Birds Partially Protected From Mercury During Feather Growth

New research published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry finds that some birds enjoy a buffer against mercury toxification as their feathers grow, but that after fledging or molting, watch out:

The level of mercury contamination among bird populations varies with feather growth, which makes them especially vulnerable after feathers stop growing...

Birds’ feathers serve as a buffer against mercury intoxication when the feathers are growing and supplied with blood, according to research that Anne M. Condon and Daniel A. Cristol outline in the article “Feather Growth Influences Blood Mercury Level of Young Songbirds.” However, when feather growth is complete – soon after fledging in young songbirds or molting in adults – their research found this buffer no longer exists.

They studied mercury levels among eastern songbirds living near the mercury-contaminated South River in Virginia, breaking their feather growth into four categories: nestling, when thousands of feathers are growing simultaneously; waning, when feather growth slows; none, when there is no feather growth; and molt, when new feathers grow to replace juvenile feathers.

“Blood mercury levels fell once molt began and this elimination route reopened, confirming the influence of feather growth on blood mercury,” write Condon and
Cristol.

They say young birds may be more sensitive to mercury than older birds, but that sensitivity is less of an issue as long as their feathers are developing. However, after fledging, birds contaminated with mercury may experience mercury toxicity, including death.

The authors say the results of their research are important for assessing risks of mercury contamination to bird populations, particularly because mercury contamination of terrestrial systems does not appear to be decreasing. Further research should include testing of mercury levels in birds’ blood and feathers.

Read the entire article, Feather Growth Influences Blood Mercury Level of Young Songbirds.

A budget that misses the mark

Prime Minister Harper said in October 2008 “we cannot separate environmental and economic policy.” This was also about the time that Finance Minister Flaherty told us that there would be no deficit. A few months later, and the budget is predicting $64 billion dollars in deficit over the next two years and nature conservation and protection is absent from the proposed 2009 federal budget.

This is not to say that there were not positive nuggets in the budget. The sad state of many First Nations communities was addressed in several positive ways. Via Rail will receive significant funds to increase and improve its service. There is $81 million going towards contaminated sites, $690 million to a vaguely worded agricultural flexibility program that does mention “environmental sustainability" (thank God no specific mention of growing corn for ethanol production), $75 million for Parks Canada to improve and fix their roads, visitor centres, and campgrounds, and a one billion dollar green infrastructure fund. But in reading this budget, one can not help feeling that an opportunity was missed.

What is missing is a cause for disappointment. There are no commitments in this budget toward completing the system of national parks. There is no plan to protect the north, oceans or marine and fresh water ecosystems, though they are under tremendous threat from industrial expansion and climate change.

The Canadian Wildlife Service, the agency responsible for our migratory birds and the crumbling system of national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries are not even mentioned. Protecting Canada’s natural resources and biodiversity is both an ethical responsibility and legal obligation, yet without adequate capacity or any recognition at all as a priority, the only conclusion that one can reach is that nature is not important to this government.

Couched in happy, green language, are some worrisome red flags. Under the heading “A More Sustainable Environment” the budget states “to maintain a strong economy Canada requires a healthy environment . . . ." While there is a commitment of $1 billion toward clean energy technologies, the emphasis is clearly on supporting and promoting the highly controversial and unproven carbon capture and storage schemes.

Removing carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use and storing it in the ground is fraught with problems and controversies, but has been promoted as a panacea to justify the tar sands expansions, which are destroying thousands of square kilometres of boreal forest, and the continued burning of coal to generate electricity. In addition, industry's investment in carbon capture and storage is being encouraged through a capital cost allowance. I fail to see how these investments of our tax dollars are moving Canada toward a healthy environment while at the same time the wind energy incentive program of the federal government has been axed.

The other curiosity is a section called “strengthening Canada’s Nuclear Advantage.” $351 million dollars will be flowed to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to meet “energy security and climate change goals.” Our country’s history with nuclear is not one of financial prudence but one that has created mountains of debt due both to the huge capital costs associated with building reactors, the liabilities associated with decommissioning the reactors after their relatively short life spans, and the un-reconciled issue of managing the waste products that remain highly hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. Again, I’m not sure how investing in nuclear can be considered part of “a more sustainable environment” particularly when real sources of green energy are not explicitly mentioned at all (i.e. solar, wind, geothermal).

Getting back to nature protection, another red flag shoots up in a section called “Accelerating Approvals Processes.” The government is proposing to amend and streamline the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, federal laws that protect our land and water ecosystems. This potential weakening of these laws to accelerate business could lead to more environmental losses, and makes us now wonder what the Prime Minister really meant when he said “we cannot separate environmental and economic policy.”

This budget should be about shifting us to a green economy, but it does not. In fact, though it may well provide some needed economic stimulus for today, it does so at a great cost to future generations.

Panel Recommends Against EnCana drilling at Suffield NWA

Yesterday, as all attention was focused on the budget, the Joint Review Panel issued a recommendation against EnCana’s application to drill 1,275 natural gas wells and construct associated infrastructure in the Suffield National Wildlife area.

While EnCana claimed the drilling project would have negligible, insignificant impacts on this protected area, conservation experts and the Government of Canada presented powerful evidence to the contrary during the October 2008 hearing.

In yesterday's report, the Panel recognized the importance of the NWA and concluded that the project should not be approved at this time. It set out 3 requirements that would have to be met for the project to go forward without causing significant impact on the conservation of wildlife.

The requirements were, namely:

- that critical habitat for 3 plants, Ord's Kangaroo Rat and Sprague's Pipit be finalized;

- that no project activities take place within this critical habitat; and

- that SEAC, the Suffield Environmental Advisory Committee receive a clear mandate and sufficient resources to oversee drilling in the NWA.

The NWA was established in 2003 to protect endangered native prairie and the many species of animals and plants at risk in the area, including at least 15 federally listed species threatened with extinction. It is still much like it was when the bison roamed the Canadian prairies.

The Panel did a good job and presented thoughtful recommendations. The final decision on EnCana's project now rests with the federal cabinet. DND, as the responsible authority for the NWA, will lead the development of a government response to the Panel's report and seek approval of the response from the federal cabinet. It’s inconceivable that our national leaders would allow it to be irretrievably destroyed for a relatively small amount of natural gas. The federal government now needs to close the door on further development in Suffield NWA.

Can the Yellow Rail derail a tar sands project?

To answer the question in the title of this blog, I visited the website for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAR) and conducted a simple search for oil sands or tar sands projects in Alberta. One of the largest projects underway is called the Kearl Oil Sands.

This project is expected to, on average, produce about 300,000 barrels of bitumen daily, about fifteen to thirty percent of the current total production from the Alberta tar sands. One of the results for such a huge project will the permanent loss (over a 58 year period) of over 23,000 hectares of habitat, including 1,093 hectares of graminoid fen, and 7,028 hectares of peatlands. An indeterminate area of old growth boreal forest will also be lost.

One would hope that the Environmental Assessment process, which is supposed to assess the impact of the project, would identify options for mitigation, and investigate alternatives, and would be thorough, effective and unbiased. In light of recent, related legal decisions, it is worth reviewing the decisions made by of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Kearl Oil Sands project. Here is what the panel said in its decision with regard to wildlife in general and birds in particular:

The Joint Panel supports Alberta’s recommendations to implement approval requirements for the development and implementation of criteria for moose and other wildlife habitat reclamation, regional wildlife management, biodiversity, and wetland reclamation strategies. These strategies would provide industry and government with the resource stewardship guidance sought by stakeholders.

The Joint Panel notes EC’s concern that the Yellow Rail (listed in the Species at Risk Act as a species of “special concern”) may be affected by the intensity of regional development. The Joint Panel recommends to Alberta that within the next two years AENV (Alberta Environment – Alberta’s equivalent to Environment Canada), in collaboration with EC, coordinate a regional review of the cumulative impacts on the Yellow Rail in the oil sands region, using appropriate regional nocturnal surveys in areas of potentially suitable habitat.

The initiative should determine mitigation options to minimize the impacts on the Yellow Rail. The Joint Panel recommends to Alberta that AENV establish requirements within any EPEA approval to implement the findings of the Yellow Rail initiative for surveys, determination of effects, and mitigation strategies where appropriate. The Joint Panel expects Imperial Oil to implement effective Yellow Rail predevelopment surveys and habitat mitigation strategies in its reclamation plans, unless these matters are being addressed on a regional basis.

The Joint Panel recommends that AENV require Imperial Oil to avoid land clearing during the period of April 1 to August 30 of each year due to potential impacts to migratory bird species.

In the final report of the panel, there were nine recommendations “specific to the Government of Canada.” Only two of them were specific to birds -- despite comments from Environment Canada expressing skepticism toward the validity of claims that the mined areas could be reclaimed to boreal forest, and concern over the tailings ponds attracting and killing migratory birds.

In the end, Environment Canada enthusiastically endorsed the panel’s recommendations. In fact Environment Canada went so far as to suggest that the industry itself should conduct the surveys on the Yellow Rail, the only species of the several dozen migratory birds living in the area that the Government appears to be interested in:

The Yellow Rail, a migratory bird (listed in the Species at Risk Act as a species of special concern) could be affected by regional development. As stated at the hearings, EC believes that a regional oil sands industry committee is the most appropriate forum through which regional nocturnal surveys should be carried out, and that the results of these surveys should inform the determination of mitigation measures. EC will collaborate with AENV, the proponent and other necessary agencies and stakeholders, by providing advice and expertise on survey protocols, study design and any resulting mitigation measures.

OK, time out!

To put this in perspective, of the hundreds of thousands of birds from dozens of species affected by this Imperial Oil project, Environment Canada chose the most obscure and difficult one to detect, albeit a species at risk. It then hands the job of surveying the Yellow Rail to the very companies who would consider the bird an obstacle to their operations!

On the surface, at least, this is clearly a case of putting the fox in charge of the hen house, but letting industry “self regulate” is modus operandi in the tar sands, where industry has been granted responsibility for monitoring many things including pollution.

Could the presence of ten or one hundred Yellow Rails derail the project? Wait, remember that the tar sands, we are told, are the answer to a secure energy future for America. So, if the bitumen is beneath the graminoid fens where the Yellow Rails live, likely the best one could hope for is that the destruction of the habitat occurs when the birds are not nesting, perhaps spending the winter somewhere in the southern USA or Central America. And then we put our faith in restoring their habitat.

And how long might those rails have to wait until their habitat is restored? What lessons can we extract from the reclamation and restoration of tar sands to date? On what basis can we make such optimistic predictions? This will be the subject of my next blog.

Bishop Questions Morality of Oil Sands Development

Canada's tar sands are receiving criticism from many quarters these days, including the Catholic Church. From today's Toronto Star:

The Roman Catholic bishop for the region around Alberta's massive oilsands projects is questioning the "moral legitimacy" of their rapid development, saying their destructive effect on the environment is against God's plan for the earth.

The Catholic Church has spoken out in defense of environmental protection before, through dozens of pastoral letters around the world; in 2007 Pope Benedict wrote that "disregard for the environment always harms human co-existence."

In his pastoral letter this week, Bishop Luc Bouchard wrote "even great financial gain does not justify serious harm to the environment":

"The moral problem does not lie in government and industry's lack of a sincere desire to find a solution; the moral problem lies in their racing ahead and aggressively expanding the oilsands industry despite the fact that serious environmental problems remain unsolved after more than 40 years of ongoing research," the letter says.

"The moral question has been left to market forces and self-regulation to resolve, when what is urgently required is moral vision and leadership."

Nature Canada has called for a moratorium on tar sands expansion until serious environmental issues, including contamination of the Athabasca River, bird and fish deaths, and massive water consumption are addressed, and we absolutely agree with one other thing the good Bishop wrote:

"I believe public opinion on environmental issues is rapidly changing ... Government and industry will be forced to recognize that oilsands development should not proceed until the environment can be adequately protected."

Bush legacy leaves uphill climb for U.S. parks

As we await recommendations from a panel considering an EnCana proposal to put nearly 1,300 shallow gas wells inside the federally protected Suffield National Wildlife Area (news on this could come as early as next week), along comes this news item from State-side:

Bush legacy leaves uphill climb for U.S. parks, critics say

...[T]he federal Bureau of Land Management decided in November to auction oil and gas leases on 360,000 acres of public land in Utah, including 93 parcels on or near the boundaries of these parks and nearby Dinosaur National Monument.The leasing decision was put on hold by a judge Jan. 17, after protests from the park service and environmentalists who complained that the view from the famed sandstone arches and spires would be despoiled by the new roads, heavy equipment, drilling platforms and veil of dust that would accompany the exploration for fossil fuels.

But it is only a temporary victory on the heels of what some in the park service see as a string of defeats in which the nation's parks often acquiesced to the encroachment of commercial interests and energy projects during the eight years of the Bush administration. Among the recently approved projects is a uranium mine two miles from a Grand Canyon visitors center.

Critics of the Bush administration -- former park directors among them -- say its emphasis on commerce over conservation left a legacy that the national parks could be grappling with for decades to come.

Though some of President Bush's actions could be erased with a stroke of his successor's pen, other policies, such as exploration and drilling leases, could take months or years of costly effort to undo...

You can read the whole article here.

Towards a climate justice movement?

On January 14, I attended a policy roundtable organized by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, "Reclaiming the Commons - Promoting a North/South Agenda for Environmental Justice".

It was, as promised by the roundtable's organisers, an opportunity to better understand Southern perspectives on environmental justice, to share work and perspectives, and to make a call for the sector to begin building a North/South policy agenda for environmental justice.

For much of the day, we discussed how to react to and take advantage of the current "triple crisis" facing our environment, food supply and economy. The aim: To build a global movement for climate justice that will turn us away from environmental collapse, poverty and injustice.

To a great extent, the hope lies with local farmers (who still hold the greater part of the world's food sources safe from corporate patents) and small-scale community-based enterprises, because they are best positioned to ensure self-sufficiency, respect for the environment and protection of cultural and biological diversity. We need to do all we can to support them.

Hope also lies with continued "North/South" cooperation among civil society organizations to stop abuses and increase international efforts to address these crises. This year will be critical, and one most activists at the roundtable believe holds promise. If we can achieve a positive result in the Copenhagen Climate Change negotiations in December 2009 - in particular, commitments from all countries to fairly assign targets to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius - then we will be moving towards the social transformation we need to save ourselves and the planet from collapse.

Quite a task, but one we need to embrace.

Does the Migratory Bird Convention Act do what it is supposed to do?

Nature Canada, like many other groups (such as the Boreal Songbird Initiative), fight for the birds of the Canadian boreal forest. While birds are just one part of this ecosystem, it is one of national importance because most are protected under the Migratory Bird Convention Act.

This Act is our federal government’s law that states that it is illegal to harm, capture or have in your possession any of the species of birds listed in the Act, which includes most of the birds in Canada and over 90 percent of those in the boreal forest of north-eastern Alberta. According to the law, it is also illegal to damage eggs or an active nest. This is the law that gave Environment Canada the legal power to charge and fine J. D. Irving Inc. for destroying 10 to 20 Great Blue Heron nests, even after the herons had finished nesting, as they return to the same sites year after year.

So, with such a law, and clear legal precedent as to its application, let us ask ourselves this: how can the Irving charge be levied on one hand, a case in which Environment Canada mobilized great resources and presented powerful arguments in support of the law and their predication to enforce it, while at the same time, they avert their gaze from large-scale industrial project like the tar sands, which destroy migratory birds and their habitat?

Environmental groups have been aware for some time of the inconsistent way in which the Act was being applied. This is particularly true in the case of large industrial scale resources activities such as logging, mining, agriculture, hydro-electric developments, and commercial fishing where application of the Act is simply ignored. A coalition of environmental groups challenged the Federal government’s negligence of not using the law to protect nesting birds from large-scale industrial forestry in Ontario, using a mechanism of the Commission for Environmental Co-operation, (CEC), the side-agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This challenge has sent the Canadian Wildlife Service scrambling to amend the Migratory Bird Convention Act, to allow “incidental take” meaning the destruction of birds and their nests that occurs from all large-scale industrial-type activities including forestry, mining, agriculture, commercial fishing, and infrastructure development, while protecting the integrity of each species population.

The CWS has a multi-stakeholder process underway that includes the participation of industry group representatives and environmental non-governmental groups including Nature Canada, to develop measures and regulations that would achieve the goal of protecting bird populations while permitting a wide range of resource-based industrial activities. The CWS plans on implementing this process in the next few years. While we understand the reality of needing this process and amending the law (as there is nothing being done at all now), at the same time, the intent of the law must not be desecrated.

Another aspect of this process that preoccupies us is whether we know enough about birds in the boreal to devise a scheme to protect their populations while allowing industrial activities that fundamentally transform their habitat. Fundamentally this means having good baseline data on bird populations, but also a monitoring system to provide continuous feedback on the populations’ response to habitat changes over time caused by the human activity.

In Ontario, where a recently completed Breeding Bird Atlas provided unprecedented detailed information on species distribution and abundance, the baseline is there. However, no such information exists for the rest of Canada. Atlas projects are underway in the Maritimes and British Columbia, but it will be years before their results are available to the same point as Ontario. CWS wants to have a regime in place in two or three years.

The other great concern is what are CWS and Environment Canada doing with regard to the tar sands expansions, one of the most massive industrial projects on earth? I will explore this question later on this blog by looking in detail at the Kearl project, one of the largest tar sands projects in north-eastern Alberta. Here is an excerpt:

Of the hundreds of thousands of birds from dozens of species effected by this Imperial Oil project, Environment Canada chose the most obscure and difficult species to detect, albeit a species at risk – the Yellow Rail - to survey, then hands the job over to . . . .

Secrecy Surrounds Polar Bear Round Table

Today's polar bear round table in Winnipeg takes place under a cloud of secrecy. From the Calgary Herald:

...the potentially heated gathering will happen behind closed doors, with media barred from attending and the official list of speakers under wraps...Environment Canada has not released an official agenda for Friday's gathering or said who will take part. Spokeswoman Paula Franchellini said participants are still being confirmed...

At least one top Canadian polar bear specialist wonders why there are no polar bear researchers on the agenda."There are no polar bear research scientists involved in this," said Andrew Derocher, chair of the polar bear specialist group run by the International Union for Conservation of Nature."The federal government has people who work on this question, and yet they're not being asked to present their view."

There will be a press conference after the round table, when perhaps we'll discover what all the secrecy was for.

Polar Bears Numbers Affected by Climate Change, Hunting, Industry and Toxins

We're days away from Friday’s federal Environment Minister’s National Roundtable on Polar Bears, in Winnipeg, where experts will gather to -- one hopes -- map out a conservation strategy for Canada's polar bear populations. As they do, they'll no doubt take a closer look at where polar bear numbers are most in decline, and where they seem to be holding their own:

Of the eight [out of 13] sub-populations showing clear signs of ecological problems, five have declining numbers (western Hudson Bay, Baffin Bay, Kane Basin, Norwegian Bay, and southern Beaufort Sea), and a sixth (southern Hudson Bay) is showing clear biological signs of stress.

Two sub-populations in the central Arctic are increasing (McClintock Channel and Viscount Melville Sound) due to the cessation of past over-hunting, but are still below historic levels. The Davis Strait sub-population may be increasing, possibly due to increased harp seal numbers. The remaining four sub-populations probably have fairly stable numbers. (Source: WWF)

About two-thirds of the world’s 20-25,000 polar bears live in Canada. The relative health of their overall population is impacted by climate change, which is reducing their sea-ice habitat; over-hunting; increasing industrialisation of critical habitats; and toxic chemicals in the Arctic food chain.

Any conservation plan will have to address all four of these stressors. Concentrating on one while ignoring the others won't be enough.

Meanwhile, sink your teeth into this latest report on how beluga whales and walruses are helping scientists learn more about climate change in the Arctic.

Nature Rules for the Road in 2009

Plan to drive this year? Here are some resolutions for the road...make 2009 the year your car has a lighter footprint.

Resolutions for the Road

Get your vehicle's body into shape
Most people resolve to get their body into better shape in the New Year. Why not make the same resolution for your vehicle? Basic vehicle maintenance, including measuring your tire pressure, checking for leaks once a month, and regular tune-ups, will help keep your vehicle in top working order. You save money, fuel, and the environment.

Be a fuel-efficient driver
Slow and steady wins the race – and the environment wins too. Aggressive driving and speeding can increase your fuel consumption by as much as 35 percent. You can save money and fuel, and reduce your vehicle’s emissions by slowing down, giving yourself more time and planning your routes ahead of time.

Stop idling your vehicle
Idling is bad for your wallet, your vehicle, the environment, and it even hurts the people around you. Besides, it isn’t even necessary! The best way to warm up your car is to drive it at a moderate speed. Idling for 10 minutes a day produces almost a quarter-tonne of carbon dioxide emissions and costs you more than $80 every year! Even on the coldest winter days you can drive away after letting the engine run for only 30 seconds.

Think twice about air travel
Cheap flights abroad carry a heavy cost for the planet. Why not take a break nearer home? You can undo all your eco-friendly efforts with one long haul flight. The world's 16,000 commercial jet aircrafts produce more than 600 million tonnes of CO2 every year, nearly as much as all the countries of Africa put together.

Give Your Car a Rest
Resolve to leave the wheels at home and opt for walking, biking or public transit at least one day a week. About 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the transporation sector.

Check out these resolutions for your home if you want to lighten your footprint around the house.

Nature New Year Resolutions for 2009

If you're looking for resolutions to adopt for the new year...you're already 10 days late! But that's okay because the following ideas for reducing your carbon footprint are great to try anytime. Here are some resolutions for your home (in a later post I'll provide resolutions for the road):

Resolutions For Your Home

On the menu: healthy, organic and local
Out with the old -- fast food and supermarkets – and in with the new – organic and local produce.The production of organic food causes much less environmental damage than conventional agriculture. It’s pesticide-free, and with demand growing every year it’s becoming easier to find in communities almost everywhere. Buying locally grown food is even better; it helps reduce aviation pollution, which is a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

Compost your organic kitchen waste
You can compost fruits, vegetables, tea bags and coffee grounds, as well as leaf and yard waste. Compost makes valuable fertilizer and reduces the amount of waste in landfills. By composting, a family of three can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than one-eighth of a tonne each year.

Take up gardening
A green thumb leads to a healthy planet, and it’s a great way to relieve stress. Growing your own fruit, vegetables and plants in the garden can beautify your property and is great exercise. If you don't have a backyard, seek out community gardens in your area, and make gardening a social activity!

Hit the off switch
Small lifestyle changes can have a big impact on the planet – and your bank account. Energy saving measures at home can cut bills for a typical family by hundreds of dollars a year. Simply turning your room thermostat down by one degree could cut up to 10% off your heating bill. Programmable thermostats are now readily available to make this even easier. Other measures include insulating your home, using energy efficient light bulbs, switching to renewable energy, turning off lights and unplugging appliances when you're not using them.

Stay true to an old standby: recycle
Everything old can be new again. Recycle and reuse.The average person throws out their body weight in garbage every 3 months. Get familiar with your community’s recycling program. They may have added new products to the list of recyclables. Half of electrical goods left at dumps work, or require only very basic repairs, so think before discarding them.

Connect with nature
It’s a fact; the more emotionally and physically attached we are to the natural world, the more likely we’ll act to conserve the planet’s nature. So find time to connect with nature, and remind yourself of nature’s wonders. There are many ways to do this; here are seven:

• Visit a national park that you've never been to before.



• Relive a piece of Canadian history at a national historic site or park.



• Participate in a local environmental cleanup or restoration project.



• Make your voice heard on at least one environmental issue this year.



• Share a picnic lunch with your family at a provincial park.



• Camp for One Weekend under the stars.



• Teach a child to swim, or climb a tree.
  

Nine Months After Ducks Die in Tar Sands Ponds, Still No Action

Last April, the world learned about the ghastly death of 500 ducks in the oily toxic settling ponds of Syncrude along the banks of the Athabasca River in northern Alberta. There were excuses, apologies, pledges to “do more,” but nine months later, the government agency responsible for the law that protects the ducks has done nothing. This week, we learn in the Globe and Mail that Jeh Custer, a member of Sierra Club Canada, has commenced legal action against Syncrude Canada Ltd. Ecojustice will be presenting this case in court on behalf of Mr. Custer, Sierra Club Canada and Forest Ethics.

Mr. Custer is quoted as saying “the regrettable failure of the Alberta and federal governments to enforce their own environmental laws means that ordinary Canadians must act.” This case is particularly interesting as the dust has barely settled from this past October when the forestry giant J.D. Irving pleaded guilty to a violation of the Migratory Bird Convention Act for the destruction of several Great Blue Heron nests in the summer of 2006. Provincial Court Judge Patricia Cumming fined the company $10,000 and ordered Irving to make a $50,000 contribution to Bird Studies Canada (BSC) for bird research and conservation (Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas).

The guilty plea and contrition of Irving was a very positive turn to this case after Irving’s failed challenge to the constitutionality of the very law under which they were charged, last June. Irving pledged to improve its practices of environmental protection. At the time I stated:“the guilty plea and the unequivocal dismissal of the constitutional challenge to the MBCA both send very clear messages to industry that Environment Canada is serious about enforcing this Act, and that the Act can and will be used to protect migratory birds and their nests.”

What was I thinking? Certainly not about the tar sands projects!

Not only has Environment Canada not taken any action against Syncrude related to the dead ducks, but they have also been complicit with the giant oil companies in permitting destruction of thousands of square kilometres of boreal forest and wetlands. Already, tens of thousands of birds of dozens of species have died, or their habitat has been destroyed.

This is no exaggeration. Warblers, thrushes, flycatchers, finches, blackbirds, sparrows, hawks, ducks, sandpipers, plovers, owls, grouse, woodpeckers, loons and grebes, nighthawks, kingfishers, bitterns and yes, even herons are among the casualties. The Boreal Songbird Initiative, Pembina Institute and the Natural Resources Defence Council describe the predicted impact of the tar sands on bird populations in the report, Danger in the Nursery discussed in my December 8, 2008 blog. The birds were living in the ecological web of the boreal forest that established itself over thousands of years on top of the bitumen reserves. Now, instead of the vibrant boreal forest there are toxic, oily lakes, massive open-pit mines and the associated infrastructure or roads, power plants, pipelines and noise. All this in pursuit of "dirty oil" that costs almost more to extract than it is worth not counting the environmental costs.

The destruction of the life-giving layer of plants and soil, in an effort to get at the bitumen, can take place at any moment of the year. However, in the recent environmental assessment for the Kearl project of Imperial Oil (which I’ll talk about more in a future blog), one of the conditions was that clearing of vegetation avoid the period between April and August when most birds breed. This may seem like an environmentally good deed. It avoids destroying nests, eggs, and birds that can not fly away from the machines. These are also activities that would violate the Migratory Bird Convention Act, so such activities would be breaking the law. However, regardless of the month in which vegetation is removed, is the result not the same?

Ninety-four percent of the birds from this area leave the boreal forest each late summer and fall to migrate to their non-breeding homes, from the central USA to Argentina. Put yourself into their feathers for a moment. Perhaps you go south also, making this trip, say to California, Mexico or Florida. Imagine returning only to find your home and those of all your neighbours as far as you can see annihilated. In the case of so many bird species, in place of old growth black and white spruce draped with reindeer lichen, or sedge and cotton grass fens, or sphagnum bogs thick with peat, or innumerable wetlands, they will find open pit mines of oily tar-like sand, huge toxic lake-like tailings ponds, and monstrous noisy machinery.

In fact, don’t imagine it, but look at it for yourself. Look at the tar sands on Google Earth or the Pembina Institute's web site. Find Fort McMurray, Alberta, and take in the devastated landscape. Look at the toxic tailings ponds adjacent to the Athabasca River that flows into Great Slave Lake, leaking tens of thousands of litres of contaminated waste water each day. All of this used to be boreal forest!

Over the next few days, I’ll explore with you how the Migratory Bird Convention Act is supposed to (but fails to) protect birds from industrial-scale resource projects, what is being done to address this failure, and how the tar sands projects represent a complete failure by our government agencies to protect migratory birds on our behalf.

Polar Bears Going Hungry

From New Scientist magazine, research that suggests more polar bears are fasting, perhaps in response to declining hunting opportunities as Arctic sea ice disappears:

Seth Cherry of the University of Alberta, Canada, and colleagues monitored the health of polar bears in the ice-covered Beaufort Sea region of the Arctic during April and May in 1985, 1986, 2005 and 2006. They immobilised the bears using tranquilliser darts and measured the ratio of urea to creatinine in their blood. A low ratio means that nitrogenous waste material is being recycled within the body and indicates the animal is fasting - a state which usually only occurs temporarily in males during the spring breeding season.

In 1985 and 1986 the proportion of bears fasting was 9.6 and 10.5 per cent respectively. By 2005 and 2006 this had risen to 21.4 and 29.3 per cent.

The report goes on to say that if the ice continues to contract, which seems inevitable, polar bears will become even more nutritionally disadvantaged. This is significant; as polar bears become thinner they are less able to reproduce, which puts the future of the species in doubt.

It's worth pointing out that Canada currently has no marine protected areas in the Arctic. These marine mammals, the planet's largest terrestrial carnivores, require land for denning and travel corridors; however, four polar bear populations in Canada currently are without even a single hectare of land protected within their range.

The polar bear receives zero legislative protection at the national level, as it is not officially listed on the Species at Risk list. (you can have something to say about that if you join our letter-writing campaign.)

Canada's Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, is holding a national polar bear round table in Winnipeg January 16 to discuss what steps, if any, should be taken to protect polar bear populations. Nature Canada is arguing that the Government should heed the advice of its own scientists at COSEWIC and place the polar bear on Canada's official Species at Risk list.

More on this as the round table nears...

The Costly Compromises of Oil From Sand

What environmental groups have largely failed to achieve, the cratering economy is doing -- putting a brake on tar sands operations. From the New York Times:

The oil sands companies...have been scaling back as falling oil prices and the general market turmoil create a significant economic challenge for the projects.

With oil prices around $49 a barrel, profitability is fast eroding at oil sands projects and may already be vanishing at some operations. Producers have widely differing cost structures and varying definitions of profitability. But Andrew J. Leach, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, estimates that long-established plants can operate with prices as low as $30 a barrel. But he said newer operations need $60 to $70 a barrel for acceptable returns, and no one will proceed with proposed projects until prices return to the $80 to $90 range.

No one should fool themselves that the oil companies are going to pack up their equipment and go home. While new projects are temporarily being shelved, the bosses at Suncor, EnCana and Shell aren't throwing in the (oil-stained) towel. Concerned citizens and the environmental watchdog groups they support should not for a second reduce pressure on public officials to push for a moratorium on the dirtiest form of oil production on the planet.

Tar sands projects are the world’s most capital-intensive method for extracting oil (just one of those giant dump truck's tires costs $60,000!) and extremely energy intensive. A million cubic metres of water is diverted from the Athabasca River every day to separate the oil from the soil particles.

And oil sands generates about 10 to 30 percent more greenhouse gases than conventional crude. But as the New York Times reports, Canada isn't letting a little thing like our climate crisis get in the way of a good business relationship with the U.S.:

Exactly how Canada could participate in the shaping of an American strategy for climate change is unclear.

Mr. Harper, who is from Alberta, initially dismissed concerns about climate change. After taking power in 2006, he abandoned commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions made by the previous Liberal government when it signed the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Instead, Mr. Harper’s government has promised a 20 percent reduction in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. What is more significant, however, is that the proposal wants to use as a baseline 2006 — a year with more pollution — rather than the Kyoto standard of 1990.

In addition, the new plan requires companies, including oil sands operators, only to reduce the rate at which they emit greenhouse gases. If they achieve those efficiencies, they will still be allowed to raise their total emissions through increased production.

A Thousand and One Ways to Save the Earth

In my stocking this Christmas I received a pocket-sized book called 1,001 Ways to Save the Earth -- a guidebook, really, for incorporating a conservation ethic into your life.

There's a Choose Your Own Adventure vibe to this little compendium. There isn't any particular order to the 1,001 actions author Joanna Yarrow has pulled together; just open up to any page and start anywhere. Some suggestions are straightforward, easy and on everyone's list:

129 No energy to spare. Don't waste energy heating or cooling rooms you rarely use. Minimize air flow to registers in spare rooms and keep doors to unused rooms closed.

But there are plenty of ideas you may not have thought of. Here are a couple that I liked:

983 Rewire without PVC. If your home is due to have its electrical wiring replaced, take advantage of the opportunity to get rid of all the PVC that's likely to be covering it. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is the world's second most commonly used and most environmentally harmful plastic. Luckily, it's easily replaced with benign insulating material, so ask your electrician to help detoxify your whole electrical system.

83 Dressed for warmth. If your water heater tank is a bit past its prime, wrap it up in a fiberglass blanket. They're inexpensive and can be picked up at any home improvement store, and in a few months it will have paid for itself in lower heating bills.

579 Release your books into the wild. Once you've read a book, leave it on a bench, or in some other public place, with a note inviting whoever finds it to take it, read it, then rerelease it. If you write in an ID number by registering the book online, you can track your book as it changes hands, and consider how many trees that have been saved.

272 Soak up ideas. Many traditional cultures live happily and comfortably using only a fraction of the resources required to fuel the average Western lifestyle. Look and learn. Try to incorporate some of their natural wisdom into your life.

Perhaps the best item in Yarrow's long list is #65, when she advises against trying to take on too many of her suggestions all at once; avoid "eco-evangelist burnout" by incorporating a few of her tips into your routine every few weeks, and slowly build that culture of conservation into your life.