Life in a Toxic Town (Letter)

Wpg Free Press May 2 '12
(Fort McMurray, Alberta)....this former small northern town is perhaps the most polluted and....Details here.

Exposures to the Pesticide Dursban, in Utero, Linked to Brain Abnormalities

Apr 30'12 San Francisco Chronicle

April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Babies exposed in the womb to a commonly used insecticide have brain abnormalities after birth, according to a study that looked at children born before the U.S. limited the chemical's use. Details here.

A "crop-duster" sprays Lorsban, (Dursban's "sister" chemical, sharing the same active ingredient, chlorpyrfos) on a canola crop in western Manitoba PLT photo.

Please also read: "Are Pesticide Regulators on the Take?" (See chlorpyrfos reference in section headed "So Who or What is to Blame?)

The Big Secrets of Canada's Big Banks

                                   Cdn Centre for Policy Alternatives - Apr 30 '12 David MacDonald

 Estimating government support for Canadian banks during the financial crisis. Read full story here.

PLT: Please also read: "How Ethical are Canada's Ethical Funds? Conscientious Investments and the Tar Sands Connection." 

Environmental Rules Should be Better, Not Easier

Science Matters by David Suzuki 

Few people would argue against making environmental review processes and regulations more efficient - as long as they're effective. But changes announced in the recent federal budget don't do that. Instead, they make it easier for the federal government and industry to push through projects that could harm the environment and the economy, and limit the ability of ordinary Canadian citizens to have a say in matters of national importance.

Big Boggy Creek, MB, a possible future "drain" for sewage effluent. PLT photo

Based on the budget announcement you'd think delays and duplication in the environmental review process are the biggest issues. They're not. As the Pembina Institute points out, the equivalent of one major oil sands mine has been approved in each of the past five years, and the pace is increasing. Some people, including former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed, suggest we'd benefit by slowing down - for economic and environmental reasons. When there are setbacks in the review process, they're often caused by industry's reluctance to provide timely data or by a lack of capacity within the government itself. The latter is getting worse as funding for basic monitoring and enforcement is subject to further cuts.


Eliminating environmental reviews for some projects altogether, shifting responsibility to the provinces, and severely cutting back on staff and agencies that provide management and information are not ways to make processes more efficient; they're ways to accelerate approval of major projects, making the short-term interests of industry a higher priority than protecting the air, land, and water we all need to stay healthy.

Vermillion River - Dauphin, MB. PLT photo

 Provincial regulations are not always consistent, they're often weaker than federal rules, and they don't necessarily take into account the impact of decisions in one province on people in others. Remember also that B.C. approved a mining company's proposal to destroy Fish Lake near Williams Lake, but a subsequent federal review rejected it.


Other changes that could profoundly affect the way industrial and environmental concerns are considered include a move to restrict participation in environmental hearings to those "directly affected" and a proposal to shift decision-making authority for major energy projects, including the Northern Gateway Pipeline, from the National Energy Board to the federal cabinet. This could mean these decisions will become increasingly political rather than based on the best scientific information, expert advice, and public concern.


A democratic government committed to openness and transparency will ensure our shared resources are used - or not - in a way that provides maximum benefit and minimum harm to its citizens. That requires listening to what experts, community members, and the organizations that represent them have to say. That's true regardless of whether those organizations speak for the interests of people who see the environment as a priority or those whose biggest concern is tax dollars.


Besides putting the environment and the human health that depends on it at risk, these changes to policy and regulation could actually make review processes more inefficient and time-consuming. If people lose trust, we could see more conflict and court challenges. Recently, the Nuxalk First Nation of Bella Coola withdrew from the Northern Gateway hearing - hereditary Chief Charlie Nelson argued that the government has already made up its mind to approve the project. Instead, aboriginal leaders say they will consider going to court to defend their rights and stop the project.


The government should work to make environmental rules more effective, improving efficiency as one of a number of objectives. A consultative and transparent process that engages a range of interests, information, and expertise would work best. The opportunity to achieve this was there when a parliamentary standing committee was charged with reviewing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act last year. But the Canadian Environmental Law Association says that process was rushed, poorly implemented, and anything but 'comprehensive' in nature.


We all want a free and democratic country with a healthy environment and strong economy. The best way to guarantee that is to encourage scientific research and knowledge, open discourse, and respect for a range of viewpoints. There are ways we can improve efficiency of decision-making, such as clearer environmental rules. Sometimes - but not always - it may take longer to reach a decision, but at least we'd be confident it is made in the best interests of all Canadians.


By David Suzuki with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Editorial and Communications Specialist Ian Hanington.

The May 2012 Insurrection

Adbusters , 26 Apr 2012

Hey you dreamers, strikers and new left redeemers out there, for thirty-one magical days beginning this Tuesday, May 1, we take the plunge and strike! Details here.

Occupy Winnipeg Oct.  2011 PLT photo

Climate Change Denial Should be a Deal-Breaker

By Andrew Mitrovica, The Ottawa Citizen April 26, 20

My brother, Jerry, is a genius. He will, I’m sure, be upset that I have publicly described him as such. But, brother, it’s true. Details here.

Today's Chuckle

(That's Harper in Black!) PLT

First Nations Resist Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline With Cross-Canada Freedom Train

Alexis Stoymenoff - Vancouver Observer - Apr 28th, 2012

The Yinka Dene Alliance departs on Monday for a nationwide journey on the Freedom Train, to storm Enbridge's AGM in opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline. Details here.

Crews Race to Contain Raging Grass Fires - Roblin Area has its Own, Close Call

By: Melissa Martin - Wpg. Free Press - Apr. 29'12
Plumes of smoke loomed over the southern Manitoba horizon on Saturday, as grass fires blossomed across the bone-dry prairie. Details here.

Above, Roblin's volunteer fire department gains the upper hand with a grass fire east of the west-central Manitoba town, after it burned dangerously close to buildings on Saturday. (PLT photos.)

'Agent Orange Corn' Debate Rages As Dow Seeks US Approval Of New Genetically Modified Seed

Posted: 04/26/2012 Huffinigton Post
WASHINGTON -- A new kind of genetically modified crop under the brand name of "Enlist" -- known by its critics as "Agent Orange corn" -- has opponents pushing….details here.
=====
PLT: Rest assured, Canadian "regulators" will be slavering at the prospect of rubber-stamping this Frankenfood here, as well!

The RM of Shell River Will be Told About New Technology for Waste Disposal. Will it Listen?

Dear Editor,

I'd like to extend a challenge to my local government, the Rural Municipality of Shell River. 
(Please read earlier story here.)

I'd like you to prove to myself and my community that you are living in the 21st century and determined to be the best that you can be. So far, you've been moving quietly ahead with plans to build a major, new, earthen sewage lagoon, using technology that is, at least, decades-old.

An expert in the field of waste treatment and water pollution, Prof. Bill Paton of Brandon University, says such lagoons "Do not perform well in Manitoba's climate. I have not found any Manitoba lagoons that meet effluent license requirements. Many of them also leak to groundwater!"

And a former potato farmer I have talked to, Al Baron, says he had to abandon his farm near Carberry years ago when expansion of a nearby lagoon contaminated his land, making it unfit to carry on as a producer.

You didn't tell us much about the project when we appeared before one of your Council meetings earlier this month.

Is there not better technology than the kind you are considering, we asked?  Well, not really. Maybe in Europe, was your vague reply.

Well, it turns out, there is a Manitoba company called Blue Diamond Technologies (BDT), which already has a system up and running, treating hog waste at a barn south of Winnipeg! Furthermore, this company believes its technology can apply to sewage, would be more environmentally friendly and even cheaper than the lagoon you are persuing at a possible cost of $2 million!

I've talked to an official of BDT myself. He says they are quite prepared to meet with your Council, to talk about this promising technology. 

I now understand you have agreed to hear from them at your next meeting.

I am encouraged by this. And I sincerely hope you will actually listen carefully to the presentation and treat it as more than just a formality.

While the lagoon may be built less than a mile upwind of our country home (we are not sure, since you won't tell us the results of the soil-tests done there), that is not really the point. I believe you owe our entire community your best efforts in doing this thing right, no matter where it goes.

As you have apparently held at least one in-camera meeting to discuss this, there are many other details that remain unanswered.

Has there been any kind of detailed study on the need for this project? (Rumours that it was needed to serve a new cottage subdivision being planned for Lake of the Prairies, seem to have been just that - rumours.)

While you do say a feasibility study is underway, you won't commit to making it public when it is finished.

Will there be an Environmental Impact Statement?

Will there be a public hearing?

You have not given us clear answers to any of these things.

On the one hand, we are told not to worry, because everything is "preliminary." On the other, you  are dropping hints that you need to proceed quickly because you may lose government infrastructure money, if you do not.

Which is it?

All I ask is that alternatives be considered more carefully than they appear to have been, to date.

Thank you.

Larry Powell
Roblin, MB