Death Threat Received by Opponent of Bedford Biofuels Tana Delta Project

We have been reporting on developments in the Kenyan Tana Delta related to a proposed Jatropha plantation by the Canadian company Bedford Biofuels. We stand with our BirdLife partner Nature Kenya in their concerns about the environmental and social impacts of this project. Over a month ago, we wrote to the Canadian government about our concerns, but we have not heard back.

Now, we are even more concerned to hear alarming news that opposition to the project is being met with violence in the form of a death threat, currently under investigation by the Kenyan police. From BirdLife International:

Mr. Hajj Idris Bakero, a religious leader in Garsen Division, received death threats, presumably for his opposition to a jatropha project in the area.

On September 9th 2011, his wife Hamida Kori found a black plastic bag at the main gate to her compound, in it was petrol in a small plastic bag, four rounds of ammunition for an M16 Gun, and a warning note.


Translated, the note warned the cleric not to continue “barking “about the project or else “these four bullets will get into your body, we will burn your wife and children with petrol so that your name disappears forever.” This threat has now been reported to the Kenyan Police.

Find out more here. And stay tuned.

Cairn Energy Oil Spill Response Plans Now Public

Responding to pressure from environmental groups around the world, Greenland has finally released Cairn Energy's oil spill response plans for public review.

Last month, Nature Canada joined 53 other international organizations – including Greenpeace, the David Suzuki Foundation, and Council of Canadians – in sending a letter to Greenland’s Prime Minister, Kuupik Kleist, expressing serious concern over the lack of transparency regarding Cairn’s operations in this unique and fragile region.

Bizarrely, the Greenland government argued it had been necessary to keep Cairn's contingency plans confidential until now because of the "unlawful actions aimed at the safety measures at oil exploration". Greenpeace has launched a number of protests at Arctic drilling operations over the past year.

Cairn's drilling operations -- which so far haven't yielded commercial amounts of oil and gas -- are a real gamble for the pristine wilderness of the Arctic. Walrus, seal, bowhead whale and polar bear habitats could be disrupted and entire remote communities wiped out if a toxic spill eliminates their means of subsistence living.

A spill in this region could be devastating to arctic seabird colonies feeding on the ice floes at Important Bird Areas along Nunavut’s northern coast, Baffin Island or as far south as Labrador. Ivory Gulls, Northern Fulmars, Black-legged Kittiwakes, Thick-billed Murres and many other seabird or water bird species would be at risk.

Cairn's oil spill response plans are being made public even as Shell has admitted that more than 200 tonnes of oil have entered the North Sea after a leak in a flow line leading to the Gannet Alpha oil platform 180 km off Aberdeen, Scotland.
 
In a wearily familiar refrain, the company had at first vastly underreported the scale of the leak, and as for plans to stop the flow? Apparently, the leak is in an "awkward" place, and there are hundreds of tonnes of additional oil in the pipeline, yet to pollute a world-famous colony of bottlenose dolphins in nearby waters.
 
Canada should heed these events and think long and hard before allowing any new offshore drilling, especially in the Arctic, and enact a plan to end our reliance on dirty, polluting fossil fuels in favour of responsible development of clean, renewable energy.

With each new spill, and each inadequate clean-up response, it becomes clearer that even with preventive measures in place, accidents are certain to occur, so it is important to identify places of great ecological significance and permanently protect them. Establishing a comprehensive system of marine and coastal protected areas is essential before development begins, so that irreplaceable natural habitats aren't lost forever to disastrous industrial accidents. Important Bird Areas and existing Migratory Bird Sanctuaries are good starting points to better protect habitats for birds that, in many cases, Canada shares with the rest of the hemisphere.

Report says it's time to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies

An oil pipeline stretches across
the landscape

Last week the Climate Action Network released a report on the billions of dollars in tax breaks that the Government of Canada hands out to oil, coal and gas companies each year -- and the problems this poses for attempts to address our changing climate and transition to a greener economy.

From the report, Fuelling the Problem:

By subsidizing fossil fuel producing companies the government is encouraging faster production and facilitating the rapid expansion of large fossil fuel projects such as the Alberta tar sands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution.

Globally, artificially low costs of fossil fuels have been shown to encourage wasteful consumption, distort energy markets, and allow for increased greenhouse gas pollution, thereby fueling the climate crisis. Subsidizing oil extraction also makes investments in oil more attractive compared to lower carbon, lower risk alternatives, thereby increasing the lock‐in of economies into fossil fuels.

In a time of fiscal constraint, the federal government could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in extra revenue by ending unfair tax breaks to some of the richest companies in the world. Eliminating handouts to oil and gas corporations operating in Canada would also help the country take a step towards a cleaner energy economy.

So why no action? Using leaked government memos, the report outlines a months-long strategy to downplay its responsibility to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, something all G20 countries agreed to do in 2009. According to the report, the Green Budget Coalition (in which Nature Canada is a member) has identified over $900 million in tax breaks to the fossil fuels industry that could be eliminated in the March 2011 federal budget.

Raising A Green Fledgling - Part 6 - Staying Green While Not Turning Blue...

Hello Readers!

This part of the series focuses on a very timely question - how do you stay warm when the weather starts getting colder?

Fall has descended upon Ottawa in the last couple of weeks, prompting my wife and I to dig out sweaters from the depths of our closet and to evict the patio furniture from the backyard. These and other aspects of 'hunkering down' for the winter made me think about how we and our green fledgling will stay warm during the next 6-8 months.

So how do I heat my home? Well, we have an oil furnace. Yup, oil. We live in a city where natural gas is widely available to homeowners but our home happened to be newly re-equipped for oil heat when we purchased it. Our furnace is less than 12 months old and has a high efficiency rating. We've also sought out and sealed drafts around our 50+ year old house and installed a programmable thermostat to reduce our overall energy consumption/costs for heating & cooling.

This series is all about how well my environmental values withstand the many demands - and conveniences - of modern-day parenthood. While home-heating is not a parenting issue, per se, how it is done absolutely influences one's environmental footprint. In fact, space heating in the home can contribute to 60% of residential energy consumption according to Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). After a series of posts on the things I think my wife and I are doing "well" to reduce our family's environmental footprint and connect our daughter to nature, I thought it timely to talk about something we can and should do better over time.

The Gulf of Mexico oil disaster is a poignant reminder of the risks associated with oil & gas extraction, hopefully catching the attention of anyone who heats with oil or gas, drives a vehicle, or purchases petrochemical products. Concurrent events like the Red Sea oil spill (June), China's Yellow Sea oil spill (July), the Enbridge pipeline rupture in Michigan state (July), Chevron's bid to explore offshore oil & gas in the arctic Beaufort Sea (Aug) and news of Tar Sands extraction impacts on the Athabasca River (Sept) remind us again and again of these risks.

The fuel and electricity that provides heat and hot water in my home (and possibly yours) come from somewhere, and I want to better understand their origins. That way I can make more responsible choices about how to reduce my family's environmental footprint by choosing greener, cleaner energy. Everyone should consider try this, particularly since we're using even more energy (derived from fuel combustion and other sources) in our homes over time... NRCan lists the following changes in energy consumption between 1990 and 2007 across the residential sector*:

Residential

• Water heating = 6.2% increase
• Space heating = 14.3% increase
• Lighting = 17.8% increase
• Other appliances (e.g., TVs, DVD players, personal computers) = 123.8% increase
• Space cooling = 166.5% increase

These increases can be attributed to numerous factors and don't directly reflect changes in fuel and electricity consumption. However, consumption is trending in an opposite direction than one would hope given the risks associated with how and where we get the raw energy sources from in the first place...

So here's the take-home message for this RAGF installment: How will you keep your family warm this winter? Do you know the origin of the fuel and/or electricity used to heat your home? Do you know the full environmental impacts associated with your home heating method? And if so, have you thought about how to reduce the negative impacts? Is your family interested in green energy alternatives?

For the record, there are a lot of 'greener' home heating alternatives available, including things like heat pumps, concentrated solar thermal power, geothermal energy, and energy sourcing alternatives like Bullfrog power. I won't expand on this topic for now since this discussion could be a post unto itself.

Stay tuned for the next post in the RAGF series. Check back every 2-3 weeks for new installments. And thanks for reading!


*Keep in mind that this is just a SAMPLE of all the sector-specific energy consumption stats available from NRCan - I encourage you to also check out the changes in energy consumption patterns that have occurred across the board.

Photo: A. MacDonald

Contaminants in the Athabasca River

A study, carried out by Dr. David Schindler and several of his colleagues from the University of Alberta, found high levels of mercury, lead and arsenic in the Athabasca River. Their findings challenge data found in government reports and are an indication that the tar sands industry has had a significant impact on the Athabasca River. Local fishermen have realized that migratory species such as ducks no longer land where they used to and have even found fish that were deformed or had lumps on them. The report will become available in the scientific journal 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science'.

The team has recommended that monitoring must be improved in order to properly assess and control the industry’s impact on the environment. In a press conference on Monday the Edmonton Journal reported Dr. Schindler saying:

"There's no way industry can be belching out hundreds of kilograms of toxins every year and this not be detectable in the environment unless the monitoring program is totally incompetent." ... All of this is in clear violation of the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act is not based on amounts released or concentrations in the river; it just says flatly that there will be no deposition of any deleterious substance to a river or near enough to a river to get into it. Period. ... You have to ask where is Environment Canada on all of this? ... You have to wonder why do we have money for propaganda and not for proper science? Government has been putting money into their propaganda campaign to tell people everything is OK. I just think that's not the way democracy should work. If people can see what's really going on and they still choose to develop in the oilsands that's democracy. But making people think that everything's OK when it really isn't and therefore getting them to agree to this is not the way the government of this country or this province was set up to work.

Both the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) and Alberta Environment are challenging Dr. Schindler's results. Alberta Environment would like to look at supplementary data before making comparisons and Fred Kuzmic from RAMP has said that such high levels are 'associated with naturally occurring compounds'. According to Dr. Schindler, RAMP, an industry led group overseeing the river's water quality, should be replaced with Environment Canada.

Help Nature Canada stop the tar sands from expanding and destroying significant habitat for wildlife by signing our letter to Prime Minister Harper.

Canadian Hottie Speaks up for Boreal Forest

I have always been a fan of Canadian actor Ryan Reynolds, who is best known for feature roles in movies such as Van Wilder, Definitely Maybe, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and many others. Oh, and did I mention he was named one of People Magazine's Sexiest Men Alive in 2008 and 2009? Well now I have one more reason to adore him (aside from his notorious six pack). Ryan is an advocate for clean energy and greater investment in renewable energy sources. He realises that the real price of oil isn’t the one listed on the billboard at the gas station, but the one that takes into account the total environmental and human costs of oil production. Ryan recently shot a video for the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) entitled, The True Cost of a Gallon of Gas. In the video Ryan urges the public to petition the American government to pass clean energy and climate legislation. He also reminds us that we face similar challenges in Canada:

I didn't grow up in Louisiana, and I can imagine those who did are even more passionate about cleaning up this mess than the rest of us. I grew up in Canada, where we have a similar tragedy being carried out right now: the ancient boreal forest in Northern Alberta is being destroyed to collect dirty tar sands oil. Oil that generates three times the global warming pollution as regular crude. As a result, entire ecosystems and indigenous communities are being devastated.

You can join our campaign to protect the Boreal Forest by signing a petition and voicing your concerns about the tar sands. Or you can tell Canada’s elected officials what they need to do to prevent an oil spill disaster in Canada.

Gulf Spill Lessons Not Heeded by Canadian Government

Yesterday BP and the US government announced that the oil spill in the Gulf has been tamed, more than three months after oil began gushing into the sea. Capped a few days earlier, their latest reports are that about 75% of the almost five million barrels of oil that spewed into the Gulf had been eliminated – roughly 25% was “dispersed”, 25% had evaporated and 25% was scooped up by all of those barges. That leaves only about 1.25 million barrels, about five times more than the Exxon Valdez spilled into Prince William Sound in Alaska 20 years ago.

The so-called dispersed oil is turning up in water and sand samples at toxic levels, but officials are not talking about this. It appears as if the “out of sight, out of mind” approach is taking hold. In fact, a seemingly contradictory federal report released Wednesday indicated that roughly half of the more than 200 million gallons (750 million litres) of oil that gushed from the well before it was capped could still be in the gulf environment in some form as tiny dispersed droplets, tar balls, surface slicks or oil buried in sand and ocean sediment.

Yet even as the clean-up efforts continue, it seems that Canada’s government is ignoring some of the lessons of the Gulf disaster.

Today, the Globe and Mail reports that Chevron has been awarded rights to explore a 205,000 hectare deep water parcel in the Beaufort Sea for oil by Canada’s department of Indian and Northern Affairs. This award was granted despite the National Energy Board’s hearings that have yet to start on Arctic offshore drilling, called in response to the Gulf oil disaster.

Chevron and its buddies, including Exxon and BP, were pressuring our government to further relax our already lax regulations for drilling onshore in Canada’s Arctic by removing the requirement for companies to demonstrate capacity to drill same-season relief wells. They argue that they have a new technology that makes the relief well unnecessary.

Heard this before? Can you imagine a Gulf-like leak in the Beaufort with its very small ice-free window – Mackenzie delta nearby, birds, sea mammals, fisheries, and indigenous communities that live off the sea and the land?

This is exactly the wrong approach Canada should take to development in the North.

Now is not the time to relax offshore drilling regulations. Rather than do away with the requirement to have advance plans for drilling relief wells in case of a spill, oil companies should be required to actually have relief wells in place before working wells are built. Also, blow-out preventers of the type that failed in the Gulf should be tested regularly.

Unlike the United States, Norway and Britain, Canada lacks a regulatory process governing whether or where oil and gas development can happen in the Arctic. Licenses are granted, and contracts signed with oil and gas companies before any environmental assessment by the NEB takes place.

The result: exploratory licenses exist in environmentally sensitive areas in the Beaufort Sea, where a blowout would have immediate negative effects on the delicate ecosystems there.

Strict regulations, and the will to adhere to them, are absolutely essential for safe, sustainable oil and gas development off of Canada's shores, and in the Arctic.

Canada's Birds Feel the Impact of BP Oil Spill - Profile #5

This is the fifth species profile in this series highlighting migratory birds that may be at risk during their fall migration through the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Northern Gannet

With its striking plumage – pure white with black wingtips and bold lines around blue eyes – it is hard to miss the Northern Gannet. This remarkable species spends most of its life at sea and nests in a few large colonies in the North Atlantic. It feeds by plunge-diving up to depths of 22 metres in pursuit of fish.

Most adults had already made their migration north, away from the Gulf, in April before the oil spill began. However, juvenile gannets remain in those dangerous waters and were among the first avian victims of the spill. The fall migration back to the Gulf occurs in October. There is no way of knowing whether the effects of the spill will be cleaned up by then, but the damage to the species' future has already been done.

Read more of Nature Canada's commentary on the Gulf oil spill.

Canada's Birds Feel the Impact of BP Oil Spill - Profile #4

This profile is the fourth in the series highlighting Canadian migratory species that may be in harm's way as they migrate through the Gulf of Mexico and the area affected by the BP oil spill this fall.

Sanderling

The Sanderling is one of the most widespread shorebirds in the world. This small, plump sandpiper can often be seen running along the coast in flocks. Sanderlings feed by probing the sand along the tideline with their bills, chasing after receding waves to pick up stranded crustaceans and molluscs.

An Arctic breeder, this species is common all along North American coasts during migration. Their spring migration, from late April through May, fell right at the start of the oil spill in the Gulf. Waves that formerly deposited food on the beach to fuel the rest of their journey instead deposited sticky slicks of oil that stained the birds a rusty orange.

For those individuals that did make it to their breeding habitat in the Arctic, the fall migration back south takes place through July and August for adults and lasts through August and September for juveniles. As the spill continues to spread away from its epicentre in the Gulf, more of the American coast that these birds will use as stop-overs on their journey to wintering habitats in Central and South America is becoming toxic.

Read more of Nature Canada's commentary on the Gulf oil spill.

Canada's Birds Feel the Impact of BP Oil Spill - Profile #3

This is the third bird profile in the series highlighting species that may be at risk from the BP oil spill during their fall migration from Canada through the Gulf of Mexico.


Yellow Rail (Special Concern)


Small, with buff, yellow and black plumage that mimics the tall grasses it hides in, the Yellow Rail breeds in isolated pockets across Canada's boreal forest. This marshbird, the second-smallest rail in North America, is rarely seen and quite secretive, but depends on the coastal wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico during the winter.

If oil begins to accumulate in the marshes along the Gulf coast, recovery would be difficult or impossible since so little is known about this species.

Read more of Nature Canada's commentary on the Gulf oil spill.


Photo by Dominic Sherony

Canada's Birds Feel the Impact of BP Oil Spill - Profile #2

This profile is the second in a series highlighting some of Canada's migratory species that may be affected by the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Roseate Tern (Endangered)

The Roseate Tern is similar in appearance to several other species of tern, with its black cap and long forked tail, but has a distinctive chi-vik or ki-rik call. This species feeds by plunge-diving, dropping into the water from heights of up to 12 metres to catch small fish.

These terns pass through the Gulf of Mexico, heading north in April to breeding sites in Nova Scotia and coastal New England, and south in September to wintering grounds in South America. If oil remains on the water when their fall migration begins, the birds are at risk of becoming oiled and ingesting oil as they try to feed. Even if the surface effects of the spill have been cleaned up, they may still be at risk from eating contaminated fish.

Read more of Nature Canada's commentary on the Gulf oil spill.

Canada's Birds Feel the Impact of BP Oil Spill - Profile #1

The BP oil spill began during spring migration season for many birds that breed in Canada during the summer, and with oil continuing to spill into the Gulf, the coming fall migration seems poised to be a dangerous time for Canada's migratory birds. This weekly series of profiles will highlights some of the species most likely to be in harm's way.

Piping Plover (Endangered)

In Canada, this small, sandy-coloured shorebird breeds on open sandy beaches of lakeshores, river sandbars, ocean coasts, and alkali flats in scattered locations on the Atlantic coast, on the Great Lakes and in the prairies. Its plumage would seem to blend right in, if not for the bright orange legs. They often walk or run along the sand, rather than flying, to take advantage of this camouflage. Piping Plovers feed on marine worms or small crustaceans by a series of rapid steps and pecks on the sand.

Piping Plovers spend their winters mainly on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, Mexico and Cuba, particularly on beaches, mudflats, sandflats, bays, lagoons and inlets. Their spring migration peaks during mid-April; while many individuals would have already left the Gulf when the leak at Deepwater Horizon began, some may have been caught in the spill.

Although the fall migration peaks in August and September, plovers can begin to leave their breeding grounds as early as June or July if nest conditions have been unfavourable. These birds are heading straight to a region where their habitat and food sources may have been compromised and are still at risk from oil contamination.




Read more of Nature Canada's commentary on the Gulf oil spill.

The Gulf Oil Spill is a Disaster that Can't be Repeated

On April 20, the world awoke to a developing tragedy triggered by an explosion on BP's Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Recent estimates put the total amount of the spill between 160 million and 320 million litres so far, more than four times the amount of the Exxon Valdez spill. We still don't know when the flow of oil into the Gulf will stop.

Oil has already reached a dozen Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. The oil has damaged coastal grasses and sea grass beds that are vital nursery grounds for fish and shrimp and provide habitat for numerous other animals and plants. The loss of these critical sources of food could have devastating consequences for many bird species that depend on the Gulf coast region.

You can get up to date information on the oil spill's path on the National Audubon Society's website, as well as first-hand accounts of clean-up efforts underway.

In just a few short weeks, the first migratory birds will begin their journey south from Canada to their wintering grounds in South and Central America. Many of them rely on the impacted region to gather and feed during their journey.

As birds arrive in the disaster zone, the oil spill will affect them in a number of ways:

• An inability to fly due to oiled feathers
• Hypothermia induced by oil on their feathers
• Poisoning from ingesting oil while preening
• Poisoning from eating other contaminated wildlife
• Disturbances during rescue efforts

It will be months, if not years, before the full impacts of this oil spill are known. In some cases, we may never know the extent of the effects on particular species.

What lessons can Canada learn from this disaster?

The tragedy unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico is a reminder that offshore oil drilling is never safe for the environment or for the communities along our coasts. Oil in the water is dangerous for fisheries, wildlife and ecosystems no matter where it happens.

Perhaps the greatest danger lies in drilling in the Arctic region. A spill in the Arctic would have devastating consequences for the region's fragile wildlife and ecosystems, and no technology exists that could clean up a spill in so inhospitable an area. The techniques deployed in the Gulf – even there not nearly successful – would be useless in the Arctic.

Just weeks before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster, BP was actively lobbying the Canadian government to ease some of the planned rules for Arctic Ocean oil and gas exploration, and had already acquired three offshore exploration licenses for the Canadian Beaufort Sea.

Unlike the United States, Norway and Britain, Canada lacks a regulatory process governing whether or where oil and gas development can happen in the Arctic. Licenses are granted, and contracts signed with oil and gas companies before any environmental assessment takes place. The result: exploratory licenses exist in environmentally sensitive areas like the Beaufort Sea, where a blowout would have immediate negative effects on the delicate ecosystems there.

The disaster in the Gulf is a wake-up call. It is time to place a moratorium on new offshore drilling, including the Arctic, and to end our reliance on dirty, polluting fossil fuels in favour of responsible development of clean, renewable energy.

In the near term, no new exploratory licenses should be granted and no applications approved until the National Energy Board completes its review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements. A moratorium should also be in place until an independent commissioner is appointed to hold a review of offshore drilling on all of Canada's coasts.

And of course, a permanent ban should be in place prohibiting any oil and gas drilling inside a recognized protected area, and that prohibits any future exploration licenses from being granted within protected areas.

What has happened in Gulf is truly tragic; the Canadian government and industry should do all it can to put the environment and worker safety first so that a similar disaster doesn't happen off Canada's shores.

Enbridge Insists on Pipeline Project to the BC Coast

On April 20, the world awoke to news concerning BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Most of us, myself included, weren’t even aware that there was a oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, let alone that something had gone terribly wrong. Today, most of us have clued in on the rig and its resulting oil spill and are reminded of another tragedy, the Exxon Valdez, once considered the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters...until BP’s Deepwater Horizon.

Five weeks following BP’s Deepwater Horizon, Enbridge filed a formal application to the National Energy Board (NEB) requesting permission to build a twin pipeline system running from Edmonton to Kitimat, British Colombia and a marine terminal in the latter one.

John Carruthers, President of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, wrote in a recent brochure advocating the pipeline project: “I certainly appreciate the importance that local residents place on the environment and I want to encourage all affected stakeholders and Aboriginal people to continue to provide feedback on our project.” He added “feel free to email me at john@northerngateway.ca with any questions you may have.” So feel free, many already have.

On March 23, more than 28 First Nations in British Columbia called for a halt to the project. The pipelines cross traditional lands and the increased tanker traffic (200-220 tankers a year) puts the future of the coastal waters on which they depend in potential jeopardy. Mr. Carruthers must have missed their emails as two months after the First Nations called for a halt to the project Enbridge formally filed, on May 27^th, for construction of the pipelines.

Four days after the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines application, a solidarity rally was held in Kitamaat Village to protest the project. Even Amnesty International has 'piped' in, noting the project should not proceed without the free prior informed consent of the First Nations that would be affected by it. This standard was adopted in the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by 144 states. Four states voted against the declaration: Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and you guessed it...Canada.

To further spice up the mix, a rather unusual ally in the fight against the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines has emerged. Kinder Morgan Canada, owner of an existing oil pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast, stated in a news release that the Northern Gateway Project had not demonstrated adequate commercial support. Kinder Morgan believes that the better way is simply to increase the output of their own pipeline, rather than build another one. Kinder Morgan motives albeit not environmental, only add to the debate.

We at Nature Canada are opposed to the Enbridge Northern Gateway project because of the risk of an oil spill in the coast and the damage it would cause to the ecosystem and to livelihoods. We believe Greenpeace said it best, “Accidents happen. If oil tankers are brought to the Great Bear Rainforest, it’s not a question of if a spill will occur; it is a question of when, where, and how large. . . When you move oil, you spill oil. No amount of technology or process can eliminate human or mechanical error.” Just look at the Gulf!

This blog post was contributed by Nature Canada volunteer Stefan Kohut. Thanks for the insight, Stefan!

Photo by Pat Moss

Wind Farm on Wolf Island is killing large numbers of birds and bats

Stantec Consulting Inc. has just released a very important study on post construction impact of a wind farm with 86 2.3 megawatt wind turbines on Wolf Island near Kingston, Ontario on birds and bats. The data on which the assessment was made was collected between July 1 and December 31, 2009, or the "reporting period."

In short, the result of the monitoring reveals shockingly high numbers of fatalities of both birds and bats. Here are the facts stated in the report: over 600 birds were killed, equivalent to 6.99 birds per turbine for the "reporting period", and 1278 bats, or 14.7 per turbine. The reporting period was six months and did not include the massive pulse of birds in the spring migration or wintering raptors. The casualties included 8 Bobolinks, 28 Tree Swallows, 7 Purple Martins, 3 Red-tailed Hawks, 6 Turkey Vultures, 2 American Kestrels and a Merlin, among other species. Bat fatalities included 54 Hoary Bats, 44 Eastern Red Bats and 36 Silver-haired Bats. It is interesting and very troubling to note the selective impact these turbines are inflicting on certain groups of animals, such as the aerial insectivorous birds like swallows and martins which are in serious population declines, raptors, and migratory bats.

The Stantec report converted the fatality rate into birds or bats per megawatt per reporting period, rather than the more standard birds or bats than per turbine per year as is traditionally used. This reporting technique, that I would call spin, diminishes the shockingly high impact of these structures. As turbines get bigger and more efficient at generating energy, our tolerance for their impact increases, according to this flawed logic.

Many proponents of wind power, including CANWEA, quote studies that cite two birds per turbine per year as the impact of turbines. Indeed it was birds and bats per turbine per year that was the standard metric used for reporting impact. If we see through the spin of the report in using birds/bats per megawatt per "reporting period", there is no denying the impact of this project is too high and beyond tolerance.

In the meantime, Prince Edward County, including the globally significant Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area, Amherst Island, Wolf Island (both Important Bird Areas), offshore locations near the Duck Islands, and many areas along Lake Erie and elsewhere in the Country have either existing or proposed wind farms. We hope that this report, and the stir it will cause, will wake up those agencies charged with protecting our wildlife to put brakes on the chaotic expansion of wind farms into places that they clearly should avoid. Wind energy is a good idea. Let's "keep good ideas in good places." In the wrong places - Important Bird Areas and migration corridors for example - wind energy is a bad idea and our wildlife, which does not have a voice, continues to pay the price for our lack of foresight and greed. I fear that the Stantec report will be the first of many that will chronicle this sad legacy that we are creating.

Photo credit:
Merlin by Marty Burke

Get Trim and Lean while Making your Building Green

It’s not always easy to live green or have that beach-ready body you’ve been dreaming about. Well now you can rest easy because you can do your part for the environment whilst reaching your fitness goals. Environmentally friendly gyms have been popping up a little bit everywhere lately. Even basketball superstar Steve Nash has gotten into the green fitness business.

These eco-friendly gyms are built or retrofitted to comply with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) standards or are Greenguard certified. Commonalities between these green gyms include rubber flooring made from recycled car tires, roof-top solar thermal water panels, the use of locally available materials that contain recycled material, energy-efficient appliances and fitness equipment, biodegradable cleaning products and low-toxin [VOC-free] materials.

One gym in particular has pushed the envelope when it comes to green gyms. Go Green Fitness (Orange, CT), which opened last December retrofitted its 25 spinning bikes to generate energy. Each bike is equipped with a generator that creates electricity that is fed through a converter box and into a local grid and each spinning class ends with the announcement of the total wattage produced.

Hopefully this green fitness trend will continue to grow and we’ll have new green innovations to promote.

Wind energy assault poised for major bird flyway in Southern Ontario.

On Saturday March 27, in Leamington, Kingsville and Harrow, Ontario, Southpoint Inc, a wind energy company based out of Leamington, is holding public meetings on its proposal to build over 700 offshore wind turbines between Rondeau Provincial Park and Holiday Beach Important Bird area on Lake Erie, and off the southern shore of Lake St Clair.

These developments are within, or proximate to, a cluster of globally significant Important Bird Areas (IBAs) including world famous Point Pelee IBA, Greater Rondeau IBA, Holiday Beach/Big Creek IBA, Pelee Island Archipeligo, and Eastern Lake St. Clair IBA. This area is a rare a point of convergence of the Atlantic and Mississipi flyways, the major bird highways followed by hundreds of millions of birds flying north into central and northern Canada in the spring and south after the breeding season in the fall, in some cases as far away as Tierra del Fuego.

In other words, the area where the wind turbine density will be highest is perhaps the most significant migratory pathway in inland North America. Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair are also prone to severe weather and fog, which are conditions that are known to amplify the potential for migrating birds to collide with structures like wind turbines.

In addition to these concerns for birds, local residents, including officials from all levels of government, are opposing this proposal over fears of contamination of drinking water from the turbine installations. Construction activity will disturb the bottom sediments of the lakes which contain extremely high levels of toxins and known carcinogens from heavy industries upstream.

Due to the nature of the Ontario Government’s Green Energy Act, the door is wide open to encourage green energy. While this piece of legislation is certainly laudable, it can do as much damage as good if not applied thoughtfully and with care to protect biodiversity and cultural values like clean water.

We believe that in fairness to the wind industry, wind industry companies should not be wasting their resources on proposals and undertaking justification studies in areas where clearly the projects would undermine biodiversity and cultural values. Clearly, the Southpoint proposal would do this as it is currently framed. The Province needs clear policy on where wind energy is to be encouraged and where it must be excluded.

Concerning off-shore turbines in the Great Lakes, it must also be remembered that the Great Lakes are a shared resource with the United States of America. Several states border the Great Lakes and share the waters. Michigan already has guidelines with regard to offshore wind installations that, if applied in Ontario, would render the Southpoint project entirely unfeasible.

We cannot have a pell-mell approach to industrializing this common resource with one jurisdiction upholding high protection standards and another lacking in standards. The International Joint Commission was established for this exact reason, yet proposals like Southpoint’s are forging ahead and the provincial government appears to be averting its gaze from international obligations.

We encourage those living within range of these meetings to attend and express opposition to the proposals.

We implore Southpoint to withdraw its 1400 megawatt wind project from Lake Erie and Lake St Clair.

We encourage the Government of Ontario to re-establish a moratorium on offshore turbines until a clear policy that protects biodiversity and cultural values from industrial wind farms and other “green energy” initiatives is adopted.

Finally, we urge the province of Ontario and the Federal government to thoroughly consider the consequences of offshore wind installations in the Great Lakes within the context of its international obligations and expectations through treaties, conventions and the International Joint Commission.

Nature Canada Pipes Up Against Enbridge

Twenty-one years ago, the Exxon Valdez ran aground, spilling 40 million litres of crude oil into Prince William Sound and causing irreversible damage. Now, Enbridge wants to bring the same risk to B.C.'s pristine coastal waters and rainforest.

The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline would carry oil from the tar sands to a port at Kitimat, B.C. Supertankers fed by the Enbridge pipeline would travel the same waters where the Queen of the North ferry sank in 2006.


Nature Canada is one of over a hundred signatories - including First Nations, businesses and prominent Canadians - to an open letter opposing the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and crude oil tanker traffic in BC's northern coastal waters. The risk oil spills pose to First Nations, communities and the environment is too great.

Add your voice and pipe up against Enbridge by sending a letter to Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel today.

Mackenzie and Suffield: Opportunities for Sustainability?

The Joint Review Panel of the Mackenzie Gas Project spent two years writing a report that optimistically and ambitiously set out the conditions under which the Panel believes the basin-opening project could be the basis for sustainable development in the Mackenzie Valley and Delta.

The report tackles the big picture issues and many of its recommendations aim to mitigate negative cumulative impacts and maintain a high standard of care for future developments. If all the 176 report recommendations were to be fully implemented, perhaps the project could be a positive thing. But the chances for that are looking slim.

The National Energy Board responded last week to the Joint Review Panel's recommendations by rejecting the integrated approach to sustainability the Panel recommended. Despite claiming in November 2009 that it's taking a sustainability approach, the NEB seems inclined to taking a narrow approach to the Mackenzie Gas Project. The NEB can still reconsider after its hearings in April and the federal and territorial governments have yet to respond to the Panel's recommendations, so a commitment to sustainability might still prevail.

Yes, I'm trying to be positive today.

Another place where an opportunity to do the right thing is waiting to be seized is Suffield National Wildlife Area, or perhaps I should say EnCana's headquarters. As readers of this blog are aware, EnCana has applied to drill an additional 1,275 gas wells within Suffield National Wildlife Area. But why does EnCana still want to drill there? In North America, proven reserves of natural gas have increased substantially in the past two years, so the time may be just right for EnCana to abandon further drilling within Suffield National Wildlife Area. Read more here. And stay tuned, we'll continue to report on both energy projects, as well as the Northern Gateway.

Image: CFB Suffield by Cliff Wallis

The Mackenzie Gas Project: Your Say

Last week, we told you that Nature Canada has submitted its final comments about the Mackenzie Gas Project to the National Energy Board. We also wanted to know your thoughts about the project.

Our most recent quick poll asks: Do you think construction of the Mackenzie Gas Project should proceed?

Overwhelmingly, the responses have been no - the Mackenzie Valley should be off-limits to large-scale industrial development (84% of responses). A further 13% of respondents believe that the project would be acceptable if all 176 recommendations of the Joint Review Panel are implemented to reduce damage to the environment and provide lasting benefits to the people living in the area. Only 3% of the responses indicate that construction should proceed regardless of its impacts because the project is an important source of revenue for the northern economy.

We also asked how you would feel if natural gas from the pipeline was used to expand tar sands operations.

Most responses agreed with this statement that "gas from the pipeline should absolutely not be used to expand tar sands operations."

Among the concerns expressed was the worry that, even if all the recommendations were implemented, there could still be environmental impacts:

"I think it would be a gross misuse of an energy resource, and a massive environmental insult. And the construction of the pipelines, roadways and other infrastructures will cause unforeseen problems to local peoples and wildlife."

Many responses also suggested that the money being directed towards oil and gas development could be better spent on alternative energy sources:

"I would prefer to see alternative energies from wind, solar and tidal sources receive as much investment as is given to tar sands development. Bolster that which is sustainable, not that which is destructive, harmful."

"We need to tap alternate, less invasive energy sources. Pristine habitat is rare in our world and we should be doing everything to protect what is left for the other billions of creatures with which we share this planet."

The overall feeling of the responses can be summed up with this one:

"The pipe line should not be built - we need to preserve the land free from development. If the gas from the pipe line were used to develop the tar sands it would be a double assult on our natural environment."

Your support provides direction for our work. If you haven't made your voice heard yet, why not vote now? Or, check out some of our other quick polls to share your thoughts.