Table of Contents EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Cha Cha Yang LAYOUT DESIGN EDITOR Anjali Patel LITERATURE EDITOR Moriam Ahmed SPONSORSHIP COORDINATOR Bronte Kennedy CONTRIBUTORS Moriam Ahmed Gareth Gransaull Karen Hong Milly Hong Alex Hurka Maliha Islam Isabella Janusonis Bronte Kennedy Michelle Leung Sankavi Nagularajah Lauren Sorensen Anjali Patel Celine Tat Cha Cha Yang ADMINISTRATION STAFF Ms. Evans Ms. Fuentes Ms. Dalton Ms. Grech SPONSORS Duststop Air Filters Inc.
INTRODUCTION: Editor’s Note
3
WRITTEN WORKS: Opinion Pieces Quaternary Extinction
4-5
Our Road to the Third World
6-13
“Safe” Amounts of Mercury Poisoning
14-15
Factual Articles La Privatization de l’eau
16
Things to Help the Environment
17
Literature The Forbidden Forest
18
ARTWORK: Cradling Earth
19
Prince Edward Island Park
20
Elk Island National Park
21
Bay of Fundy National Park
22
PHOTOGRAPHS:
23-35
ODDS & SODS Games and Puzzles
36-37
Citations
38-39
Your Next Step
40
Ecoprints Typography
41
Editor’s Note According to the World Health Organization, over 4 million people die prematurely from household air pollution illness from cooking with coal as a fuel source. The lack of clean air, due to pollution, kills seven million people annually. The need for environmental action has only become greater with passing years, and we each have a part to play in the solution. Whether you label yourself an environmental activist or not, the undeniable reality faces us: what impacts the environment affects the lives of every single person. Ecoprints started with a survey. Eco-Team sent out a survey to every one of you in your homeform classes last year to analyze Bloor CI students' environmental practices. The most shocking piece of information we received was that over 90% of the students, or more than 500 of you, answered 'no' to our question "Do you read articles about environmental issues in newspapers or magazines?" You told us that these articles were too technical, too dense, too vapid. We strove to change that. More education and communication, we knew, was vital if we were to ever catalyze environmental activism on a larger scale. So began the Ecoprints project. Inside this first issue of Ecoprints, you will discover a large array of written pieces, artwork, and photographs, about a variety of environmental topics all created by your environmentally conscious, passionate peers. Ecoprints Magazine at Bloor CI aims to be a holistic representation of students' voices; a discussion of important environmental issues through easily understandable written works, and attractive photography, and art. Ecoprints hopes to not only educate, but also to inspire by featuring environmental initiatives led by students. On behalf of Bloor’s Eco-Team and Ecoprints Magazine, I would like to thank all of Bloor's staff for their support in producing the first environmentally-focused magazine at Bloor CI. Thank you, also, to the numerous students who submitted. Unfortunately, due to space constraints, we are limited to the number of students we can include in this first issue. The overwhelming support and the greater than expected number of submissions have demonstrated to us that youth indeed have the energy, zeal, and ideas to affect change. The deadline for submissions for the next issue of Ecoprints is February 28th, 2014. In the meantime, we encourage you to respond to the 'eco' and make your mark in the community, without leaving a trace.
Cha Cha Yang Editor-in-Chief
Quaternary Extinction By Alex Hurka
It is well known that global This raises many important questions: is the temperatures are rising at an alarming rate. Global world in a process of mass extinction right now, warming is one of the most feared phenomena in and are we unaware? How many species died in the the world as it threatens destruction and mass Precambrian, Permian, and Cretaceous mass extinction if it goes too far. This however, is extinctions? Is this the start of the first mass currently happening, only taking on different forms, extinction in 65 million years? Are we responsible? and from different sources. Extinction is natural, a Not all of those questions can be answered easily, single mutation can cause ultimate peril for an but we can at least see how many years it would entire species, or a change in the landscape the take at the current rate to have comparable figures creature relies on – such as through an evolution of of extinction to the three aforementioned predator and prey. However, much of extinctions. this relies on evolution, a slow process. “A single muta- Starting with the most recent, and In the majority of the history of tion can cause most famous, the Cretaceous mass extinction. A single event killed this world, extinction rates were ultimate peril for millions of species, including expected to be in the region of one species becoming extinct every 10 an entire species.” varieties of dinosaurs that had seemingly controlled the world for years. It is now clear that humans are hundreds of millions of years. In the short span of causing a disturbance in the world’s ecosystem time, the total extinction figure for the particular after looking at extinction figures. Normally, in four even is 85%. This may be vague, but the world has years, not a single species would go extinct. It yet to know exactly how many species there were seems obvious that, unless there was a mass before the extinction. Today, however, 85% can be extinction occurring this very moment, by the time numerical and nearly certain, even though there are an average new ninth grade student passes some undiscovered species. An estimated 11.3 through high school and graduates, there would be million species live on Earth, including plants, fewer than 163,620 species wiped out. But that is animals, fungi, and single-cellular organisms. 85% of not the case. In a four month study, over 13,000 that number is 9,605,000. This is a very large species went extinct. The larger figure does not figure, one of millions. In a single event, the take into account the fact that extinction rates may Cretaceous mass extinction removed a similar fluctuate in those four years, and as temperature percentage of species from the world. Considering rises, so will that number. that, 40905, species become extinct yearly at
ecoprints|4
current rates, it would take a mere 235 years to rival the Cretaceous mass extinction! Without human influence, that number of species would have died between roughly two-thirds of the way through the Cretaceous period and the present day, not considering the mass extinction. That is over 96 million years. What is even more astounding is a look at even larger extinction figures. Before we examine the highest extinction rates in history, the Precambrian mass extinction has to be considered. In that event, only 70% of all terrestrial life died out, as compared to 85% in the Cretaceous. This still is an enormous figure, and to rival that today, 7,910,000 creatures would have to fall extinct. At today’s rates, that scarily-high number can die in fewer than 200 years, approximately 193 in more exact terms. There is no need to compare this to the time it would have taken than number of species to die without mass extinctions, the Cenozoic extinction included, as we pass the threshold into the realm of the Permian mass extinction.
lethal occurrences. 96% of terrestrial life vanished in one spike on the timeline. Today, that percentage would only allow 452,000 species to survive. Unfortunately, that will be about the situation the human race will face if we survive for another 265 years. The world also expects an increase in extinction rates as greenhouse gases obscure the ground-based telescopes until they are blind to the universe, as the glaciers of the north are but tales, as entire countries disappear underwater. All we can say to that can be summed up in four words: We need to stop. Within the lives of our great-grandchildren, possibly, it will be as if since now there was another mass extinction. And, in fact, mass extinctions are never immediate. They may take years to kill some of the species that they wipe out. The major difference is that they always end. The past four mass extinctions (Including the Vendian mass extinction) have followed an exponential curve downward in extinction rate. The fifth mass extinction, the Quaternary extinction, follows an upward exponential curve. That means that 100% of species on Earth could die out in 275 years, approximately, with the current figures. They are likely to change, but it is not known today whether they will change for better or worse.
“ All we can say to that can be summed up in four words: WE NEED TO STOP.”
Never in the history of the planet have extinction rates exceeded those observed in this period. In a sample of 50 species taken at random from that period, an average of 2 would survive the
ecoprints|5
Our
ROAD to the
Third World A Criticism of the Environmental Policy of the Harper Government
ecoprints|6
By Gareth Gransuall In the lush country of Ecuador, a place home to the world’s most rich concentration of tropical biodiversity, President Rafael Correa recently received congressional approval to expand the private mining industry in the country, opening up Ecuadorian borders to corporations (often Canadian-owned), who boast major plans to exploit their mineral-rich environment, to scour the well-endowed hills for valuable metals and fuels. Such foreign investment tirades are common to the poverty-stricken country, often with disastrous results; companies like Texaco have been sued by several populist organizations in the country for causing major oil spills and releasing the toxic materials into the environment without concern for its disposal, leading to high cancer rates among residents and often wiping out entire tribal groups who depend upon the pristine environment. However, this time, resource wars have erupted around the issue, with protests being staged by peasant farmers opposing a campaign of domestic terror entertained by the government: a regime which affiliates itself with socialism and yet privatizes major industries to funnel the profits out of the country. Ecuador, for all its resources, is a ravaged land, torn by populist warfare and state terrorism. It may be a bold parallel, but I contend that many comparisons can be drawn between the story of Ecuador as outlined above, and the path Canada is currently striding. This is my attempt to piece together the strange world of Conservative environmental politics and explain how we, whatever high living standards we may have, are en route to the Third World. ..... The country of China has an enormous population of about 1.3 billion people. When you think about it, that’s 1.3 billion people to feed, clothe, and provide water, healthcare, social services, resources, and fuel to. When Stephen Harper went to Beijing with a delegation that included top executives from notable oil companies, he must have had that in mind. The Chinese-owned CIC (China Investment Corporation), a sovereign wealth fund endowed with $410 billion in assets under management, has, in a sense, been buying up the world; farms in Africa and South America, rivers and mines around the globe, and most notably, $20 billion in investments in Canada, generally in Canada’s oil sands. Canada is very interested in the business China has to offer, and correspondingly, Stephen Harper has been very vocal in offering us up to them, like goods in a flea market. The energy firm, Enbridge, has for years been trying to build a pipeline to carry bitumen from Alberta to the hungry markets in Asia, specifically China, where coal is running out. In the omnibus Bill C-38, environmental assessment rules have been completed overhauled, and instead imposed with a two-year limit for the review of major projects — projects which include this pipeline to China. The government is obviously not keen on regulatory oversight. They are also in the process of ratifying FIPA, the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection Agreement, a free-trade treaty similar to NAFTA in that it grants rights to Chinese investors to contest or overturn any environmental or similar measures (even aboriginal treaties) that may stand in the way of their investment (the oil sands). This is, in other words, the “right to invest.” They would also prevent Canada from ever, ever, ever reviewing takeovers of Canadian firms by Chinese corporations (like the recent purchase of Nexen by CNOOC); firms which are primarily state-owned by the Chinese government and whose profits will be funneled out of Canada at no benefit to Canadians. Another leaked document revealed that the federal government spent $54,000 on a two-day retreat in London which was organized to train its European diplomats to lobby the nations of Europe (who have traditionally been opposed to the oil sands) on behalf of the oil and gas companies and against climate change legislation. The government now has a team of 25 pro-oil lobbyists on its payroll, with that exact aim. This team has already worked to lobby against such bills as the EU fuel quality directive in Europe, which was designed to discourage purchasing from the oil sands. This behaviour, the employment of oil industry lobbyists, is traditionally exhibited by oil companies themselves. Never governments. And certainly not signatories of the Kyoto Protocol.
ecoprints|7
Oh, that’s right. We no longer belong to that particular commitment. Stephen Harper, who called it a “socialist conspiracy”, withdrew us in 2011. For those of you who don’t know, the Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement, adopted on December 11th, 1997 and effective on February 16th, 2005, directed towards reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of industrialized nations, mostly in the Western World. The idea was to — much like the Montreal Protocol which played a major role in the revival of the atmospheric ozone layer — unilaterally approach the problem in a way that binds signatories permanently to the commitments. As an example, for the period of 2008-2012, the Annex 1 countries of the accord negotiated a 5.2% reduction in carbon emissions, which was a reasonable commitment. Although the story of success is punctuated by occasional failures, and the Kyoto Protocol has not been as effective as was hoped (not covering as extensively countries like China and India), 191 countries have ratified and signed the agreement. Of all United Nations members, five countries have not ratified: Andorra, South Sudan, Afghanistan, the United States. …and Canada. Our Liberal Government of the 1990s originally signed the accord in 1997 along with the overwhelming majority of the international community, and later took the extra step of ratifying it in parliament in 2002. But that swiftly changed. Stephen Harper took power, and ushered in an influx of conservatives who saw to it that, instead of reducing our total emissions by 6% by 2012, they increased by 24.1%, and that Canada became one of the highest per-capita emitters in the world. But this is Canada, one might say. We can’t simply reject an international commitment on the world’s most pressing issue! We’re accountable to the international community, and have to make an effort! The Conservative government certainly understands this; as contemptible as they find climate change legislation, they had to compensate with something else. That’s why they proposed the Clean Air Act, which would, in Stephen Harper’s words, “replace the current system with clear, consistent, and comprehensive national standards.” So what does this act do? Merely insignificant things, like rewriting the air quality health index and implementing a program to retrofit diesel school buses. And it commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 45% of the 2003 level by, well, 2050. Around the same time climate change would already have begun to exhibit its most devastating effects. And in the Clean Air Act, not to mention, major polluters are allowed to increase their pollution up until the year 2020; it is also useful to note that the oil sands industry is projected to increase emissions by over 900% from 1990 until 2020, leaving a legislatively valid window for them to inflate their emissions enormously. The purpose of the Clean Air act isn’t even to address climate change; it is about lowering air pollution, which, despite being a problem, is not a major contributor to climate change — unlike “carbon dioxide” an element which Stephen Harper has said we should not regulate because it is “essential for life.” Critics like David Suzuki and Al Gore (a former Vice-President of the United States) have called this Act insufficient, to say the least. How the government could possibly think it to be preferable to the Kyoto Agreement is beyond me. Oh, not to mention, the act isn’t even law yet. ..... Have any of you ever wondered why there is such minimal coverage of global warming on the media these days, at least in Canada? There’s actually a reason for that. And it has much to do with the Harper government. I recently had lunch with a person I’ve known a long time, an old next-door neighbour of mine, who is a devout follower of politics. She explained to me how some of the Harper government’s policies have influenced her family.
ecoprints|8
“Well, my nephew has a PhD in Forestry. And because he’s a civil servant, he’s not allowed to talk,” she told me. She’s of course referring to the information restrictions the federal government has imposed on the media attempting to get a hold of government researchers, and their coveted opinions. A document leaked from Environment Canada has asserted that the coverage of climate change in the media has decreased more than 80%, which suspiciously coincides with the elevation of Stephen Harper to the position of Prime Minister. Federal scientists now have to seek permission from the Government prior to giving interviews, often requiring media personnel to submit a list of questions intended for the interview to the government so they can censor them individually. The federal scientists have expressed their outrage about this oppression, what they call “muzzling.” Although outrageous, it’s not the only thing the Harper government has been up to. A whistleblower named Andrew Frank, who risked his career to divulge this information to the public, wrote in an open letter to the Canadian population that the Harper Government had accused the charity ForestEthics, a non-profit environmental group, of being “an enemy of the government of Canada and an enemy of the people.” This was a threat straight from the Office of the Prime Minister to coerce the charity Tides Canada (the owner of ForestEthics) into halting the funding of ForestEthics, specifically funding in its work to oppose the oil sands. Otherwise, the government would challenge the charitable status of the organization, which is a huge deal for charities. Now one would wonder why someone would liken the charity to a terrorist organization, as the Prime Minister did. What could a non-profit organization be doing that was so contemptible? Well, they were a legally registered intervener on the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel, which was, at the time, examining the Enbridge oil tanker and pipeline proposal. A particularly-vehement stipulation of the Prime Minister was that ForestEthics back off its opposition to the pipeline, and the oil sands in general. This is not an isolated incident; in fact, far from it. Government documents released under the Freedom of Information Act labelled environmentalists, aboriginals, and the media as “adversaries” to the nation. And when Canada’s counter-terrorist strategy was released on February 9th, 2012, it branded environmentalists as “issue-based extremists.” Really; environmentalists were mentioned in a counter-terrorist strategy. Because clearly those who advocate for nature are the very face of terror. These incidents were part of a larger campaign by the Conservative government to disparage environmentalists across the nation; they most notably have been proven to be inextricably linked to the establishment of a pro-oil sands website deceivingly titled “Ethical Oil” through the discovery of consultants and firms tied to both the website and several Conservative MPs, and the realization that former staff of the Prime Minister went on to be employed at Ethical Oil. Ethical Oil is the same website which said that environmentalists are “radicals” bent on sabotaging the Canadian economy and job creation. And it’s not as if the charity Tides Canada or any charity similar to it posed any serious threat to the oil sands industry in the above instance. The organization funds small environmental law firms with budgets in the mere hundreds of thousands of dollars, whereas the company Enbridge has received over $100 million in funds to lobby for the industry, some of which intriguingly coming from China’s state owned Sinopec oil company. Another trend I have observed in my research is that those who have been elevated by the Harper government to the position of Minister of the Environment have been often proven to have priorities other than the environment. Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment from February 6th, 2006, to January 3rd, 2007, was once found guilty of preventing a scientist from Environment Canada (Mark Tushingham) from speaking publically in Ottawa about a fictional novel he had written, which explored the idea that a future world, devastated by global warming, would find Canada and the United States warring over precious resources. Allow me reiterate; this is censorship of public access, about a fictional account, no less, and clearly a violation of the right to public information. She also supported the withdrawal of Canada from the Kyoto Accord, or of at least ignoring its stipulations, but then of course denied that the government had any intention of abandoning the accord, which they promptly did.
ecoprints|9
I uncovered a CTV News article from March.17, 2007 in which John Baird (Minister of the Environment from January 4th 2007 to October 29th 2008, and from November 7th 2010 to January 3rd, 2011), gave an interview where he publically denied any discussion within the government regarding plans for the nation to reject the Kyoto Protocol. “Let me put that absolutely to rest. I’ve never heard a single word about Canada withdrawing from Kyoto,” he said, quite assertively. This accompanied Stephen Harper’s ongoing speeches which signified that the government would continue to ratify the protocol. Then of course, during the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia, on December 3-15, 2007, he announced to the international community that Canada would completely reject its commitments, therefore setting the stage for December 13th of 2011, when the government finally withdrew from the agreement presumably once the legal issues had been put to rest. John Baird was the Minister of the Environment for two entire terms, whereupon Peter Kent took the stage. Kent once said that “the greenhouse effect must be considered as the world’s greatest environmental threat.” It’s obvious that that statement is just political “green washing”, because Kent also has been a vocal supporter of the oil sands, which produces three times as much greenhouse gases as conventional oil. Kent once accused the parties who opposed the oil sands as guilty of treason. This man is also the person who oversaw the dismantling of Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, in favour of the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding protocol which was signed under John Baird; clearly the government is anticipating fuelintensive projects in the future (the oil sands comes to mind) and can only accept optional commitments. Kent is also guilty of deliberately lying to the public about another thing entirely; oil sands pollution. In an interview with the CBC, he said that there is no evidence that the oil sands developments are polluting the Athabasca River, a major river that contributes to the fairly significant watershed of northern Alberta and annually supplies around 170 million gallons of water to oil sands developments themselves. However, a secret document from Environment Canada — intended to inform the government (and specifically Peter Kent) of the contamination of the Athabasca River — was released to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. This document cited the presence of heavy metals and hydrocarbons in the water as a serious concern, influencing local ecosystems and downstream communities, and heavily criticized the record of the Federal government on such issues, concerns the government has not acted on. The government has been guilty of attempting to manipulate public opinion about the oil sands, culling public outrage and quieting the environmentalists who have been so avidly opposed to the anti-climate change campaign that is so high on the Harper government’s agenda. ..... However, by far, the most reprehensible of assaults on Canada’s environment transpired, of all things, in the over-400 page budget implementation bill the Harper government recently introduced, often referred to as the omnibus bill for its multifarious attempts to abort and erode regulations which have simply been forced down the throats of legislators. There are many stipulations in this budget which are not at all budget related, but instead attempt to snuff out environmental protection requirements. Arguably the most relevant piece of environmental legislation in place in Canada is the Fisheries Act, which is, much like a fish, being gutted. Section 35 (prohibiting the harmful alteration or destruction of fish habitat) and Section 36 (prohibiting the deposit of “deleterious substances” into waters “frequented by fish”) are two major provisions which have been weakened to the point of irrelevance, along with other provisions in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Species at Risk Act. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is being completely repealed and being replaced with laws that set limits on the time that a major project (like a pipeline) is allowed to be assessed; it permits Cabinet to simply bypass the assessment process for projects it does not want assessed. And the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, originally ratified by Canada’s parliament, was overturned in this budget bill, simply to ensure that, even after withdrawing, no stipulation involving the Accord ever saw a resurgence. The most terrifying thing, in my mind, is the repeal of the Navigable Waters Act, an act originally adopted in 1882 which protected over 2 million of Canada’s invaluable rivers and 32,000 of our lakes. You know how many the new “Navigation Protection Act” will protect? ecoprints|10
97 lakes and 62 rivers. Yeah, that’s it, meaning that for 99.9% of Canada’s bodies of water harmful construction projects (like bridges and pipelines), which would have previously been banned, are now perfectly legal. This is particularly good news for companies like Enbridge, whose one $5.5 billion pipeline is projected to cross over 1,000 waterways. Also, should I mention that 90% of the remaining lakes which are still protected reside within the territory of Conservative MPs, including affluent lakes like Lake Rosseau (boasting cottages costing in the millions of dollars and the summer homes of celebrities and billionaires alike) which for some reason deserve protection more than others? The legislation would also permit the federal cabinet to approve the development of major pipelines, a power originally vested in the National Energy Board whose role is now impotent. The budget dissolved the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, a source of policy research designed to further environmental causes in Canada’s government, and approved the layoff of 700 employees at Environment Canada. To quiet “dissent”, or in other words silence opposition to the Conservative government’s policies, the budget discontinued funding of the Canadian Environmental Network, and allocated $8 million to the Canadian Revenue Agency for the express purpose of reviewing the political activities of charities and targeting those environmental organizations which opposed the Conservative platform. The Conservative government has also enforced double-digit cuts to funding for Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which includes a 59% reduction to spending on climate change and clean air programs; these are all part of the larger endeavor by the budget to cut $160 million from environmental spending, $100 million of which is split between Parks Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Yet, of course, they can find the $8 million to fund agencies who scour environmental charities for any dissenting behavior. The budget also invited resource companies to begin drilling for oil in the environmentally sensitive, and previously protected, Gulf of St. Lawrence, the world’s largest estuary, where risk of an oil spill is high. This is, however, difficult to discern, because the only agency capable of predicting the likelihood of a spill, the Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas, and Energy Research, was discontinued, along with funding for the Experimental Lakes Area, the world’s leading freshwater research centre. The government has also, in recent years, cancelled funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science, a decade-long climate research project which has, in the past, supported 198 projects and provided $117 million in funding that has led to breakthroughs in climatology, meteorology, and oceanography. What harm does the federal government see in climate research projects, one might ask? They account for a penny out of our paycheque, and are vital to the long-term success of Canada in the renewable energy industry, not to mention our reputation in the scientific community. While President Obama of the United States guaranteed $90 billion in funding to various green energy projects in the 2009 stimulus package, Canada has devoted, in our renewable energy initiative (laughably titled the “ecoEnergy Renewable Initiative”), $1.5 billion. Yes, $1.5 billion. ..... All of these efforts of the federal government, from deregulating to imposing trade treaties to coercing environmental organization to installing incompetent environmental legislators, have been in pursuit of the oil sands development. But what are the oil sands exactly? The fuel found at the oil sands is a type of unconventional petroleum where the crude oil has been obscured with sand and other debris to form bitumen, a solid form of oil that must be drilled for under thousands of metres of rocks and upgraded using four barrels of water per barrel of bitumen into crude oil, then refined again from crude oil into a more practical energy source as crude oil is – gas. The oil sands itself is a dirty, dirty industry, encompassing 12% of Canada’s total emissions, a figure which is only on the rise and represents more than the total emissions of all of the cars in our country; the industry alone is set to become North America’s largest single emitter. The natural gas burned in the upgrades is enough to power 4 million homes daily. But the most disturbing environmental effect of the oil sands, despite setting the human race back in the fight against climate change by nearly a century, is that vast tracts of forest in Northern Alberta, where the oil sands are located, must be cleared for mining, leaving a desolate wasteland of cobalt dirt and rivers of toxic water called “tailings ponds” which pollute the watershed and local communities, resulting in ecoprints|11
severe arsenic poisoning and higher rates of cancer and birth defects. The primary argument of the Conservatives has been that the oil sands are beneficial economically, if not environmentally, because of the jobs and wealth they will create. But all we have to do is look at the facts to refute that claim. The oil sands industry has so far reaped $260 billion in pre-tax profits, of which the public share has been a mere $25 billion, limited solely to the province of Alberta because of the stipulation of Section 109 of our constitution that permits jurisdiction of natural resources to the provinces; this denies any oil sands wealth to the rest of the nation. Petroleum corporations in Alberta face a paltry 10% income tax rate, one of the lowest for the industry in the entire world. And the oil sands wealth has not brought prosperity to Alberta; education, healthcare, and other public services are eroding due to underfunding, and housing services are facing particular problems. And inequality is among the highest in Canada, with most of the wealth allocated to the top income bracket of the province. This is not progress. If anything, it’s degenerative, contributing to the over 600,000 manufacturing jobs Canada has lost in the past decade by shipping oil elsewhere to be refined, and creating merely around 5,000 net jobs for the country. And yet the Federal government still manages to coddle the industry, annually providing around $1.4 billion in subsidies to the petroleum sector. It’s quite infuriating. ..... At the beginning of this piece, when I outlined the recent resource tribulations of Ecuador, I mentioned that there are many parallels between their dialogue and the path Canada is now taking. Our most valuable resource today, the oil sands, is being opened for unfettered foreign investment; environmental regulations are being bulldozed to facilitate this investment, and the environmental implications of exploiting the resource is kept from the public eye in a campaign of indoctrination by the Canadian government. It’s laughable to me how the Conservative Party website pronounces staunchly that “Canadian families deserve the cleanest air, water, and environment possible.” If their policy platform were true, our waters would not have been deregulated under their administration. We would not have withdrawn from the Kyoto Accord. We would not have trained lobbyists; threatened charities; environmentalists labelled as terrorists and aboriginals as adversaries; muzzled public sector scientists to cease media coverage of climate change; the installation of incompetent environment ministers; the disregard and cover-up of classified documents; overhauled environmental assessment rules; the establishment of pipeline decisions the prerogative of cabinet, and more. Our waters, air, and environment would be clean. Instead, the government has spoiled them, in order to shove oil sands development down the throats of Canadians and surrender our resources to the hands of the Chinese. They’ve made Canada a mere vessel for the dirty oil industry, a vehicle for them to exploit our resources and reduce public lands to desolation. So do what you want with the information I’ve provided you. Sign petitions, attend rallies. But don’t think for a second that the government’s propaganda means anything. Climate change is a sustained problem for an unsustainable world. And we are all part of that unsustainable world. Canada cannot be another Ecuador, with resource wars and profiteering megacorporations, or another Peru, Bolivia, Guatemala, or any other country which has seen a government surreptitiously offer resources to corporations without considerations for the public good. So let’s not let the Conservatives and their bizarre political agenda triumph.
ecoprints|12
Amounts
Methyl Mercury
P isoning Says The
Government
By Bronte Kennedy 50 years ago, the government allowed a company called Dryden Chemicals to put 10 tonnes of mercury waste into the Wabigoon River. This river was surrounded by many First Nation communities. Since then, the nearby community of Whitehorse has begun to experience detrimental consequences. Dr. Harada (a world renowned mercury poisoning specialist from Japan) revealed a study that he had conducted in 2010. His results showed that 59% of the population that had methyl mercury poisoning. 34% of the population would have been diagnosed with Minamata disease, and 44% of those born after Dryden ceased dumping in Wabigoon had methyl mercury poisoning. His extensive research was held credible by the majority of the population, but not by the Canadian government. The government stood true to their original research conducted in the 1990s that showed that 0% of Whitehorse showed signs of mercury poisoning. Health Canada declared that Whitehorse was at “minimal risk” of methyl mercury poisoning. The Canadian government has yet to acknowledge a single case of Minamata disease. They will, however, admit that the waterway to Whitehorse and other First Nation communities was polluted. Through a decade of court battles, the communities finally won its court case at the Ontario Superior Court. Now with an obligation to deal with the issue, the Canadian government formed a committee. Health Canada, while invited to join and help the committee multiple times, has refused each time. Even after the government worked hard with the Mercury Disability Board, Health Canada still approved clear-cutting in the nearby area, which was worsened the problem. The Canadian government’s actions are dependent on their ability to get re-elected after they have done this action. The voter turnout of Aboriginal Canadians in federal elections is lower than of any other Canadians. Therefore, the Canadian government’s actions are not largely dependent on their view through those of Aboriginal descent. This explains the government’s unwillingness to fix problems in Aboriginal communities. Think of this when you examine the government’s actions towards youth and the environment; if you can, vote accordingly!
ecoprints|15
La Privatisation de L'eau By Cha Cha Yang L'une des tendances les plus importantes dans le secteur de l'eau est la production, la distribution ou la gestion des services d'eau par des sociétés privées, au lieu des entités publiques. Quand l'eau-- qui est un droit humain fondamentale--appartient à des sociétés privées, c'est appelé la privatisation de l'eau qui est un grand problème social intéressant parce qu'il y a plusieurs inconvénients à cause de la privatisation de l'eau, mais aussi, il y a des personnes qui soutiennent qu'il y a aussi des avantages.
La privatisation d'eau doit arrêter. Les personnes qui habitent dans les régions où les corporations ont déjà exploité une ressource naturelle sont vulnérables à des opérations qui se concentrent sur les profits qui sont fondamentalement incompatibles avec la provision d'un service essentiel, les compagnies de l'eau n'offrent pas aux citoyens l'eau salubre et abordable.
Les gouvernements des pays qui sont affectés par la privatisation d'eau doivent interdire la privatisation d'eau dans leurs pays pour protéger leur Les partisans de la privatisation d'eau citoyens contre les corporations qui veulent exploiter un soutiennent que l'eau publique droit humain. Mais maintenant, au lieu exploitée à des entreprises privées de protéger les ressources en eau de conduira à une plus grande efficacité "Les « avantages » éco- leurs citoyens de profiteurs égoïstes, économique, les taux stabilisés, la nomiques ne sont pas les gouvernements se retirent de réduction de la dette publique et leurs responsabilités et se plient à la l'amélioration de la gestion budgétaire. assez pour compenser volonté du géant des sociétés Comme l'eau de la planète se fait peu internationales qui sont prêts à abondant, et les entreprises exploitent les désavantages. " profiter de la pénurie d'eau. Les cette rareté à un but lucratif, les gens entreprises géantes ont des plans partout dans le monde perdent la propriété et le pour acheter les droits d'eau, de privatiser les systèmes contrôle des ressources en eau dont ils dépendent. d'eau de propriété publique, à promouvoir l'eau en L'eau est un droit humain: si on a le droit de vivre, on a le bouteille, et de vendre "en vrac" de l'eau en le droit à l'eau. Aujourd'hui, les gens partout dans le transportant dans des zones riches en eau aux marchés monde perdent la propriété et le contrôle de l'eau qui assoiffés. reste. La privatisation de l'eau est un grand problème Selon les Nations Unies, 31 pays sont confrontés social qui affect plus que 30 pays dans le monde. Les à la pénurie d'eau et 1 milliard de personnes n'ont pas corporations exploitent un droit humain pour du profit, accès à l'eau potable. La consommation d'eau est et les gouvernements font rien pour protéger les anticipée de doubler en 20 ans, mais les sources d'eau personnes contre les compagnies égoïstes qui privent sont rapidement polluée, épuisée, détournée et les citoyens de l'eau salubre. Les corporations disent exploitée pour les activités des entreprises tels que qu'il y a des avantages a la privatisation de l'eau, mais les l'agriculture industrielle et l'exploitation minière. La "avantages" économiques ne sont pas assez pour Banque mondiale prévoit que par 2025, deux tiers de la compenser les désavantages. La privatisation d'une des population mondiale souffrira du manque d'eau potable. ressources naturelles très importante doit arrêter.
ecoprints|16
Things To Do to Help the Environment
Things to Do to Help the Environment By Gareth Gransaull
While it is easy to fault legislators and lobbyists with the impediment of progress in the fight to end climate change — (though it is true that their inability at significant liberty to use vast quantities energy to make changes is at theofcrux of and the survive unpunished. So do more to conserve problem) — the attitudes, and more importantly unplug are appliances, wash in actions,energy; of consumers what fuels theclothes problem. cool water, hang clothes up to dry, install Here is what Ecoprints recommends you do to helpa programmable thermostat, use the air condithe environment. tioner less, etc. Your electricity bills will be cheaper as well. Become energy efficient Reduce, Reuse, Recycle As our society relies on fossil fuels for energy, we are not at liberty to use vast quantities of We canand make our products as eco-friendly energy survive unpunished. So do more as to we want, but if we do not first reducewash the conserve energy; unplug appliances, amount wecool consume, the items can clothes in water, reuse hang clothes up we to dry, still use, and recycle the thermostat, items we can not, install a programmable use thethen air no progress is going to be made. We need conditioner less, etc. Your electricity bills willa considerable be cheaper as shift well. in the paradigm we use to process our resources; our consumption needs to follow a cyclical Reduce, Reuse, Recycle pattern which recycles resources and replenishes used materials, rather than the make conventional linearasone that accomWe can our products eco-friendly as plishes neither. So cut back on the items you we want, but if we do not first reduce the purchase, like toys andreuse candythe bars; and we recycle amount we consume, items can your paper, plastic, glass, and aluminum still use, and recycle the items we can not, cans then whenever you no progress is have goingthetochance. be made. We need a considerable shift in the paradigm we use to Convert to Renewable Power process our resources; our consumption needs to follow a cyclical pattern which recycles If society cannot wean itself off of fossil fuels, resources and replenishes used materials, and instead its unsustainable rather than maintains the conventional linear oneaddicthat tion to fossil fuels, then climate change accomplishes neither. So cut back on will the certainly prevail. Modern electrical utilities items you purchase, like toys and candy bars; often provide your electricity and recycle paper,generated plastic, from glass,alterand native sources, like solar and wind power, at aluminum cans whenever you have the chance. only a marginal increase in the cost; you should advantage of this. Convert to take Renewable Power Purchase Organic andwean Locally Grown If society cannot itself off ofFoods fossil fuels, and instead maintains its unsustainable 18% of greenhouse gas emissions come from addiction to fossil fuels, then climate change will certainly prevail. Modern electrical utilities often provide electricity generated from alternative sources, like solar and wind ecoprints|17
power, at only a marginal increase in the cost; you should take advantage of this.
Purchase Organic and Locally Grown Foods meat and dairy production; believe it or not, but cattle farm may more harmful the 18%a of greenhouse gasbeemissions cometofrom environment than a road full of SUVs. So demeat and dairy production; believe it or not, crease the amount of meat and harmful dairy products but a cattle farm may be more to the you consume, and try to maintain a diet environment than a road full of SUVs.of orSo ganic and the locally -produced foods which are decrease amount of meat and dairy less energy-intensive andand oftentimes are highera products you consume, try to maintain in quality and better for you. diet of organic and locally-produced foods which are less energy-intensive and oftentimes Green transportation areyour higher in quality and better for you. Theyour transportation sector makes up a sizeable Green transportation portion of carbon emissions, and they have few alternatives unlikeup your electriThe reasonable transportation sector makes a sizeable cal utility; no commercial car can run on portion of carbon emissions, and they solar have power just yet. So take public transportation few reasonable alternatives unlike your more often, purchase a hybrid car vehicle, walk electrical utility; no commercial can run on and bike more frequently, carpool, and more. solar power just yet. So take public transportation more often, purchase a hybrid The above are just a fewand suggestions on how you can vehicle, walk bike more frequently, help thecarpool, environment. The fact remains that these are and more. simply the first steps in a path that must be taken in order to ensure the asustainability of our and can the The above are just few suggestions onfuture how you existence of generations to come. help the environment. The fact remains that these are simply the first steps in a path that must be taken in order to ensure the sustainability of our future and the existence of generations to come.
.�
ecoprints|10
The Forbidden Forest By Celine Tat
It has always amazed me, how my own memory can fail me so badly. Taking in the scenery in front of me, I could not believe that this was the same place where some of my most precious memories of school had taken place. The place in front of me was broken. Dead.
over the place. My childhood haven that I had so looked forward to revisiting had turned out to be a regret. Part of me--no, correction--all of me wished that I had never come. That way, the vision I had of my playground would still be one of nature, at its purest.
We had always called it the Forbidden Forest, not But since I was already here, I walked on along the because we were forbidden to enter it, but rather small stream. I pushed myself forward to see what because my school always discouraged any other horrors that had been hidden from me. students to enter it during school Deeper into the forest, things time. The small plot of forest that seemed to be improving. There “For once, my had once been part of a much larger were fewer pieces of litter. Hope memory had not one, had been donated to my school sparked in me--would the deeper by the municipal government. Our failed me, but ra- parts of the forest still live up to the efforts to keep it clean involved a vision I had? ther, it was the school clean-up movement once a My question was answered less year to try to ameliorate it. people who did.” than a minute later when I spotted It seemed like just yesterday that I was sneaking into the forest with my friends, hunting the “monster” that inhabited the forest. Those were truly some of the best memories I had of Sweden. However, looking at the scene before me, I realized that the memories which were once true, at once departed. For once, my memory had not failed me, but rather, it was the people who did. What I saw at that moment was not what I had seen five years ago. I saw chip bags, candy wrappers, and plastic water bottles littered all
the small lake that collected the water from the stream. It was not a lake of water, but a lake of garbage. All of the litter that had fallen into the stream gathered in the pool of water. It was a miniature model of the Pacific garbage patch. I had hoped in vain--the place was a disaster. I had seen enough. Turning away from the small lake, I started to retrace my steps back to the edge of the forest. The truth rested heavily on my heart--a part of my childhood had been destroyed. My memory used to be the one that failed me, but this time it was people.
ecoprints|18
Karen Hong
ecoprints|19
Prince Edward Island National Park
Sankavi Nagularajah
ecoprints|20
Elk Island National Park
Milly Hong
ecoprints|21
Bay of Fundy National Park
Maliha Islam
ecoprints|22
Lauren Sorensen
Lauren Sorensen
Lauren Sorensen Ecoprints Magazine 23
Lauren Sorensen
Lauren Sorensen
Lauren Sorensen
Lauren Sorensen Ecoprints Magazine 24
Lauren Sorensen Ecoprints Magazine 25
Lauren Sorensen
Lauren Sorensen
Lauren Sorensen
Lauren Sorensen Ecoprints Magazine 26
Michelle Leung
Michelle Leung Ecoprints Magazine 27
Isabella Janusonis
Isabella Janusonis
Isabella Janusonis Ecoprints Magazine 28
Isabella Janusonis
Isabella Janusonis
Isabella Janusonis
Isabella Janusonis Ecoprints Magazine 29
Isabella Janusonis
Isabella Janusonis Ecoprints Magazine 30
Isabella Janusonis Ecoprints Magazine 31
Isabella Janusonis
Isabella Janusonis
Isabella Janusonis Ecoprints Magazine 32
Isabella Janusonis
Isabella Janusonis
Isabella Janusonis Ecoprints Magazine 33
Isabella Janusonis Ecoprints Magazine 34
Isabella Janusonis
Michelle Leung
Michelle Leung Ecoprints Magazine 35
Crossword
ecoprints|36
Games and Puzzles
olgcolcaEi brCnao
Ca UNS n you CR these AMBLE word s?
eueonshrGe inmsEosi rneoaRfsti bGligWmlaonar ecoprints|37
Citations Our Road to the Third World (cont.) Frank, Andrew. "A Whistlebloer's Open Letter to the Citizens of Canada." Scribd. Scribd, n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2013. <http:// www.scribd.com/doc/79228736/Whistleblower-s-Open-Letter-to-Canadians>. Ghosh, Pallab. "Canadian Government Is 'Muzzling Its Scientists.'" BBC News [Vancouver] 17 Feb. 2012, Sci/Environment: n. pag. BBC News. Web. 17 Mar. 2013. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468>. Herbert, Douglas. "Harper Government Fast Tracks Omnibus Budget Bill." CBC News 25 Oct. 2012, Archives: n. pag. CBC News. Web. 17 Mar. 2013. <http://www.cbc.ca/kamloops/mt/2012/10/harper-government-fast-tracks-omnibus-budget-bill.html>. IPolitics. "Prime Minister: Please Stop Muzzling Scientists and Researchers." IPolitics 16 Feb. 2012: n. pag. IPolitics. Web. 10 Mar. 2013. <http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/02/16/prime-minister-please-stop-muzzling-scientists-and-researchers-open-letter/>. Levitz, Stephanie. "Omnibus Budget Bill C-45 Amendments Killed despite Scuffle with First Nations Chiefs." Huffington Post 14 Dec. 2012: n. pag. Huffington Post Politics Canada. Web. 17 Jan. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12/04/omnibus-budget-bill-c45_n_2237923.html>. McCarthy, Shawn, and Steven Chase. "For the Harper Government, the Gateway Must Be Open." The Globe and Mail [Ottawa] 6 Sept. 2012, Politics: n. pag. The Globe and Mail. Web. 9 Dec. 2012. <http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/for-the-harper-government-the-gateway -must-be-open/article552147/?service=mobile>. "Muzzling of Federal Scientists Targeted by Campaign." CBC News 17 Feb. 2012, Technology & Science: n. pag. CBC News. Web. 5 Jan. 2013. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/02/17/science-federal-muzzling-scientists.html>. Pablo, Carlito. "Federal Omnibus Bill Is Part of Assault on Fish Stocks." Straight.com Vancouver's Online Source [Vancouver] 14 Nov. 2012: n. pag. Straight.com Vancouver's Online Source. Web. 17 Mar. 2013. <http://www.straight.com/news/federal-omnibus-bill-part-assault-fishstocks>. Pullman, Emma. "Friends with Benefits: The Harper Government, EthicalOil.org and Sun Media Connection." DeSmogBlog. DeSmogBlog.com, 20 Jan. 2010. Web. 10 Nov. 2012. <http://www.desmogblog.com/friends-benefits-harper-government-ethicaloil-org-and-sun-mediaconnection>. Stark, Erika. "First Nations Say Omnibus Bill Violates Treaty Rights." Calgary Herald [Calgary] 10 Dec. 2012: n. pag. Calgary Herald. Web. 8 Jan. 2013. <http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/First+Nations+omnibus+bill+violates+treaty+rights/7679061/story.html>. Wells, Paul. "Harper’s Carbon Tax Smokescreen." Macleans 21 Sept. 2012: n. pag. Macleans. Web. 8 Feb. 2013. <http:// www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/21/harpers-carbon-tax-smokescreen/>. http://profalbrecht.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/road01.jpg “Safe” amounts of Methyl Mercury Poisoning R. Gibbins, "Electoral Reform and Canada's Aboriginal Population: An Assessment of Aboriginal Electoral Districts," in R. A. Milen, ed., Aboriginal Peoples and Electoral Reform in Canada, Vol. 9 of the Research Studies of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1991), p. 160; Elections Canada, "Elections Canada Initiatives Concerning Aboriginal Electors: Elections Canada 1992–1999" (Presentation to the Assembly of First Nations, January 1999); Elections Canada, Thirty-fifth General Election 1993: Official Voting Results(Ottawa: Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, 1993); Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Thirty-sixth General Election 1997: Official Voting Results (CD-ROM: Catalogue No. SE-1-1997-MRC). Ball, David P. "Grassy Narrows Marchers Offer Government Mercury-tainted Fish."Home. Aberrational Multi-Media Society, 2012. Web. Youghs, Carol, and Candice Bergen. "Hughes (NDP) Questions Government Response to Grassy Narrows and Whitedog First Nations Murcury Poisoning." Ecojustice Environmental Hansard. N.p., 13 Oct. 2012. Web. http://morfis.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/where-two-rivers-meet111.jpg Games and Puzzles: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OAh4Xl94vrU/S6AwTqoPBKI/AAAAAAAARVk/txAoD2gx0UA/s400/green+crayons+flickr.jpg
ecoprints|39
ecoprints
ecoprints
coprints
coprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
prints
ecoprints ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints
ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints ecoprints
ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints
ecoprints