus for his cross-country climate change tour) to influence public opinion without using fossil fuels in some way. Accusing environmentalists of hypocrisy is so popular amongst their opponents, I think, because the accuser knows that the only real alternative for the party that the accuser is directing his or her attacks towards is to more-or-less stop doing whatever it is that riled up the accuser so much in the first place and, as I mentioned, walk naked into the forest.

People like Suzuki or Greenpeace members are simply trying to change the society that we live in, and regardless of what they think of this society they are subject to its constraints like everyone else. Calling environmentalists hypocrites for using fossil fuels is like calling Scott Hennig a hypocrite for paying taxes, or members of the private-healthcare-advocating Fraser Institute hypocrites for going to a publicly-funded hospital if they fall ill. It's ludicrous, because in Canada, paying taxes and using public healthcare are precisely like using fossil fuels, in the sense that each is entirely unavoidable. Right now there is no fossil-fuel-free method remotely approaching practical that would allow environmental groups to spread their message to the extent necessary to influence public opinion  -- indeed, that is exactly what they're trying to change. Can you think of anything that would make Greenpeace happier than us living in a society where it wasn't necessary for them to use fossil fuels to propagate their message?

Criticize these people for being idealistic, unrealistic, or fatalistic -- whatever. But stop calling them hypocrites, or I'll aggressively browbeat you in the discussion section of a globeandmail.com story.

*I've been having a lot less of these lately, but this is one of those things that makes me shake my head, sigh, and say "Oh, Alberta." Edmontonians flew into an absolute rage when architectural entrance markers were proposed for the city, at a cost of about $1.4 million -- but they'll look the other way when the government spends $25 million on what is so blatantly propaganda.

What Capitol Hill Senators and Congresspeople woke up to yesterday morning

Read about it here and here.

Photo post: Greenpeace rains on Stelmach's parade

Read about it here and here. The best part: Stelmach was in the middle of an anti-Greenpeace speech. Even if you don't agree with non-violent direct action, you have to admit that this is a pretty impressive feat. Kudos.

Photo via Facebook

Update: In case you didn't have a $450 ticket to the show. Greenpeace has uploaded some video on Youtube for your viewing pleasure.

E-town to say 'peace out' to plastic?

Edmonton city councilor, Linda Sloan has asked city staffers to look at the feasibility of banning plastic shopping bags in Edmonton retail outlets. This would make the City of Champions the first major metropolis in Canada to ban the non-biodegradable landfill-chokers. (As some of you may recall, Leaf Rapids, Manitoba (pop. 500) was the first Canadian district to do so, last year.)

As someone who already uses cloth bags when shopping at the grocery store or the mall (*pats back*), I think this is a great idea. But, I'm sure there will be plenty of naysayers who argue that we shouldn't sacrifice convenience, or that the bags get reused (which may be true), or that it is their right to use plastic bags, or whatever. To them I say: take a look at your current consumption of plastic bags. Do you really need a bag for every little purchase you make?

As a point of illustration, consider the case of Ikea.  For the last 6 months, Ikea Canada has been charging 5 cents for those big  blue and yellow bags that have come to symbolize moving out of your parent's house and/or student living.  As a result, Ikea's plastic bag demand has dropped 90 percent.

This tells us three things about what might happen if Edmonton bans plastic shopping bags: 1) the world will not implode, 2) people will realize they really don't need a plastic bag for every single purchase, and 3) Edmontonians are likely to smoothly adapt to the lessened availability of plastic shopping bags.

Thus, I say bring on the ban and let Edmonton score some environmental glory for a change (damn Calgary and their 'wind-powered C-train').

Suncor 1st quarter profit rises from a gazillion dollars to several gazillion dollars

Read all about it here.

Good thing we didn't implement the Oil Sands Severance Tax recommended by the Royalty Review Panel. And good thing we haven't imposed any socialist, draconian carbon-reduction regulations on them. Suncor, in this environment of spiraling costs and labour shortages, is clearly walking the razor's edge between profitability and loss.

Thank goodness we have Alberta PCs to shepherd them through this difficult time.

In Memoriam: Martha Kostuch

Today is a very sad day for Alberta. Martha Kostuch, a prominent member of Alberta's environmental community and a person who worked tirelessly to preserve our ecosystems from  the impacts of industrial development has passed away at the age of 58. If you were fortunate enough to have met her, you know what a kind, smart, dedicated and inspirational woman she was. This is a tremendous loss for our province.

(Photo: Edmonton Journal)

Budget 2008: Albertans apparently fans of talking the talk

Today, as millions of Albertans went about their daily lives not caring, Finance Minister Iris Evans delivered the new government's first budget. The big story (quite literally if you read the Globe) is that Alberta's spending spree continues.

I, for one, can't say that I'm very surprised. The two main drivers of this increase, (according to Bloomberg, the government backgrounder, and a little Excel magic from yours truly) were Health and Wellness, which accounted for about 35% of the increase, and spending on new infrastructure, which accounted for about 50% of the increase (this includes spending for health-related infrastructure; I couldn't find infrastructure breakdowns by ministry).   

Healthcare spending is projected to rise by 9.1%. Last year, the combination of inflation and population growth totaled 8%. Although that likely won't be as high this year, when you factor in the demographic shifts that Alberta and much of the western world are seeing (aging and fattening population), 9.1% isn't entirely out of line (although it will no doubt be bandied about for yet another year by private healthcare advocates as evidence that healthcare costs are "spiraling out of control"). So, like I said, no surprises here.

The other big driver, infrastructure, isn't a real shock either when one considers the myopic and single-minded debt reduction of the Klein years. According to this article in the Herald, Calgary Economic Development chief economist Adam Legge agrees with me. Although we differ greatly in our degree of sanguinity, appreciation of the wisdom of the "paying off the mortgage," and general contempt for the government, we share more-or-less the same view:

"I don't really get too concerned about spending growth, because we took so long paying off the mortgage we weren't worried enough about the roof and the foundation," said Legge. "I'm of the opinion that we have a lot of catch-up to do."

Some may recall some jerks spoiling the debt-free party a few years ago by pointing out that despite being technically debt free, Alberta still had a massive infrastructure debt to contend with. If I recall correctly, this was dismissed as whiny communist nonsense by Klein and his always-open-to-suggestion Alberta PC party, but it seems their chickens have come home to roost. Unfortunately the rest of us have to actually pay for this, but I digress.

So, when you think about it, about 80% of the increases were pretty predictable. To me, the truly interesting thing about this budget is that it serves as further proof that Albertans seem to like the idea of being conservative more than they actually like being conservative. Firmly ensconced in the ivory tower located on the left side of the political spectrum, even I'm getting worried about these year-over-year spending increases -- but the supposedly government-hating people of Alberta just elected the living shit out of the government pumping them out.

It's also interesting to see things like the ministry of the environment getting 120% increase to its budget, and people like this guy getting excited about publicly-subsidized culture. Lloyd Snelgrove has a good quote in this CBC story that further adds to this sentiment:

... Treasury Board President Lloyd Snelgrove questioned whether Albertans are ready to accept a cut in government spending.

"None of the universities, none of the hospitals, none of the school boards, none of the towns and counties and cities have said to us: Take some money back from us and put in the bank — we have no more need for it."

Don't get me wrong -- it makes me happy to think that Albertan's might not be as conservative as they like to talk about being. It makes me sad, though, to think that we have a positively meagre Heritage Savings Trust Fund and face the possibility of deficits in the near-to-medium term. Come on, Alberta conservatives: where are the calls for penny pinching? Have you wasted all your energy denying climate change or what?

Nuclear power: The answer to climate change?

This post was borne out of a debate in the comments section of my last post. You can find that exchange here.

Using nuclear to fight climate change is replacing one environmental problem (fossil fuel electricity generation) with another. In 2006 the Pembina Institute (arguably Canada's most respected environmental think tank) released a comprehensive, 130 page analysis of the environmental impacts of nuclear power generation in Canada. It's team of engineers, eco-efficiency analysts and policy analysts found that nuclear energy should not be considered a solution (or even part of the solution) to climate change.

Here is an excerpt that sums up their arguments well:

while the GHG emissions associated with nuclear power are less than those that would be associated with conventional fossil fuel energy use, no other energy source combines the generation of conventional pollutants and waste streams (including heavy metals, smog, and acid rain precursors, and water contaminants) with the generation of extremely large volumes of radioactive wastes that will require care and management over hundreds of thousands of years. The combination of these environmental challenges, along with security, accident and weapons proliferation risks that are simply not shared by any other energy source, place nuclear in a unique category relative to all other energy supply options. In essence, reliance on nuclear power as a response to climate change would involve trading one problem-greenhouse gas emissions-for which a wide range of other solutions exist, for a series of other complex and difficult problems for which solutions are generally more costly and difficult and for which the outcomes are much less certain.

If nuclear is our answer to climate change, why is every major Canadian environmental organization against it? It's not a sustainable long-term solution and it's not emissions free. In fact the amount of GHG emissions generated by nuclear power-related activity has been  estimated to be just under 600 000 tons a year in Canada. That's about the equivalent of putting 170 000 new cars on the road for a year. Nuclear power is dirty and its proliferation only takes interest and resources away from the development of renewable energy and the promotion of energy conservation.  It puts money in the pockets of a few (in the short term) and it does nothing to foster a sustainable energy future for our province or country.

Good news, for a change.

The Alberta Electric System Operator currently has applications from several companies to generate a total 10,500 megawatts of wind power. Given that the AESO is forecasting the need for an additional 5,000 megawatts of power over the next 10 years, this is excellent news! Kudos to the Stelmach government for finally lifting Alberta's asinine wind power cap last year.

This begs the question, why do we need nuclear in Alberta? Especially given the latest news from Bruce Power.

Carbon taxes: really not a liberal idea

This post is born not necessarily out of the currency or even newsworthiness of the topic at hand, but rather because it provides a perfect opportunity to highlight just how ridiculous the rhetoric used by John Baird actually is. If you'll recall, in response to a report released in January by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (itself an advisory body to the federal government) calling for a nation-wide carbon tax, federal Environment Minister John Baird flat out rejected the report's recommendations with the statement: "a new tax sounds like a Liberal idea to me."

While John Baird isn't exactly known for his thoughtful deliberations or quiet reflection, this outright dismissal of an important policy option for mitigating climate change is pretty low. I mean at least the Liberals pretended to agree with similar reports, even if they didn't actually act on them.  I guess under Stephen Harper's Conservative government, even the environment minister isn't expected to pretend to listen to the advisers he's paying to make ecologically and financially sound decisions. Anyhow, a new report  released last week may (well, one would hope it would) give Baird pause next time he decides to knee-jerk react to the suggestion of a carbon tax with a partisan quip.

This week, prominent Canadian economist Jack Mintz  echoed the growing chorus of Canadians calling for a nation-wide carbon tax to fight climate change. In the report, Mintz surmises that the current $0.10/litre excise tax charged by the federal government on gasoline works out (in effect) to a carbon tax of about $42/tonne. The report says if this taxation scheme where applied to all carbon emitting fuels in Canada (i.e. natural gas, coal used in electricity generation), the Canadian government would be able to collect an additional $12 to $15 billion dollars a year. In addition this revenue could then be used to decrease personal and corporate income taxes, thereby making Canada's economy more competitive and Canada's worldwide environmental reputation slightly less humiliating.

The fact that Jack Mintz of all people is endorsing a nation-wide carbon tax, should demonstrate to the few people that take Baird seriously that this is so not a "Liberal idea" (I'm assuming that when Baird derisively sneers the term 'Liberal', he's referring to it in the big "L", socialist wealth transfer scheme sense of the word, rather than the small 'l' sense as taxes aren't usually associated with liberalism). For those of you not familiar with Mr. Mintz, here's a few interesting tidbits that establish his non-Liberal mettle: he sits on the board of Imperial Oil, he thinks Alberta's low taxes and privatization rates make it perfect, he has a long, illustrious publication record with the tax competitiveness section of the C.D. Howe Institute (not to mention a 7-year tenure as its president and CEO), the Alberta government hired him to do their financial planning last year, and finally pretty much every time he is asked to comment on a government's budget, he laments the insufficiency of the broad-based 'tax-relief' provided.

The fact that someone like Jack Mintz recommends the adoption of a national carbon tax demonstrates that he is a fiscal conservative who uses his head when assessing policy options; John Baird's idiotic partisan reaction demonstrates that he is not.

The biggest irony in all of this is of course, that the use of market mechanisms like carbon taxes is an inherently neo-conservative idea. Many environmentalists and progressives would much prefer to see Canada deal with climate change through regulation and forced compliance to those regulations. For them and other more traditionally social-democratic countries, regulation is the only way to ensure that pollution never enters the environment (rather than it simply costing some companies more to pollute).  The fact that many (ideologically left-leaning) environmentalists in Canada have come to largely adopt the position that a carbon tax is a necessary solution to climate change for Canada shows that they are able to consider their options, context, and restraints thoughtfully and determine the best compromise for fast action. You would think we could expect the same from our political leaders.

Spin trumps substance

So I was going to write a post about how ridiculous Rob Renner's (sweet mustache, bud) mandate letter was. Top on the list of initiatives Renner is to lead:

Inform Albertans on our environmental stewardship to ensure a clear provincial, national and international understanding of Alberta’s leadership, commitment and action on the environment;

It's pretty obvious why I think this is ridiculous; the Stelmach apparently doesn't want Renner to actually do anything, he just wants him to convince everyone else that the embarrassingly pathetic job that he is doing is perceived as favourably as possible. Nice.

I picked up a copy of Vue Weekly this morning and saw that Ricardo Acuña, in addition to being much smarter than me, had also beat me to the punch. Read his apt analysis of this issue here, and get ready to start hating your provincial government for yet another four years.

APRIL FOOLS!

Like it wasn't obvious.

Maybe these dum-dums should actually do something instead of trying to convince everyone that the oilsands are sustainable.

Ed Stelmach Is Right

I could only find myself nodding at an increasing amplitude as I progressed through this story, in which the man himself talks about the need for non-Albertans to recognize our environmental stewardship. It's high time that all of the fringe ecosocialists realized a few things about Alberta:

• the oilsands are not dirty (I don't care how many square kilometres of tailings ponds you show me)
• the oilsands are sustainable (there is simply just too much of it to ever run out)
• we are leading the way on climate change (we were the first to legislate, which means we're leaders)
• species of every kind are thriving in the province (honestly, how much habitat do you need, migratory caribou?)
• our air and water quality is second to none (highest asthma rates in the country? More like highest schmasthma rates in the country)

Even if we may make the occasional misstep in one of these areas, as Iris Evans points out in the article, we can't forget one thing: we're getting really, really rich from the oilsands. And to paraphrase Lenin: you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Thanks to, I'm guessing, liberal-biased mainstream media coverage, none of these facts have got out, which is why I have to salute this campaign as yet another example of Stelmach's principled leadership, and, of course, proof that "environment trumps economy," as the premier has said. So: right on, Eddy, and stay the course!

Monday morning reading

For a Monday morning, there's a surprising amount of interesting Alberta-related news items in today's dailies:

• The Globe and Mail has a really interesting run-down of Imperial Oil's Kearl project , the challenges it faces and the risks it poses to Alberta's environment. The latest news is, that - in light of a federal court ruling, which nulled the decision of a joint federal-Alberta government environmental review panel to approve the Kearl project earlier this month -  the federal fisheries department has also decided to revoke the project's water permit. This means that the land set aside for the project - a strip mine that would cover an area of undisturbed Boreal forest bog the size of 20 000 football fields - cannot begin to be prepped for mining.  The article provides an overview of one of the most controversial oilsands projects in recent memory, so I highly recommend reading it. UPDATE: Imperial Oil plans to appeal the government's decision to revoke their water license.
  

• The Edmonton Journal has an interesting front-page feature on the future of high-speed rail in Alberta. The article highlights potential time-frames and some obstacles to and opportunities for the rail link's construction.  One of the key barriers outlined by the article is securing the land necessary from farmers and rural landowners. As I have argued before, high speed rail provide an important opportunity for Alberta to begin to off-set our embarrassing track-record on greenhouse gas emissions. Stelmach going on the record in support of high-speed rail was one of the few things he's done that I applaud, and his ability to move this project forward could demonstrate that he's able to think beyond the immediate future, something we have yet to see.

• The Calgary Herald has a story revealing that, Stephen Harper (i.e. the man with the climate change plan that puts Alberta's to shame), has continually ignored warnings from the Canadian government's top scientists that Canada faces climate disaster if it continues on its course of blocking international progress on climate change. Sadly, this revelation is so unsurprising, I'm surprised it made the papers at all.

• Finally, this is a bit late, but better late then never. This story provides yet another reason to forget Ralph Klein was premier of this province for 14 years. (Check out his Wikipedia page if you need any others). Klein was awarded the French equivalent of the Order of Canada and these remarks are are the best he could come up with? France shares in some of the embarrassment too. I mean, seriously France, you couldn't think of anyone better to award your highest honor?

Earth Hour is tonight at 8:00pm

The CBC is reporting that according to a recent poll 70% of Canadians plan to turn off their lights for one hour between 8 and 9 tonight. The top potential substitute activities reported include 'getting busy' with someone and stargazing. Perhaps even more interesting is the poll's finding that 85% of Canadians think Ottawa isn't doing enough to address climate change.

Some notable Canadian landmarks participating in Earth Hour include: Toronto's CN Tower and Eaton Centre;  Niagara Falls; Vancouver City Hall and its Olympic Flag; Edmonton's City Hall, as well as Halifax's MacDonald Bridge and Parade Square. Come on Alberta, do your part! In case my begging isn't enough to inspire you, check out this Earth Hour video (complete with cheesy soundtrack).

Good news and bad news on the pine beetle front

The CBC and the Globe are reporting some good news regarding BC's battle to stop the spread of pine beetle. Apparently, the rice grain-sized terrors have ran out of trees to eat. Thus, the hemorrhaging of BC's forestry industry is expected to slow. So what's the bad news? Scientists suspect that the lack of feed for pine beetles in BC will likely fuel their continued spread into Alberta. Perhaps BC will lend Alberta part of the $1 billion the federal government has agreed to grant the province over the next ten years? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the funding Alberta has received to fight pine beetle is basically non-existent, despite the fact that our Western border is under severe threat. Perhaps, the federal Conservatives think  pine beetle  money sent to the Conservative heartland of Canada is less politically expedient?

Environment Canada re-commissions Banff and Jasper airstrips

On Friday, Parks Canada issued two press releases announcing that the airstrips in Banff and Jasper would be re-commissioned.  The airstrips were closed in 1997 after the Banff Bow Valley Study highlighted the intense threats posed by commercial development and infrastructure, including the airstrips, to the ecological health of the mountain parks. Environment Canada argues that the re-opening of these airstrips will improve pilot safety in Rocky Mountains air space.  I don't disagree with the move to allow commercial aircraft diversions and emergency landings in Banff and Jasper.

What I do find problematic is the opening of the Jasper airstrip for recreational aircraft use. CPAWS sums up the Jasper situation well: "this is about enabling a privileged few to recreate in their personal aircraft in protected areas." Moreover, CPAWS suggests that any emergency landings or diversions would be for personal aircrafts only:

“The ecology and visitor experiences of two of the world’s greatest national parks which are dedicated to the Canadian public are being compromised for the narrow interests of some private pilots. We will make every effort to have this decision reversed and look to all legal means to achieve it."

If this is the case, I'd be interested to know whether commercial jets could or would land at these airstrips in an emergency. If not, should they be re-commissioned to the large detriment of the wildlife in these protected areas? I guess those are questions the forthcoming environmental assessment will have to answer. On a side note: I wonder if Air Tory will have direct flights to Jasper...