British Columbia clean energy

Canada is being called one of the best places in the world for innovations in clean energy technology. And British Columbia in particular is said to have huge potential for creating these sources of alternative energy.

Wind and solar power are two techniques whose full potential have yet to really be harnessed by Western Canada, though they are starting to make more of an appearance.

If you drive through southern Alberta especially you can see rows of wind turbines across several fields that are known as wind farms. There are even programs in which local farmers are paid money for letting a wind company set up turbines on their property.

But often a lot of the turbines aren't turning.

In Alberta, there is a cap on how much energy can be produced from alternative sources - meaning anything that isn't fossil fuels.

This cap was put in place by the Alberta Electric Systems Operator (AESO). It focuses mainly on wind power and has placed a limit on just how much we can create. It regulates that a threshold no higher than 900 megawatts of electricity can be created by wind turbines in the province. This was suggested by Suncor, a Calgary based energy company, which deals mostly in fossil fuels.

But if western Canada is capable of creating so much clean energy, why are there limitations placed on that production?

It is because there is still oil which makes more money for energy producing companies like Suncor. If they were to invest solely in alternative energies their own profits would decrease.

And much like how oil companies killed the electric car, they are keeping the production of clean energy sources down in order to keep their profits up.

Wind power is among the fastest growing non-fossil sources of energy in the world. And as concerns about a rising climate temperature due to carbon emissions becomes more of an issue for people, the demand for this type of energy will increase.

On March 27 people all over the world participated in Earth Hour by refraining from using electricity for an entire hour. And B.C. alone saw a one per cent drop in power usage during that single hour. And though this is hopeful, most people are quick to return to their high-energy use habits. Until people begin to address the issue of their own rising energy demands, these alternative energy sources simply won't be able to support those demands. Especially when they have limits placed on them.

Hopefully our oil-addicted nation will realize the potential of these sources as a very serious alternative to the fossil fuel industry. And hopefully people will realize that not all the lights in their home need to be turned on at the same time.

ACC pulls out of Kamloops

The public opposition of the proposed gasification plant in Kamloops seemed only to further grow after last week's rally.

Upwards of 500 people turned out to the public consultation at TRU to hear ACC President Kim Sigurdson speak. But even finally addressing the questions and concerns of local citizens didn't seem to bolster their popularity among the crowd.

Sigurdson defended his reasoning for choosing Kamloops as the place best suited for the plant again and again with the crowd, but to no avail. Even saying that there were other cities in the province considered for it but they simply weren't the best choice.

But now since the rally, Sigurdson has begun considering these other locations for the plant, saying that he's disappointed but won't be building the plant at the Mission Flats site.

An article from the Kamloops Daily News further explains the ACC's decision to move the plant to another location.

And though it looks like the issue of the cogeneration plant is wrapping up for Kamloops, it didn't come without some Facebook drama. A message circulated on the social networking site stated that the ACC was being helped by the provincial government in finding a new location for their plant. The message is supposed to have been sent by Interior Science and Innovation council executive director Bill McQuarrie, though he denies that it came from him.

Canada's censorship action on climate change

Climate change is a global issue that the government of Canada has taken an aggressive stance on. Or so says their website.

But a recent news story from Ottawa says that may not be the case. And instead is far from it.

In November of 2007 the government of Canada instituted a new media relations policy regarding Environment Canada. That document was leaked this week by an Environment Canada employee. The new policy in the document requires all Environment Canada scientists to refer all media questions to the Media Relations Headquarters where they can be better directed. Or really, where they can decide how best to handle the question with an pre-approved line.

A report by Andrew Cuddy of Climate Action Network Canada, a coalition of environmental groups, says the policy limits, if not fully eliminates, media coverage of climate change.

Federal climate scientists now have to seek permission from the government before even agreeing to interviews with journalists. And often, journalists must submit their questions as written responses to be approved by supervisors before an interview can be granted.

This has all left federal climate change scientists feeling what they describe as "muzzled." Or really, censored.

Cuddy's report further says that some scientists began speaking out after the policy's inception because they felt it was blocking communication and ultimately was designed to stop them from talking to the media altogether.

Although Harper has acknowledged climate change in recent years he wasn't in support of researching it before he came to office and chances are he's not that interested in it now either.

Ultimately this policy seems like the Harper government's way of undermining climate change research while at the same time wielding a vague form of censorship over the Canadian population.

Because whether you agree or disagree with climate change, researching it should not be an arguable matter. As even polar bears are experiencing the rise of the global temperature firsthand and I'm sure they would appreciate someone looking into it.

Air quality

If the case of formaldehyde in Prince George last week is any indication of how the enforcement of air quality and monitoring is handled in British Columbia, then the doubts many Kamloops citizens are harboring about the proposed creosote incineration plant may have certainly grown.

In 1998 the city of Prince George created a non-profit society called PGAIR (Prince George Air Improvement Roundtable) after concerns about the air quality in the city were raised due to local industry. PGAIR is a community organization that has a variety of members including some government representatives, with a plan to reduce the amount of pollution in their local airshed. And though the society keeps a careful watch on the city's air quality, tests that were gathered 18 months ago showed formaldehyde, a carcinogen, at levels nearly 20 times that which is acceptable. But those results weren't made public until just last week.

It's examples like this that MLA Rob Fleming says illustrate our government's mishandling of environmental matters.

Prince George's case is an example of what can go wrong when industry is already a local fixture. And it probably only helps to solidify in many Kamloops citizens mind's just how much they don't want this gasification plant in their city.

The plant, which has already been issued an operating permit by the provincial government, is a incineration plant to burn old creosote railway ties. It will release harmful gases into the atmosphere that have already garnered attention from local doctors as they are known carcinogens that will be harmful to citizens health. But the plant isn't just harmful to people. Ultimately, it will affect both the air and water quality of the immediate area. Kamloops' carbon footprint will even increase from the plant alone.

But whether people want it or not government has basically given it a green light.

The plant itself that is proposed is where a lot of people's concerns are coming in, as it is basically making Kamloops a laboratory for testing. This type of plant has been tested in labs but only on a small scale. The size of the plant proposed for Kamloops is larger than anything tested before. And now this experimental type of plant is being transfered from a unversity setting straight to the banks of the Thompson River.

So what could our government do? Fleming says that the province needs to stop blocking the federal government's environmental report from being done. If the federal government were to do an environmental report on the project it would created a window of time that citizens could use to voice their concerns so that the federal government would actually hear them. It would also open the project up for new scientists to study and give feedback on the plant.

But along with the cuts to environmental funding in the latest provincial budget, the outlook of stringent government monitoring on the incineration plant looks less hopeful.

"Government doesn't generally follow up on [air quality] readings on plants of this type," Fleming said. "Enforcement of environmental monitoring in B.C. has declined 50 per cent against environmental violators."

The case in Prince George is a perfect example of government's lack of action and followup concerning environmental issues, making the chance that a similar lack of action could be seen with the Kamloops incinerator forefront in people's minds.

"If the people don't want it why are we still talking about it," said Derek Cook, a Political Sciences teacher at Thompson Rivers University.

With the provincial government giving this project a go ahead against citizens wishes, what does that say about our democracy?

People are against this, and yet government is letting it happen.The Kamloops city council even voted unanimously not to support it. But despite all the resistance this project is getting by local citizens, it doesn't look like it's slowing it down.

With things of this nature we have to ask ourselves what the risk we are willing to live with here is? And more importantly says Fleming, what risks are the government willing to take concerning both it's citizens and the environment.

No deal

In a previous blog, Making deals with big industry, I had posted an article from the Globe and Mail about British Columbia's forestry industry making deals with their protestors. The article talked about how Alberta's tarsands industry should follow their example and find some common ground with their own protestors. Namely Greenpeace.

Greenpeace has a long history of putting themselves into the media spotlight to make their point. And whether people agree with them or not, in cases like Alberta's tarsands it's pretty difficult to refute what they are fighting for. Greenpeace Alberta has a branch called STOP (stop tarsands operations permanently) working out of Edmonton that is focused solely on the environmental destruction going on in northern Alberta.

The destruction happening in Alberta is huge, and though the clear-cutting that was going on in B.C. was just as much of an environmental problem, the tarsands are a very far-reaching issue that are creating long-term and irreversible damage. The destruction is more than just the immediate area, affecting all of the surrounding communities and citizens.

So whether the solution to the problem is as easy as an agreement with Greenpeace protestors seems questionable.

"It's definately not something we would sign on to," said Mike Hudema, head of Greenpeace's STOP campaign. "The only ethical choice is a full phase out. Anything less would sell out the communities we are trying to protect."

Those communities are the one's seeing firsthand the damage that Alberta's oil addiction is causing. Communities near the tarsands are concerned about drinking the water or eating fish that comes out of local rivers. They even say that the pollution in the air makes them sick. At one point, a study was even done looking at whether the industry was responsible for increases in cancer rates of citizens in adjacent communities.

It is communities like these that are apart of why an agreement is not what Greenpeace wants. The tarsands are environmentally destructive but it isn't about just slowing or changing the industry, because this isn't a problem that can be solved in the same way as B.C.'s clear-cutting.

It's like a loose form of a gambling addiction

As Canadians, environmentalism has become much like a way of life for us. We take our reusable bags to the supermarket, we meticulously separate our recycling and we refill our water bottles.

But despite how green-minded people may be, they don't hesitate to throw away their environmental values when Roll Up the Rim cups come back at Tim Hortons. It seems like the coffee giant has an even tighter grip on the already devout Canadian population during this time as more and more people flock to their lineups for a chance at winning.

But this creates a problem. And the problem is in the cup.

The Tim Hortons cup itself looks pretty simple: cardboard and plastic, both of which are recyclable. But pouring a hot drink straight into a cardboard cup could only result in disaster, and more likely, lawsuits. So the cup is coated with a substance that makes it better stand up to both liquid and temperature.

Polystyrene is a a polymer created from petroleum and is one of the most widely used kinds of plastics in the world. It is also among the most abundant sources of environmental pollution in the world.

Polystyrene is more commonly known as styrofoam and is recognized by the Society of Plastics Industry as plastic number 6. But the product is far from being environmentally friendly, it can take anywhere from 50 to 75 years to fully break down. And many municipal recycling facilities do not even recognize it as a recyclable item.

Polystyrene is light, it floats on water and blows in the wind, meaning it is very easily dispersed. It, and other similar and as widely used plastics, even encompass the largest landfill in the world located in the center of the Pacific Ocean, called the Great Pacific Garbage Pitch.

And the so highly-coveted Roll Up the Rim cup is no exception to this pollution.

The cup itself is about 90 per cent recyclable and can be turned into products like carry-out trays, egg cartons and various tissue products. But the waxy polystyrene coating on the inside of the cup makes it's recycling a much more involved process. Polystyrene must be incinerated at extremely high temperatures, and in the case of the Tim Hortons cup different processes again are used specific to its materials.

And though it is not biodegradable it is recyclable where facilities exist. But in the case of the Tim Hortons cup, those facilities currently exist nowhere west of Toronto.

The only way for the cups to be recycled is if Tim Hortons offers in-house recycling, which means they would have to deal with all the recycle themselves. Before they can do this they must find an appropriate recycling parter in the area who will recycle the plastic number 6. And pending that appropriate parter, British Columbia Tim Hortons restaurants hope to have the in-house recycling by the end of 2010.

But despite the coffee giant's efforts at being environmentally friendly they are far from it. With the number of customers increasing during Roll Up the Rim time so too is the number of single-use cups being handed out. Even those who generally use travel mugs, and actually receive a small discount on their coffee for doing so, will accept an unused cup simply for the chance to play. That means that along with all of the coffee cups hitting the landfill are some that were never even used.

Tully's, a coffee chain based out of Seattle, was the first coffee company to change it's cup in late 2007 to be environmentally friendly. Their cup is biodegradable as it uses a bioplastic made from corn to line their cups rather than the traditional petroleum based one. But as with most things of this nature, it tends to be more expensive and therefore less popular.

But even if Tim Hortons is falling behind on the environmental front they are still colonizing almost 80 per cent of the Canadian market and selling nearly 300 million cups every year, most of which end up in the landfill. And they even seem to have become a Canadian national identity, making it difficult for anyone to take on the company, even government. In New Brunswick, a Tim Hortons focus group has emerged in which local government is embracing the coffee house's popularity, finding it to be the best place to engage citizens.

And though it's doubtful that Tim Hortons will make any dramatic changes in the near future, especially about their Roll Up the Rim contest, consumers are the ones who have to power to demand some change from the company. Starting with the recycling of the coffee cup using in-house recycling. And even though people seem to love the chance to win some of the 31 million prizes, the impact on the environment is staggering. Because when you think about it, using a cup only once and throwing it away is absurd, whether it comes with a chance to Roll Up the Rim or not. Because at this point it doesn't even seem like it's the caffeine that's addicting anymore.

Making deals with big industry

The tarsands industry in Alberta today is facing much the same international criticism that British Columbia's forestry industry faced in the early 1990s.

But whether Alberta's issue of the tarsands can be solved in the same way as clear-cutting in British Columbia, is hard to say. As much of an negative impact as clear-cutting may have on the environment, it's difficult to argue that the tarsands are affecting the land in the same manner.

But in every case in which industry alters the natural environment, such as the tarsands, the company or companies involved are required by their respective provincial government to have a plan for reclamation in effect prior to starting. The idea being that they will be able to return the land to it's original state or better after they are finished. And even though planted forests do not grow in exactly the same manner as natural growth forests, replanting trees is somewhat easier than cleaning up a mess like the tarsands.

In the early '90s MacMillan Bloedel, a Vancouver based forestry company which was later bought out by Weyerhauser, formed ties with their protestors that later led to a change in their practices, abandoning clear-cutting in favor of selective harvest.

And now, people are wondering whether or not Alberta and the tarsands might find success in befriending their protestors in the same way.

An article from the Globe and Mail outlines the marked history of British Columbia's forestry industry and shows ties between it and Alberta's booming oil and gas industry.

But regardless of how smart British Columbia's forestry seemed to be, they are still just an industry out to make a profit. And settling on protester's demands just isn't something that's seems that profitable. And even today, among other methods used in British Columbia, clear-cutting is still happening. And whether or not STOP (Stop tarsands operations permanently) an Edmonton-based Greenpeace activist group, would feel the same way about making an agreement with the Alberta oil barons they've been working against for so long doesn't sound hopeful. Because ultimately, the tarsands aren't the same kind of industry as forestry in terms of environmental destruction. And the companies involved are still just out to make a profit.

The global warming debate

There are some who regard it as a pressing issue and others who simply shrug it off as overreaction. But true or not, the rate at which the world's glaciers are melting makes the argument for global warming that much more convincing. Especially when it hits close to home.

British Columbia's Bridge Glacier north of Pemberton is latest glacier to be studied by environmental photographer James Balog.

Balog will be monitoring the glacier in a project called "Extreme Ice Survey," which already has cameras set up in several other locations including Alaska, Bolivia and Switzerland.

In April, Balog will be installing two cameras on the Bridge Glacier to document it's movement due to a rising global temperature. The cameras are secured to a cliffside that overlooks the glacier and are powered by a solar panel. They are set to take one picture every 30 minutes that are later stitched together like a movie to show the glacier's rate of melting. And the results make it hard to refute the encroaching presence of global warming.

But global warming has long been a debate that people are divided over. Some denying its reality and instead saying that climate change is just an attribute of a dynamic earth. And though the earth's temperature is rising (the last decade was the warmest in 130 years on modern temperature records) those who are deniers of global warming say that the global temperature rises cyclically not annually. Ultimately meaning that human influence (namely greenhouse gasses) is not the cause of the rising temperature.

And Stephen Harper's former foreign affairs minister, Maxime Bernier is one of the latest to deny global warming as a reality, calling it a crock that Canada should have no part of. The Quebec MP says that we're focused too much on our own actions and are ignoring the influence that natural factors have on the climate.

Bernier further argued that spending billions of dollars on an event we are still not entirely sure about would be simply irresponsible. But he did praise Harper's moderate policies on global warming. Though Harper has since at least recognized global warming he has failed to take a decided stance on it. And in 2002 as leader of the Canadian Alliance Party, Harper even called the Kyoto Accord a "socialist scheme designed to suck money out of wealth-producing nations."

But, despite Harper's moderate stance on global warming, unfortunately he does have a firmer stance on the issues than some other parties.

And though people continue to dither, the debate rages on. The world's glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising and we are witnessing environmental disaster more frequently now than ever before. And as Balog argues, this is all happening because of a buildup of greenhouse gasses produced by humans. And the argument of global warming is one which humans can't afford to refute anymore.

Hopefully Balog's work in British Columbia and other places around the world will help to make the reality of global warming a bigger issue in the mind's of more people.

Green jobs

The push to be green is spilling into Canada's public sector, and it's creating jobs.

The government of Canada is getting on board with the idea of being environmentally friendly, and using stimulus spending to fund the green step.

In an effort to address the growing concerns surrounding our environment, the government is creating more green jobs in the public sector. Job titles include waste management, geophysicists, soil experts and alternative power specialists among others.

Government, at all levels, is already heavily involved in the environment, whether through management, bylaw or otherwise, so funding to create more of these job opportunities is a simple decision. And as government jobs often have better job security, many environmental specialists are seeking out these new positions.

America too has seen an increase in the number of green jobs in their job market, something Obama promised from the beginning of his campaign.

And the rising demand for these environmental specialists is something that post-secondary institutions are taking notice of. Colleges and universities are gearing more courses and programs towards the growing environmental job market in an effort to steer students in the right direction.

The government's spending on the creation of new green jobs shows Canada's initiative to be a leader in addressing environmental issues. And green jobs have to potential to save both the environment and the economy.

Rejecting big oil

Canada's oil industry might be pulling out of the recession but it's losing supporters, something oil barons probably never thought would happen.

Whole Food Market and Bed Bath & Beyond, two large American companies, have decided to avoid purchasing from any suppliers who use fuel from Canada's tarsands. And though this seems like only a small move, other companies are sure to take notice of what they're doing.

The companies decisions were made in response to letters sent out by ForestEthics, an NGO that last year began campaigning the American corporate sector to steer away from using fuel from Canada's oilsands. In the summer of 2009 they sent over a hundred letters to Fortune 500 companies warning them that using Canada's oil was bad for their brand.

As Canada's tarsands have gained worldwide recognition for being among the most carbon-intensive industries in the world, the proposal of boycotting fuel made from tarsands mining is a welcomed prospect for companies trying to watch their carbon footprint.

The fuel they are boycotting is used in transporting their product, and though it only accounts for a very small amount of income for oil companies, revenue lost from Fortune 500 companies can start to add up.

Whole Food Markets replaced Marathon Oil with CountryMark, which uses oil from a conventional American oil mining company. And though Bed Bath and Beyond has not declared what change they have made yet, they have said they are not using Canada's oil any longer.

The move shows the initiative on both companies part to reduce their impact on the environment. And in a time when more people are starting to take notice of the environmental destruction happening around them, a move like this that would usually be considered bad for business could just show a positive return.

First in time, first in right

The idea of "first in time, first in right," is sort of like finders keepers. But with natural resources. And more specifically, water.

The idea first came from the Wyoming vs. Colorado U.S. Supreme Court case in 1936, and is a system of allocating water rights. It's not a new idea, but is one that has been working successfully in controlling the human use of natural fresh water resources.

In Alberta, a province that has only 2.2 per cent of Canada's fresh water, this is how the government is currently regulating the use of water by it's citizens. But now the Alberta government is considering moving to a deregulated province-wide market.

Because Alberta's in a water crisis? No.

Even though several Alberta counties declared states of emergency last year because of how dry their land was, draught isn't the reason the government is considering a switch in regulating water usage.

Alberta's population has experienced a steady climb in thanks to the booming job market. And while this has helped to put a strain on the water situation, this isn't the whole of it.

It's Alberta's growing industries that are the main cause of their impending water problem and the cause of much of Canada's carbon emissions. Oil, coal and agriculture are using more than 75 per cent of the province's fresh water. And using it at a rate so quickly that the province is working its way into a water crisis.

The deregulation that the Alberta government is considering means that big water-users will need a water license. These licenses can be bought, sold and traded. And considering all of the revenue created in Alberta's industries, the highest bidder of these licenses is not likely to be the average citizen.

Industry in Alberta is already using the majority of the province's water supply, and with this new water law, it looks like they're set to control what little fresh water there is left.

The next episode

The next big step in the effort to fight the increasing carbon emissions into the atmosphere is not to slow our carbon-intensive industries, but instead to hide it all underground.

And while the debate over whether this is necessary for Canada is ongoing, steps are already being taken towards implementing carbon capture and storage for our most carbon-intensive industries.

Royal Dutch Shell's answer to the issue is the Quest CCS (carbon capture and storage) project. An initiative designed to further the oilsands development while reducing its carbon emissions. And if approved, the project would see systems attached to two of Shell's plants near Edmonton, Alberta, that combined could reduce carbon up to 40 per cent per year (nearly 1.2 million tonnes.)

But while some see it as being the obvious answer to our ever increasing carbon emissions problem, others see it simply as an excuse to continue polluting. And while it does seem like the simplest answer to the carbon emissions it's easy to see how this is really only putting the issue on hold.

Canada's tarsands use methods of extracting oil from the ground that are up to 15 per cent more carbon intensive than conventional methods. Meaning, there's a lot more carbon produced as a byproduct and something needs to be done about it.

Shells says that "the process permanently stores CO2 underground, preventing it from dispersing into the air." But what happens underground?

Again, Shell says that "storing CO2 underground is based on geological trapping mechanisms similar to those that have naturally contained large reservoirs of oil and gas for millions of years."

Safe? Maybe. But this still seems like we're manipulating this natural system a little too far. The human ability to mimic the careful balances in nature have not proven all too successful in the past.

But as of now, Shell's Quest project is being heavily backed by both the Alberta government and the federal government, as the project could put Canada in the forefront of the world's carbon capture and storage initiatives.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that carbon emissions need to be reduced by 20 per cent by 2020 and 50 per cent by 2050 in order to stop the rise of the global temperature. And a carbon capture and storage program looks like the perfect sidestep in actually reducing our emissions.

Dirty industry

Canada’s filthiest industry is being given a vote of confidence by one of Britain’s biggest petroleum giants. BP oil executive Tony Hayward is praising the tarsand’s at a time when Canada’s own environment minister, Jim Prentice says their image is “especially negative.”

And now BP is receiving criticism from shareholders over a decision to invest in the tarsands project, similar to criticism Royal Dutch Shell received for their recent business ventures.

British campaigning organization FairPensions is urging the oil giant to adopt "responsible investment practices." Saying that before diving into such a business venture the company needs to consider such issues as future carbon prices, regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and the risk to the company's reputation in getting involved with the dirty Canadian endeavor.

The investment is the beginning of a joint business effort with Husky Energy called the Sunrise Project, originally starting in 2007. But is now one of Canada's first major steps towards an economic revival. Up until now BP has stayed away from any tarsands involvement. But their $5.5-billion business partnership with Husky Energy is a huge step in a new direction, and one that's quickly gaining public disapproval.

But despite widespread criticism of the tarsands, Hayward is downplaying their negative environmental impact, calling it "steam assisted gravity drainage," rather than mining, and is insisting that the environmental footprint of such is much less than conventional drilling.

BP's involvement with Canada's tarsands comes just after Prentice announced during a speech to Calgary business leaders, that the industries involved in the tarsands need to start cleaning up their image within Canada as well as internationally before the world loses faith in Canada as an environmental leader.

Vancouver gets Bronze

The Vancouver 2010 Olympics are being called the greenest games ever, and not just because there is next to no snow on Cypress Mountain.

Despite falling short of gold in some areas, the David Suzuki Foundation has awarded VANOC with a bronze medal for their green efforts at the 2010 Olympics. They are being applauded for their efforts in reducing their carbon footprint. Steps they have taken in making these games a little greener include: promoting public transportation (and in some cases making it mandatory), using clean energy sources, making buildings energy efficient and offsetting carbon emissions from the event. And most of these initiatives are permanent, meaning the citizens of Vancouver can still appreciate them after the games are over.

The Vancouver Olympics came in just ahead of the Sydney games 10 years ago for their environmental initiatives. And with climate change fast on it's way to becoming the defining issue of our generation it seems like more people are getting on board with the idea of addressing it and taking action to fight it.

But it really only seems this way, as public involvement in helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was the low point of VANOC's scorecard, despite their efforts. So all of those self-proclaimed environmentally friendly folks out there aren't really living up to their end of the deal.

But overall, such a big event is difficult to make greener especially while the whole world is watching. But VANOC has put in the effort and at least David Suzuki recognized it.

Our very own environmental embarrassment

In early December last year, the Alberta government spent a huge amount of money on an attempt to clean up the province's oil-stained reputation. Television commercials and full page spreads in newspapers showed Alberta's Premier Ed Stelmach promoting the tarsands, an environmental disaster that has caught worldwide attention, possibly because it's now visible from space on Google Earth.

Stelmach's shameless promotion of the tarsands came conveniently just before the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. It was a desperate attempt to redeem the appearance of the province in the eyes of the world. And whether it worked or not, the tarsands are an issue that Canada has dodged (remember those poor 500 ducks in April 2008?) again and again but is going to have to deal with sooner or later.

But it's finally starting to look like sooner.

Canada's Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice is now calling for the cleanup of the oilsands, but only sort of.

When the United States announced their target emission reductions last Saturday, Canada did the same. Literally. Canada matched their emissions target of 17 per cent below the 2005 emissions by 2020, in line with the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Accord which is set to end in 2012. But in doing so, Canada actually dropped their original target, which was 20 per cent below the 2006 emissions. Creating a little more room to pollute and a little less of a reason to start the oilsands cleanup any sooner.

And right now Canada isn't taking any steps in cleaning up the oilsands ... at least not until America does first. Prentice says that until the United States announces new measures on climate change Canada won't do anything. And as far as any sort of cap-and-trade system (an emissions restriction with flexibility in how countries comply) goes, again Canada won't adopt anything until the States does as it could be harmful to international trade.

So despite the scrutiny that the tarsands has come under, it looks like not much is going to be done until the United States decides that it's time to act. And even though the tarsands has become Canada's biggest environmental disaster and the tailing ponds are now actually considered one of the biggest man-made structures on earth, even though Canada should be taking responsibility in cleaning them up, why not wait?

Greenest Games Ever

Hosting the Olympic games in Canada, we have the opportunity to show the world how environmentally friendly Canadians are. Vancouver has taken considerable steps in ensuring these Olympic games will be the greenest yet. But there is one goal in particular that is falling very short of the proposed target. The Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) has slated the Olympic games to be a carbon neutral event, meaning that greenhouse gas emissions from one project would be used to offset emissions from another project.

VANOC commissioned a report from the David Suzuki Organization to help ensure that they would be carbon neutral. Originally they had planned to offset 328,000 tons of direct carbon emissions (mostly spectator transportation), but are falling very short of that goal. In fact, it's about 300,000 tons short. It's now estimated that VANOC will only offset 118,000 tons of direct carbon emissions.

The David Suzuki Organization says the reason for this is that only about five per cent of travelers will participate in carbon offset programs, despite the growing public support for action against climate change.

So despite VANOC's attempt at being environmentally friendly, it looks like these Olympic games might not be that green. And it's a responsibility that's weighing on everyone's shoulders, from event organizers to spectators. But, VANOC did managed to redeem their ailing carbon neutral program with a fun analogy. Saying that it's like setting out to cover the airline cost of a wedding party, but not taking into account the cost of all the unexpected guests that show up.

Day one.

I remember almost dropping a banana peel in the garbage once when I was younger. I say almost because one of my parents immediately jumped in to stop me. I also remember being the only kid in school who took the remainder of their lunch home at the end of the day because it was compost, not garbage. And I also remember spending hours picking up cigarette butts from my neighbor’s lawn and putting them in a container I so kindly made for them so they wouldn’t have to litter anymore. I even drew pictures all over it.

I suppose, that my respect for the earth is something that is deeply ingrained in me, so when choosing a topic for my school blog, the environment was of course my first pick.

Ultimately I hope that this blog will help to better explain the politically engaged environmental world, or failing that, to further infuriate others about the same subjects I care so deeply about.