JRBSpot

Manitoba Needs More Wind Energy

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:41:00 +0000

[Editor's note. Please enjoy this piece courtesy of Scott Harrison]

Manitoba Hydro claims the St. Joseph’s wind farm will be smaller than the original proposal at 300 megawatts to 138 megawatts. With Manitoba being one of the windiest places in the country (especially southwestern Manitoba), Hydro should allow for faster tendering of wind projects to be built by private corporations, the public or RM’s. These organizations will provide the finance backing to build the wind farms, rather than having the government finance the upfront costs as they are presently doing with the hydro dams in Northern Manitoba. All Manitoba Hydro has to do is follow Ontario’s lead and buy the power back from the companies at an increased rate above the six or seven cents a kilowatt-hour hydro is currently offering. If in fact Manitoba is to reach its target of 1,000 Megawatts by 2015 they better buy power at a higher price or companies will build their wind farms elsewhere (Ontario is presently offering 13.5 cents per kilowatt-hour to wind energy developers). The Manitoba government should invest in wind, solar, and geothermal energy rather than hydro because it helps to offset our dependence on one type of “clean energy”. What happens if we have a drought as was suggest by some Whistleblower’s? Other clean power sources could make up for the difference. Additionally the power lost to transmission is likely to be lower for wind farms because the power is more likely to be produced in the more densely populated southern Manitoba which consumes the bulk of the provinces electricity. Germany has an integrated system of wind, solar, biogas and hydro all throughout the country. The German and Ontarian example provides a model that we could follow here in Manitoba. If only this government was really committed to the idea of a diversified clean energy portfolio.

The logger and the caribou are both becoming endangered species in Manitoba!

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:24:00 +0000

No one can deny that the forestry industry in Manitoba has fallen on hard times, but for Gary Doer to suggest that the approval of the Dickstone Road through Grass River Provincial Park will somehow stabilize jobs in the forestry industry is disingenuous.

In the background information attached to the Provincial Government's November 21, 2008 News Release "Province Proposes Historic Changes To Preserve Provincial Parks For Future Generations" the government noted that the forestry industry employed approximately 2,500 people, down from the 9,000 employed in 1997.

Since then the lay-offs have intensified with Tolko's announcement of: "...an indefinite curtailment at its [lumber] plant in The Pas, Manitoba..." on January 19, 2009, resulting in an additional 107 forestry workers, through no fault of their own, being laid off.

Despite of the mill workers agreeing to wage roll-backs in January of 2006 when Tolko threatened to close the mill down., Tolko's revenues have fallen by 17.4% in 2006, and 21% in 2007. According to their 2007/2008 Business Update this was "...due mainly to a stronger Canadian dollar, reduced market demands, and export taxes."

Building a 17 km road through the middle of Grass River Provincial Park is not going to change the global market conditions the forestry industry is presently facing. It will not change the value of the Canadian Dollar, it is not going to convince Americans to buy more houses, and it is not going to convince our neighbors to the South to change their foreign trade policy.

The road development will however have a drastic effect on the local ecosystems. Of particular note are the endangered Woodland Caribou who calve in Grass River Provincial Park , and the bridge construction will have an impact on the fish and other wildlife in the park as well.

Tolko is heavily dependent on export trade with roughly three-quarters of its sales from outside Canada. This dependence on foreign trade is a double-edged sword that often cuts back during times of economic uncertainty. Unfortunately the laid-off Tolko workers know this all too well.

If the Premier really wanted to stabilize jobs in the forestry industry, perhaps rather than bicker about buy-American provisions he should consider implementing similar Buy-Manitoba clauses. If Manitobans were purchasing their wood products from locally derived sources the demand would be less dependent on external factors and therefore more stable. In this way Manitoba's forestry workers, and their loved ones, would be less likely to deal with the financial and emotional hardships created by price-shocks in a boom and bust industry.

Perhaps if we did this we could sustain our boreal ecosystem, protect our Provincial Parks and the woodland Caribou, and secure long-term jobs for our forestry workers at the same time.

SUBURBAN SPRAWL AT HEART OF WATER DEBATE

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:43:00 +0000

Winnipeg, and the surrounding communities, are presently beholden to the same old game of staged ideological political chicken between the city and the province, and unfortunately our water supply (imagine a barrel of water) is set to collide in between. Thus far most of the spectators have gathered just in front of the barrel of water in protest, and they nervously hold their ground as Sam Katz floors his Nissan Quest towards the barrel while screaming at the top of his lungs: “This is not the privatization of our water system, we are searching for strategic partners!” Gary appears less threatening trying to look “green” while idling his Ford Escape Hybrid on the other side of the barrel, but rest assured he is ready to slam on the gas and roar towards the barrel. In fact he is the one who dared Sammy and the city into this game of political chicken in the first place.

Water, literally the lifeblood that sustains virtually all species on the planet, is an emotional subject. It is even more distressing when we consider the fact that, although water is the most abundant substance on the planet, we are using our precious water resources faster that it can replenish itself.

We all know that a man dying of thirst would undoubtedly give his life savings for a cup of fresh water, but would it be morally just to profiteer in such an occasion? None of us want to end up in the predicament of the dehydrated man, which is why the water we drink, like the air that we breathe, is a public good that should remain common to us all. It is not something that should be commodified for the benefit of a few.

Given the stakes then, it is not surprising that citizens are understandably alarmed about the City's proposed replacement of the Waste & Water Department (W & WD) with a Municipal Corporate Utility (MCU) and what that would mean to them and their water bill. Certainly a debate about our water usage and the impacts of our current capital and water intensive sewage system is well over-due, but the current debate is being framed around ideological hyperbole rather than objective analysis on the facts.

The proponents of the MCU need to provide us with more detail, we need more than naked assumptions. They claim that synergies will result in a 1.0%, and 1.5% reduction in costs in the first and second years respectively through purchasing synergies, but they do not specifically outline what these purchasing synergies are. We need details! Provide us with a list what the W & WD presently buys, from whom and for what price, then provide us with some details on how the MCU intends to lower these costs. The MCU model is supposed to be more responsive and thereby more likely to attract private investment. Corporate model, or not, with sewage contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars I do not suspect that it is that difficult to entice private firms to bid on them, and it is not entirely clear why a corporate model is automatically more responsive (other than the right-wing ideological assumption that business can always do everything better).

Entering into a 30 year contract is tantamount to entering into a marriage, it is not a decision that should be taken lightly. Yet in less than a year the City wants to move from the courting process to the altar. Is it wise to marry someone known for less than a year? Could we find a great partner? The “conservative estimates” of 10-15% reduction in costs might be attainable if this is the case. On the other hand, the partnership could be a disaster, as was the case for Hamilton and Atlanta, and we may be left with a hefty divorce tab. Perhaps prudence would dictate that we go back to the drawing board and sketch out a few more details before this motion is rushed through City Council?

Those who oppose the MCU have similarly distorted the facts with an ideological lens. They have incorrectly labelled the debate as the “complete privatization of or water” a “monumental robbery” and a sure fire way to “hike water rates”. To be fair, this is not an accurate reflection of the present MCU proposal, and water rates are already slated to continue to increase regardless. Threats toward privatization of our water supply exist, and it is good that we have an active vanguard of citizens who serve as watchdogs to prevent this from ever occurring; however their ideological viewpoints, and perhaps their party loyalties, have kept them from focusing on the true marionette master who is pulling most of the strings.

As reported by Bartley Kives of the Winnipeg Free Press (WFP) in his article “Debate about water utility not deep enough” notes:

The province... is in love with the utility. Six years after forcing Winnipeg to engage in a $1.8-billion upgrade to waste-water treatment that the city can barely afford, the Doer government will soon be forced to order bedroom communities such as Stonewall and East and West St. Paul to make sewage upgrades of their own.

The Doer government was correct in mandating that municipalities remove Nitrogen and Phosphorous, but this means very little when they provide neither the correct direction nor the adequate funding for municipalities to achieve this objective.

Given the City's present cash-strapped financial situation, and the Mayor's ideological pro-business predilections, should we be surprised the City is presently entertaining the idea of private funders?

The province's “plan” as indicated in their draft Public Land Use Polices (PLUPs) released this past March is to have Winnipeg contract sewage services to neighboring municipalities. Should we be surprised to see the City of Winnipeg follow the direction as recently outlined by the province?
Isn't the city ultimately still dependant on the province to pass a regulation under s. 212 of The Winnipeg Charter to establish the corporation?

Regardless of whether it is performed by the present city-owned Waste & Water Department or a future Corporate Municipal Utility extending sewer services out into Winnipeg's commuter-shed, this is a poorly thought out idea as it will clearly lead to more urban sprawl!

Winnipeg already faces an estimated infrastructure deficit of $7.4 billion and the South End sewage treatment plant is already operating at capacity and due to the population growth (caused by new developments in the South End of Winnipeg like Waverly West), and it will require significant upgrades to accommodate the required volume. Winnipeg already faces the difficult task of managing the competing objectives of rehabilitating the aging infrastructure in the city centre while also incorporating new developments within the perimeter. New developments will undoubtedly bubble up from the sewage infrastructure as it extends out beyond the perimeter, thereby compounding these problems even further.

While both the City and the Province see this as a win-win way for Winnipeg to generate revenue while achieving Nitrogen and Phosphorous removal on schedule, they have clearly not taken the time to look holistically at the larger picture. The corresponding urban sprawl will decrease Winnipeg's population density further and with fewer people to service more infrastructure the obvious result will be a reduction in service, increased taxes, or both. Our city will become even more car dependent resulting in further greenhouse gas emissions, valuable agricultural land will be paved over, and the few remaining wetlands (the kidneys of the planet) which remain on the outskirts of the city will needlessly be drained. In short the revenues do not justify the additional costs.

The framing of the debate as left vs. right, or public control vs. private control misses the deeper issues that lay underneath. As much as this debate is about the public control of our infrastructure, it is perhaps even more about how we intend to design our city in the years to come. At the Mayor`s Environmental Symposium in April of 2009 numerous participants outlined urban sprawl as an issue of concern. We cannot change the sprawl of the past, but we do have the ability to stop the sprawl of the future. The line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. Speak up Winnipeg! And not just to Katz, Doer needs to hear you as well. We only have one barrel of water and it really doesn't matter if Katz or Doer hit the barrel first. If the barrel spills we are all in trouble!

It is your job to improve bus service!

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:40:00 +0000

In the Winnipeg Free Press' June 8th, 2009 article about the Commuter Challenge Councillor Bill Clement comments that, "Anybody that would be thinking clearly would understand very quickly that nobody representing that ward can travel it by bus and do it justice,”; perhaps then Councillor Clement should be working on doing his ward justice by ensuring that they have bus service that can accommodate the needs of all. If bus service is inadequate in his ward, then it is Councillor Clement`s job to see that is improved. This flippant behaviour is simply unacceptable from a elected official from any level of government.

Political Will a Prerequisite to Sustainable Planning

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:17:00 +0000

The title from a May 14, 2009 press release from the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba (PCWM) says it all: "Manitoba’s Proposed Land Use Policies Encourage Urban Sprawl".

(I highly recommend that readers check of the PCWM response at: http://www.mts.net/~pcwm/plup_response.pdf)

In the PCWM response to the PLUP consultation, they quip that "...the March 2009 draft should more accurately be entitled, 'Provincial Infrastructure, Servicing and Land Use Policies' as it moves away from the focus of sustainable land use planning and concentrates more on providing infrastructure and services to low density, scattered 'urban centres', rural residential and cottage development. This will promote urban sprawl, particularly in Winnipeg’s commuter-shed. This direction is unsustainable both environmentally and economically."

Having attended the Provincial Land Use Policies (PLUP) consultation process, held at the Norwood Hotel in Winnipeg, MB on April 27th, my observations were concurrent with those of the PCWM.

In short, these regulations are pure "greenwash". Many green buzz-words are incorporated throughout the 63 page draft, but words do not give this document the strength to promote sustainable land use. It is disingenuous for the NDP to cast about carelessly these buzz-terms, while at the same time promoting the continuation of our car-dependent, water- and energy-intensive infrastructure systems.

First off, the draft regulations are nearly toothless. They are not binding laws but are merely advisory in nature. According to the section entitled "Scope and Application": "The Policies are to be read as a whole and ...are to be applied to the circumstance or consideration." (pg 8).

The only problem is PLUP are so contradictory, however, that they cannot be read as a whole.

Too elaborate I provide two examples: Infrastructure Development and The Mid-Continent Trade Corridor Concept.

INFRASTRUCTURE

The PLUP on "Infrastructure" delineates that "alternative solutions" rather than extending or expanding existing infrastructure should be considered and in particular "demand side management techniques and low impact development" should be utilized (pg 48; PA:6.6 b.).

These policies are then utterly undermined by the mandate to connect both new developments and existing self-sufficient developments to centralized pipe-based wastewater facilities (pg 49; PA6:8).

On one page the PLUP outline that we should not extend or expand our current infrastructure, and on then on the next page they instruct the extension of the same old piped wastewater infrastructure -- which is dependent on continuous quantities of water to maintain the flow and therefore wholly incompatible with demand management techniques.

How are these policy interests to be reconciled with each other?

"The pressure to extend water, sewer, roads, transit and other services and infrastructure will tax these services to an unsustainable degree. It could lead to the demand for major infrastructure expansion such as twinning the aqueduct from Shoal Lake that has a finite water supply. Winnipeg currently has a massive infrastructure deficit. To ask the city to spread its services and infrastructure throughout the region is simply not sustainable nor is it fair to the citizens..." elaborates the PCWM.

MID-CONTINENT TRADE CORRIDOR

The Development Plan By-Laws require various appropriate studies be undertaken and made public before the approval of any new development, including among them studies on "greenhouse gas emissions inventories and forecasts" as well as "climate change vulnerability/risk assessments" (pg. 20; BL: 3. f, g).

Yet the Capital Region is ensured of the 'protection to capitalize upon any identified economic development advantages' including an expanded 24-hour airport and the concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. (pg 62; PA 9: 2).

Yet going back to the By-Laws where are the public studies for the greenhouse gas/climate change impacts of the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor? Clearly the construction alone, let alone the increased air, freight, and rail traffic will caused an increase in emissions.

In the PLUP section on "Agriculture" the preamble states:
"It is expected that rising fuel costs and climate change may place an increased demand on the production and protection of local food sources. Producing food for local consumption reduces food miles traveled and consequently greenhouse gases;" (pg. 31; PA 3).

Given that nearly all goods are transported by our fossil-fuel based transportation system it generally holds true that reducing the miles traveled of all goods in general will consequently reduce greenhouse gases, dependent of course on the method of transportation used.

The concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor however is entirely dependent on the notion of transporting goods across the globe. It is also heavily dependent on air travel, which has the heaviest footprint of any form of fossil-fuel based transportation.

So which policy directive is to prevail? The one that calls for planning to reduce greenhouse gases, or the plan to build a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor which is wholly dependent on unsustainable greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuel based transportation infrastructure?

Further to this, Downtown Winnipeg stands to lose the Greyhound Bus Depot and the Post Office Headquarters to the proposed Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. How does this fit in line the PLUP "Settlement Areas" which make a commitment to maximize investment in the downtown (PA 2: 8., 9.)

This is just two examples of how the PLUP often contradict themselves, but how can conflicting policy directives constitute a land use plan. Ultimately political considerations will prevail in the planning process. What is needed, perhaps even more than better planning policies themselves, is the political will from our politicians to commit themselves to a sincere rather than a face-value commitment to sustainable land use planning.

[Note: Draft PLUP can be read at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/draft.html or in pdf form at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/pdf/draft.pdf. Referenced by page number and policy. -- Eg. (pg 42; PA5: 3.a.) refers to page 42 pdf version; Policy Area 5: directive 3.a.]

Sugar-Coated Tokenism

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Wed, 06 May 2009 07:07:00 +0000

It is galling how the "Do-little" NDP government pats itself on the back for small feel-good initiatives. When these initiatives are analyzed in context of the entirety of the government's activities it is clear that the Government is committed to nothing more than tokenism.

Today was the perfect example of this tendency. Conservation Minister Stan Struthers announced, that in collaboration with the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA), the province will be introducing a cell-phone recycling program.

I have no issues with this program on its own accord. It is promising to see the industry taking initiative. When cell phones end up in the land-fill they often leach toxins, and the mining of these metals have considerable environmental impacts.

It should, however, be recognized that cell phones are only one contributor to the province's growing e-waste problem. Nowadays it seems like everybody owns at least one, if not multiple computers, lapbtops, Ipods, television sets, DVD players, Blu Ray players, gaming consoles, and other consumer electronics. Consumer electronics date themselves quickly and within a couple of years they either end up in the landfill, or perhaps stowed away in someone`s closet/garage. Furthermore e-waste is but one part of a larger problem that revolves around our society's flagrantly frivolous production of so-called "waste".

Looking at today's press release on cell-phone recycling in isolation it becomes easy to believe that this government is at the vanguard of the environmental movement, but governments cannot be judged on the basis of a single press release alone. They need to be judged on the sum of their actions.

On Earth Day the government's press releases promised "...to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to 20 per cent over the next three years," and Doer pledged $7 million to the Nature Conservancy of Canada to enhance Natural Areas.

$7 million sounds like a substantial investment in our ecosystems, until you consider the fact that the week before the government announced an infrastructure investment in Winnipeg's Inland port of $111 million- that's nearly 16 times the value of the investment in the Nature Conservancy of Canada! Furthermore both the construction and operation of the proposed CentrePort port are likely to cause an increase in GHG emissions.

The Province has been bolstering the CentrePort Canada Corporation as a way to "develop Manitoba's economy". The idea is to turn Winnipeg into a so-called "inland port" whereby Winnipeg will be a worldwide centre of distribution. Such a plan is heavily reliant on the idea of increased international trade, and in particular a continuation and expansion of our current practices of needlessly shipping products around the world by plane and truck.

Apparently the government never read the memo that our current methods of transporting freight with fossil-fuels is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

Transportation is Manitoba's largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), creating 37% of the roughly 20 megatonnes of GHGs that Manitoba produces each year. It logically follows that promoting more international freight transport will further increase our GHG emissions.

The inland port concept is heavily dependent on the construction of a new airport and new roads. Has the government even considered the effects of such a massive construction project on the province's GHG emissions?

According to a 2001 study in The Annual Review of Energy and the Environment every tonne of concrete produced in North America creates 242 kg of Carbon emissions, and this does not include "...the CO2 emissions attributable to mobile equipment used for mining of raw material, used for transport of raw material and cement, and used on the plant site." In his recent book Heat, George Monbiot argues, "It is probably fair to say that a tonne of cement produces about a tonne of carbon dioxide.”

Clearly just the construction alone will be very taxing on Manitoba's atmosphere.

Air travel is also one of the fastest growing areas of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the David Suzuki Foundation "...since 1990, CO2 emissions from international aviation have increased 83%." Yet, in their most recent budget the government reduced the aviation fuel tax for domestic cargo flights and expanded their aviation fuel tax exemption for international cargo flights.

We are already proposing to spend billions of dollars on CentrePort. Why do we feel that it is prudent to deny Manitobans the tax revenue generated from international cargo flights to encourage aviation freight in spite of the clearly apparent ecological costs?

This government is baking a toxic cake, but because they have put some green icing on the outside, they want Manitoban's to believe that they can have their cake and eat it too. Hopefully we are smart enough to quit swallowing the Province's sugar-coated nonsense, because the more we eat, the worse it is for Manitoba in the long run.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/air_travel.asp
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.26.1.303 (subscription required)
http://www.gov.mb.ca/stem/climate/mb_doing.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=&item=5777
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5703
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5699
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5665

Celebrating St. Patrick's Day with the Cyclists!

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:08:00 +0000

I attended the Bike To The Future's (BTTF) open-house on the Disraeli cycling/pedestrian crossing on St. Patricks's day. I was surprised that none of the other Elmwood candidates attended, since the Disraeli Bridge Rehabilitation has been such a hot topic of the campaign. I suppose that active transportation is really not on their radar. It seems that most of the talk on the Disraeli bridge has centered around personal vehicular traffic. I am merely speculating here, but my understanding is that the other three candidates typically commute by car, which explains why they might be less empathetic to cyclists, pedestrians, or bus riders (read my previous post below "Politicians: Priorities Please!" or "Time for Politicians to take the bus?" for further opinion) .

It is unfortunate that the candidates missed this meeting because the one presenter hit the exact problem underlying the Disraeli Bridge closure right on the head, stating: "There is no coherent plan to decrease the amount of traffic going over the Disraeli Bridge."

It is not that I do not sympathize with the inconvenience that any bridge closure will cause (regardless of whether that is a full or a partial closure). Nobody likes to be stuck in traffic, whether you are in a car, on a bus, or on your bike. As a business owner myself I can sympathize with the business owners in the area who will more than see a decline in there profits. I know how hard fluctuations in income can be for entrepreneurs and business people.

Having knocked on the doors of many residents of Elmwood I am keenly aware how upset and divided the residents of Elmwood are about this issue! It is clear that the less time the bridge is ultimately closed the better it will be. Right now the City of Winnipeg is in the process of receiving proposals for the project, which will include details such as whether an attached or separate pedestrian bridge will be built, how long the bridge will be closed and whether this will be a full or partial closure. One of the interesting things that came from the meeting is how fast the entire process is moving and therefore how little time is allowed for public discussion from the residents of Elmwood, other surrounding communities and concerned groups. While this is ultimately a civic issue, it seems to me that the decision-making process should be opened up to the public, especially the people of Elmwood so that the community can choose the repair tender that best meets their needs.

Unlike the other candidates I do not think that adding more lanes for automobile traffic is the cure This is nothing more than a temporary treatment that will alleviate the pain. Fellow blogger David Watson has a great quote on his blog Waverly West and beyond:

"Adding lanes to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to solve obesity." - Glen Hemistra

The answer is to slim down!

According to Winnipeg Transit, 20% of Winnipeggers travel by bus and 2 buses can replace as many as a hundred cars, thereby reducing traffic congestion by 90%. Therefore if we improved bus frequency and service the transit ridership rate would increase and this would decrease traffic congestion not only during the Disraeli Closure (whether that be a partial or full closure), but beyond as well.

Promoting cycling is another way to slim down traffic congestion. For cyclists and pedestrians the Disraeli Rehabilitation process cannot be completed fast enough as many are looking forward to the new segregated bike lane across the Disraeli. The high pitch of the Disraeli Bridge and the high speed of traffic on Henderson Highway make the Disraeli Bridge in its present form one of the least bike friendly locations in the city.

It is key to recognize that Winnipeg's active transportation network do not connect to each other, and this historic lack of investment in active transportation is one of the reasons that inhibit people from riding their bikes. Can you imagine if our paved roads suddenly ended and motor vehicles were forced to cross mud paths to get to the next paved road? That is the situation that cyclists currently face.

Cycling and transit need to be our priorities. They should not be merely afterthoughts, to be incorporated if it is convenient to do so. This is exactly why we presently have an incoherent bike infrastructure system across the city. At the BTTF meeting numerous residents from Elmwood and Point Douglas indicated that they would like active transportation crossings at both the Disraeli and Louise bridges. They worry the construction of a Disraeli active transportation corridor will inhibit the conversion of the Louise into an active transportation corridor as well. It is too bad that none of the other candidates were present to hear this concern.

Sources:
http://waverleywest.blogspot.com/
http://myride.winnipegtransit.com/en/inside-transit/interestingtransitfacts/

Authorized by the Official Agent for James Beddome

The NDP may try to appear to be green, but we can all smell the VOC's blowing out the back-door!

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:48:00 +0000

The Green Party of Manitoba (GPM)--and in fact all Manitobans--scored a partial victory with the provinces March 16th decision to have the Clean Environment Commission (CEC) review Louisiana Pacific's (LP) license change request. Now I am not saying that the GPM letter which you can read at: http://greenparty.mb.ca/pdf/pr/20090302.pdf, was the the sole reason for this application being reviewed. There were many individuals and many organizations which sent in letters in opposition to this request, but it does go to show the NDP Government's supposed concern for the environment is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Fifteen years ago, then Leader of the Opposition Gary Doer was instrumental in having the RTO installed, flash forward fifteen years and this government was trying to slip an application to shut-down the RTO through the back-door when nobody was looking because the global economic recession was hurting the lumber industry. Apparently the NDP has forgotten where they came from. Apparently this government has still not grasped the concept that the environment and the economy are inextricably linked. A few dollars of economic activity is not worth the cost of comprising our clean water and fresh air.

This is only a partial victory. It should be a no-brainer but the CEC will want substantive proof as to why the RTO should not be shut-down. While LP has the money to pay for experts to argue their case for them, the ecosystems that sustain us have no legal standing and no bank account, this means that the public must speak up on behalf of these ecosystems. I would encourage all citizens to present on this issue to the CEC, or lend your expertise to the GPM we will certainly be presenting to the CEC!

You can contact me directly at: leader@greenparty.mb.ca

For more information:
http://earthkeeperfarm.blogspot.com/2009/03/louisiana-pacific-takes-pollution.html
http://thegreenpages.ca/portal/mb/2009/03/louisiana_pacific_seeks_to_dec.html
http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/press/top/2009/03/2009-03-16-110400-5435.html
Authorized by the official agent for James Beddome

Politicians: Priorities Please!

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:13:00 +0000

So much of the Elmwood by-election campaign has focused on the Disraeli Bridge. One candidate campaigns on plans to spend an untenable amount of money to keep the bridge open, and the next one foolishly follows his lead--even making it his campaign slogan. The tired old politician finally wakes up midway through the campaign and issues a statement that mimics all candidates position without really saying anything at all. Why has this been the centrepoint of the debate?

The bridge is but a symptom of the real problem: poor city planning and traffic congestion.

No matter how we deal with this situation, traffic interruption will be the result. If the bridge is partially closed down, traffic will actually be congested for a longer period of time. If we twin the Louise bridge, congestion will undoutedly ensue during that construction. In the meantime we risk a catastrophe like the one witnessed in Minneapolis! Perhaps we should step back and start to examine the root causes.

This is where the Green Party of Manitoba (GPM) comes in! If the bus came by your front door step every two minutes would you consider leaving the car at home? What if you had ample room to read or relax? What if the bus had wireless internet connection? These are not impossible aims, all that is required is the political will.

The province presently gives Winnipeg Transit a mere $24 million per year under its 50/50 cost sharing operating grant. WE CAN DO BETTER! The province is spending $13 million on the Kenaston underpass and $8 building roads to a new IKEA store---meanwhile in Elmwood the streets are riddled with potholes and there is atleast one bridge that is falling down, my fair lady-- perhaps we should quit building new neighborhoods and focus investment on older neighborhoods like Elmwood.

The people of Elmwood know this better than most. They have seen the small independent corner store displaced by the new suburban box stores--all too often with the help of public money. They have seen the increased traffic run through their neighbhorhood as the suburban development has expanded in North Winnipeg.

A politician's job is to provide direction and set priorities. We are quite literally expected to anticipate the future. The other candidates were nearly condoning speeding earlier in the campaign, one even admitted to getting a speeding ticket, and the other thought that speeding tickets were about raising revenue rather than protecting public safety. Shortly, thereafter a car ran into a house just off of Henderson Highway. Are these the people that you want to leave in charge of protecting you? Your children and loved ones?

This campaign is about the political will to move us in the right direction. Is the Disraeli Bridge really our top priority? What about the children in Elmwood who go to bed hungry every night? What about the Elmwood residents who do not feel safe in their own neighborhoods? What about residents that lack adequate health care service? What about the parents that can't find suitable daycare arrangements? What about the state of our lakes and waterways? What about the perilous future of our planet?

James Beddome
Elmwood Candidate &
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba
Authorized by the official agent

Where is Manitoba on Wind Energy?

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:16:00 +0000

Why does this province promote hydro-electric energy at the expense of wind energy?

We wait on the sidelines to see if Australian mega-firm Babcock and Brown can pony up the $800 million to make the long awaited 300 megawatt (MW) wind farm in St. Joseph a reality, but we have no problem with our Crown Corporation taking on $18 billion dollars in debt on our behalf in addition to its nearly $7 billion of the province's $18 billion debt.

Yet, wind is cheaper than hydro! Wuskatim (generating capacity 200MW) is estimated to cost the government $1.6 billion. At $800 million for 300 MW, the St. Joseph wind farm will have more generating capacity for less capital investment.

Though hydro typically operates closer to peak generating capacity, it is not without its own costs. For instance, there are the costs of transporting the electricity to market. But more importantly, there are the ecological costs: undrinkable water, shoreline erosion, rapidly fluctuating water levels and habitat disruption. A full ecological cumulative-impact assessment of the hydroelectric dams built has never been conducted.

If hydro is so "green", why did Minnesota make its power purchase agreement conditional on Manitoba Hydro reporting how it conducts itself regarding its treatment of indigenous people and the ecological impacts of the dams? Worse yet, why did Doer and his team lobby to have the bill removed after Manitoba Hydro failed to comply with the reporting requirements?

Hydro has shown a distaste for transparency when it comes to releasing the report on the Forks Wind Power study. It seems clear that its strategy seems to be full steam ahead with hydro at any cost, while wind farm developers are needlessly buffeted by an arduous application process. Manitoba Hydro received more than 84 wind farm proposals, but only one was selected.

Why doesn't Manitoba institute a net-metering program like the one already in place in Ontario? Customers generating their own renewable electricity receive credit for any electricity that they put back into the grid. In this way the citizens of Manitoba can decide for themselves if the installation of a solar panel on their roof, or a wind turbine in their field is worthwhile.

The RM of Elton (North of Brandon), for example, has already formed the Elton Energy Co-op with the hope of producing truly clean power for the local people. This municipality, like the rest of Manitoba, are still waiting for the Manitoba Government to make wind power a reality in this province.

James Beddome
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba

Sources:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/budget08/index.html
http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=renewable.netmetering
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/03/26/minnesota-hydro.html?ref=rss
http://jimmycotton.blogspot.com/2008/12/government-of-manitoba-says-forks-wind.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2008-11-01&item=4795
http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wind-farms/index.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2007-2-01&item=1103

Time for Politicians to take the bus?

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:06:00 +0000

Although I am sure some people do take issue with the idea of being surveilled, I personally do not oppose the installation of cameras on buses (they began installing cameras on buses years ago). I do, however, take real issue with the governments' claim that this will somehow improve transit service within Winnipeg.

Transit has been my primary means of transportation for the seven and a half years that I have lived in Winnipeg, and I have travelled the city extensively on various different routes. I have seen unruly and rambunctious people creating problems while riding on the bus. In these situations, it was not the presence of a camera, but the actions of a fellow bus-rider or bus-driver that resolved the issue. Therefore, I question Vic Toews' assumption that the presence of cameras will “deter potential criminal activity.”, although that footage may be a useful source of evidence for the criminal justice system after the fact. They began adding cameras on buses years ago and for the average bus rider the installation of cameras has had little effect on their transit riding experience; I doubt that adding a few more cameras will make much of a difference.

Yet according to the politicians the installation of the cameras will incite the public to clamber onto the Transit buses, possibly exclaiming: "I'm on T.V.!"

Steve Ashton boasted this was part of "...the province’s vision for a clean and green economy by providing Manitobans with alternative transportation choices." Likewise Gord Steeves proclaimed: "With increased ridership, we must continue to improve our existing transit system to capture that increase and provide positive transportation alternatives to our citizens."

Wait a minute guys...I'm a little confused? How does placing cameras on the transit buses already in operation 'provide Manitobans with alternative transportation choices'? If our ridership is increasing, (or if you would like it to increase as part of the plan for a greener Manitoba), would it not be more logical to improve our transit system by running more buses, more frequently, rather than installing more cameras on the buses already in operation?

The key to getting more people to ride the bus is to provide good service at a fair cost. If the buses in Winnipeg had attractive fares and the bus came every five minutes, ridership rates would skyrocket. But all too often bus-riders are stuck waiting in the blistering cold 10-40 minutes for the next ride. I wonder how often Ashton, Steeves, or Toews have faced the daily challenge of waiting for their bus in the deep chill of Winnipeg winter?

Opposition Parties, Pierce the Blue Cashmere Vest!

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:16:00 +0000

The bully has now become the bullied. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty's unprovoked and cynical attempt to use the economic situation as an excuse to beat up on labour rights, democracy and the other political parties, has created the wherewithal for the opposition parties to work together. The three elected opposition parties know that they need not worry about causing another unwanted election -- the Governor General has the option of handing the reigns of Government over to a coalition of the opposition parties, as Lord Byng did in 1926. Given that Canadians are in no mood for yet another election, and that we went to the polls less than two months ago, it is difficult to see how Michaelle Jean could not give the opposition the chance to govern. Harper's arrogance has become the curiosity that hangs the cat (cue to a sigh of relief among the 60 plus percent of voters that cast their ballot for somebody other than the Conservatives).

Public election financing is literally peanuts in comparison to the entirety of the federal budget. It also helps to foster a thriving democracy, because it ensures that political parties are more than lobbyist groups for Canada's wealthiest. Meanwhile here in Manitoba, Premier Gary Doer has finally revealed that he is a Conservative wolf in Orange Wool, when he let it slip that he seems to be following the Conservatives lead in scrapping the public election financing that his government recently introduced. The NDP have always fancied themselves as 'the defenders of the little guy'. But the little guy votes with a ballot rather than a chequebook. Perhaps Gary Doer and the NDP should consider all Manitobans before they bow into Conservative pressure, lest they follow the path of the faltering Harper Government.

Little Changes with the Do-little Government

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:32:00 +0000

The government surprised none with its throne speech. It was the same old series of small incremental changes that we have come to expect from the Manitoba government. There was certainly some movements in the right direction, but at such a slow place, that it is completely indiscernible to figure out which direction we are actually headed. The $100 increase in the personal tax exemption that was announced today is just one example of the underwhelming nature of the Do-little government.

Firstly, the government deserves some credit- it has finally committed itself to ending the practice of logging in the provincial parks. For years the Green Party of Manitoba along with various other advocacy organizations in Manitoba have been calling for this much needed change. It will be interesting to watch and see exactly when the licenses of Timbec, Louisiana-Pacific, and the other logging companies will be phased out, and if the Manitoba government will be subject to any legal actions from any of these logging companies.

Secondly, the governments ambiguous decision to ban plastic bags unless they can be re-cycled is a good first step, but it is also quite timid. Why doesn't this government follow the route of Ireland who achieved a 90% reduction in the use of plastic bags while raising nearly 10 million dollars through the implementation of a PlasTax? Furthermore while plastic bags are a sincere environmental concern, if this government thinks that banning plastic bags will solve the world's ecological ills they are sorely mistaken.

The 52 kilometres of bike path along the Red River Floodway sounds picturesque, but isn't there a greater need for 52 kilometres of bike path within Manitoba's Urban Centers where those paths will be used a means of transport rather than a means of recreation?

It's clear that the Manitoba government's strategy is to splatter everything with a little bit of green paint. But when the foundation is cracking a paint job will not be an adequate fix. “Steady as she goes...” is a sure strategy for a collapse. This is particularly unfortunate because, if Manitobans were led by a party with vision and the will to make real political change, we could get the foundation in order—for future generations and beyond.

James Beddome
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba

Northern Food Initiative Needs to be Expanded

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:55:00 +0000

It was encouraging to see the Manitoba Government's press release "Northern Communities Improving Self-Sufficiency with Healthy Food Projects,", but I could not help asking myself why not pursue Healthy Food Projects throughout Manitoba including Winnipeg?

The Government boasts about how its contribution of "$600,000, ... has leveraged support from a number of other sources" helping to ensure that "more than 400 vegetable gardens have been planted in communities all over the North."

In Winnipeg, however, the Province failed to keep the plants blooming at 198 Sherbrook this past spring. Originally a vacant lot that was repurposed into a garden by local residents in 1991, it was purchased for $30.500 by the West Broadway Development Corporation in 2001 with the help of a provincial grant. This past spring the WBCD decided that the $2000 in annual taxes was "...a cost that is not sustainable"; opting instead to build housing. Where was the province on this one? Does a community garden not warrant a measley $2000 per annum in government funding?

We need a Winnipeg Healthy Foods Initiative. Fresh produce may not be as cripplingly expensive here in Winnipeg as it is in the North, but we still need to deal with critical challenge of ensuring food security. All Manitobans need to create a local self-sufficient food supply. Such a supply would reduce imported low-nutrition foods and feature healthy locally grown foods. Manitobans would reacquainte themselves with their daily bread, by learning about traditional harvesting and food preservation techniques. In short, Winnepeggers and Northerners alike can all reduce the ecological impact of the food we eat.

It's actually quite simple: remove the nitrogen at source

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:22:00 +0000

The Manitoba government has decided to rethink nitrogen removal, but perhaps they should be rethinking water-based sanitation?

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of nitrogen and ammonia found in sewage water originates from human urine. Instead of diluting our urine with water and then attempting to remove the urine at the treatment plant, perhaps we should be looking at the examples from Finland, Sweden, Germany, China, among others, where urine is being used as a fertilizer.

Human excreta is packed of full nutrients, most notably phosphorous and nitrogen, by adopting a policy of waterless sanitation (i.e. dry composting toilets) we can ensure that these nutrients are returned to the soil from where they originated, rather than ending up in our waterways where they do not belong.

ORGANIC WINDOW DRESSING

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:18:00 +0000

There are signs that the Manitoba Government is beginning to see the light cast off by the need for a more sustainable food supply; but, as always, the Manitoba Government continues to stare at the ground two inches ahead rather than looking off into the distance whence the light is coming.

The government's announcements to help fund organic certification, and research into reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as movements in the right direction, but they need to be understood in context.

Both of these announcements (released on October 1, 2008 and September 23, 2008 respectively) were rather paltry, when compared to other releases seen this year. Consider that the cumulative projected costs of these two

announcements amounts to $1,338,000 million. In contrast, a single hog factory can receive up to $5 million in loan support under the $60 million Manitoba Hog Assistance Loan Program announced on June 5, 2008.

Or, how about the fact that the Government committed $19.6 million ($13.7 million directly) in funding to Neepawa and Brandon to clean up the mess created by the hog-processing plants (Springhill Farms and Maple Leaf).

If half of the money spent on propping up the hog industry had been used to support farmers for maintaining unadulterated wilderness, for switching to organic methods or for developing small-scale localized food production systems, we would already have a sustainable agriculture in place.

Open the Farmers' Market 365

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:17:00 +0000

Kudos to Keystone Agricultural Producers for their August 26th, 2008 article Press Release “The Farmers` Share” in recognizing that farmers receive a tiny portion of the average consumer's grocery bill. One remedy for this problem is to encourage consumers to purchase directly from agricultural producers (or at minimal to purchase products that originate from local agricultural producers), as this helps to minimize transportation and intermediary costs, thereby allowing farmers to capture a greater share of consumer's grocery bill.

In Manitoba, however, a series of archaic legislative regulations make it difficult for small agricultural producers to market their products directly to consumers. One of the most glaring examples of this is the “Food and Food Handling Establishments Regulations” under the Public Health Act which limit Farmers Markets to being open a mere 14 days per annum.

Most of the food handling regulations are sensible, but how does limiting the operating days of temporary food markets protect public health?

As evidenced by the recent cases of pork tainted with Lysteria and Salmonella-laden tomatoes, there is always the potential for our food to be contaminated. This is true of virtually everything we eat, regardless of whether it has been purchased from a farmers market or a Superstore.

When food contamination originates from large centralized production facilities (as was the case in the two previous examples) the contamination has the potential to be more widespread; whereas when food is sold directly from a local producer to a consumer, the shorter supply chain makes it easier to track any contamination that may occur, and the risk of the contamination spreading is mitigated.

If the provincial and federal governments were committed to truly helping our agricultural producers market directly to consumers, farmers would not be buffeted as they are now with tired, arbitrary, and inconsistently enforced legislation. Granting farmers unfettered access to market themselves via farmers markets, is only one small legislative change that needs to be made, but it is a start! And if we begin to create the legislative structure that promotes small-scale agricultural producers, might we not discover that our small-scale local producers are more trustworthy than their multi-national counterparts at delivering quality food?

Saddling Farmers With Debt

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:13:00 +0000

Minister Wowchuk's recent press announcement that the province will increase the agricultural Operating Credit Guarantee from $15 million to $25 million is a tacit recognition of the Government's current agricultural strategy to propagate the current process of farm amalgamation by enabling agricultural producers to string an even heavier yoke of debt around their necks.
[http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=&item=3819]

The Manitoba Government boasts that it has increased the the Operating Credit Guarantee administered by the Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation [MASC] by 10 million dollars to a total maximum of 25 million. MASC's own website states that the purpose of this program is to “...provide a 25 per cent guarantee on operating lines of credit with participating private lending institutions.” Essentially this funding increase allows “participating private lending institutions” to annually saddle an additional 40 million dollars in debt on the backs of Manitoba's agricultural producers. However will an increase in debt-load really benefit agricultural producers? Or will it be more beneficial to the institutions that earn interest on the money loaned? In the past twenty years the total debt outstanding by Manitoba farms has more than tripled from $1.85 billion in 1988 to $6.07 billion in 2007. Yet over the same period the realized net farm incomes of Canadian farmers have declined from $3.9 billion in 1988 to $1.5 billion in 2007.
[http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/21-014-XIE/21-014-XIE2008001.pdf]
[http://www.nfu.ca/briefs/2007/1988%20vs%202007%20FINAL%20bri.pdf]

In theory this increase in funding guarantees should allow Manitoba's agricultural producer to access $5,248.24 (up from $3148.94) in operating loans on an annual basis, but these loans will not be allocated equally among all producers. The vast majority of Canadian agricultural producers, 65.6%, to be exact, earn gross annual receipts of less than $100,000; however these farms are the least likely to be profitable. As a case in point farms earning annual gross receipts of less than $25,000 turn a profit 29% of the time; whereas 86% of farms with annual gross receipts over $1 million earn a profit. [http://www.statcan.ca/english/agcensus2006/articles/finpic.htm]

Lending institutions are in the business of risk management, and the statistical reality is that the vast majority of Canadian farms, the small family-run operations, are less likely to be profitable than their multimillion dollar counterparts. Lending institutions therefore are more likely to loan money to the more profitable larger farms.

At the end of the day it seems likely that the increase in the Operating Credit Guarantee will aid in: helping to prop up large-scale hog/poultry operations, and helping large and medium sized farmers to buy-out their smaller neighbors.

Remove the nutrients at source

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:12:00 +0000

The Green Party of Manitoba [GPM] has been watching with great interest the debate occurring on editorial pages of the Winnipeg Free Press, regarding nitrogen removal at Winnipeg's waste water treatment plants. The findings and comments of Dr. Schindler are interesting, but it is disheartening that most of the debate has centered on the best way to treat our sewage, when we ought to be discussing how to stop creating sewage in the first place.

On July 24th, Councillor Steeves expressed his concern that the roughly $2 billion being spent on upgrading our sewage system "...is not at all a prudent use of taxpayers' money." To this end the GPM would also like to point out that it is also an imprudent use of our precious water resources.

The fact of the matter is, that the vast majority of pathogens and nutrients coming from household sewage originate from human feces and urine. According to a German study, urine accounts for 87% of the total nitrogen content and 50% of the phosphorous content in household sewage water; furthermore feces accounts for 10% of the total nitrogen and 40% of the total phosphorous content. However rather than dealing with this problem at its point of origin, we dilute it with water: firstly when we flush our toilet, and increasingly so as we mix our toilet water, with our wash and drainage water; at which point we then attempt to remove the diluted nutrients and pathogens from the so called "waste-water" or "sewage" that is created.

In essence every year we take several thousand litres of litres of clean fresh water, mix it with a couple hundred litres of our bodily excrements, and then we try to remove the bodily excrements from the water. A rather pointless and inefficient process, when we consider that the technology exists- dry composting toilets (which are already in place in some Winnipeg homes and businesses, mind you)- with which we could treat our bodily excrements without the use of water, and rather than creating algae blooms in lakes, we could produce a useful agricultural product--a nutrient rich soil conditioner.

In her July 28th letter to the Winnipeg Free Press, Minister Melnick asserts that "...the cost for cleaning up Lake Winnipeg is a responsibility of all Manitobans." Undoubtedly, the cost of increasingly eutrophicating and contaminated waterways is borne by all living species in Manitoba. Why then, do both the civic and provincial governments cling to upholding an unsustainable sewage infrastructure?

The Constituency boundaries may change, but the agrarian roots to my hometown do not.

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:11:00 +0000

As the former Green Party candidate in the soon to be defunct Minnedosa Constituency, I largely concur with Dan Lett's conclusions: that the recent Tory complaints about electoral gerrymandering are unfounded, and that this is a tacit recognition by the Tories that they can't seem to win seats in Winnipeg.

I do admit to being a little sentimental—us political candidates get attached to the areas where we campaign—; but underneath the new electoral redistribution and the political muckraking lies the structural cause of the shift of political power from the rural areas to our major urban center: the problem of rural decline.

There are few that would doubt the legitimacy of the Census data that is used to determine redistributions, and the by and large the Census data shows that many of Manitoba's rural areas are hollowing out as many young people forgo taking over the family farm in favour of working in the city. The question these rural PC MLA's should be asking is: “Why are these trends occurring?”; and “What can be done to reverse these trends?”

In an attempt to get the political discourse going I though that I might offer a few suggestions courtesy of the Green Party of Manitoba.

The underlying value of a Green approach to agriculture is move away from export oriented agriculture, towards localized food production. All to often foods travel thousands of kilometres before consumption. This not only causes needless emissions, but when food is sold locally directly from the agricultural producer to the consumer the absence of middle-men often allows farmers to garner a larger portion of the profits.

Let me elaborate with three specific examples:

1. With the summer heat comes the time-honoured tradition of farmers' markets, but how many Manitobans are aware that farmers markets are legally restricted to being open for a mere 14 days per annum. A very simple legislative change could rectify this inequality, creating the the opportunity for more Manitoban agricultural producers to diversify their income by selling local food to local consumers.

2. Another example would be Saskatchewan's decision to pay farmers up to $700 per year to help pay for the costs of organic certification. According to the 2006 Census data there were 19.054 enumerated farms in Manitoba, if every farmer in Manitoba converted to Organic Agriculture a similar program in Manitoba would cost less than 14 million.

3. Where is the equality in providing 37.5 times more funding in loan support to the hog industry than to young farmers? In a press release last week Minister Wowchuk bragged , that the “Young Farmer Rebate Program Provides $1.6 Million to Producers”; yet this year 60 million was doled out to the hog producers—they even upped the ante from 2.5 million to 5 million in support because they couldn't get rid of the money fast enough. With the age of agricultural producers constantly increasing wouldn't it seem logical to invest in young farmers?

Of course my analysis like, much Mr. Schweitzer's, is partisan. The difference is that I am trying to look for solutions to ameliorate the problem of rural depopulation, rather than squabbling over election boundaries in 2011. If it is “a good political fight” that Dan Lett wants he should start looking at the Manitoba Greens.

James Beddome is the former 2007 GPM Candidate for Minnedosa and the current GPM President

When will we stop playing God?

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:09:00 +0000

Ironically I was reading the Free Press's June the 26th article that Mosquito Fogging would begin this Friday while literally being swarmed by a herd of mosquitoes.

I was in Lockport waiting on the side of Highway 9 waiting for the Beaver Bus (Let me assure the readership that it is a well known fact among Lockportians that mosquito counts are always higher in Lockport).

At this point a man in a truck drove by, briefly stopping to shout: "Don't the mosquitoes bother you?" I quickly retorted: "No, they can be annoying, but I just deal with them.”

As reported in the article the level of West Nile carrying mosquitoes is low, so we are basically spraying for so called "nuisance mosquitoes". I pondered to myself: "Does any other species on the planet think as we do? “

As outlandish as it sounds, what if the trees were to uproot themselves and to systematically start attacking humanity. They could make a pretty good argument that humanities tendency to cut down trees is quite a nuisance to the both their deciduous and non-deciduous brethren alike.

Is humanity a cut above? Or are we just too ignorant and egotistical to see beyond ourselves?

Thoughts on the St. Patricks Day Canadian Election

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:30:00 +0000

Last nights by-election was overall relatively uneventful. As expected the Liberals won three of the four seats that were up for grabs.

The Greens continued to surge up in the polls finishing neck and neck with the NDP in most ridings (see my blog below that was originally published in the Brandon Sun, on October 13th, 2007).

However what stands out the most from last night by-election, is not what these results mean for any pending election, rather it is apathetic nature of the electorate.

By-elections typically have low-voter turn-outs, but last nights overall turn-out rate was 27.7% of registered voters. This does not bode well for our democratic system. At the end of the day it was the ballots of 14.1% of the registered voters that elected the four new MPs. Including the Greens, there are four parties accross Canada (and five in Quebec) that have a chance elect Members to Parliament. Clearly an electoral system that is designed for a two-party sytem is out of touch with the current political realities. Perhaps if we instituted some form of Proportional Representation we could finally convince people that it was worthwhile to go out an vote.

JRB

Ontario is going Green, Canada may follow

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:14:00 +0000

As published in the Brandon Sun, October 13, 2007

The Green Party of Ontario (GPO) may not have won a seat in the 2007 Ontario provincial election, but after their impressive showing it would be difficult to deny that they are indeed becoming a political threat within Ontario and quite possibly across the entire country.

The Green Party's best showing was in the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, where candidate Shane Jolley gave the incumbent Progressive Conservative candidate, Bill Murdoch, a run for his money. Shane finished second with 33.1 percent of the vote, garnering more than twice as many votes as the third-place Liberal candidate, Selwyn Hicks.

The Greens also made a strong showing in the riding of Guelph where candidate Ben Polley polled third with 19.5 percent of the vote, just behind second-place PC candidate Bob Senechal with 24.7 percent of the vote and ahead of NDP candidate Karan Mann-Bowers with 13.9 percent.

The GPO ran candidates in all 107 ridings and overall they garnered eight percent of the total popular vote. In 18 different ridings, the Greens finished in third place, placing ahead of both NDP and PC candidates. In an additional 10 ridings, the GPO was within two percent of finishing third.

Most political analysts argued that the Ontario election would offer few insights into the possible outcome of the looming federal election. The strong showing of the GPO, however, should be enough to make analysts pause and consider how the Green Party of Canada will fare when Canadians go back to the polls.

Perhaps they may even win a seat!

JRB

Your own backyard anaerobic digester!!!

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:35:00 +0000

Ever wanted to create your own composting toilet, backyard anaerobic digester or small scale organic waste water treatment system?

Biorealis Systems Inc., ("...an Alaskan professional corporation providing R&D, ecological engineering, and energy management consulting services, with particular emphasis on the practical application of small scale appropriate technologies and designs which emulate natural biological systems."), has designs on its webpage outlining how to create your own composting toilet, anaerobic digester, or waste water treatment facility?

This site is an invaluable resource for the do-it yourself guru, interested in designing a small-scale home-based system for dealing with their own excrement and organic waste. Founded in 1984 by Robert L. Crosby Jr., Biorealis Systems Inc. aims to freely distribute information on how to build small-scale, low-cost and reliable ecological products in the hopes that large numbers of people will purchase (or build) and these ecological products in their own economic self-interest. I would highly recommend that all treehuggers go and take a look .

Shown here is a design for a backyard anaerobic digester. The site also provides a design calculator that enables users to approximate methane production so that they can determine the appropriate sized system for their locality.

JRB

Carbon Sequestration a Quick-fix

noreply@blogger.com (JRB) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:20:00 +0000

Environment Minister John Baird's announcement that carbon sequestration will be mandatory, while applauded, requires further examination.

Carbon sequestration does provide a short-term solution to reduce carbon emissions, however it does not provide a long-term solution because ultimately we will run out of petroleum, fossil fuel derived methane, and coal (at least if we continue consume these resources as we presently do).

A long-term solution recognizes these limits; a truly long term solution would be to create a world free from fossil fuel dependence.

Now, I certainly understand how unlikely it is that humanity will quit using fossil-fuels tomorrow. Nonetheless, this is the aim that we MUST keep in sight!

The sequestration of carbon, is a relatively new and untested technology that literally entails pumping vast amounts of liquified C0² underground in depleted or near-depleted oil and gas fields, underground saline aquifers (salty water/rock layers), or abandoned coal mines. It remains unclear however if the stored C0² will leak back into the atmosphere, or acidify aquifers. Storing vast quantities of C0² underground literally creates a ticking time bomb.

In 1986 volcanic activity caused approximately 1 km³of naturally-trapped carbon dioxide to bubble up from under Lake Nyos, Cameroon, causing the suffocation of 1700 people and 3500 livestock in the surrounding areas. Even proponents of carbon capture recognize that, “[a] similar event from a breached C0² storage is the worst-case scenario for CCS-technology.” (Höök, 10). Does it not seem conceivable that an earthquake near a C0² storage site could cause a similar disaster?

C0² leakage from storage sites would of course also further contribute to climate change. According to Peter Montague, Executive Director of the Environmental Research Foundation, 'if 25% of the worlds remaining carbon (petroleum, natural gas, coal, and peat) was sequestered, any leakage above 0.16% could eventually result in runaway global warming; and if 75% of carbon was sequestered this percentage drops to 0.05%.' As Mr. Montague questions “Can humans bury several trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the ground with complete confidence that 0.05% of it will not leak out each year? ...the danger would lie buried forever, waiting to escape, a perpetual threat.”

Following the announcement, most oil and coal industry experts in the media were surprisingly accepting of the new regulation. (Perhaps $108 per barrel oil has spurred the optimistic mood.) The lurking question seemed to be: “Who would pay for the increased costs of production?...Oil producers? Consumers? Government?” My intuition tells me that the government will end up paying, at least a portion of the cost. Will a further subsidization of the oil industry helps us to create a fossil fuel independence?

At the end of the day, carbon sequestration is quite literally an attempt to sweep everything under the rug. It is an attempt to bury our C0² emissions under the ground, rather than reducing them. The Conservatives likewise are sweeping the politically hostile question of gthe tar sands developmenth under the rug. Mandatory carbon sequestration legitimizes the tar sands and coal-burning because it provides a neat and tidy solution to the emissions created by the activities (at least so long as nothing goes wrong).

The tar sands however come with their own set of risks. Firstly the “development of the tar sands” is resulting in the clearing of vast tracks of forest. Trees provide an efficient and natural means of carbon sequestration, by clearing vast tracks of forest we are essentially reducing the carbon sequestering capacity of the planet. Furthermore as noted in a recent report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resoures (chaired by Conservative MP Lee Richardson, 42), “...two to four and a half barrels of water are nevertheless required, even with water recycling, to produce one barrel of synthetic crude.” The claims of the oil industry that this land and water can be “reclaimed” is dubious. I ask of the readership: What is more important to sustaining life on the planet: oil or fresh water?

Now to reiterate, I recognize that the sequestration of carbon does provide some potential to reduce carbon emissions in the immediate future; however I hope that this does not distract society from the longer term goal of weaning ourselves off of fossil-fuels.

Solar, wind, bio-gas generation, wave power generation, small-scale hydro: there are numerous ways of generating energy. I suppose a good analogy would be alcoholics who convince themselves that they need just one more drink, when ultimately they need to quit drinking, period! I can only hope that we have the wisdom to check into a good program to free ourselves from fossil fuels.

Sources:
1. Mikael Höök (2007). "Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)" UHDSG
http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Popular/CCS.pdf
2. Peter Montague (2007). “Carbon Sequestration and the precautionary principle”
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/10/151448/65
3. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources (2007). “The Oil Sands: Towards Sustainable Development” Government of Canada.
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/391/rnnr/reports/rp2614277/rnnrrp04/rnnr04-e.pdf

JRB