More international shame for Canada, courtesy of you-know-who

When you have a dirty but lucrative product, it's apparently not enough to fail to sufficiently regulate it; you have to lobby other countries to stop them from using cleaner alternatives:

Three major departments in the federal government have been actively co-ordinating a communications strategy with Alberta and its fossil-fuel industry to fight international global-warming policies that “target” oilsands production, newly released federal documents reveal.

The documents, obtained by Postmedia News, suggest that Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, have collaborated on an “advocacy strategy” in the U.S. to promote the oilsands and discourage environmental-protection policies.

From the Montreal Gazette. Anyone still think Harper's government has any legitimacy?

Wasylycia-Leis presents environmental platform

A lot of this is just basic common sense, but by Winnipeg standards that's pretty darn good:

The former Winnipeg North MP pledged Friday if she's elected mayor next month, the city will offer small environmental-project grants to community groups, share the cost of placing bike racks outside of businesses, increase the tree-pruning cycle, create a local food-policy council and re-establish a formal environment committee at city council.

She also promised to fast-track the implementation of existing city environmental studies and reiterated her pledge to complete the Southwest Rapid Transit Corridor as a busway - and begin a second rapid-transit route, most likely from downtown to Transcona - within her first term as mayor.

From the Free Press. What's more, she is willing to talk about costs:

Small grants for schools or community groups wishing to create green rooftops or green alleyways would be capped at $1,000 per grant. No more than $75,000 would be spent on this program, she said.

Cost-sharing the placement of bike racks would cost $50,000. And increasing the tree-pruning schedule from the current 13-year cycle - and providing more grants to neighbourhood tree-banding projects - would add another $300,000 to Winnipeg's operating budget.

Interestingly, although the latest poll has Sam leading Judy 34%-20%, fully 40% of those polled are undecided. So this one really could go either way.

A little good news

Too often we've been getting bad news on the environmental front. However, this week there have actually been a few good news stories. Firstly, cod on the Grand Banks have recovered dramatically, though conservationists warn that it's too soon to reopen the fishery.

Secondly, a species thought to have been extinct since the mid 19th century has been rediscovered:

A 'mythical' fly has been rediscovered after 160 years.

Thought to be the first fly driven to extinction by humans, it was also considered one of Europe's few endemic animals to have disappeared for good.

The bizarre fly was considered 'mythical' due to its orange head, its preference for living on dead animal carcasses, and the fact it was rarely sighted even in the 19th Century.

The discovery of the fly living in Spain is "sensational", say scientists.

From the BBC. But perhaps the best news is this:

The protective ozone layer in the earth's upper atmosphere has stopped thinning and should largely be restored by mid century thanks to a ban on harmful chemicals, UN scientists said on Thursday.

The "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2010" report said a 1987 international treaty that phased out chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) — substances used in refrigerators, aerosol sprays and some packing foams — had been successful.

From the Telegraph. This is something to remember -- an international agreement to phase out a dangerous pollutant got positive results within 23 years. So maybe something can be achieved on the climate front too...

Decline of pollinators having an effect

Notwithstanding the potential breakthrough on colony collapse disorder, it's worth noting that even if that turns out to be successful, there are a lot of other problems facing pollinators in many parts of the world. Given this, it shouldn't be surprising that it's having an effect:

A decline in bees and global warming are having a damaging effect on the pollination of plants, new research claims.

Researchers have found that pollination levels of some plants have dropped by up to 50 per cent in the last two decades.

The "pollination deficit" could see a dramatic reduction in the yield from crops.

The research, carried out in the Rocky Mountains, Colorado, is the first to show that the effect is real and serves as a "warning" to Britain which if anything has seen an even greater decline in bees and pollinators.

"This serves as a warning to other countries," said Professor James Thomson at the University of Toronto, who carried out the research.

"For quite some time people have been suggesting that pollinators are in decline and that this could have an effect on pollination.

"I believe that this is the first real demonstration that pollination levels are getting worse. I believe it is a significant decline. I believe the pollination levels have dropped by as much as 50 per cent.

This is serious, as it could significantly affect the world's food supply if it happens in a lot of places. Interesting too is the explanation Thomson offers for the decline:

"Bee numbers may have declined at our research site, but we suspect that a climate-driven mismatch between the times when flowers open and when bees emerge from hibernation is a more important factor."

Interesting. So for instance if the bees come out of hibernation based on temperature, while the flowers opened based on some internal clock, any significant climate change could cause the bees to emerge too early to pollinate the flowers. Similar concerns have been raised about possible mismatches between emergences of boreal forest insects and the migrations of songbirds that prey on them. This could cause a decline in the birds and/or an increase in insect damage to the forest, with unpredictable results. Just another example of what a messy experiment we're conducting with the biosphere...

Bjørn Lomborg changes stance on climate change

Better late than never:

Self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" Bjørn Lomborg's call for a $100bn a year global fund for research into climate change solutions was today given a cautious welcome by some leading green groups and thinktanks, but was dismissed by others as politically naive.

A Greenpeace spokesperson welcomed the conversion but said it had come two decades too late for Lomborg to be taken seriously. "At least it confirms the happy maxim that nobody's wrong all the time, apart from Melanie Phillips at the Daily Mail," the spokesperson added.

"It appears that the self-styled sceptical environmentalist is beginning to become less sceptical as he enters middle-age," said Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Mike Childs, adding that Lomborg's volte face would come as a "blow to some in the climate sceptics community".

The controversial Danish statistician, who has never denied man's role in global warming but who has provided an intellectual cover for hard-line climate sceptics, has previously argued that countering climate change should be a low priority for governments. But in his new book Smart Solutions to Climate Change he argues that it should now be addressed "as a priority".

From the Guardian. It suggests that Lomborg has more intellectual honesty than many of us would have given him credit for. Good for him. Childs does raise one issue, though:

"But he is still dangerously attracted to pursuing the cheapest, more risky geo-engineering solutions, is putting too much faith in future technologies and R&D, and is not giving enough support to the urgent need to reduce current emissions through rapid deployment of existing solutions and behavioural changes."

On one level, I agree with Childs' suspicion of geo-engineering; on the other hand, I think that at this stage we'd be foolish not to investigate it. It's better to be working on reducing emissions, of course (especially since many geo-engineering approaches do little or nothing to actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and thus do not solve the ocean acidification problem). Nonetheless, there's a good chance we'll need it the way things are going with everything else, so we'd better be working on that too.

Parliamentary committee kills tar sands report

Kudos to the good folks at First Perspective who found this:

Meeting No. 25

Thursday, June 17, 2010

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development met in camera at 3:29 p.m. this day, in Room 209, West Block, the Chair, James Bezan, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: Scott Armstrong, James Bezan, Bernard Bigras, Blaine Calkins, Linda Duncan, David J. McGuinty, Christian Ouellet, Francis Scarpaleggia, Justin Trudeau, Mark Warawa, Jeff Watson and Stephen Woodworth.

Acting Members present: Alan Tonks for Justin Trudeau.

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Penny Becklumb, Analyst; Tim Williams, Analyst.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, the Committee resumed its study of the oil sands and Canada's water resources.

It was agreed, — That the Committee cease its study of the oil sands and Canada's water resources.

It was agreed, — That all circulated copies of the confidential draft report be returned to the Clerk of the Committee and destroyed (paper and electronic version).

It was agreed, — That any member of the Environment Committee be authorized to consult the one original copy of the draft report kept in the Committee Clerk's office.

At 4:59 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Since it was an in camera meeting, there's no info on why, or how individual MPs voted on the decision, but it's not too hard to guess.

Credit where credit is due

I'm not particularly keen on the Cameron-Clegg coalition in the UK, but they're doing the right thing here:

In a bold if lonely environmental stand, Britain’s coalition government has set out to curb the growth of what has been called “binge flying” by refusing to build new runways around London to accommodate more planes.

Citing the high levels of greenhouse gas emissions from aviation, Prime Minister David Cameron, a Conservative, abruptly canceled longstanding plans to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport in May, just days after his election; he said he would also refuse to approve new runways at Gatwick and Stansted, London’s second-string airports.

The government decided that enabling more flying was incompatible with Britain’s oft-stated goal of curbing emissions. Britons have become accustomed to easy, frequent flying — jetting off to weekend homes in Spain and bachelor parties in Prague — as England has become a hub for low-cost airlines. The country’s 2008 Climate Change Act requires it to reduce emissions by at least 34 percent by 2020 from levels reached in 1990.

From the New York Times. Conservatives around the world should take note -- even they can't continue to ignore environmental issues. How this will play out remains to be seen, but it could conceivably make it OK for conservatives to be environmentalists. And that can't be anything but a Good Thing, regardless of one's views on conservatism as a whole.

In fact, if you think about it, conservatives ought to be environmentalists. Few things are more destructive of traditional ways of living than famines and shortages.

Reasons to boycott BP

This is all rather academic for me, since there isn't BP station within a thousand kilometres of me. Still, it's worth a read, as are the comments, including this one:

Mary, I’m not so much concerned with FIXING the problem (which is impossible – there’ll be no return to status quo ante) as with providing the business schools with a valuable case study of how one of the world’s largest corporations destroyed itself for want of a nail.

Makes sense to me...

Did BP have advance warning of trouble?

There are reports (h/t oddlots at iTulip) to the effect that Schlumberger Ltd, a respected international consulting firm, warned BP about incorrect procedures shortly before the accident, only to have them ignored. How much of this is accurate is unclear. It is known that Schlumberger staff left the rig only a few hours before the explosion, but there are inconsistencies -- the Reuters story states that they left on a BP helicopter, while the stories making the stronger claims say that the Schlumberger folks, after their advice was allegedly ignored by BP, ordered in one of their helicopters after BP told them to wait for the next scheduled flight. Whatever the case, it's being taken seriously by some, as evidenced by the relative performance of BP's and Schlumberger's stocks:


No surprise here; the possible implications of this could be very unpleasant for BP. It's worth noting, of course, that stories aren't always true, even if you do see them on the Internet; we'll have to see where this goes.

The oil spill could be about to worsten dramatically

As bad as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is already, US authorities are looking at the possibility that it could become far worse:

A confidential government report on the unfolding spill disaster in the Gulf makes clear the Coast Guard now fears the well could become an unchecked gusher shooting millions of gallons of oil per day into the Gulf.

"The following is not public," reads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Emergency Response document dated April 28. "Two additional release points were found today in the tangled riser. If the riser pipe deteriorates further, the flow could become unchecked resulting in a release volume an order of magnitude higher than previously thought."

****

The worst-case scenario for the broken and leaking well pouring oil into the Gulf of Mexico would be the loss of the wellhead and kinked piping currently restricting the flow to 5,000 barrels -- or 210,000 gallons -- per day.

If the wellhead is lost, oil could leave the well at a much greater rate.

Source (h/t Rajiv in this iTulip thread). If that happens, this could have effects that reach far from the source of the problem. For instance, further down in the same thread, we_are_toast posted the following:

You people across the pond better get your paper towels ready. If the riser pipe fails and it takes 90 days to drill a relief well, you're in for a big surprise.

Yikes. And for further emphasis, a couple of posts down we have this:

As others in the thread have pointed out, this could be the oil industry's Chernobyl.

Where the Cons' priorities lie

Cabinet ministers often meet with various interest groups. Nothing wrong with that; it's part of their job. One would think, though, that if you're environment minister, meeting with, well, environmental organizations would be important. However, if you're a Conservative environment minister, the rules are rather different:

Canada's leading environmentalists say they're losing interest in lobbying federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice because the government has locked itself into an environmental policy "bunker" and is not giving their ideas serious consideration.

Meanwhile, according to the Registry of Lobbyists, representatives for big oil companies frequently lobby the minister, and appear to be a major source of policy advice on energy and climate issues.

Following a decade of consultations that have resulted in virtually no action on climate change, environmentalists are now questioning whether it is even worth their time to lobby the minister.

From the Hill Times (my bold in the quote above).

Conservation group accused of failing to see the forest for the trees

A British conservation organization, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, wants to clearcut woodlands composed of non-native tree species, in order to create the open heaths favoured by many declining species. The problem is, this may not be good for the country's carbon balance:

It is an all-too familiar scene of environmental destruction. Deep in a forest, heavy machinery has felled a giant swath of trees to leave bare scrubland and a handful of stumps as forlorn memorials. The timber has long gone and cattle now pick their way across the clearing.

But the scene of this environmental vandalism is not Indonesia or the Amazon; it is affluent Surrey. And those responsible are not illegal loggers, but one of Britain's largest and most influential conservation groups. If it has its way, a forest near you could be next for the chop.

"Scots pine, Corsican pine, Japanese larch. There are clues in the names. These trees are not native to southern England," says Mike Coates, a project manager with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

In a controversial move, the RSPB has set its sights on England's non-native woodlands, which it wants to demolish to find space to restore a different type of English habitat, the open and rugged heathland immortalised in the novels of Thomas Hardy. Dominated by heather and scrubby plants, such heathland is an increasingly rare sight in England, and so is the wildlife that relies upon it.

Coates says: "Woodland is very common compared with heathland. But re-creating heathland is so much better for wildlife than a conifer plantation. Lots of the birds that live in the conifer forests are common and can survive elsewhere. Heathland stuff needs heathland, and much of it is very rare."

From the Guardian. So who's right? I lean towards the critics; the fight against climate change is a matter of damage control at this point. Biodiversity isn't going to fare well if global temperatures increase too much, and the RSPB's efforts will be insignificant compared to the damage that could result. Certainly, efforts should be made to preserve existing heathland, though.

Looks like a banger really is greener than a Prius!

A lot of countries are considering schemes where people are paid cash to buy new, supposedly greener cars. Well, it is indeed true that newer cars produce fewer smog-producing emissions, and some of them are better on fuel, but even taking these into account this may not wash:

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is lobbying Mandelson to ape a German scheme and offer British motorists a £2,000 "cash-back" if they will scrap their old car and buy a new one. Just to help out the car-makers. Mandelson has let it be known he is considering the idea.

My Guardian colleague, George Monbiot, laid into this scam in his column this week. Yes, he says, modern cars are slightly greener than old bangers (though much of that gain is lost because we insist on buying more powerful vehicles). But that £2,000 could deliver far more emissions reductions if it were invested in public transport, or low-energy lightbulbs, or nuclear power plants or, well, almost anything else you care to mention.

But there is another aspect to this, raised briefly by George. What about the carbon footprint of manufacturing that new car? Here is where the real greenwash lies in the Mandelson plan for cash-back on old bangers. For apart from giving up the car altogether — which I recommend — the greenest thing you can do is to keep the old vehicle for as many extra years as you can manage.

From the Guardian. Of course, when the auto industry is crumbling, this is not a popular viewpoint, but from an environmental perspective those cash payments just don't wash.

China's future darkens

The boom seems to have ended there:

China’s exports fell for the first time in seven years, more evidence that recessions in the U.S., Europe and Japan are driving the world’s fourth-largest economy into a slump.

Exports declined 2.2 percent in November from a year earlier, the customs bureau said in a statement on its Web site today. Imports plunged 17.9 percent, pushing the trade surplus to a record $40.09 billion.

China’s leaders pledged “more forceful measures” to help small companies and create jobs in statements within hours of the trade report. The export collapse intensifies pressure on the government to add to last month’s steepest interest-rate cut in 11 years, extend a 4 trillion yuan ($581 billion) spending plan and let the yuan depreciate.

“The figures are horrifying,” said Lu Zhengwei, chief economist at Industrial Bank Co. in Shanghai. “Plunging imports show that on top of faltering global demand, domestic demand is also shrinking as the economy cools.”

From Bloomberg. The long term situation may be far worse, though, if this story is accurate:

Two new reports – one from the Chinese government, the other based on criteria developed by the United Nations – should be enough to scare every government, economist and investor in the world about the future of the Chinese economy, currently the one global bright spot.

The underlying question raised by these reports is this: How can a nation’s economy grow when its soil is rapidly eroding and its water is rapidly becoming so polluted that it isn’t just unsafe to drink. It’s even unsafe for fishing, farming and factory use.

In short, how can a nation’s economy grow when its ecosystems appear on the verge of collapse?

As reported late last month by Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, “A three-year investigation reveals almost 40% of China’s territory, or 3,569,200 square kilometers of land, suffers from soil erosion.” Reuters news agency put it this way: “Over a third of China’s land is being scoured by serious erosion that is putting crops and water supply at risk, a nationwide three-year survey has found.” The survey reportedly was carried out by China’s bio-environment security research team.

Thanks to meatball in this Kitco thread for the link. What will the consequences be for the rest of the world when a country with over a billion people (not to mention a substantial nuclear arsenal) finds that it can't feed itself?