David Suzuki's Blog, page 2

Bye-bye, bug splatter: Is this the new silent spring?

(Photo credit: Peter Miller via Flickr)

Masses of monarch butterflies fluttering across Toronto's waterfront. Painted ladies (often mistaken for monarchs) descending on Montreal. Combined with the hottest September ever recorded in the Great Lakes region, it's been a strange time in Eastern Canada. We should savour the joys of these captivating critters while we can, because their future -- and that of insects generally -- is uncertain.

Many Ontarians noticed this year's unexpected monarch bounty. It's difficult to determine population size during migration, but after two decades of fewer and fewer sightings, the number of monarchs this summer has been astounding. Hundreds of thousands are now flitting to Point Pelee, where they congregate, before heading across Lake Ontario to begin their 4,000-kilometre journey back to the alpine Mexican forests, where their great-great-great grandparents began in March.

Why have monarchs had such a stellar summer? For the past few years, they've faced a number of climate-related calamities, from winter storms in Mexico to scorching heat in their breeding grounds in Texas, the U.S. Midwest and Southern Canada. Widespread herbicide and pesticide use has been linked to dramatic declines in monarchs and the milkweed host plants they depend on.

This year they've had great conditions throughout their journey. Even the weirdly wet summer that put Toronto Island and many beaches underwater appeared to be a boon, as it ensured wildflowers were in full bloom, providing plentiful nectar to fuel their return trip.

The painted ladies stopover story is different, though also related to strange summer weather. Scientists believe shifting weather patterns and winds pushed the thousands of butterflies that descended on the Montreal area to the ground by as they migrated from the northern boreal region to the southern United States.

The unexpected appearance of charming critters like monarchs and painted ladies could cloud a greater issue: the dramatic loss of less alluring insect species, such as moths, fireflies, beetles and hover flies. Monarchs and honeybees have increasingly been in the media spotlight, but as University of New Brunswick ecologist Joe Nocera noted in a recent Science magazine article, "We have a pretty good track record of ignoring most noncharismatic species."

In the article, writer Gretchen Vogel describes what entomologists call "the windscreen phenomenon." Many people recall having to clean bugs from car windshields during drives through farmland and countryside. Today, it seems drivers everywhere are spending less time scrubbing and scraping.

Although bug splatter reduction is anecdotal, a growing body of research shows many once-common insects are declining. A study published in Science found most known invertebrate populations have dropped by 45 per cent over the past four decades. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reports the U.K. has seen a 59 per cent decline in insects since 1970. Global estimates point to a 40 per cent reduction of all pollinating insects.

As reporter Tom Spears asks in an Ottawa Citizen article, "So, who cares about bugs?" It's a fair question. Many of us were raised to disdain, or even fear, critters. Numerous species remain unloved or fly below our radar.

As we learn in elementary school, honeybees and wild bees pollinate much of our food. We are now coming to grips with the alarming consequences of losing pollinators, even if it's been difficult to diagnose the multiple causes. Insects also provide a host of other essential services, from making soil healthy and controlling pests to being a nutritious food source for birds. A 2006 study suggests wild insects provide ecological services worth $57 billion annually.

Beyond any economic value, these species are irreplaceable parts of the natural world. We must acknowledge and remedy their quiet decline before we experience the next "silent spring," a term popularized by scientist Rachel Carson, who noticed in the 1960s that widespread pesticide use was killing songbirds.

As we move into fall, I encourage you to take note of the bugs in your life. Many are now flitting to warmer climates or crawling into crevices and burrows to wait out the winter. Given the rapidly changing climate, we don't know what impact the next hurricane, Arctic vortex or 35 C September day will have on charismatic and not-quite-as-appealing insects. So, savour the moment, monarch lovers. And let's redouble our efforts to make our communities more green and resilient.

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Global study finds neonic contamination in three-quarters of honey samples, reinforces need to ban bee-killing insecticides

"The detection of bee-killing neonics in honey samples from every region of the world demonstrates yet again the alarming extent of environmental contamination caused by the mass use of neonicotinoid insecticides (neonics)," said Faisal Moola, director general with the David Suzuki Foundation. "As the authors of this eye-opening scientific study point out, honeybees are 'sentinels of environmental quality', meaning residues of pesticides in honey indicate environmental contamination where the bees forage. While the concentrations of neonics detected are below the levels regulatory authorities consider safe for human consumption, bees remain vulnerable. Constant exposure to these toxic pesticides, alongside other stressors, threatens our pollinators and food security."

"These latest research findings reinforce the need for Canada to phase out all neonics without delay to prevent further environmental contamination."

- 30 -

Note to editors:

A study published today in the leading scientific journal Science detected neonicotinoid insecticides (neonics) in three-quarters of the honey samples gathered from all regions of world, including Canada.

Neonics threaten a large number of beneficial species and are implicated in the global decline of pollinators. Neonics are toxic to honeybees even at low levels. Evidence of harm includes effects on bees' immune system, reproductive patterns and feeding behaviours. Foraging bees take contaminated nectar and pollen back to the hive, exposing the whole colony. The Task Force on Systemic Pesticides' 2017 update to its Worldwide Integrated Assessment of the Effects of Systemic Pesticides on Biodiversity and Ecosystems, released last month in Ottawa, highlighted new evidence of harm.

Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency initiated a re-evaluation of risks to pollinators from three neonics in 2012. The Agency said it will publish preliminary risk assessments and propose regulatory action, if warranted, in December.

For more information, please contact:

Brendan Glauser, David Suzuki Foundation | 604-356-8829 | bglauser@davidsuzuki.org

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

To reduce emissions, action needed on Canada's climate plan

OTTAWA -- The federal government must prioritize climate action immediately in the wake of the environment commissioner's audit today.

"Although the federal government has developed a comprehensive plan, we need to make sure these aren't just words on a piece of paper. They need to turn into responsible action," said David Suzuki Foundation science and policy director Ian Bruce. "The federal government has the chance to pass laws and regulations, but the window to show leadership is now."

"The development of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change marked a major milestone," Bruce said. "We agree with the commissioner's assessment that the government must now shift into action mode and follow through on these promises to reduce our emissions."

To meet Canada's 2030 emissions reduction targets, the federal government must:

• Pass the regulations to fully phase out coal power and ramp up clean, renewable electricity

• Implement a zero-emission vehicle standard to drive innovation and availability of electric cars

• Use federal authority to set a national price on carbon pollution

• Regulate responsible action to eliminate methane pollution from the oil and gas industry

• Require approval of Canada's new energy infrastructure to be conditional that it supports, not opposes, Canada's goal to be emissions-free by 2050

"It's concerning that the federal government has not prepared our communities to withstand the impacts of climate change and extreme weather," Bruce said. "Climate change is more than just an environmental issue. This is an economic and security issue that affects people everywhere, from the biggest cities to the smallest towns. It's too urgent to ignore. This is the federal government's moment to turn Canada's climate plan into climate action."

30

Media contact:

Emily Fister, Climate and Clean Energy Communications Specialist

604-440-5470

Lisa Gue, Senior Science and Policy Advisor, attended the briefing by the Environment Commissioner in Ottawa

Contact: 613-914-0747

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

DNA testing reveals limited seafood fraud by Canadian retailers But poor labelling still an issue

Halifax, Vancouver -- A countrywide SeaChoice research project found seafood fraud in Canada is minimal, but on-package seafood labels generally lack critical information that would allow consumers to make informed purchases.

In spring 2017, SeaChoice partnered with the University of Guelph Centre for Biodiversity Genomics' Life Scanner program to engage 300 volunteer "citizen scientists" across Canada. Each was provided with two DNA ID kits to sample seafood in their local grocery stores. The results are now public on the LifeScanner website.

The results show that just one per cent of the seafood tested across Canada was not what the label said it was, and seven per cent of tested seafood was mislabelled where fish were sold under a name that was not compliant with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's labelling regulations. In contrast, a 2008 study of North American retailers and restaurants found 25 per cent substitution or mislabelling.

"Over the past decade, most Canadian retailers have adopted sustainable seafood policies that have likely contributed to improvements in the accuracy of seafood labels," says Colleen Turlo, SeaChoice representative from the Ecology Action Centre. "The good news is that retailer efforts appear to have significantly reduced actual fraud. That said, more work needs to be done as there is still seafood being sold with noncompliant and generic common names."

Canada only requires seafood labels to display the species' common name. However, having additional information about seafood allows buyers to make decisions with more confidence, whether they're choosing food for its environmental sustainability, social responsibility, health reasons, supporting local fishers and fish farmers or simply wanting to know exactly what's in a package.

"The demand to participate was overwhelming," says Scott Wallace, SeaChoice steering committee member from David Suzuki Foundation. "We had more than 900 requests for our DNA ID kits. This demonstrates that consumers are concerned about their seafood and where it comes from." A recent Eco-Analytics survey of 3,000 Canadians found over 80 per cent agreed, "All seafood sold in Canada should be labelled with information identifying the species, where it was caught, and how it was caught."

SeaChoice's study results show wide variations in the information available on seafood labels from retailer to retailer, and species to species. Of the near 500 samples processed:

Five per cent included the species scientific name,
16 per cent included the country of harvest,
58 per cent included whether the seafood was wild-caught or farmed,
4.5 per cent of labels contained information about the gear type used or farming method.

Other countries want better labelling too. "We know that other countries have moved to require more information on seafood products, to improve transparency and traceability throughout the supply chain and regain the trust of consumers," says Kelly Roebuck, SeaChoice representative from the Living Oceans Society. "Based on our results, less than two per cent of Canadian labels would meet international best practices for seafood labelling."

SeaChoice is in the process of sharing results with Canadian retailers, and providing them voluntary best practice guidelines for seafood labelling. SeaChoice and its member organizations will continue to engage with the federal government in support of improved seafood labelling legislation and integration of seafood labelling as part of a national food policy.

- END -

Media contact:

Sarah Foster, SeaChoice National Coordinator


Phone: 604-916-9398

Email: info@seachoice.org

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Restoring tools and science helpful, but Fisheries and Oceans Canada failing to protect wild salmon

In a year with plummeting returns of threatened chinook salmon in B.C., Fisheries and Oceans Canada's release today of the Cohen Response 2017 Status Update is welcome news, but without decisive government actions, the future of wild salmon remains uncertain.

DFO announced today that, along with partners, the department acted on recommendations made in Justice Cohen's 2012 report from the Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River.

"We support the government's commitment to implement the Cohen Commission recommendations. However, DFO continues to fail to make important decisions to actually protect salmon when they need to, including reducing fishing for depleted chinook salmon," said David Suzuki Foundation senior science and policy analyst Jeffery Young.

In August, numbers for B.C.'s Fraser River chinook salmon were so dire that the Foundation called on DFO to close the fishery. "The fact that the fishery was not closed has made the situation even worse for the remaining 76 southern resident killer whales that rely on chinook as their primary food source," Young said. "Scientists point to starvation as the primary cause of recent whale deaths."

Young said wild salmon would be best served if this government takes decisive action for salmon recovery and makes the necessary decisions to restrict fishing or remove salmon farms that put wild salmon at risk from disease and pathogens. "If that doesn't happen, groups like ours will raise the alarm again next year as we prepare for salmon returns."

Restoring habitat protection to the Fisheries Act would be a step in the right direction for salmon conservation. However, impacts such as warming river temperatures related to climate change will put additional pressure on already stressed salmon populations that policy and budgets alone can't resolve.

"We've been waiting to see action on implementing the Wild Salmon Policy, one of the most effective policies we have to protect salmon," Young said. "The question remains whether all these pieces can come together in time to ensure the survival of one of Canada's most iconic species."

- END -

Media contact:

Jeffery Young 250-208-8714

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Environmentalism is a way of being, not a discipline

(Photo Credit: www.protectpeel.ca via Flickr)

I'm often introduced as an environmentalist. I prefer to be called a father, grandfather, scientist or author, as these terms provide insight into my motivation. Environmentalism isn't a discipline or specialty like law, medicine, plumbing, music or art. It's a way of seeing our place in the world and recognizing that our survival, health and happiness are inextricably dependent on nature. To confront today's environmental crises, everyone -- garage mechanics, construction workers, dentists, politicians and judges -- has to see the world through an environmental lens.

I recently attended an event with a panel of outstanding athletes and artists who had become activists on various environmental issues. The moderator asked what role awe had played in their commitment. Their answers revealed how inspiring it is to experience that sense of awe in the face of nature's beauty.

I couldn't help thinking that two more words should have been added to the discussion: humility and gratitude. As the panel grappled with the issue of ecological degradation, the idea emerged that all we need is to be more aware so we can use science and technology to solve the crises.

We're clever animals -- so smart that we think we're in command. We forget that our inventions have created many crises. Atomic bombs represented an incredible scientific and technological achievement, releasing the power within atoms. But when the U.S. dropped them on Japan in 1945, scientists didn't know about radioactive fallout, electromagnetic pulses or the potential for nuclear winter. Those were discovered after we used the weapons.

Swiss chemist Paul Mueller won a Nobel Prize in 1948 for his discovery that DDT was a potent insecticide. Many years after the compound was put into widespread use, biologists discovered a previously unknown phenomenon: biomagnification up the food chain.

When people started using chlorofluorocarbons, no one knew they would persist in the environment and float into the upper atmosphere where the sun's ultraviolet rays would cleave away chlorine-free radicals. As a geneticist, I only learned about the protective ozone layer when other scientists reported that chlorine from CFCs was breaking it down.

Our knowledge of the biological, chemical and physical components of the biosphere and their interconnections and interactions is too limited to enable us to anticipate the consequences of our inventions and intrusions. Nevertheless, we look to our creativity to lead us to a better world with nanotechnology, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, geoengineering and space travel.

What we need is humility. Clever as we are, nature is far more creative. Over 3.8 billion years, every species has had to evolve ways to find food, water and energy, and to dispose of wastes, find mates, reproduce, avoid predators and fend off parasites and infections. Nature offers myriad solutions that we have yet to discover. If we had the humility to learn from nature, using an approach called "biomimicry," we would find far more and better solutions.

The Canadian Cancer Society recently reported that half our population will develop cancer. This isn't normal, but it shouldn't surprise us. After all, we have synthesized hundreds of thousands of new molecules that have never existed on Earth. Most have never been tested for their biological effects and tens of thousands are now used in products and enter our waste stream.

When we dump this vast assortment of new molecules into air, water and soil, we can't anticipate how they might interact within living organisms or what their long-term consequences might be. Throwing more money into cancer treatment and research will not alone stem the disease. To arrest the cancer crisis (and it is a crisis), we must stop using the biosphere as a garbage can or sewer for these new molecules.

Along with humility, we should be grateful for nature's generosity, something I've learned from Indigenous peoples. They acknowledge the source of their well-being, clean air, clean water, clean food and clean energy -- all things that are created, cleansed or replenished by the web of life around us. In the urbanized industrial world we inhabit, we tend to think the economy is the source of all that matters to us, and so we have little regard for what we're doing to the natural systems that sustain us. It's time to see with new eyes.

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Oxford County breaks new ground with rural "zero-energy" building

Credit: Jennifer Austin

"We're definitely pushing the envelope with this new facility," says Melissa Abercrombie, manager of engineering services for southern Ontario's Oxford County. "If it works out, and we meet our target, it will be the first building in Canada to receive 'net-zero' certification from the New Buildings Institute."

Abercrombie is talking about a $2.2 million office building designed for Oxford's waste management staff and set to open in early 2018. She calls it a "net-zero energy" structure because solar panels placed next to it will produce enough juice to cover its power needs and those of an adjacent landfill operation. The project is visionary because it changes the very notion of what buildings are about. No longer just electricity users, they're becoming (in equal measure) electricity generators.

Power from the solar panels will be sent to the grid and provide the county with a credit on its monthly hydro bill. The project is more than just a climate solution; it also saves Oxford money.

The county is planning to run student tours at the facility and hopes to create interactive displays on energy efficiency and renewables.

"It's an opportunity to teach kids and their parents how they can reduce energy use in their own homes," Abercrombie explains. "We're showing what's possible."

The zero-energy building is the latest installment in Oxford's plan to provide all its energy -- for electricity generation, heat and transportation -- from renewable sources by 2050. The county is the first Ontario municipality to embrace such an audacious goal.

I ask Abercrombie why this energy revolution is happening in Oxford, as opposed to anywhere else in the province. "Our warden and councilors see electric vehicles and renewables as the way the world is going," she explains. "We as [county] staff can move these projects forward because we have the backing of the political leadership."

Abercrombie is also motivated at a personal level: she feels "a lot of pride" about Oxford's innovation.

The county's chief administrative officer, Peter Crockett, believes Oxford is an energy innovator because local residents want it to be.

"We decided as a community where we wanted to go and established the vision and leadership -- and found the courage -- to make it a reality," Crockett says, emphasizing that the decision to go green came after extensive community consultation and buy-in.

Crockett also points to the county's farming roots. "Farmers are entrepreneurs. They're risk-takers -- they're open to new technology," he says. "And they care about the environment because they rely on it for their well-being."

Climate change mitigation, cost savings, educational opportunities... the rewards of zero-energy buildings are many. Pioneers such as Oxford experience them first -- but with residents' support and politicians' commitment, these structures can be built across Canada and all of us can enjoy their benefits.

Power up Canada with renewables

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

Approval of the Site C dam was irresponsible and must be reversed

The BC Utility Commission's interim report on the Site C megaproject - released Wednesday - provides further proof that the federal and provincial governments acted irresponsibly when they approved construction of the massively destructive dam.

"The interim BCUC report confirms what so many of us have been saying all along: there's simply no credible rationale for the devastating harm that would be caused by the flooding of the Peace River Valley," said Chief Roland Willson of the West Moberly First Nations.

In its interim report, the BCUC said it did not yet have enough information to offer a conclusion on the costs of continuing construction versus suspending or cancelling the project. However, the report sets out a number of concerns about how BC Hydro is forecasting future energy needs. The interim report also states that if greater capacity is actually needed in the future, alternative sources such as biomass, geothermal and solar need to be considered. The report noted that information provided by BC Hydro reflects an "implicit assumption" that Site C is the only option that would be pursued.

"Up to now, the whole decision-making process has ignored the fact that our rights as Treaty people are at stake," said Chief Lynette Tsakoza of the Prophet River First Nation. "The joint federal-provincial environmental impact assessment of the Site C dam was clear that flooding the Peace River Valley would destroy hundreds of graves and other cultural sites and cause severe, permanent and irreversible harm to the natural environment on which we rely. All this was pushed aside in the rush to build Site C."

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs said, "Even within the narrow confines of its limited mandate, the BCUC has identified quite a few questions about the true cost of BC Hydro's mega-project and an absolute failure to properly consider real alternatives. The undeniable fact that so many questions remain unanswered at this late date clearly underlines the truth all along that approval of Site C was a bad decision financially, environmentally and politically. The new BC Government needs to make the best decision for all and cancel Site C."

In approving the project over the objections of First Nations, the federal and provincial governments asserted that the extreme harm caused by Site C would be "justified" by its claimed economic benefits, which the independent BCUC review is still debating.

"Decisions about resource development in a region as unique and valuable as the Peace River Valley need to be made with great care and rigour," said Faisal Moola, Director General with the David Suzuki Foundation. "Clearly, that didn't happen with the approval of the Site C dam. Fortunately, the new provincial government now has a chance to get it right. When it makes its final decision, we are hopeful that the province will recognize the countless social, economic and environmental benefits to protecting the Peace River, including at long last treating Indigenous rights with justice and respect."

Last month, the United Nations' top anti-racism body - the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination - condemned construction of the Site C dam as a violation of Canada's human rights obligations and called for an immediate halt to construction.

"A unique ecosystem, multi-generation family farms and the cultural heritage and Treaty-rights of the Dunne-Za and Cree peoples are all at risk if Site C proceeds," said Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada. "The new provincial government has committed to much needed investment in BC's infrastructure and social services, while also upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples. The Site C dam simply has no place in that mix."

- 30 -

Media contacts:

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip

Union of BC Indian Chiefs

(250) 490-5314

Jacob Kuehn

Media Relations, Amnesty International (Ottawa)

(613) 744-7667 ext 236

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

CO2 and food: We can't sacrifice quality for quantity

(Photo credit: Tom Shockey via Flickr)

Bigger isn't always better. Too much of a good thing can be bad. Many anti-environmentalists throw these simple truths to the wind, along with caution.

You can see it in the deceitful realm of climate change denial. It's difficult to keep up with the constantly shifting -- and debunked -- denier arguments, but one common thread promoted by the likes of the Heartland Institute in the U.S. and its Canadian affiliate, the misnamed International Climate Science Coalition, illustrates the point. They claim carbon dioxide is good for plants, and plants are good for people, so we should aim to pump even more CO2 into the atmosphere than we already are.

We've examined the logical failings of this argument before -- noting that studies have found not all plants benefit from increased CO2 and that most plants don't fare well under climate change-exacerbated drought or flooding, among other facts. Emerging research should put the false notion to rest for good.

Several studies have found that, even when increased CO2 makes plants grow bigger and faster, it reduces proteins and other nutrients and increases carbohydrates in about 95 per cent of plant species, including important food crops such as barley, rice, wheat and potatoes. A 2014 Harvard School of Public Health study, published in Nature, found that increased CO2 reduced the amount of valuable minerals such as zinc and iron in all of them.

Another study, by Irakli Loladze at the Catholic University of Daegu in South Korea, looked at 130 species of food plants and found increased CO2 caused calcium, magnesium, potassium, zinc and iron concentrations in plants to decline by an average of eight per cent, while sugar and starch content increased.

As a Scientific American article points out, billions of people depend on crops like wheat and rice for iron and zinc. Zinc deficiency is linked to hundreds of thousands of deaths, mostly children, and exacerbates health issues such as pneumonia and malaria. Iron deficiency, which causes anemia, is responsible for one-fifth of maternal deaths worldwide.

Part of the problem with the industrial agricultural mindset and the denier argument that CO2 is plant food or "aerial fertilizer" is the idea that bigger and faster are better. These studies illustrate the problem with the climate change-denial argument but, in its pursuit of profit, industrial agriculture has often made the same mistake. Plants -- and now even animals like salmon -- have mainly been bred, through conventional breeding and genetic engineering, to grow faster and bigger, with little regard for nutrient value (leaving aside anomalies like the not-entirely-successful "golden rice"). But higher yields have often resulted in less nutritious fruits and vegetables.

Genetic engineering's promise was increased yields and reduced need for pesticides, but studies show it has fallen far short of that ambition. A 2016 National Academy of Sciences study, as well as a New York Times investigation, found no evidence that genetically engineered crops increased yields over conventional crops. Although insecticide and fungicide use on GE crops in the U.S. and Canada has decreased, herbicide use has gone up to the point that overall pesticide use has increased. France, which doesn't rely on genetically modified crops, has reduced use of all pesticides -- 65 per cent for insecticides and fungicides and 36 per cent for herbicides -- without any decrease in yields.

The "golden rice" experiment shows that plants can be engineered for higher nutrient value, but that hasn't been the priority for large agrochemical companies.

As for carbon dioxide, we know that fossil fuel use, industrial agriculture, cement production and destruction of carbon sinks like wetlands and forests are driving recent global warming, to the detriment of humanity. The one flimsy argument climate change deniers have been holding onto -- that it will make plants grow faster and bigger -- has proven to be a poor one.

Like life itself, science is complex. Reductive strategies that look at phenomena and reactions in isolation miss the big picture. Our species faces an existential crisis. Overcoming it will require greater wisdom and knowledge and a better understanding of nature's interconnectedness. Tackling climate disruption and feeding humanity are connected. It's past time to ignore the deniers, reassess our priorities and take the necessary measures to slow global warming.

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook

It's time for government to invest in nature

It's time for government to invest in nature, say 19 national environmental organizations

Ottawa -- Nineteen leading Canadian environmental and conservation organizations delivered a clear message to the federal government this week: "The time has come for serious federal investment in Canada's ecosystems and species, which are central to Canadians' well-being and prosperity."

Within their newly-released annual budgetary recommendations to the federal government, members of the Green Budget Coalition urged the federal government to invest substantial new funds towards protecting and restoring Canada's land, inland waters and oceans.

"All ecosystem types in Canada are declining, and the number of species at risk continues to grow, year after year," the Green Budget Coalition states in its Recommendations for Budget 2018 document.

The Coalition notes that despite the promises of successive governments to meet Canada's international commitments to protect at least 17 per cent of land and inland waters and 10% of ocean by 2020, Canada still has a long way to go, having protected only 10.6 per cent of land and freshwater and 1 per cent of its ocean, and currently lags well-behind most other countries in the world by these measures.

"The federal government has already made important commitments towards tackling climate change," said James Brennan, Green Budget Coalition co-chair and director of government affairs for Ducks Unlimited Canada. "We believe that the government must now address the urgent crisis unfolding in Canada's natural environment with sizable new investments to safeguard Canada's vast and relatively intact natural areas, to restore lost or degraded habitats in highly threatened landscapes, and to uphold the Pan-Canadian framework on Climate Change and Clean Growth."

The Coalition's specific recommendations include new investments in protected areas, developing a nationwide strategy on ecologically connected landscapes and waterscapes, and supporting Indigenous governments' efforts to establish protected areas.

In addition to protecting natural ecosystems, the Coalition is recommending that the federal government invest in environmentally sustainable agriculture and sustainable fisheries. Agriculture and fisheries are leading industries in Canada, and substantial environmental investments are required to ensure their future sustainability while conserving biodiversity and preventing habitat loss.

The Green Budget Coalition is also recommending that the federal government scale up its efforts on international climate finance in order to pay its fair share, committing more funds to mitigation and adaptation efforts in developing countries and providing certainty on funding beyond 2020.

- 30 -

About the Green Budget Coalition:

The Green Budget Coalition, founded in 1999, brings together nineteen leading Canadian environmental and conservation organizations, which collectively represent over 600,000 Canadians, to present an analysis of the most pressing issues regarding environmental sustainability in Canada and to make recommendations to the federal government regarding strategic fiscal and budgetary opportunities.

The Coalition's members include Bird Studies Canada, Canadian Environmental Law Association, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Canadian Wildlife Federation, David Suzuki Foundation, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Ecojustice Canada, Ecology Action Centre, Environmental Defence, Friends of the Earth Canada, Greenpeace Canada, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Nature Canada, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Sierra Club Canada, Trout Unlimited Canada, Wildlife Habitat Canada, West Coast Environmental Law, and WWF-Canada.

For more information, please see the detailed Recommendations for Budget 2018 document here, or contact:

James Brennan, Co-Chair, Green Budget Coalition; and Director, Government Affairs, Ducks Unlimited Canada; 613-612-4469, j_brennan@ducks.ca

Amin Asadollahi, Co-Chair, Green Budget Coalition; and North American Lead, Climate Mitigation, International Institute for Sustainable Development, 613-282-3128, aasadollahi@iisd.ca

Alison Woodley, Lead Author, Green Budget Coalition protected areas recommendation; and National Director, Parks Program, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; 613-203-1172; awoodley@cpaws.org

Andrew Van Iterson, Manager, Green Budget Coalition; 613-562-8208, ext. 243, avaniterson@naturecanada.ca.

Media Contacts:

Emily Fister, Climate & Clean Energy Communications Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation

604-440-5470

efister@davidsuzuki.org

Andrew Holland, National Media Relations Director, Nature Conservancy of Canada

1-506-260-0469 (cell)

Andrew.Holland@natureconservancy.ca

Hey! Want more DSF? Join David Suzuki on Facebook