The Little Things Count

Historic Forest Agreement Signed in Canada

2010-05-24T22:14:00.004-06:00

A historic agreement was reached on Tuesday 22nd May 2010 in Canada.

"TORONTO — Canada's major pulp and paper companies said Tuesday they will restrict logging in environmentally sensitive areas of the country's northern boreal forest as part of a groundbreaking deal with environmental groups.
The Forest Products Association of Canada, whose members include forestry giants such as AbitibiBowater Inc. and Weyerhaeuser Co. Ltd., said the industry has agreed to immediately suspend logging for three years on 75 million acres of boreal forest — roughly the size of Montana — where wildlife and habitat is endangered.
Canada's boreal forest stretches like a giant green belt southeast from the Yukon to Newfoundland and represents about 75 percent the country's woodlands. The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement covers 170 million acres of the region — an area nearly twice the size of Germany — and includes forests in seven of the country's 10 provinces." Source: Associated Press.

Logging is being suspended for 3 years on around 72-75 million hectares of forest in order to develop a plan to protect 36,000 Caribou that live in the region under "The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement". The compromise "environmental organizations have pledged to suspend international "Do Not Buy" anti-logging campaigns against Canadian lumber", so in order to protect a huge area of forest an help preserve a species environmental organisations have, potentially, provided Canada with an easier road prosperity in the logging industry. Canadian politics is all about economic growth - earlier this week Stephen Harper rejected UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's call for climate change to be on the G20 agenda at the G20 summit later this summer, stating, it's the economy that counts, the rest is just noise.

How economically prosperous is the logging industry?
Well, revenue from the forest sector is $54.2 billion annually (all currency in Canadian Dollars) and exports bring in $23.6 billion annually, mostly from paper ($10.9bil). The trade surplus is $14.4 bil annually, which is only second to the oil and gas industry. One can safely assume that the logging industry is one of the main cylinders firing Canada's economy, and for an entire sector to come up with an agreement like this is extremely rare. I'm sure those reading this have seen how sutbborn energy and oil companies can be when it comes to emissions agreements! Keeping this profitability intact whilst protecting swathes of forest will be sure to keep Ottawa happy - with the economic recovery in the US exports will grow, increasing the profitability of the industry. Although, that is one downside, 72 million hectares are protected and 28 million acres will not be cut for three years, but there is hundreds of millions of hectares of unprotected forest that is still available for logging.

This is fantastic news for the biodiversity of the region, and quite a step forward in the International Year of Biodiversity three days before the International Day of Biodiversity on May 22nd. The size of the area to be protected is a little over the size of Italy (including Sardinia and Sicily) - by 841 square miles. There's another map here:

Why is this so important?

Canada's boreal forest, otherwise known as the Taiga is part of a biome that covers a large part Northern America and Eurasia. Largely coniferous forest the Taiga is the world's largest of the 15 terrestrial biomes and is considered a 'carbon sink', within the biome masses of carbon is stored as the forest releases less carbon than is absorbed, thus storing the carbon. Much of the carbon dioxide produced elsewhere on the Earth ends up in the world's forests and oceans.

Where is the Carbon?

Mostly (80% in Canada's Taiga) in the dead organic matter found in the soil beneath the forests.

What is the largest carbon sink on Earth?

The oceans are by far the largest, with the carbon stored in deposits beneath the ocean and in acids in the sea.

Who is involved in the Agreement?

Forestry Companies Participating in the Agreement:
AbitibiBowater Inc., Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc., AV Group, Canfor Corporation, Canfor Pulp Limited Partnership, Cariboo Pulp & Paper Company, Cascades inc., Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd., F.F. Soucy Inc., Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Limited Partnership, Kruger Inc., Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd., Mercer International, Mill & Timber Products Ltd., NewPage Corporation, Papier Masson Ltée, SFK Pâte, Tembec, Tolko Industries Ltd., West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd., and Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, all represented by the Forest Products Association of Canada.

Environmental Organizations Participating in the Agreement:
Canadian Boreal Initiative, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Canopy(formerly Markets Initiative), David Suzuki Foundation, ForestEthics, Greenpeace, Ivey Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, and Pew Environment Group’s International Boreal Conservation Campaign.

Mose of these environmental organizations can be followed on Facebook and Twitter, please show your support!

Glossary

Biodiversity - 1) The number and variety of organisms found within a specified geographic region. 2) The variability among living organisms on the earth, including the variability within and between species and within and between ecosystems.

Biome - a complex biotic community characterized by distinctive plant and animal species and maintained under the climatic conditions of the region, esp. such a community that has developed to climax.

Taiga - the coniferous evergreen forests of subarctic lands, covering vast areas of northern North America and Eurasia.

Carbon Sink - a natural environment that absorbs and stores more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it releases, which offsets greenhouse gas emissions.

Source

Think of it this way, the world's lungs will be breathing easier after an area close to the size of Italy was protected by the 'medication' of suspended logging.

350: The most important number for mankind?

2010-04-16T16:42:00.003-06:00

Three hundred and fifty, what does it mean to you?
Unless you follow a few campaigns or are well-informed when it comes to carbon dioxide levels, it's unlikely you know what I'm referring to. Prepare to be enlightened!

Three hundred and fifty is a measurement, a measurement in parts-per-million (ppm). 350 of what? Carbon dioxide concentration in parts-per-million.

What is Parts-Per-Million?

Parts-per notation measures concentration and means 'out of a million', usually used for measuring the volume of a gas, weight of a liquid or solid, or by parts of air or liquid.

Why is the concentration of CO2 so important? Why not Methane?

Carbon dioxide is the one gas we produce, anthropogenically (unnaturally). This is due to the fact that carbon is abundant in our fossil fuel sources, and is one of the most abundant elements in our galaxy (estimated spectroscopically) with only Hydrogen, Helium and Oxygen being more abundant. Humans are 18% carbon by mass, thus, when we and many other plants and animals decompose, carbon is returned to the Earth and it's why when raw fuels, wood, etc, is burned CO2 is released.

Remember that plants also absorb CO2 during photosynthesis, massive amounts of it, 20% of our total annual emissions are absorbed by tropical forests alone - not including pine forests. That's the equivalent of 4.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions, each year. Source Thus, if we remove forests, not only do we release CO2 during the deforestation, but on average 1,000 kg of CO2 is not absorbded by each tree once it's cut down - removing 1,000 trees will mean 1 million kg of CO2 will not be absorbed each year.

What is the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, in parts per million?

Measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, at current concentration of CO2 is 391.06 ppm, as of March 2010. That is, in Earth's entire atmsophere for every million parts, 391 are CO2 (presumable molecules). That doesn't sound like much, right? Read on.

Why is 350 ppm so important?

350 parts per million is the level of Carbon Dioxide, which most scientists and climate experts agree, is the highest sustainable level at which we can live with the Earth's climate remaining stable - i.e. global warming remains in it's natural state, thus, any climate change will be natural.

When did the concentration rise above 350ppm?

1987.

What was the concentration pre-industrialisation?

275ppm of CO2, as it was for all of human history

If 391ppm is the current concentration, how much is 391ppm?

The atmosphere has a mass of about five quintillion (5x1018) kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface.
CO2 at 387ppm (mid 2008 concentration) makes up 3.02188 x 10^12 kg, or 3.02188 trillion kg. This is an increase from 2.996 trillion kg, which is 2.588 billion kg more atmospheric CO2 in 2008, than in 2006.

How do we know what the concentration was thousands of years ago?

Trapped in the deepest ice of the Antarctic, specifically the Eastern Antarctic Ice Shelf, the thickest ice on the planet, are air bubbles from thousands of years ago. By analysing the air bubbles in the deepest ice scientists can determine the concentration of gases in the atmosphere at the time when that very thin layer of ice was exposed at the surface. This is the most accurate way of measuring ancient atmopsheric compositions.

What if the CO2 concentrations keep increasing?

The more CO2 there is the atmosphere, the more molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere, resulting in more UV radiation from the sun being absorbed and re-radiated back to the surface of the Earth instead of escaping into space, thus, trapping more of the sun's UV radiation inside the Earth's atmosphere and warming the planet - global warming. This global warming will cause changes in weather patterns which, if sustained over more than 30 years, is considered to be climate change.

If you are interested in learning more, or supporting the campaign called "350", visit the 350.org website, and connect on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, and/or YouTube.

What do you think? How important is the number 350 in this context?

Thank you for reading!

Vertical Farms: food production of the near future?

2010-03-14T19:24:00.002-06:00

Food production has the potential to change dramatically over the next 40 years, not just because of climate change but because of the fact that the overwhelming majority of demographers agree world population will increase to around 8.9-9.1 billion, as the UN’s most accurate guesses, but in two other scenarios, one with fewer variants where the population is estimated to reach 7.3 billion, and one with more with a population of 10.7 billion. That’s an increase from a 6.79 billion estimate (July 2009), the US Bureau of the Census estimates the population will reach 9.3 billion, assuming 9.0 billion is accurate, there will be 2.21 billion more people on the planet, which is a 32.54% increase from today. Currently over 80% of the land suitable for raising crops is in use (source: Nasa), this equates to around 40% of the Earth’s land mass, when in 1900 there were 1.6 billion people on the planet and we used 25% of the Earth’s land mass for food. That shows how much more we can get from the land if we can feed 6.79 billion, some of those people are starving, whilst others waste plenty of food, but the fact they are living is a sign that they are being fed.

The problem with a growing world population is that we will run out of land at some point, and by 2050 80% of the 9 billion or so will be living in cities/urban areas. That alone will encroach on the land with new homes built, whether they are shanty towns or wealthy cities, the amount of land we will be able to use for food production is likely to decrease. This is without taking into consideration any affects regional and/or global climate change will have upon crop yield. Already we have seen prolonged drought in Australia, summers in Saskatchewan becoming drier and hotter, as in Europe, this doesn’t prove climate change, it is weather variations that are becoming more extreme. The weather varies, yes, but in the last decade weather events have set and broken records of all kinds – strengths of hurricanes, hottest temperatures, and driest summers, heaviest snowfalls. These are weather variations, to be considered climate changes one would have to collect and observe data from a period of 30 years, otherwise it’s purely weather activity and it would be foolish to predict future climates by judging a cold winter.

So, with a lot more people to food and a slight reduction in the suitable area for growing crops, mankind is faced with a ‘food crisis’ as dubbed by the media, make no mistake, it isn’t over, it can only get worse unless we radically change the way we grow our food. One concept, put forward by, Dickson Despommier, professor of Environmental Health and Microbiology at the Columbia University in New York City in 1999, may provide a solution.

The concept, “vertical farming”, growing large amounts of food in urban skyscrapers, sometimes called “farmscrapers”. Imagine a 30 storey greenhouse, full of tomatoes, that doesn’t seem like a very new idea does it? Tomatoes have been grown indoors for a long time, the difference is the size of building in which they are grown. Where the concept is new is using cutting edge technologies to grow crops other than tomatoes, herbs, etc. inside. The entire multi-storey farm would be self-sufficient powered by solar, wind and bio-energy, there would be no waste and all the water recycled and re-used within the farm. That might sound somewhat futuristic and expensive, but all of the technologies needed to do this are available now, and have been for some time. Despommier has explained that “Each floor will have its own watering and nutrient monitoring systems”, which is a technology used extensively in market gardening. The climate could be controlled electronically, and if local soil is still used to grow the crops, it’s still a very natural way of growing crops. Crops would not fail due to droughts, floods or pest and with a climate and nutrient control system there would be no need for herbicides, pesticides or fertilizer, making entire crops organic. Vertical farms may even product energy that could be sent back to the grid via methane that is produced from the composting of non-edible plants (and animals).

One interesting fact that makes vertical farms such a clever and environmentally friendly option is the amount of space needed, not only would there be year-round crop production, but 1 indoor acres is equivalent to 4-6 outdoor acres or more, it varies with each crop, for example, 1 indoor acre of strawberries = 30 outdoor acres). [Source ]

So, in about 20 years can I expect to see the countryside covered in skyscrapers growing food?

No, encroaching upon the land to build vertical farms would defeat the object of having them, and that many may produce a surplus of food given how much more productive each indoor acre is. Despommier’s vision is to have vertical farms built where the people are, in the cities, which makes sense if 80% of that 9 billion will be living in cities, this will allow a continuous supply of fresh food, and reduce transport costs with delivery only being tens of miles instead of the current hundreds or even thousands of miles. That will in turn dramatically reduce the emissions of from agriculture, that with letting the currently farmed land return to the natural ecosystems they were thousands of years ago will benefit the environment beyond what any current generation has seen.

There are many designs for vertical farms, here are a few artist’s impressions and designs:

There are many benefits to vertical farms: reducing emissions, elimnating unnatural treatments (pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers), conversion of black and gray water into potable water, many new employment opportunities, and restoring farmland back to natural ecosystems to name but a few. There are two essays written by Professor Despommier which are available on his website: http://www.verticalfarm.com/essays.html if you need convincing. I hope vertical farms are built soon and so they may be tested and proved reliable, before swiftly being built in many more places around the world. If it's not for the environment, it's still a smart thing to do. As Despommeir mentions, we cannot inhabit the moon or mars if we don't yet know how to grow food indoors.

Images from: The Vertical Farm Project, celticdreams-stock, texurestockbyhjs

COP15

2009-12-10T09:41:00.006-07:00

As you may have heard there's a rather large meeting in Copenhagen between world leaders and delegates from almost every country on the planet.

What's it about?
Climate talks will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark between all members of the United Nations - which is 192 out of 195 countries.
The number of leaders planning to come to the December 7-18 talks has risen to 98 (possibly more by now) out of the 192 members of the United Nations. Most world leaders will attend on last two days of the talks, Obama recently changing his mind about when he would attend.

Why is it a big deal?

Many scientists believe this is the last chance we (as humans) have to do something about climate change, and it needs to big.

Islands are already disappearing and some of these nations, such as the Maldives are now carbon neutral as a result. These island nations will need to evacuated before 2050 if the IPCC's predictions prove true. Although, Dr. James Lovelock's predictions are much worse, which is discomforting considering he's a climate maverick, inventor, and the most important scientific thinker alive (he's done for Climate Science what Einstein and Newton did for Physics).
These predictions, of a 6c rise by 2100 are why there is a need for action. There are two choices we currently have:

1. Do nothing.
2. Do all we can, now.

What are the consequences of these two choices?

Say we do nothing, and the worst predictions are true, we will be unprepared and social and economic collapse would occur in a heartbeat. It will become the survival of the fittest and there will likely be climate wars.
We do nothing, it doesn't happen - HAPPY DAYS!
We do all we can and it IS true, we are as prepared as possible and strong enough to tackle whatever nature throws at us - we can survive, even though socially and economically strained beyond comprehension.
We do all we can and....! Nothing. Ooops! Massive cost, for what? Nothing, although we are being very nice to the planet.

Which is more of a risk to you?

THIS is why it's a big deal: what happens at the coming climate talks has the potential to change the course of the human race 50 years down the line. Also, we cannot be certain of anything! Gamble with the future of a race? Hmm, would you take that risk?

What are they aiming for?

They are aiming to do as much as possible, but as often is with politics, some countries will refuse to climb aboard until another country does first. The current argument between industrializing nations such as China and India, is that the developed countries who went through the same process had no restrictions and it's their fault emissions have risen so much and they aren't doing enough themselves to be 'cleaner'.
Developed countries counter with "we need everyone on board for this to make a difference" and the US & Canada often refuse to agree upon a deal until India and China do, these are the largest polluters in the world, following one another and getting nowhere. This is what worries many, as if that happens in Copenhagen, a lot will have been lost.

Climate scientists are convinced the world must stop the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and start making them fall very soon. To have a chance of keeping warming under the dangerous 2C mark, cuts of 25%-40% relative to 1990 levels are needed, rising to 80%-95% by 2050. So far, the offers on the table are way below these targets.

As for the stolen e-mails? 1,700 UK Scientists have signed a statement saying climate change IS due to human activities.
Climate skeptics misrepresented both the content and the significance of the stolen e-mails, quotes were also cherry-picked from the sources.

The Met. Office has released temperature records to debunk these claims. Which is a considerable amount of evidence, if one reads the article here.

The best way to get world leaders to come up with a climate deal that is fair, ambitious, and binding is to:

Sign the TckTckTck petition.
Raise your voice at Hopenhagen.org.
Educate yourself about basic climate science.
Educate others.
Write to your local government, environment minister or national leader.

Climate Change 101 - BAD09

2009-10-14T16:45:00.012-06:00

It's everywhere, talk of going green, "global warming" and this thing it causes, "climate change", but how much do you really know about it?
Let's start with Gaia, the theory that is now widely accepted and is described as the earth as: "The Gaia Theory posits that the organic and inorganic components of Planet Earth have evolved together as a single living, self-regulating system. It suggests that this living system has automatically controlled global temperature, atmospheric content, ocean salinity, and other factors, that maintains its own habitability." [Source]

With strong evidence of past hot and cold periods during Earth's lifetime, a natural cycle has been deducted. After collision with an asteroid that is believed to have wiped out the then dominant species, dinosaurs, the Earth was still in a hot state, hence, an ice age followed, on a geological timeline, fairly soon afterward. This was Gaia re-adjusting, so much that glaciation extended further south than Canada's modern border and into northern Europe. As diversity increased in the cool period almost to the point of destabilization - likely through population - Gaia readjusted again to bring about the diversity of the experienced until at least the 1800's.
Since the industrialization of the current M.E.D.C's (more economically developed countries) and the invention of the combustion engine and 'discovery' of electricity we have been consuming fossil fuels at a near exponential rate as our technology has become more sophisticated.
This is a problem for Gaia as she was already trying to balance the warm period, but with the release of greenhouse gases, so called because they trap and re-radiate heat, the natural balance has been upset. Of course, as the majority of greenhouse gases now come from unnatural sources.
Considering the amount of geological time it takes Gaia to adjust, and the fact that the average global temperature has increased by 1F in the last one hundred years, and by 4F in some regions, the vast majority of scientists now accept that climate change, as a result of global warming, is mainly caused by humans.

Global warming causes climate change purely due the sensitivity of the world's climate to changes in temperature, and not only climate, but ocean current's too. Ocean currents determine how warm or cool parts of the world are, for example, if the Gulf Stream were to change course and move south toward Spain, the UK, along with north-western Europe would become as cold as parts Greenland for a considerable amount of the year.
North Eastern Europe would experience winters similar to those in Siberia currently, if it were to move further north, the opposite would happen and British tourists would be less likely to holiday in southern Spain!
Ocean currents can affect weather patterns to an extent too, but not as much as the inland temperatures. Weather patterns will change independently, as they constantly too, but the frequency of extreme weather would increase. A warmer summer in the Caribbean would likely result in a more severe hurricane season, which has been seen recently, we all know where.
When the atmospheric composition changes, there will likely be effects. Carbon dioxide is now at levels of 390 parts per million, when in 1970 the levels were close to 330 parts per million, and in 1880 levels were around 290 ppm. Oh, and, in the last 800,000 years, the CO2 concentration has never gone above 310 parts per million (see below)

Hardly a natural increase?

Such a big change in a very short of amount of geological time is likely to have many consequences.

These continually accelerating changes are why our world leaders need to leave Copenhagen having signed an ambitious, fair and binding climate agreement, with all countries involved, especially the U.S., China and Canada. For too long we have sat back and denied, debated and been sheepish when it comes to policy. This December could be the last chance our world leaders have to collectively combat climate change. If you want to let them know you want the same, I suggest you explore the TckTckTck campaign, and sign your name along with 1.93 million other citizens worldwide who have done so already. Together we can make a lot of noise.

Thank you for reading!

This has been my contribution to Blog Action Day along with some of my own photographs, located here.

The call for a Global Climate Deal

2009-10-03T10:46:00.015-06:00

In the first half of 2009 the UN launched a new climate campaign, TckTckTck, since then 1.37 million citizens from around the world have signed their name to the list of people calling for a climate deal that is viable, realistic and that will prevent climate change instead of preserving our economies and wrapping them in cotton wool. Since it's launch other events and partner campaigns have joined TckTckTck.

Avaaz had 3.5 million members in every country of the world, with a mission of: "Avaaz.org is a new global web movement with a simple democratic mission: to close the gap between the world we have, and the world most people everywhere want." Over 13.5 million actions have been taken since January 2007 and they continue to support the TckTckTck campaign.

350 is another supporter and partner of the TckTckTck campaign, launched in 2007 with a campaign called "Step It Up". Currently an International Day of Climate Action on October 24 is planned with over 1700 events worldwide, from Parades to Festivals. 350 has a mission is to: "...inspire the world to rise to the challenge of the climate crisis—to create a new sense of urgency and of possibility for our planet." Why the number 350? This is the amount of CO2, in parts per million, that scientists accept as the safe limit for humanity, currently we are at 385 parts per million.

A new climate film that includes the UN's award winning IPCC's worst climate predictions has also sent shockwaves through its audiences, it's called The Age Of Stupid and stars Pete Postlethwaite, the film is also supported by another campaign, Not Stupid, where the public can take action and send "Stupid" or "Not Stupid" to politicians of their own country. There is also a pledge anyone can sign to say what they will do if the UK government builds a new coal power plant, Pete will give back his OBE in protest. The film is available on DVD and was premiered around the world on September 21.
From October 5th anyone, anywhere will be able to buy a license to screen the film at their church/pub/school/business. The cost to market, make and distribute the film has come from public donations and anyone being able to buy shares in The Age Of Stupid. Many are still unaware of the film.

Each of the these campaign websites have interesting facts on Climate Change and the road to Copenhagen where world leaders will sign a new climate deal, to replace to Kyoto protocol that ends in 2012. They are worth exploring to educate oneself and see what all of the fuss is about! TckTckTck is one of the most successful climate campaigns to date, recently, 60 artists and celebrities took part in the recording of a re-mix of the hit "Beds Are Burning".

What can you do?

Share it, dig it, stumble it, post it, tweet it, anything you can to raise awareness and add to the already loud voices of 1.37 million others around the world who are calling for climate action. You can read the evidence and the facts within this blog and via campaign websites, see for yourself and ask yourself if YOU are ready for climate justice. Share and ask your family, friends and colleagues, Are You Ready?

Thank you for reading.

EcoAction Plan Analysis

2009-08-28T21:40:00.011-06:00

Regulations are being developed, targets are in place, and initiatives are providing funding to industries that may provide the government and the public with more efficient vehicles and eco-friendly crops. No data regarding the effectiveness of the ecoAction plan, or $1.5 billion trust fund for investment in ‘major projects that clean air’ have surfaced yet, not even predictive data. Individual figures regarding how much has been spent already have been announced for nine of Canada’s thirteen provinces, which leads one to ask, are some provinces behind others, hence their exclusion? If so, why are they? Surely a national action plan would bring the provinces in parallel with regards to state regulations. What is the real cost of keeping up with and adapting to climate change? How big is the deficit? Such questions may remain unanswered and it will be a case of watch this space with the Canadian government. Recently though “300 billion dollars a year for climate change adaptation and mitigation” has been marked by UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Yvo de Boer, as the cost of climate change adaption and cutting global emissions, for every country to split as evenly as possible, given differences in wealth.

How does Canada compare to the annual US$300 billion?

In my previous entry there were figures for Budget 2009, combining their annual averages (assuming roughly the same is spent each year) the Canadian government directly making changes worth CDN$1,195,250,000 per year, which is the same as US$1,082,022,822. Yet a $40-billion stimulus package over two years may be constructed when a country’s economy is in recession, or in comparison to the worst hit countries, a large hiccup in the economic cycle. This is pretty poor considering the estimated cost, but the money has to come from somewhere. One would ask why governments let GM big-shots give themselves millions in bonuses from the money released to them by the US government, and somewhat by the Canadian government, to aid in their recovery after a dramatic decline in sales. The situation reminds me of a quote by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., “We could have saved the Earth but we were too damned cheap.”Within the letter I received from the Environment Minister of Canada, the term “clean coal” is used. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but is not coal rich in hydrocarbons and contains heavy metals, uranium, and thorium as waste products, and the burning of coal alone is the largest anthropogenic contribution to greenhouse gas emissions? “"Clean coal" is coal chemically washed to remove minerals and impurities”, to remove mainly sulphur before combustion. Technologies are used to remove pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides during combustion, such as, Fluidized-bed combustion. The flue gas desulfurization or scrubbing as a post-combustion technology has been used for decades, but produces slurry, as would the cleaning of the coal, so it seems the pollution from the coal is prevented from entering the atmosphere, but instead kept in suspension in bodies of water such as tailing ponds. Acid rain is thus prevented, but pollution of groundwater increased? Coal, in my opinion can never be clean due to its chemical composition, yes it may be manipulated to be ‘cleaner’ but it is not that simple. Five percent renewable fuel content in gasoline and two percent in diesel for Canada. This is a great idea but the numbers seem to be too low. So the diesel would be considered a B2 biodiesel, but B20 can be used in unmodified engines, which is a standard biodiesel mix in Australia already. Biodiesel (B100) reduces net CO2 emissions by 78% vs. Petroleum diesel, a considerable decrease in emissions, so, B20 would be a smaller decrease, but still significant enough to help countries reach Kyoto and UN targets. B2 is a marginal decrease, probably similar to the decrease seen with a hybrid engine. Thankfully though some companies already have 10% ethanol in the gasoline they sell i.e. Husky. If the public put more pressure on the government to pass tougher legislation when it comes to renewable fuel content, one may see more large energy companies such as Husky Energy increasing their fuel mixes. Or, a more direct way is to buy from only those companies that have larger amounts of renewable fuel content in their fuel. Why would this work? Purely because consumers control who has market share, and if other companies see Husky gaining market share other businesses may begin to question why consumers choose Husky over themselves and start to compare their fuels. The only thing that will bring up a red flag is the fuel mix, as the fuels are similar, just as a cup of water in Nova Scotia is very similar to a cup of water in British Columbia. Prices are the same with the exception of local variations due to the amount of competition, so, it may be wishful thinking, but companies may notice the fuel oil mix and try to match it, bringing about a possible competition between them so they can maintain their market share. Consumers have more power than they realise, with any business, we have that freedom of choice when purchasing. Also, as Canada has a relatively small population not as many people have to take part to make differences so spread the word and let’s get started!

What the Canadian Government is doing to help the Environment.

2009-04-28T20:40:00.004-06:00

Canada has a in place a comprehensive ecoAction plan which has been in full swing since 2000. Among the many targets is a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, although whether that is 20% below 1990 levels (as common with the targets of other countries and the Kyoto Protocol) remains unclear. Another target is that 90% of Canada's electricity needs be generated by clean energy, such as hydro, nuclear, or wind power by 2020. "Clean coal" is also included, which is coal chemically washed to remove minerals and impurities, as well as clean coal technologies to reduce the environmental impact of coal energy generation.
Regulations are being developed that will require a 5% average renewable fuel content in Canadian gasoline, i.e. ethanol, by 2010. With similar regulation intended for diesel fuel and heating oil to contain a 2% average renewable content by 2012.
Investments to implement a performance-based, efficient regulatory regime nationally include:

ecoENERGY iniatives targeting more than $2 billion in renewable energy, energy science and technology, and energy efficiency.
ecoTRANSPORT initiatives investing more than $4 billion in renewable fuels and a cleaner, more efficient, transportation system.
ecoAGRICULTURE initiatives investing almost $500 million to assist farmers and rural communities in taking advantages of new opportunities in the agriculture bio-products sector.

Budget 2007 provided a $1.5 billion trust fund to help the provinces and territories invest in major projects that clean air.

Budget 2008 included measures to strengthen and ensure effective implementation of Canada's ecoAction plan, including:

$500 million for investments to improve public transit that will contribute to cleaner air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A $250 million investment in carbon capture and storage initiatives, including $240 million in trust (separate) for Saskatchewan to be matched by the province and industry for a full-scale commercial demonstration of carbon capture and storage in the coal-fired electricity sector.
Increases in various capital cost allowances (for: carbon dioxide pipelines, clean-energy generation equipment).
Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax relief to land leased to situate wind or solar power equipment for the production of electricity.

Budget 2009 is providing over $2 billion in incremental funding to support a cleaner and more sustainable environment. This budget provides:

$1 billion over five years for a new Green Infrastructure Fund to support green infrastructure projects, including the generation of sustainable energy.
Another $1 billion over 5 years for clean energy research and demonstration projects, including carbon capture and storage. This is expected to generate a total investment in clean technologies of (at least) $2.5 billion.
$300 million over two years to the ecoEnergy Home Retrofit program, supporting an estimated 200,000 retrofits across Canada.
$80.5 million over two years for the management and assessment of federal contaminated sites, which will facilitate remediation work totalling an estimated $165 million over two years.
$10 million in 2009/10 to support annual Government reports on clean air, water and greenhouse gas emissions.
A one-time federal investment of $1.3 billion over two years to support renovations and retrofits of social housing, a cost shared 50:50 with provinces.

Tropical deforestation

2008-10-08T15:01:00.005-06:00

The Kyoto Protocol has resulted in the emergence of a more than US$60bn (£34bn) carbon market as the world's main mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This is a welcome start. But about 80% of this money goes to countries which cause less than 20% of emissions.
Tropical deforestation contributes about 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That is about the same as the total emissions from the US, and more than the entire global transportation sector.
You take away the carbon sinks, the carbon is free to rise into the atmosphere and start absorbing and re-radiating the suns solar radiation back to the earth, warming the surface and the atmosphere further. With the blanket of greenhouse gases getting thicker because of human activities, we are increasing the rate at which it is increasing by cutting down such large areas of forest. Logically we should be planting vast areas of forest to photosynthesize the carbon in the atmosphere. A direct counter and along with making efforts ourselves to reduce our emissions and impact on the composition of the atmosphere, we can prevent changes as large as predicted, as will happen over the next few decades.
I don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand. We are responsible for our actions and how they affect the habitats of others.

Arctic Wildlife Refuge soon to be Arctic Oil Drilling Co?

2008-08-30T19:19:00.004-06:00

Beneath a 1.5 million acre tract on the North Slope of Alaska is estimated to be between 3 and 9 billion barrels of recoverable oil. This area is a specially designated area within the 19.8 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

The U.S. imports over 65% of the nation's needed petroleum. These oil imports cost more than $55.1 billion a year. This figure does not include the military costs of imported oil. These figures are rising and could exceed 80% imports by the year 2010.
If the U.S. went ahead with their Arctic drilling plans, the U.S. would save $14 billion per year in oil imports and between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain. More than 75 percent of the citizens of Alaska, the Alaska legislature, the governor, the congressional delegation, and the residents of the North Slope Borough ( including those who live in the only village in the refuge ), support Coastal Plain oil and gas development.

ANWR is a 19 million acre refuge in northeast Alaska over half of which is designated as wilderness. The northern rim of ANWR, 1.2 million acres, was segregated by Congress for resource evaluation because of the potential for crude oil deposits beneath its surface. This area is called the Coastal Plain.
Tens of thousands strong herds of Caribou roam and migrate through the area and thousands of waterfowl nest and reproduce in Prudhoe Bay.
Other creatures such as Polar Bears (around 1000) live in this area of the ANWR with another 1000+ on the coast a short way from the refuge.
Polar bears will be exposed to new dangers and threats if oil exploration, development and extraction go ahead these include

Death, injury or harassment resulting from interactions with humans (many bears who come too close to communities too often are killed or moved).
Damage or destruction of essential habitat - just look at the extent of the damage caused by the Alberta Oil Sands and you will understand how such a project would affect the ANWR)
Contact with and ingestion of Oil and other contaminents.
Indirect food chain effects due to the impacts of oil and gas related activites on the good web upon which polar bears depend and are a part of.

Muskoxen an endangered species, with 350 in the refuge, live in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge year-round. Deep snow makes it difficult for these animals to survive as their fat-reserves are depleted and fewer calves produced, therefore, they move to areas that recieve less snow and/or are more sheltered. Such as the riparian area of habitats - which are also sites of important sources for water and gravel required for development and exploration. If the Muskoxen are displaced from these areas into deeper snow it will be a butterfly effect. In deeper snow the Muskoxen will expend more energy remaining warm, thus reducing their fat reserves which may well affect their survival.

Other species in the area include Grizzly Bears, Black Bears, Bowhead Whales, Gray Whales, Killer Whales, Harbour Porpoise, Pacific Walrus, Bearded Seals, Spotted Seals, Ring Seals, Elk, Wolves, Dall Sheep, Wolverines, Arctic Foxes and Red Foxes. Such biodiversity in an area of a couple of million acres is unmatched anywhere in the U.S. and Canada and possibly in any other areas of Tundra.

Global warming the ANWR is very apparent, over the past century, the average temperature in the arctic region has increased by 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit. Sea ice is melting earlier, permafrost is thawing and the wildlife migrates at different times. Caribou are departing their wintering grounds a month earlier and still having trouble making it to the coastal plain in time for spring, when the most nutritious forage is available for their calves. Arctic foxes are facing increased competition from the red foxes that are moving north as the climate warms. If warming continues unabated, the melting of the permafrost and the transformation of much of the tundra into woodlands would dramatically affect the migratory birds that breed there and rely on tundra vegetation. That includes more than two-thirds of all geese and most sandpipers.

"At best, ANWR would pump out only about 1 million barrels per day in 2015, when all of the necessary pipelines are in place. That may seem a lot, but in fact it represents only 4% of anticipated U.S. petroleum consumption and 6% of all imports."
Arctic Drilling Is No Energy Answer Tapping ANWR wouldn't help much with the most pressing problem: American dependence on foreign oil.
by Michael T. Klare

The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. So is it really worth entering a wilderness for such a small amount of oil and leaving it in what state?

Against Arctic drilling? Take action here.

2008-08-15T20:29:00.003-06:00

Homeostasis is a dynamic state, in which various regulatory systems maintain a fluctuating but overall balanced, set of conditions. If something happens to change conditions from normal, information is fed back to the regulatory systems and action is taken to rectify the situation. The action to prevent the regulating mechanisms going too far is called negative feedback. Since life began, there has been about a 25% increase in the radiation arriving at Earth from the sun. Despite fluctuations the earths surface has remained relatively constant.
The increase in plant life over the years will have increasingly removed CO2 from the air during photosynthesis. This will have reduced the greenhouse effect.

But the greenhouse effect is increasing due to humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere, this with masses of deforestation upsets the balance, so CO2 is increasing faster than it would if we didn't use wood to build our houses. Hence, the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Negative feedback: A system whereby a change is stopped from going too far by adjustments to reverse it.

An example of negative feedback is when increased global temperatures increase evaporation. This may lead to increased cloud cover that can reflect some of the incoming radiation and reduce temperatures.

Positive Feedback: A system whereby a change produces effects that increase or enhance the change to take the system out of balance.

For example, it has been shown that over the last 10 years, the permafrost (area where material just below the ground surface has been at 0°C for 2years+) in Alaska and Siberia has been melting. The organic material that was beneath the ice is now decomposing and releasing large amounts of Methane into the air. This is a powerful greenhouse gas and is leading to to rises in temperatures, which causes more permafrost to melt.

The Natural Greenhouse Effect

2008-07-25T20:44:00.002-06:00

The greenhouse effect is a natural effect that causes the Earth’s atmosphere to be about 33°C warmer than it would be without the layer of greenhouse gases. These gases allow short-wave radiation from the sun to be transmitted to the Earth’s surface but prevent long-wave radiation from leaving the atmosphere. The gases also absorb the heat from the ground, heat up and then re-radiate the extra warmth back down to the Earth’s surface.

There are a number of gases that contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.
Water Vapour, although subject to wide fluctuations, does have an enormous long-term effect. E.g. Clouds composed of large amounts of water vapour, reduce heating by day by cutting out the suns radiation, and reduce cooling by night by preventing the escape of long-wave radiation.
Carbon Dioxide is released as a result of respiration and decay.
Methane is released by bacteria during the anaerobic decay of many types of organic matter. Some methane has become trapped beneath the ground, especially in conjunction with coal.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is released as a result of bacterial activity in soils and the oceans.

There is strong evidence that the pace of global climate change in increasing and that this correlates with the increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of human activities (industrialisation).
The concentration of the following gases has been increased by anthropogenic means.
Carbon Dioxide is mostly produced through the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels contain large amounts of carbon that were locked away millions of years ago. Burning these involves oxidation of the carbon, thus it releases carbon dioxide in the air much faster than it can be locked away. Deforestation means not only that there are fewer trees to absorb CO2; but also that additional CO2 is released into the atmosphere when the wood decomposes or burns.

Methane has a greater greenhouse effect. Anaerobic bacteria produce large amounts: in paddy fields, which are flooded during the establishment phase of a rice crop; in landfill sites; and by cattle during the digestion of cellulose. Methane is also released during the ventilation of coalmines, leaks from pipelines and natural gas fields.

Nitrogen Oxides are mostly released into the atmosphere from burning petrol and diesel fuel for transport but some also come from the burning of fossil fuels in power stations, and the production and use of nitrogen fertilisers.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are entirely anthropogenic the have been manufactured for use as aerosol propellants, refrigerants, and solvents, in fire extinguishers and to make expanded plastics such as foam.

Low-level (tropospheric) ozone is produced by photochemical reactions between nitrogen dioxide and non-methane hydrocarbons (NHMC) from vehicle exhausts. NHMC also act as greenhouse gases themselves.

Should we limit the extraction of oil?

2008-07-17T21:33:00.004-06:00

Limiting the extraction of oil would increase prices and slow the economy - which is the last thing the Global Warming skeptics want and of course some political parties and the oil companies. There aren't enough alternatives out there yet that can be used over large areas - it isn't an economically viable option, yet. Our hunger for oil is terrible, the US government authorized oil exploration and extraction in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. The oil reserves are just a few months worth of supply for the US. This to me, is unacceptable, in areas of broad biodiversity and all of the already protected areas, there should definitely be limited extraction of oil - limited to the point that it would illegal to mine in such areas.
More areas need to protected in North America certainly. Alaska may be oil rich but it's also the USA's last area of vast wilderness rich in biodiversity. Similar happens in Canada, there is great risk to the environment from such exploration of fossil fuels. I.e. Strip Mining the oil sands in Alberta Canada. Lush Boreal forest is taken up (and I would hope the wood is used for house building) to expose the oil sands where the extraction begins. Yes, I think there should be a limit on the extraction of oil, but until there is a viable alternative it is very unlikely to happen.Relevant studies are listed in the sources below.
Here are some facts:
Oil sands mining is licensed to use twice the amount of fresh water that the entire city of Calgary uses in a year.

At least 90% of the fresh water used in the oil sands ends up in ends up in tailing ponds so toxic that propane cannons are used to keep ducks from landing in them.
Processing the oil sands uses enough natural gas in a day to heat 3 million homes in Canada.
The toxic tailing ponds are considered one of the largest human-made structures in the world. The ponds span 50 square kilometers and can be seen from space.
Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil.

Images:

http://image.guim.co.uk/Guardian/business/gallery/2007/dec/07/1/OilJeffMcIntoshAP-5881.jpg

http://www.borealbirds.org/images/tarsands3.jpg

Sources:

http://www.mtpc.org/cleanenergy/important/envother.htm

http://www.desmogblog.com/report-alberta-oil-sands-most-destructive-project-on-earth
The article in the above link is by Terrance Berg - Terrance Berg is the president and CEO of Arctic Front, a Nunavut-based nonprofit coalition representing the interests of Canada's polar bears at the provincial and federal levels.

Thanks for reading!

Campaigning and Educating

2008-07-16T16:05:00.005-06:00

Campaign released by the UK Government

Educating

News

The Climate has always changed. Why is now any different?

2008-07-14T12:48:00.005-06:00

What the experts say:

First of all, we're looking at climate change on a scale that hasn't happened in 650,000 years, maybe more. Second, we're looking at climate change that's happening much more quickly than ever before, which will make it much harder for ecological systems and for humans to adapt. But third, we must recognise that the Earth has been through some truly horrific climate changes in the past and ask the question why we would willingly bring such change on ourselves.
James P. Leape - Director General of the WWF.

A lot of the people who are campaigning against action on climate change - because they say it's not true or it's not to do with people, and even if it is to do with people, then we shouldn't worry about it because it's going to do so much damage to the economy that we should let the pollution just carry on emitting from power stations and vehicles - the people who say that mostly aren't coming from a scientific perspective.They're working in a political context, and what they're trying to do very often is to protect a particular industry.
Tony Juniper - Executive Director of Friends of the Earth and Vice-Chair of Friends of the Earth International.

30 years ago we were talking about the little ice age that was coming, and now it's warming and I think there's a lot of misinformation out there.
Peyton Knight - Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs for the National Center of Public Policy Research.

If the system Gaia is compromised - and it has been compromised quite a few times in the past - we know what happens. The carbon dioxide in the air builds up, and the temperature goes up with it, and it can go up by as much as 8C (14.4F). Gaia will respond as it always does. It has a goal, and it has had from the beginning - to keep the planet habitable for whatever life forms happen to be in its contemporary biosphere. It will respond to what we are doing, global change, by moving to the hot state that it was in the last time - 55 million years ago - and stay there for anything up to 200,000 years, slowly sinking back to normal.
Dr. James Lovelock - distinguished scientist and originator of the Gaia hypothesis.

Explanation of Gaia: In simple terms, the whole of planet Earth - biosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere and hydrosphere - can be thought of as one giant living organism. Here 'living' is meant in the sense that the hole system appears to have evolved together and to be self-regulating. Mechanisms which keep conditions stable are described as homeostatic. The Gaia hypothesis suggests that it is the interactions between living organisms and each other and with the atmosphere and oceans, that have kept conditions more or less stable for the last 3.6 billion years.

Considering that the climate has remained stable since humans developed civilisations, we have formed a very intimate way of living with the current climate, but since the 1700's the levels of greenhouse gases have been increasing, that is undeniable as they are produced during the combustion of fossil fuels. With increased global industrialisation in the last 100 years and the global population increasing ten-fold since the 1700's and its set to increase by 40% t0 50% by the middle of the century - these greenhouse gas concentrations are going to increase and the blanket of greenhouse gases will get thicker. Which will, in turn, increase the amount of solar radiation reflected to the Earth's surface and re-radiated into the atmosphere - which is very simply the global warming phenomenon.
Increases in populations come with increases in greenhouse gas emissions, just look at how China's emissions have changed in the last 20 years (although still very far behind the USA and Canada per person, considering there are 3 times as many people in China though...) and everyone realises the population growth that has occurred there. We can't control populations so to an extent we can't control our emissions enough to stop global warming. But we can definitely slow it down. It is possible to reduce the effects significantly but scientists say we have 15 years to act before it's too late.
With the many skeptics still out there arguing against the cause of climate change - it is unlikely that we will be able to do enough unless they realise how detrimental climate change will be to the human race as a species if left unchecked.
The media is also playing a role in the understanding of climate change as they like 'sensational' stories on global warming because there is a lot of attention on it. So many scientists aren't being heard. Funding even seems to find its ways only to scientists who are willing to promote certain scientific models and studies. Until this changes we don't have much hope of stopping global warming.
This by no means constitutes dsicontinuing our own individual efforts to reduce our carbon footprint, become more energy efficient and in all, environmentally friendly. There are many things we can do to make our homes energy efficient, with a little investment. Is that investment worth it? In the long term is it yes, hundreds can be saved each year by spending a few hundred $'s or £'s once and it is worth buying high rated appliances for the home to further reduce your energy bill.
But, this alone is not enough, as well one doing the above, and that outlined in the list below, we need our governments and organisations take more action. Canadian Liberals and UK Conservatives 'going green' to try and get more votes is all very well but they have a vested interest in 'going green' which weakens their credibility as a potential ruling party. Will they really do what they promise when they come into power? Or once they are in power will they find the resources and money aren't available to achieve their 'green goals'? This is why if and when I'm confused as who to vote for in an election, I vote for the Green party. I still go out and cast my vote - which is better than not voting at all. It's unlikely that a green party will come into powe anytime soon but it would be nice for them to have more of an influence in government.
What would you do? Vote for a minority party that supports alternative energy and the environment? Or, Not vote because you remained undecided between the main parties or can't make sense of campaigns by other parties?
We live in democracies, we still have a voice and in numbers the echoes ripple through government, so I would encourage your support of online petitions, and 'green' charities.

20 Ways You can 'Go Green'.
1) Turn it off when not in use (lights, television, DVD player, Hi Fi, computer etc.)
2) Turn down the central heating slightly (try just 1 to 2 degrees C)
3) Turn down the water heating setting (just 2 degrees will make a significant saving)
4) Check the central heating timer setting - remember there is no point heating the house after you have left for work!
5) Fill your dish washer and washing machine with a full load - this will save you water, electricity, and washing powder.
6) Fill the kettle with only as much water as you need.
7) Unplug your mobile phone as soon as it has finished charging.
8) Defrost your fridge/freezer regularly.
9) Do your weekly shopping in a single trip.
10) Hang out the washing to dry rather than tumble drying it.
11) Go for a run rather than drive to the gym, or of course run to the gym.
12) Fit energy saving light bulbs.
13) Use the bus or a train rather than a car.
14) Reduce your consumption of meat.
15) Don't buy bottled water if your tap water is safe to drink (especially if it has been shipped from far away)
16) Buy local fruit and vegetables, or even try growing your own.
17) Don't buy fresh fruit and vegetables which are out of season, they may have been flown in 18) Try to buy products made closer to home (look out and avoid items that are made in the distant lands)
19) Recycle as much as possible.
20) If you have your own printer, use recycled paper and have your cartidges refilled instead of throwing them away.

Appreciating Our Wilderness

2008-07-12T21:01:00.000-06:00

Banff National Park, 5th July 2008

The first national park in Canada, the 3rd in the world (after Yellowstone, USA and Royal, Australia) spans 6,641 square kilometres (2,564 square miles) of valleys, mountains, glaciers, forests, meadows and rivers. On November 28th, 1885, the hot springs at Banff and the surrounding 26 square kilometres became a federal reserve. From then on it was expanded twice, in 1887 and 1902 when it became known as Rocky Mountains Park being officially named Banff National Park in 1930. The park is now 6,641 square kilometres (2,565 square miles) in size and is part of a block of 3 other parks, in totally spanning 20,160 square kilometres (7,784 square miles) which colletectively became a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1985. Banff National Park lies 128 km (80 miles) west of Calgary, Alberta.

Columbia Lake, British Columbia - April 2008

The 2,044 km long Columbia River drains an area of 155,000 square kilometres (59,846 square miles) in B.C. and the northwestern U.S. The most southerly source for this mighty river is Columbia Lake (pictured - looking towards Fairmont) 45 km south of Radium Hot Springs. The Columbia River flows north for 250 km before making a hairpin south, flowing past Revelstoke and across the US border. The pacific estaury for the Columbia lies beyond Portland, Oregon.
Since 1961 14 dams were constructed on the river (3 in Canada and 11 in the U.S.) and 18 more on the primary tributaries of the Columbia River. The disadvantage of such developments? The killing of one of the world's greatest salmon runs.

On the east side of Columbia Lake there has been housing developments recently such as those of Spirits Reach. Part of the warm water Columbia Lake is a Provincial park, spanning 257 hectares (635 acres).
The new Fairmont Hot Springs resort owner is planning a $1-billion expansion, which will develop some of the area seen in the centre-left of the photograph above, at the northeast end of Columbia Lake.

Columbia Mountain Range - November 2007

The Columbia Mountain mountain located in British Columbia, and partially in Montana, Idaho Washington. The mountain range covers 135,95 sqaure kilometres (52,491 square miles) - the portion of the Columbia Mountain range here - is the Purcell range they are located on the west side of the Rocky Mountain Trench in the area of the Columbia Valley. The only large settlement in the mountains is the Panorama Ski Resort, although a large destination resort at Jumbo Mountain is currently in the proposal stage. A new local government minister has said he will make the development of Jumbo a priority, despite many locals opposing the large resort development, due its environmetal impacts. Wildsight have a campaign against the development of the Jumbo Glacier resort and hold a very valid environmental argument, which until now has slowed development and planning of the resort.