David Suzuki's Blog, page 13

David Suzuki Foundation calls for swift action on broken environmental assessment process

VANCOUVER -- Following extensive public consultation, an expert panel released recommendations today on how to improve Canada's environmental assessment process. They call for a more participatory, fair, comprehensive and scientific process for environmental assessments in Canada.

"The federal government instructed this expert panel to review Canada's environmental assessment law to identify what is needed to restore public trust in the process," said David Suzuki Foundation senior science and policy advisor John Werring. "The panel has done that in spades. We encourage government to implement the panel's recommendations as soon as possible."

In 2016, thousands of Canadians submitted comments to the panel, calling for significant changes that would address critical issues such as Indigenous rights, climate change, public participation and cumulative effects. The environmental assessment process is critical to ensuring that projects such as pipelines, mines and dams are held to rigorous standards.

Notably, the report recommends incorporating a climate lens into environmental assessment decision-making, an important step toward transitioning to a low-carbon future. Until now, a major problem has been that decisions concerning major energy projects have been at odds with Canada's national commitment to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Missing from the panel's recommendations is a widespread call to ground environmental assessment in a rights-based approach. "More than 110 countries legally recognize their citizens' right to a healthy environment, but not Canada. We believe the next generation of environmental assessment must include this right as a guiding principle," Werring said.

30

For more information, please contact:

John Werring

Senior Science and Policy Advisor, David Suzuki Foundation

Email: jwerring@davidsuzuki.org

Cell: 604-306-0517

Resources:

Government release on EA Reform Process

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Marine protected areas are one piece of a complex puzzle

(Credit: John Murphy via Flickr)

The federal government recently created two marine protected areas in the Pacific region and has committed to increase ocean protection from one per cent to 10 by 2020. But will this be enough?

Canada has the longest coastline of any nation, but our country doesn't end at its ocean shores. With a 200-nautical-mile economic zone and international obligations, Canada is responsible for almost three million square kilometres of ocean, an area roughly the size of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba combined.

Although that's a big area, thinking of the ocean in square kilometres is just skimming the surface. The ocean isn't just a cold, wet seascape blanketed by howling winds. Below the surface, life thrives throughout the water column, top to bottom, warm or cold, winter or summer.

Northern aquatic food webs are rich with creatures of all shapes and sizes, from tiny plankton, urchins and sea stars to fish, orcas and sea lions. That the world's largest living creature ever, the blue whale, feeds on some of the smallest, plankton, is astonishing in itself. Yet the plankton thread in the food web doesn't end in the whale's stomach; whale poop is also a critical part of the marine food web, cycling nutrients from the surface to creatures at the bottom.

The way otters keep kelp forests healthy by eating sea urchins is one of myriad interconnected relationships in Canadian coastal waters. Although barnacles and clams live in a single location, some whales and fish travel thousands of kilometres within a single season. Salmon don't even have the ocean as a boundary, swimming far inland to spawn.

How can we understand and manage such complex systems? Natural cycles in Canada's coastal waters include currents, tides, upwellings, migrations and seasons. Trying to predict how multiple factors like pollution, industrial fishing, climate change, ocean acidification, glass sponge reefs, ships, rights and title claims, kayakers, recreational fishing lodges and renewable energy sites will interact with these cycles is becoming increasingly more complicated, and important, than ever. With all these uncertainties and complexities, how can we know if marine protected areas are effective?

To understand how creating a refuge works, let's go back to a simple 1936 study of an "ecosystem." It was a test tube with two microscopic single cell species, prey and predator. In that oversimplified ecosystem, the predatory species ate the prey, and then died because, without prey, they could not survive.

Putting material in the test tube so the prey could hide and multiply changed everything, creating a variety of unpredictable outcomes. However, one pattern emerged: It was far more likely that both prey and predator would survive.

Expanding the concept to marine protected areas, this simple experiment bodes well for one top predator (humans) and prey (fish). Even though science can't predict whether protected areas will help specific stocks increase, evidence suggests they show promise as "nurseries" for fish and other ocean wildlife and can provide a buffer against our lack of understanding.

Canada's two new Pacific marine protected areas shield magnificent, fragile glass sponge reefs near Haida Gwaii and important seabird nesting sites on the Scott Islands. Safeguards are in place to protect the glass sponge reefs and the countless species that use them for refuge. However, current protections for the area surrounding the Scott Islands are too vague to reduce threats to the millions of seabirds that depend on the forage area to breed and feed.

The federal government deserves credit for beginning to develop a network of marine protected areas. They're an essential part of keeping ocean ecosystems healthy, but they must have meaningful safeguards. Protected areas are just one aspect of keeping coastal ecosystems healthy. Responsible stewardship also requires effective fisheries management, strong penalties for polluters and a global carbon emissions reduction.

With pollution, climate change and increased shipping and development along Canada's coast, it's more important than ever to reduce the risks to ecosystems that provide us with the fish we eat, the air we breathe and the bounty of nature we love. Marine protected areas on their own won't be enough to do all that, but with strong regulations and safeguards, they're one piece of the intricate, multidimensional puzzle.

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

How to tell a bee from a wasp from a fly

The Syrphid fly or hover fly has two wings, large eyes and short antenna. They are good pollinators and the larvae eat pest insects. They do not sting or bite. (Credit: Ian Jacobs via Flickr)

Can you tell the difference between bees, wasps and flies?

I met a few experts! Lora Morandin with Pollinator Partnership, Elizabeth Elle with Simon Fraser University and Cameron Cartiere with Border Free Bees helped me sort out the buzz from the sting from the pesky.

Why know the difference?

Some people panic and kill beneficial insects. And that's a problem, because:

More than half of native bee species in North America are declining and almost one-quarter are at risk of extinction. The western bumblebee (look for the cute white bum), for example, is at risk of extinction.
We rely on managed honeybees and the 20,000-plus species of wild bees. They help plants reproduce, create berries and seeds for wildlife, and pollinate about one in three of the food items we eat!  
Flies and wasps are part of nature's cleaning crew. Some are pollinators and eat pests. (Some flies and wasps become pests when their numbers increase in urban areas.)
Native bees rarely sting people and almost never become "pesky." 
Wasps eat aphids!

Ten clues to identifying bees, wasps and flies

Is the insect...

Cute? It's probably a bee! Male bumblebees even have moustaches. Wasps and flies have antennae lower on the face.
Interested in your food? It's a fly or a wasp. Bees are vegetarians. They eat pollen and nectar from flowers. They're not interested in what you're barbecuing.
Hairless, shiny, with four, long, narrow wings, a bright-coloured abdomen and interested in your food? Likely a wasp (e.g., a yellow jacket or paper wasp). Wasps are carnivores -- they eat meat, aphids and caterpillars.
Inside a flower? Probably a bee! A wasp is more likely to be under leaves or flowers hunting for aphids.
Stinging you? If it has a long, streamlined body with a thin "waist" it's likely a wasp. Bees are chubby. Native bees don't sting unless they become trapped in clothing or you disturb a nest. Even then, most won't sting.  
Coming out of a paper or mud nest hanging from a tree or your house? It's a wasp. 
Carrying pollen on its back legs or under its belly? It's a bee. Wasps and flies don't carry pollen.
Has only two wings (one on each side)? Probably a fly. Wasps and bees have four wings, two on each side.
Has large, bulging eyes, short antennae and two wings? It's a fly. (Pay attention: Some flies are bumblebee mimics!)
Has a long "stinger"? Probably a wasp. But it can't sting! What looks like a stinger is an ovipositor, used to deposit eggs. Bee and wasp stingers evolved from ovipositors. 

We need these critters. And we can all do something about what's causing their decline: habitat destruction, pesticide use, urbanization and climate change.

What's your secret to coexisting with bees, wasps and flies?

Sincerely,

Lindsay Coulter, a fellow Queen of Green

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Ask Parks Canada to launch a feasibility study for a national park on Gambier Island.

(photo credit: Gary Fiegehen)

Sign the petition calling for Parks Canada to launch a feasibility study for a national park on Gambier Island.

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

First Ontario cap and trade auction will lower emissions, save money

TORONTO -- Ontario's first cap and trade auction is a crucial step on the road to climate protection and cleaner air, the David Suzuki Foundation said.

"We've long supported the principle of polluter pays," said Foundation climate change policy analyst Gideon Forman. "Cap and trade embodies that principle so we're very gratified to see its implementation."

The March 22 auction sold greenhouse gas allowances worth over $472 million, the government said Monday. Under law, these funds must be spent on greenhouse gas reduction projects such as home energy retrofits, expansion of electric vehicle charging stations, public transit and social housing retrofits. Retrofits improve homes' energy efficiency, lowering energy use and saving residents money.

The cap and trade revenue will also help First Nations set up renewable microgrids and reduce diesel fuel use in electricity production.



"Burning less diesel is crucial to improving air quality and addressing climate change," Forman said. "It's especially important in First Nations communities, where living conditions are often deplorable. Perhaps the move away from diesel is another aspect of reconciliation."

The March auction was one of four planned for 2017. Total annual revenue from the program is expected to be $1.9 billion.

"The importance of pricing carbon can't be overstated," Forman said. "The atmosphere has long been used as a free garbage dump. It is encouraging to see Ontario putting an end to this practice and spending nearly $2 billion a year in auction revenue on climate change mitigation."

30

For more information:

Gideon Forman, Climate Change Policy Analyst

David Suzuki Foundation

647-703-5957

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

David Suzuki Foundation reaction to BC Green Party climate change platform

VANCOUVER -- The David Suzuki Foundation is encouraged by the release of the BC Green Party's climate change platform, which includes numerous proposals to help B.C. regain its status as a climate leader. The platform includes ideas that the David Suzuki Foundation has long advocated for, such as:

• Reinstating annual increases to the provincial carbon tax incentive

• Applying the provincial carbon tax to include fugitive emissions from oil and gas companies

• Increasing provincial government investment in public transit and cycling infrastructure

• Legislating a zero-emission vehicle standard to increase the availability of non-emitting vehicles

• Supporting energy efficiency improvements to buildings across the province

"The BC Green Party platform makes several key pledges to restore B.C.'s reputation as a climate action leader," Foundation science and policy director Ian Bruce said. "This is the first platform we've seen from a major B.C. party that goes beyond the minimum standard for carbon pricing set by the federal government."

The BC Green Party has committed to a range of policies to put B.C. back on track to reach its target of 40 per cent below 2007 levels by 2030. With current provincial policies, B.C.'s emissions are projected to rise.

The platform includes a pledge to raise the province's carbon tax by $10 per year for four years beginning in 2018, surpassing the federal government's requirement for provincial carbon pricing policies to achieve a price of $50 per tonne of emissions by 2022.

"It's promising to see the Climate Leadership Team recommend a commitment to mid-term emissions reductions targets," Bruce said. "B.C. has a real opportunity to prosper in the emerging clean energy economy, but we need to take action immediately if we don't want to be left behind."

Missing from this announcement are details of a funding framework for public transit infrastructure investment and a firm commitment to expand the use of low-impact renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and tidal power to achieve the province's energy needs.

The Foundation's 2016 report Breaking Gridlock: B.C.'s transit investment deficit and what can be done to fix it recommends that the provincial government live up to its 2008 pledge to provide 43 per cent of the funding for new transit projects, reducing the burden on local governments by empowering municipalities to raise new sources of revenues.

"Expanding public transit through reliable provincial funding and expanding the use of low-impact renewable energy in B.C. are two things we can't afford to overlook," Bruce said. "Excluding job-creating industries like wind and solar power in favour of big hydro projects fails to recognize the potential of these rapidly growing industries.

"We look forward to hearing more details about all parties' climate action strategies as the election unfolds."

- 30 -



Media contact:

Emily Fister, Climate Change & Clean Energy Communications Specialist

David Suzuki Foundation

604-440-5470

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Ontario decision to end hunt of at-risk snapping turtle is a necessary move

TORONTO -- Ontario's decision to end hunting of snapping turtles is a welcome move, according to the David Suzuki Foundation, Canadian Herpetological Society and Ontario Nature. Ontario lists the snapping turtle as a species of "special concern," which means that although it is not yet endangered or threatened, a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats could endanger or threaten it.

In December 2016, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry proposed to limit but not end the hunt. In response, thousands of Ontarians submitted comments through the Environmental Registry, asking the government to close the hunt completely.

Science clearly shows the hunt is unsustainable. Snapping turtle populations will decline with even minor increases in adult deaths. Hunting adds to the cumulative adverse impacts of other significant threats to the species, making recovery more difficult and expensive.

"Snapping turtles mature at a very late age," says Scott Gillingwater, past president of the Canadian Herpetological Society. "It generally takes 17 to 20 years before a female can lay her first clutch of eggs, making populations of this species exceptionally vulnerable to increased mortality of adults. Ending hunting of snapping turtles is an important and necessary first step in the recovery of this species, an outcome that all groups that value nature and the outdoors should support."

"At a local scale, the hunt can have disastrous impacts on some populations," says David Suzuki Foundation Ontario science projects manager Rachel Plotkin. "Ending the hunt is important not only at the local scale but also on the global stage, as turtles are in decline across the planet."

"I commend the government for embracing a precautionary approach and heeding the science," says Ontario Nature conservation and education director Anne Bell. "Ending the hunt helps to give snapping turtles a fighting chance and frees us up to focus attention on dealing with other threats such as wetland loss and road kills."

p= 30

For more information, contact:

John Hassell, Director of Communications and Engagement, Ontario Nature johnh@ontarionature.org, (416) 444-8419 ext. 269, cell (416) 786-2171

Rachel Plotkin, Manager, Ontario Science Projects, rplotkin@davidsuzuki.org, cell (416) 799-8435

Scott Gillingwater, Canadian Herpetological Society, cell (519) 495 0400

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Transit funding announcement moves us in the right direction, but B.C. government must act to secure deal

VANCOUVER -- The David Suzuki Foundation is encouraged by the recent attention being paid to increasing public transit funding in the lead-up to the May 9 B.C. election.

"Alleviating B.C. and Metro Vancouver's traffic and transit congestion crisis and enhancing our environmental leadership must be a top priority for B.C.'s next government," said David Suzuki Foundation science and policy director Ian Bruce. "It's reassuring to see that all political parties are now talking about increasing the province's investment to expand transit infrastructure and provide better service for British Columbians."

The Metro Vancouver Mayors' Council 10-year transportation improvement plan got a step closer to being realized today with a commitment from the B.C. government to match, dollar for dollar, the federal government's $2.2 billion commitment for two new rapid transit lines in the region. Although significant work is still needed to reach a final agreement to fund these transit projects and the region's broader transportation plan, the B.C. government has promised a larger financial investment with the provincial election approaching.

The David Suzuki Foundation sees the need for two key ingredients to secure a successful deal to improve transportation and alleviate congestion in Metro Vancouver.

First, B.C.'s next government will need to commit to increasing provincial investments so that the full $8 billion Metro Vancouver transportation plan (and a more extensive plan for B.C. overall) can move forward.

Second, B.C. must increase the provincial contribution to bring it closer to the 2008 transit plan framework of a 43 per cent provincial share.

B.C.'s next government will also need to change legislation to empower Metro Vancouver to raise new revenues to help pay for the local contribution from cash-strapped municipal governments. Only the province has the fiscal power and legislative authority to create the new revenue tools needed to close the gap. Without those tools, Metro Vancouver's transportation and transit plan is at risk and traffic congestion will worsen, affecting quality of life in the region.

-- END --



For more information, contact:

Ian Bruce, Science and Policy Director, David Suzuki Foundation

604-306-5095

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Welcome to the 21st century: Brighter times or a new Dark Age?

(Credit: NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center via Flickr)

If you own a smartphone, you have more computing power at your fingertips than NASA scientists had when they put people on the moon in 1969! And it's in a small device, unlike the massive hardware the space agency used.

Technology moves in leaps and bounds. As someone who grew up before home computers, transoceanic phone lines, jet planes, satellites, organ transplants, birth control pills, photocopiers, hand-held calculators or cellphones, I'm amazed at how quickly technological innovation is occurring and by its profound effects on society. Every day, products are becoming smaller, faster, more efficient and accessible to a greater number of people.

Despite the phenomenal advances in everything from communications technology to transportation to energy systems, many people still believe the only way to get energy is to burn fossil fuels, as we've been doing since the dawn of the Industrial Age almost 300 years ago! In fact, evidence suggests people have been burning coal for heat as far back as 3490 BC in China.

Naysayers have always been with us. At various times, people have argued that humans would never be able to travel the oceans in steam-powered ships or fly in airplanes, let alone send spacecraft beyond the solar system. Street lights were controversial in the early 19th century. Some saw them as impossible. Others argued they would lead to increased illness, declining morals and rejection of God's plan for periods of light and dark. At one time or another, people have claimed telephones, trains, automobiles, computers, nuclear power and radios were impossible or impractical. Many technological leaps stoked fears, often valid, that new inventions would put people out of work. The growing automobile industry in the early 20th century killed jobs in the horse-and-buggy business.

We've long been using coal, oil and gas for heat and energy for good reasons. They're incredibly powerful and valuable resources that both provide and store energy. And they're inexpensive -- if you don't take into account the costs of environmental damage and pollution-related health care. Millions of years ago, plants and microscopic organisms captured and transformed energy from the sun through photosynthesis, storing it in carbon and hydrogen bonds. As those plants and microorganisms died and were buried under layers of sediment, heat and pressure compressed the energy.

Despite their efficiency and cost, fossil fuels aren't better energy sources than solar, wind and tide, even though renewables require separate storage for large-scale deployment. Fossil fuels pollute the environment, cause illness and death, accelerate global warming and damage or destroy ecosystems. They'll also eventually run out. They're already more difficult and expensive to obtain. Easily accessible sources are becoming depleted, spurring increased reliance on damaging and dangerous unconventional sources and methods such as oilsands, deep-sea drilling and fracking.

Fossil fuels are useful for many purposes beyond generating energy -- some of which we have, no doubt, yet to discover. They're used for medicines, plastic products and lubricants -- another reason inefficiently burning through our limited supplies makes no sense.

Fortunately, clean energy technologies are improving daily. Just as many people are surprised at the rapid development of computing technologies used in smartphones and other devices, we'll continue to see amazing developments in renewable energy. Wind and solar are improving and coming down in cost, as are energy storage systems. Electrical grid management systems are changing with advances in computer science. Innovative ideas like biomimicry are showing great promise in the energy field with research into areas like artificial photosynthesis.

Embracing science, innovation and progressive ideas gives us hope for a healthier future. It's unfortunate that so many people, including government leaders in the U.S. and parts of Canada, are rejecting brilliant new ideas in favour of outdated and destructive ways of generating energy.

We're well into the 21st century. If humans want to make it to the 22nd, we must change course. Science offers great tools for understanding and innovating. We owe it to ourselves to at least understand how science acquires and integrates knowledge and what that means. We can't just keep digging up and burning non-renewable resources, polluting air, water and land and putting human health and survival at risk. Nor do we have to. We have better options.

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Keystone XL approval hinders the growing global renewable energy economy

VANCOUVER -- The U.S. government's decision to approve the Keystone XL construction permit puts the country behind in a global economy that is rapidly shifting to renewable energy -- and could slow the necessary transition from fossil fuels, according to the David Suzuki Foundation.

"This is not just a U.S. issue," Foundation science and policy director Ian Bruce said. "This is also a Canadian issue and represents an international threat to climate stability."

The permit approval marks the beginning of a lengthy process, which includes awaiting approval from Nebraska regulators and TransCanada's filing of its pipeline route plans. Those plans must then go through the state's Public Service Commission and public hearings.

Although the pipeline still faces some hurdles, Bruce stressed that the permit approval is a major step backwards.

"A fossilized past threatens a renewable future," Bruce said. "The global rush for clean energy is on. At this rate, renewable energy will boost the world economy by $19 trillion. There is no need to go backwards as the market for fossil fuels continues to shrink."

Canada's recently announced 2017 federal budget marked a commitment to powering the country with renewable energy. To move forward on Keystone XL would be inconsistent and irresponsible in light of this commitment, Bruce said.

"Promising billions for a green economy while planning for oilsands expansion and increased oil production and exports is a contradiction," Bruce said. "This is Canada's opportunity to move from a dark future dependent on dirty fossil fuels to a bright, healthy future powered by renewables. Our government has a chance to change the course of this unfortunate U.S. decision. We need to honour our international commitment to the Paris Agreement, follow through on federal funding of clean technology, and show the world that leaders innovate -- and do not build pipelines."



30

Media contact:

Emily Fister, Climate & Clean Energy Communications Specialist

604-440-5470

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook