When the Federal Government says that it’s a mine “tailings impoundment area”.
The CBC reported yesterday that the Federal Government is considering a proposition to allow mining companies to dump their toxic waste (aka “tailings“) into 16 lakes across Canada (including Bucko Lake in Manitoba, ~150 km North of Lake Winnipeg). The Fisheries Act (see section 34 and forward) states that it’s illegal to deposit waste into fish-bearing waters in Canada.
However, under the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (section 5), a mining company is permitted to deposit waste rock “or an effluent that contains any concentration of a deleterious substance and that is of any pH into a tailings impoundment area that is either a water or place set out in Schedule 2 or a disposal area that is confined by anthropogenic or natural structures or by both, other than a disposal area that is, or is part of, a natural water body that is frequented by fish.”
The Schedule 2 referred to here is a list of lakes that have been re-classified as “tailings impoundment areas”. In other words, together the Fisheries Act and Metal Mining Effluent Regulations declare it unlawful to dump toxic waste into fish-bearing lakes and rivers … unless those lakes and rivers are re-classified as “tailing impoundment areas”.
Environmentalists point out that this is in effect a huge subsidy for mining operations at the cost of the environment. Aboriginal communities and recreational fishermen are among the stakeholders that are opposed to this action. The mining companies point out that the tailings from metal mining operations are best stored under water – they claim that this is the safest way to deal with the tailings. The mining companies assure us that they will contain the toxic waste and that the risk to surrounding watersheds is minimal. Environmentalists point out that even with the strictest safeguards in place, there is a real risk that the groundwater may be polluted by these tailings and that will affect surrounding watersheds – and impact not only the natural ecosystems but also aboriginal and other communities that rely on them.
When I heard this story on the news, I was really taken aback that such a glaring “loophole” in environmental regulations could be allowed to exist in Canada. In the case of several of the lakes on the list to be re-classifed, local stakeholders claim that the federal government has not gone through the public hearings that are required. Just because Canada has so many pristine lakes and rivers is no reason to think that we can treat them as toxic dumps by re-classifying them. A lake by any other name is still a lake!
Manitoba Hydro has proposed a change in electricity pricing for homeowners – an “inverted rate structure”. Under this new plan, homeowners would be charged a lower rate for a determined amount of power usage and a higher rate for anything above that. Hydro has applied to the Public Utility Board to implement a fee structure where Manitobans would pay 5.98¢ per kWh for the first 900 kWh they use and 6.01¢ per kWh for any power usage above that. Other utilities (Quebec, California, Washington State) have been doing this for a while and in Manitoba the concept (with different rates) has already been in place for commercial usage. Environmentalists applaud the move, pointing out that despite Manitoba Hydro’s extensive and well-intentioned Power Smart program, Manitoba has seen increased power usages of 7% per year recently. Next door in Saskatchewan, power use has dropped 3% per year through less extensive conservation programs.
Why such an emphasis on conserving energy in a province where rates are among the lowest in the world? The cynic would argue that this just means greater profits for Manitoba Hydro – if Manitobans use less electricity then Hydro will have more to sell to customers in the US and to Ontario! The environmentalists would point out, however, that selling more electricity to the US and Ontario means less pressure for them to build or continue to use dirty coal-fired electricity plants Coal is cheap and abundant in the US, but burning coal releases greenhouse gases (CO2 emissions) and dirties the air. Mining coal also has huge environmental impacts (strip-minining in Appalachia!?). So despite my cynical first reaction to this headline in the Winnipeg Free Press, I think I’m going to agree that it’s a step in the right direction. I also agree with those who say that it’s a baby step and that Hydro needs to be more aggressive – the rate difference needs to have more of a bite to be effective. However, Hydro must provide special rates and/or increasing lower power limit in winter months so as to not have disproportionate impacts on the poor/elderly who often live in older less efficient homes and those who heat their homes in Manitoba’s cold winters.
In May, 2008 the US Government listed the polar bear as “Threatened”, and declared that it required protection due to loss of Arctic sea ice as a result of global warming. Now in June, 2008 the US Fish & Wildlife Service has given legal protection to oil companies if small numbers of polar bears (and Pacific walruses) are harmed unintentionally due to their activities over the next 5 years. The oil companies want to search for oil in the Chukchi Sea off the Northwest coast of Alaska. About 2000 of the world’s polar bear population (8%) lives in or around the Chukchi Sea and environmentalists argue that this announcement means that oil companies have a “blank cheque” to harass these bears. The companies will have to construct hundreds of miles of ice roads and paths along the shoreline along with peripheral human activities that will disturb the polar bear populations. Environmentalists claim that this activity will interfere with the bears’ hunting for prey and raising of young in snow dens. Representatives for the US Fish and Wildlife Service say that the oil companies will be operating under the same rules that they’ve used in other areas and that the threat to the bears is due to the loss of sea ice and not the activities of the oil companies.
To drill or not to drill. On the one hand we live in a society where our economy is based on oil and the products of the petroleum industry. Gasoline are soaring (around $1.30/L in Canada and $4.00/Gal in the US). Food prices are rising also, in part due to the high price of fuel for transportation and agriculture. There’s increasing global demand for oil that’s going to get much worse in the years ahead (think of all those up-coming Indian and Chinese car-buyers!). The US has just fought a war in Iraq that was in part, at least, to guarantee their supply of oil for the near future. With all these pressures, how can one argue that we should NOT be searching for new oil deposits in the Arctic (and off the coast of California and in the Gulf of Mexico …)?? Do the needs of 2000 polar bears outweigh our needs??
The problem is that the science points to burning of fossil fuels as the main reason for the global warming that we’re facing. It’s our reliance on oil that has likely been the cause of the loss of Arctic sea ice. Scientists tell us that the Arctic is experience the effects of global warming on a much greater scale than we are at the moment. Is it rational to ignore this and continue to drill for more oil in the very place that’s suffering the greatest from global warming? Is it rational to ignore the warning signs that these threatened bears are providing to us?? While high gas and food prices are a problem we NEED to address, will they drive us to CHANGE our behaviour and get us to wake up to the reality of global warming?
Philosophically and ethically, I think I agree with those who would say that we have no right to drive species after species to extinction and that we should do everything we can to save these bears. But putting that aside, it may seem easy to weigh the real hurt and suffering of people caused by present-day high gas and food prices against the hurt and suffering of a few bears … but will we one day look back at the loss of these poor bears and shake our heads at our lack of foresight when people the world over are suffering and dying due to the very real effects of global warming that we once had a chance to mitigate or prevent?
Scientists at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia studied the effects of a mixture of 10 common pesticides on Rainbow Trout. Their conclusion – that the mixture of agricultural herbicides & insecticides may be causing the trout to lose its sense of smell. The trout’s sense of smell is important in detecting predators and in finding a mate. The researchers hope that government regulators will consider these findings when setting limits on pesticide use. One key point they make is that the combination of pesticides must be considered when setting regulations. Regulations are currently based normally on single pesticides … whereas the combination that enters rivers and streams from agricultural runoff seems to be more hazardous than any one pesticide.
This reminds me of the debate by Winnipeg’s city council to ban pesticides by homeowners. After public hearings on the issue, the city decided to NOT take the “drastic actions” of other municipalities in enforcing a ban on the use of pesticides by homeowners. Instead, they opted for a law requiring companies and individuals to put up larger signs warning the public about the application of pesticides. While this is a good “first step”, I found it to be disappointing. While most of the pesticides entering Manitoba’s waterways is likely due to agricultural use, those of us living in the City can’t avoid our own responsibilities in this area. I understand the challenges … our school is not allowed to use pesticides and every spring/summer the lawn is FULL of dandelions! There must be other options … but I confess that I haven’t researched them! Perhaps some leisurely reading this summer!?
The Mississippi River flows down through the Louisiana delta into the Gulf of Mexico. On its way it passes through prime farmlands where it receives run-off of excess nutrients (nitrates, phosphates etc …) from fertilizers that are applied to increase crop yields. This nutrient-rich water enters the Gulf of Mexico and causes an “bloom” of algae – a sudden dramatic increase in the amount of green algae in the water. As these algae die, bacteria populations then sky-rocket in order to decompose the dead cells. Since bacteria need oxygen, the extraordinary increase in bacteria populations causes the oxygen levels to fall drastically, killing other organisms that require the oxygen. This drop in oxygen levels creates a “dead zone” (hypoxic zone) in the Gulf … a zone where living organisms (zooplankton, fish, shrimp, crabs, etc …) cannot survive. Because fertilizer use spikes in late spring and early summer, the dead zone is at its height in the summer months. Studies show that this summer’s dead zone could be the largest ever recorded – 17 to 21% larger than ever before!
The fancy term for too much nutrients in a body of water is “eutrophication” … and the problem is not unique to the Gulf of Mexico. The same issue affects Lake Winnipeg. The graphic below shows the many sources of nitrogen in Lake Winnipeg. One major source is the many rivers that flow through agricultural regions. Factory farming is also a big culprit. Hog barns in Manitoba have thousands of hogs confined in large confined spaces. The waste from these animals is collected in “lagoons” – cess-pools that are full of nitrates. Heavy rainfalls can cause some of this waste and/or applied fertilizer to wash directly into rivers that eventually make their way to Lake Winnipeg. The City of Winnipeg also treats its water with phosphates … and people apply fertilizers to their lawns and use phosphate-containing dish soaps and dishwasher detergents. All of these nutrients make their way into Lake Winnipeg where huge algae blooms appear each summer … especially in the North basin.
Should the province regulate the use of fertilizers among urban users? What about improving regulations on farmers for the use of fertilizers?? Should there be more large hog barns in Manitoba? What is their environmental record with respect to spills and the disposal of their animal wastes?
Students are asked to publish at least TWO entries per month with HTML links to an environmental news story from a reputable news source. Along with the link, you should summarize the article in 5 to 10 sentences and provide a personal response to the news item.
In addition to posting your own news items, students are also asked to make at least TWO responses to the stories that others have posted. For this to be a worth-while effort, I want you to be honest in your personal responses. Feel free to debate things in a respectful manner – there is room for disagreement. However don’t just be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative!
Have fun and let’s keep our eyes open for major environmental news events throughout the year!
Manitoba Hydro has proposed a change in electricity pricing for homeowners – an “inverted rate structure”. Under this new plan, homeowners would be charged a lower rate for a determined amount of power usage and a higher rate for anything above that. Hydro has applied to the Public Utility Board to implement a fee structure where Manitobans would pay 5.98¢ per kWh for the first 900 kWh they use and 6.01¢ per kWh for any power usage above that. Other utilities (Quebec, California, Washington State) have been doing this for a while and in Manitoba the concept (with different rates) has already been in place for commercial usage. Environmentalists applaud the move, pointing out that despite Manitoba Hydro’s extensive and well-intentioned 
Mr. Patenaude