THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER
Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment
Fisherville, Ontario, Canada
Tel. 416 410-0432, Fax: 416 362-5231
Editorial: editor@gallonletter.ca
Subscriptions: subscriptions@gallonletter.ca
Vol. 15, No. 2, May 5, 2010
Honoured Reader Edition
 
This is the honoured reader edition of the Gallon Environment Letter and is distributed at no charge: send a note with Add GL or Delete GL in the subject line to subscriptions@gallonletter.ca. Subscribers receive a more complete edition without subscription reminders and with extensive links to further information following almost every article. Organizational subscriptions are $184 plus GST nd provide additional benefits detailed on the web site. Individual subscriptions are only $30 (personal emails/funds only please) including GST. If you would like to subscribe please visit http://www.cialgroup.com/subscription.htm If you feel you should be receiving the paid subscriber edition or have other subscriber questions please contact us also at subscriptions@gallonletter.ca. This current free edition is posted on the web site about a week or so after its issue at http://www.cialgroup.com/whatsnew.htm. See also events of external organizations at http://www.cialgroup.com/events.htm Back free editions from January 2009 are also available.
****************************************************

ABOUT THIS ISSUE
 
People frequently refer to environmental initiatives as 'saving the earth'. GL tries to avoid being sucked into that kind of terminology. The earth is not threatened. As far as we can tell, the earth will be here for as long as the solar system continues in something like its present form. With the possible exception of a collision with another body, or a nuclear explosion of a size so far unimagined, we cannot see any threat to the survival of the earth.

Environmental threats are primarily threats to the human species and, secondarily, to the ecosystems. So lets stop talking about 'saving the earth' and instead talk of saving habitat that is hospitable to human beings.  

Having made that clear, regular readers will also know that we are reluctant to predict the future or to rank the seriousness of environmental threats. However, declining water supplies appears to be right up there with climate change as a threat that could make large areas of this planet extremely inhospitable to human beings. The fact is that, while fresh water is a renewable resource, in most places we are using fresh water at a rate much faster than its rate of renewal. This means that, sooner or later, and in some places it is likely to be sooner, we will run out of fresh water. In this issue we present some of the most recent information on water quantity and what can be done to address the looming shortage.

Our editorial in this issue addresses that fundamental environmental marketing slogan - the 3Rs, this year celebrating its 40th anniversary. Following our review of water quantity issues in industry and households we respond to some feedback on our Product of Canada food editorial, last issue, discuss a green law firm, and make light fun of the safe oil drilling rig comments of a CNN reporter who happens to be a Canadian.

In the last few issues we have reported in some depth on current environmental issues. Next issue we plan to use the opportunity to catch up on some general environmental news including letters readers have sent and in a subsequent issue we will move from water quantity to water quality. Not only are we facing a shortage of water where it is needed but the quality of that which remains is declining. Purifying water for human consumption takes energy, which all too often is produced by burning fossil resources, which contributes to climate change, which leads to further evaporation of water and desertification. We respond to desertification by pumping more water from greater depths and over longer distances, which takes energy, which contributes to yet more climate change and desertification. Are there any simple environmental issues? Will we ever reach a sustainable state?

Your thoughts and comments are always welcome through Letters to the Editor. We publish a balanced selection of those received. Keep them coming.
****************************************************

3 RS STILL A GOOD CONCEPT

Just about 40 years ago the environmental group Pollution Probe came up with the 3 Rs slogan: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The 'waste hierarchy' may have had some earlier provenance but the earliest I have ever found has been in Pollution Probe literature from that time. Since then various organizations have tried to mess with it. The Ontario government added a 4th R for Recovery. Some environmentalists have added a 4th R for Rethink. And so on.

The 3 R's is not a perfect concept but it is better than almost anything else as a guide for management of waste. It is important to remember that it is a hierarchy, deliberately suggesting that reducing is better than reuse and that reusing is better than recycling. Recycling is better than recovering energy, composting, or biodegrading. Not always, but as a general rule of thumb to which there will inevitably be some exceptions.

Unfortunately, too many companies and government officials seem to have forgotten the hierarchy and proceeded with rules, waste management systems, and disposable product manufacturing as if anything is better than landfill.

Few consumers and manufacturers have recognized the benefits of reduction. Reducing waste, and implicitly reducing use of materials, is most often a very good idea for the environment. Sometimes a bit of lifecycle analysis is necessary - a lighter package made from non-renewable resources might have a greater environmental impact than a heavier one made from renewable resources but even in this situation so much of the energy embedded in a material comes from production rather than from raw materials that, for example, a paper bag has about the same embedded energy as a plastic bag of similar capacity. When a material is not recycled, it is the embedded energy more than the raw materials that has caused most of the environmental harm. Of course, the best kind of reduction is not to purchase the product, or unnecessary packaging, in the first place.
 
Many parts of Canada used to have excellent reusable glass container systems for beverages, including both soft drinks and alcohol. An added advantage was that much of the production was local. Unfortunately, over the years those refillable money-back bottle systems have almost completely disappeared. Today bottles may be recycled, not refilled. Even in jurisdictions where there is a refundable deposit on beverage bottles the collected bottles are most often crushed for some kind of recycling. Refillable beverage bottles are rapidly going the way of the dodo bird, with a resulting significant deterioration in the environmental footprint of beverage delivery systems. There used to be stores that encouraged customers to bring their own container for purchases from bulk bins but fears of contamination, tampering, and lawsuits have greatly reduced the opportunity for reuse. Reuse has not made the progress that those environmentalists were hoping for some 40 years ago.

Recycling is making progress today but is still not as globally ubiquitous as it could be. Failure to standardize materials and recycling systems have made recycling more complex, and hence more expensive, than it needs to be. Far too few politicians recognize that plants that recycle materials are an excellent opportunity for job creation in a greener economy. Government departments put all kinds of barriers in the way of recycling. For example, in Canada pillows, soft toys, pet beds, and furniture cannot be stuffed with polyester made from used plastic beverage bottles because an archaic law, vigorously enforced by several government agencies, prohibits the use of recycled material in stuffed objects.

In general it takes less energy to make a product from recycled material than to make it from virgin raw material. While there may be exceptions, we have not yet found one, except perhaps where long distance transportation of small quantities of material is involved. We need to be doing much more to reduce the amount of material going to disposal, not so much because disposal is so terrible in itself but because every time we do not recycle an end-of-life piece of material we are wasting raw materials and energy and unnecessarily contributing to environmental damage.

Composting, biodegradability, and energy recovery were not included in the original 3 Rs, for good reason. Even when a product is made from renewable materials, degradation of that material after a single use means that the energy and other inputs that went into manufacture of the product are being wasted. Even renewable materials are not available in unlimited supply - we need to conserve if we are to properly accommodate the world's growing population.

Composting, digestion, energy recovery, and other tools for degrading materials do not constitute conservation. If a degradable product is made of non-renewable raw materials the wastage is even worse and the degradation itself is likely to be contributing to climate change in the same way as if the material were burned.

Gallon Environment Letter encourages Canadians to mark the 40th anniversary by renewing their commitment to the 3Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. As simple and effective an environmental guideline as the planet has ever seen.

Colin Isaacs
Editor
****************************************************
 
WATER QUANTITY
****************************************************

THE WATER SOFT PATH

Oliver Brandes, David Brooks and Stephen Gurman served as editors and writers for the book Making the Most of the Water We Have, setting out a water soft path concept to match the energy soft path proposed several decades ago by Amory Lovins and others. Although the water soft path book contains some practical examples, its focus is a conceptual framework presented at a fairly high level.

The Trouble with Water

The human approach to water management has tended to emphasize more and larger infrastructure for water supply, dams and reservoirs, wells, cisterns, aqueducts, canals, and pipelines. This supply management approach has increased access to clean drinking water and sanitation allowing many countries to flourish economically and cutting water-borne diseases such as cholera and typhoid dramatically. Agriculture, industry, homes, gardens, parks, car washes, hockey rinks all require water. However, while people used to think that all water in an area was available for use, much of this water must remain in place (e.g. in the Great Lakes) to support ecological services such as flood control and habitat. Species of plants and animals are becoming extinct because water is being extracted or becoming too polluted. Other problems include:
The Soft Path Concept

The soft path proposed by Peter Gleick in 1999 focuses on reducing demand with elements of managing the people not the water or the watersheds. Instead of large centralized reservoirs, more high-capacity pumps and more pipelines, the soft path uses decentralized and smaller scale infrastructure, alternative sources such as rainwater collection, more reuse and recycling, pricing and economic tools and high efficiency of water use e.g. more crop per drop. Politically it isn't popular. Unlike oil, water has no global price and the popular view is that water should be free or at least cheap. When water utilities apply demand side water management they tend to be temporary measures e.g. limits on lawn watering, washing cars or washing sidewalks during dry summers. The soft path uses both water efficiency, ways to reduce the amount of water used to achieve a particular task, and water conservation, reducing the use of water more or eliminating water use entirely. Instead of asking how to do something with water, the question should be Why - Why use water to do this in the first place?

The soft path looks at the services water provides and asks whether there are other ways of providing the service without, or with less, water. The name soft comes from use of less materials such as steel, concrete, machinery.

The soft path is different in four ways:
1. treating water as a service rather than an end in itself. The amount of drinking water is quite small and one of the few cases where water is the final good. Most water is an intermediate good: used to carry away waste, cooling or promoting plant growth.
2. making ecological sustainability a fundamental criterion
3. matching the quality of water delivered to that needed by the use
4. planning from the future back to the present. Backcasting is a way to start in a future where we want to be and then working backwards to see how to get there.

Example of Demand Management Measures
Example of Soft Path
Watermarks

Several chapters explore governance and the idea that water soft path policy can be implemented in stages as long as the right people are in the right places with the commitment and knowledge to advance from business as usual. Human vision is key. Other chapters review studies from specific geographic areas such as the Annapolis Valley (Nova Scotia), watershed, political boundaries such as Ontario, developing countries, e.g. South Africa, India, Middle East and North Africa and developed countries e.g. England, The European Union, United States and Australia. Soft path scenarios explore the urban scale in chapters on water soft paths as planning tools. Various authors discuss how to remove institutional barriers. Peter Gleick writes on overcoming myths about demand management such as "Demand management is too complicated." He suggests that traditional water agencies have a large number of engineers who are happy to design systems of millions of people but working with individual customers and coordinating among many different customers isn't what they are used to, "These tasks are complicated but no more than than engineering projects. They just require different professional skills and training."

Other chapters discuss analytics including a summary of Canadian studies. Statistics on water use by region, industry and use, such as cooling water or incorporation of water into product, are often not readily available as needed to use in analysis.

While actual water exported from a region as bulk or bottled water is very limited, virtual water or embedded water can reach relatively high volumes e.g. insulated electrical wire contains embedded water fom the fibre wrapping, the mining of the copper and manufacture of the wire. When such products as agricultural crops, metals and beverages are produced and exported, then the question becomes how to account for this water. For example, the authors conjecture that because Canada exports agricultural crops and metals, Canada probably exports far more virtual water than it imports.

While some view lower water use as a decline in prosperity, the authors suggest beyond 50 litres a day per person for an adequate lifestyle and as a final good, alternatives should be used to supply what water would have supplied. Water-intensive growth patterns should be limited through changes in habit and practices. It is important to conserve the quality of the water resource as well as the quantity. Among the environmental goals should be to keep fresh water withdrawals to renewable water availability, to avoid significant inter-basin transfers, and to keep waste water releases to the ecological capacity to maintain ecosystem health. Even though social goals are not easy to measure, they should include economic equity, public participation and cultural preservation. Low income people and disadvantaged people tend to suffer more from inadequate water supply and poor water quality than from too little energy.

Editors and Writers

Oliver M. Brandes is a Associate Director ot the POLIS Project on Ecological Governance at the University of Victoria, leading the POLIS Water Sustainability Projects. David Brooks worked at Canada's International Development Research Centre until he retired to become Senior Advisor - Fresh Water for Friends of the Earth Canada. Stephen Gurman has worked for the Canadian International Development Agency CIDA and Industry Canada and for international NGOs including five years in Africa. He has a mechanical engineering degree from McGill.

There are more than 20 contributing authors including Susan Holtz, who works with the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, Peter H. Gleick who is President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security in California and a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and Robert Sandford, Chair of the Canadian Partnership Initiative for the United Nations International "Water for Life" Decade and Director of the Western Watersheds Climate Research Collaborative.

GL thinks this is a very well-written book. The editors have kept their eyes on their goal and edited well to achieve that goal, which is to encourage thinking about water in a holistic and sustainable way and laying out an approach for doing so. They have explored their topic with some humility, saying "Analysing the consequences of different paths can tell us something about the alternative choices, but there is no magic mirror on the wall that can tell us which path is "softest of them all." Soft path is more a process than an end but here is an excellent guide. What we really like is that the authors suggest taking an incremental approach, to learn and redirect efforts from that learning rather than to take a jump off into the unknown.

Making the Most of the Water We Have The Soft Path Approach to Water Management.  Edited by David B. Brooks, Oliver M. Brandes, Stephen Gurman Hardback: 978 1 84407 754 0 London, UK: Earthscan, 2009. http://www.styluspub.com/clients/ear/books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=213205
****************************************************

DIRECT AND INDIRECT WATER WITHDRAWALS FOR U.S. INDUSTRIAL SECTORS

Water management for sustainability need to be based on information which includes how water is used in the supply chain and how water is used indirectly in the lifecycle of goods produced. The overall conclusion is that better information about water use would better inform water policy. Even the definitions about what is water use may depend on regional definitions e.g if water is returned to the same watershed, it may not be considered use as opposed to being "consumed".

Team leader Chris Hendrickson, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Green Design Institute from Carnegie Mellon University (Pittsburgh, PA) recently published a paper in the journal Environmental Science & Technology identifying both direct and indirect water use by 428 sectors in the US economic input-output table (2002). This was based on estimates using data from lifecycle assessments to estimate total withdrawals and per dollar of output. Total 2002 direct withdrawal of 140,000 billion gallons is the equivalent of the 50% of the flow of the three largest rives in the continental US. Uncertainties about the estimates are also included.  Some of the observations were:
An example of water is given for bagged sugar per dollar of sugar. This includes .082 gallons of direct use of water per $ but indirect water use is 283 litres/$, Most of this is 270 litres/$ for the farming of sugar cane/sugar beet and the rest is for power generation and supply, grain farming, pesticide and chemical manufacture, cotton farming, paperboard and other indirect uses related the remaining 419 sectors.

The scale of the study is national making it difficult to reach conclusions about regional water use which can be even more important due to water shortages.

Paid subscribers see link to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

THE ISAACS WETLAND

The statistics for water use may be skewed if GL's editor's experience is an example. We (via Ducks Unlimited's Jeff Krete) received a permit to take water as posted on the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights Registry as follows:

“A Permit to Take Water was issued on December 21, 2009 for this applicant with the following taking:

Source of Water: connected pond
Purpose of Taking: wetland restoration
Maximum rate per minute (Litres): 195,291
Maximum number of hours taking a day: 24
Maximum volume per day (Litres): 3,770,100
Maximum number of days of taking per year: 365
Expiry date: September 30, 2019."

A local conservation group, Habitat Haldimand, with project chair Roy Schofield, in partnership with Ducks Unlimited and with support from the Trillium Foundation, the Long Point Conservation Authority, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, organized the construction of a multi-hectare wetland project on our property. We also contributed some cash and committed to use of the land for wetland purposes for least for 10 years. We can see how difficult it might be for Ducks Unlimited in Alberta (see separate article) to meet targets for replacing wetlands lost to farming or development. Habitat Haldimand wanted to do five projects, one fell through when the farmer became divorced. The paperwork takes months. It takes 90 days just to get a water permit from Ontario MNR which used to charge Ducks Unlimited for water permits but was eventually persuaded that wasn't in the interest of conservation.

In our case, that permit assumes that we are "taking" the maximum of 3.77 million litres a day each and every day for 10 years. While it is possible that some water is "taken" because there is a greater expanse of water open to evaporation, we aren't taking anything. The water from rain and runoff from local farms always used to run through the property and after meandering for about half a kilometre dropped down an unusual formation of sinkholes, some big enough to lose a person in. The shifting sinkholes are due to the fragmented sedimentary rock which underlies the heavy clay soil. With the wetland, the water now runs into the property in the same amount as before but is held temporarily in a small lake which attracts migrating water fowl as well as nesting ducks and geese. The overflow still goes the same route as before. This case highlights the need for better definitions and statistics on water use,
**************************************************** 

CANADIAN WATER WITHDRAWAL

Environment Canada defines water withdrawal use as directly measurable as quantities of intake, discharge and consumption. Water intake is the amount withdrawn from the source for a particular activity over a specific period of time. Water discharge is the water which has been taken out returned at or near the intake. Water consumption is the difference between water intake and water discharge. Consumption moves water from the river system and makes it unavailable further downstream. For example, irrigation is the largest consumptive use, followed by evaporation from large open water reservoirs and cooling ponds. Evaporation is very difficult to measure. No water is ever lost but is it can be transported to other areas or watersheds or can become polluted. Gross water use is the total amount of water used in a process. If the process reuses or recirculates the water, gross water use would be multiple times the water intake. The top five gross water users in Canada are thermal power generation (60%), manufacturing (18.5%), municipal (9.5%), agriculture (8%) and mining (4%) (2006, 2005 and 2001)

GL notes that, while water is never lost, increased evaporation can mean that water is lost to a particular watershed. It may fall as rain in other watersheds, or over the oceans, or may remain in the atmosphere because a warmer air is capable of holding a greater amount of water before clouds form.

Paid subscribers see link to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

HOUSEHOLD WATER USE

The attention paid to campaigns against bottled water seems to have drawn away focus from how much greater volumes of water are used for other purposes in the household, never mind in the Canada as a whole (see separate article). Municipal water use is only 9.5% of all water use (2006) in Canada (this doesn't count rural household water use because there isn't a count of that). About 57% of municipal water is used by households, 19% for commercial, 11% for industrial and 13% is leakage such as broken water pipes.

Polaris Institute: Water or Companies?

The Polaris Institute was formed to campaign against free trade agreements. In a guide How do they get away with it? it becomes unclear whether the issue is really about water or about hostility towards corporations in general but Polaris has become the lead Canadian campaigner against bottled water. The guide implies that
GL thinks this is a goal that is very poorly formulated. For one thing, it would threaten our food supply. Agriculture in Canada uses more water than all the direct use of water in households. Many farms are corporations and in the business of making a profit. Keeping water out of the hands of for profit corporations would be a real problem.

Also water-related businesses support local economies. A number of companies, for example, here in Haldimand, use trucks to supply local homes with bulk water delivery. The water is picked up from the municipality and the water trucking companies charge the homeowners for both the water and the delivery service. It costs just over $100 a truckload (we don't know for sure what the latest price is because we never get delivered water) and a single couple in a home might get a delivery once every month or six weeks. In contrast, bulk water suppliers sound like a dirty word in Polaris's material. Homeowners might have other options such as drilling a well but drilling a well can be expensive too and the water may be unsafe, or taste of sulfur. Many rural people of our acquaintance also buy water from the grocery store usually in the big refillable containers used with water dispensers but also in variously sized smaller bottles.

Canadian Household Water Use

In the household, the average Canadian uses about 327 litres each day. This is municipal water and doesn't count embedded water and water purchased in products including  bottled water. According to Environment Canada, in the house, "30% is flushed down the toilet. Another 35% is used in showers and baths. Clothes washing takes about 20%. Another 10% is used in the kitchen for drinking, food preparation and dish washing. And, 5% goes for general cleaning around the house." In the summer, water use can increase by 50%. The average suburban lawn can use 100,000 litres in a season. Car washing can take up to 400 litres. Six litres are used for every flush if the newer toilets are installed, more if an older model. A running tap uses about six litres of water per minute. Every thirty-second hand wash is three litres. An unfixed leak can be 45 litres per hour. Water for drinking is a very small part of total household water consumption.

GL's editor's household has relied for more than a decade on roof-collected rainwater stored in a cistern. As well as water and energy efficient appliances, this requires a major change in behaviour and design, for example no lawn. We like the lifestyle and sincerely hope that the campaigners against bottled water also practice a water-reduced lifestyle. Last summer we were at a BBQ where the hostess drank a couple of bottles of water during our very pleasant hours there while all the rest of us were drinking beverages also containing water but not labelled as such, soft drinks, fruit juices and fermented juice products. While she was in the house, there was some tut-tut-ing that she was drinking bottled water and why bottled water was bad for the environment. It seemed to GL a silly conversation given our own use of packaging and water-laden products. Also her husband had rigged up seven recycled used-pickle barrels complete with mosquito netting to collect water from their garage to water their large vegetable garden.

Paid subscribers see link to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
 
CARBON DISCLOSURE PROJECT AND WATER

According to the OECD, almost of half (47%) of the world's population will be in areas stressed by water shortages by 2030.

The Carbon Disclosure Project is currently conducting a water consumption survey of 302 of the largest global companies in sectors with water related risk. Findings will be published by the end of 2010. A list of the companies to whom the questionnaire will be sent is available. It includes some Canadian companies such as TransCanada. Others are invited to respond. Deadline is July 31, 2010.

Paid subscribers see link to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

DEAR GUEST: SAVE OUR PLANET

Many hotels have guides in the rooms encouraging guests to help reduce the amount of washing of towels and bed sheets. For example, here is one guide seen at a Best Western hotel:

"Dear Guest. Save Our Planet. Bed sheets that are washed daily in thousands of hotels around the world use millions of litres of water and a lot of detergent. Please leave this easel on the bed if you do not want your sheets changed. Thank you for helping us conserve the earth's vital resources." [The guide itself is said to be recyclable].

In this above example, the guest has to play a more active role, remembering to put the easel on the bed otherwise the sheets will be changed. In others and probably preferable, the guest who wants the sheets changed has to put instructions on the bed. Instructions for towels often also provide for the default to be no towels are changed unless the guest makes a positive action e.g. leave on the floor or in the tub.

GL is also happy to see another trend in hotels to replace sheets with duvets which means hotel beds don't have so many blankets and bed covers which need washing but don't get washed after every guest.
****************************************************

ALBERTA AG REVIEWS WATER MANAGEMENT

Merwan N. Saher, CA, Acting Auditor General of Alberta and recommended by an all-party committee to become Alberta's ninth AG, wrote a chapter on Managing Alberta's Water Supply in his April 2010 annual report. This is especially significant because the question of whether or not Alberta's water supplies are declining has been the subject of controversy.

Alberta owns all of the surface and sub-surface water resources and administers those resources through the Department of Environment. The focus of the audit is that water management is key to Alberta's growth. Among the issues discussed are:
While a number of water policies have been developed some overlapping each other, they do not apply to day-to-day water supply systems and decisions. The policies are Land Use Framework, Sustainable Resource and Environmental Management, and Water Management Framework for the Industrial Heartland. Alberta also has a water policy statement called Water For Life.

In the south, surface water quantity is the priority issue because no new licenses have been issued since 2004. In the north, water quantity is adequate but the quality is the priority.

Alberta Environment also owns and operates or outsources for operation hundreds of dams, canals and structures, many of which are aging and need capital upgrading and maintenance. Estimated cost is $9 billion.

The water is allocated on the first-in-time, first-in-right FITFIR which means the person with the oldest license gets the full allocation allowed under his license before the next licensee gets some. Now that Alberta is growing, this is creating controversy. The 1999 Water Act enables the Act "enables water supply management tools that did not exist under previous legislation such as a water allocation transfer market, water management plans, and water conservation objectives."

Alberta Environment is currently reviewing it practices on water quality and quantity.

GL notes that some observers see Alberta as a one of the provinces to watch to preview how climate change and development (population growth, energy projects, livestock and crop water requirements) affect water issues. Last year when GL's editor was in Central Alberta at the beginning of May he thought it way too early for the posted fire bans but it turned out to be a very dry early season. Some parts of Alberta have had very low moisture in 2010 as well until a late wet snowstorm added some moisture. Whether that will be enough for now for water to reach the soil sub-layer and to fill the dugouts which provide water for livestock on pasture is still up in the air.

Paid subscribers see link to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

QUANTITY OF WATER IN THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

Canada and the US are currently renegotiating the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Some rather terse notes on negotiations which formally commenced between Canada and the US on January 27, 2010 have been posted. The review documents for the agreement compiled in 2007 are also posted.

Although the purpose of the agreement is water quality, a number of the members of the Workgroups involved in the review of the GLWQA say that the water quantity is relevant to quality and should be overtly included. For example, the GLWQA is supposed to deal with the long term ability of the ecosystems to maintain ecological processes which to a large extent depends on both quality and quantity of water. Climate change will impact both. To maintain groundwater as a sustainable resource for drinking water and agriculture and industrial uses, research is needed on groundwater quality-quantity interactions and groundwater-surface water interactions. Both ground and surface water quantity and quality need to be "managed in an integrated and watershed context", something which the review documents say isn't happeing now.

The Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper's submission for the public comment included
Other issues related to water quantity in the Great Lakes include:
Some who don’t want water quantity included in the GLWQA say that other programs such as the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement (signed by eight Great Lakes States and the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec) in 2005 addresses water quantity and water takings. While the Boundary Waters Treaty agreed to in 1909 does deal with water quantity, some said that it is difficult to implement.

Binational.Net http://binational.net/

Canada-U.S. Binational Executive Committee (BEC). Final Agreement Review Report Approved by the Binational Executive Committee. September 2007.
The Review Report is organized into three volumes:
1. (Volume 1) The Agreement Review Committee Report
2. (Volume 2) Review Working Group Reports
3. (Volume 3) Compendium of Comments received during the public consultation period. http://binational.net/glwqa_2007_e.html

Farid, Claire and John Jackson and Karen Clark. Canadian Environmental Law Association and Great Lakes United. The Fate of the Great Lakes: Sustaining or Draining the Sweetwater Seas? February 10, 1997. http://www.cela.ca/sites/cela.ca/files/fate-of-the-lakes.pdf

Paid subscribers see link to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

CASCADES INC. REDUCES WATER INTENSITY

Cascades Inc. released its 2009 report on sustainable development on Earth Day. Henry Sauvagnat, Vice-President, Sustainable Development, wrote an introduction on next steps for Cascades in developing its first sustainable development plan with stakeholder input.

Water was one of the themes of the report. In terms of water quantity, Cascades report says the company "uses an average of 9.7 cubic metres of water per metric tonne of paper produced, 6 times less than the Canadian pulp and paper industry which consumes an average of 60 cubic metres per tonne."

Cascades is working with CIRAIG (the Interuniversity Research Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services) to develop a water index which will measure the impact of the company's products, processes and services in terms of water quality and availability. In 2009, the methodology was developed to predict the impact of water shortages on human health. Of course, water quality is also affected by pulp and paper plants.

Recycled fibres account for 72% of the company's use of fibre and pulp. The print version of the report has a cover with 100% recycled materials and printed on Rolland ST100 made of 100% recycled fibres, certified FSC Recycled, Ecologo and Process Chlorine-free and made in Quebec using biogas (also shown in a logo). Like most paper products, the report is recyclable and also is reusable. Originally GL thought it was too bad that it was only the left side pages which are lined and mostly blank so it also serves as a notebook but by flipping it over and upside down, the cover label is Notes and the blanks are on the right side. GL isn't sure whether making a report serve a dual purpose is a good environmental idea as it doubles the number of pages needed (and the number to carry around that can't be written on) but it is a clever idea.

Graeme Rodden, Executive Editor, Pulp & Paper International magazine points to the demise of private pulp and paper research and development centers ("Gone the way of the dodo bird") except for Cascades' R&D centre in Kingsley Falls, QC. and in Mississauga, ON. Company president Alain Lemaire sees R&D as a way to gain competitive edge and the company was among the top 50 in Canada in terms of spending money on R&D.

GL notes that Cascades is advertising its recycled content paper products by stating that since it is recycled the consumer can use paper towels without feeling guilty about the environment. The don't-feel-guilty must be a new strategy of the paper sector as Domtar too is asking people to print and use paper and not feel guilty because the paper is sourced from Forest Stewardship Council certified forests. Of course, just because a product has environmental features doesn't mean we should use more of it. Cars have become more fuel-efficient but the environmental benefits are offset by the fact that people are driving more. Similarly, GL once heard a person bragging about the large number of recycling boxes they put out every week - yes, it is diversion from garbage but it would be better to generate neither garbage nor recycling. (Ed: see our editorial on the 3Rs in this issue!]

Paid subscribers see link to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

HORTICULTURE - THE FOOD EDGE

In 2009, Rebecca Last at NRCAN's GeoConnections launched a wee Guerrilla Gardening Initiative., saying, "To a gardener, empty containers of soil represent an almost irresistable siren call." She is a volunteer with Master Gardeners of Ottawa-Carleton. In a weedy raised bed filled with cigarette butts and weed, she and a fellow conspirator planted some bean seeds (Dragon Tongue, a heritage variety producing beans throughout the season.). The maintenance crew followed shortly thereafter and raked it over not knowing it was planted. The gardeners had to push the beans back in but no harm was done and they decided to take a soft path to change the behaviour of the the maintenance crew. More plants with history followed, heritage tomato, ground cherry, basil and marigold, traditional companion plants for tomato. Last says the GGI "represents a small patch of sustainable biodiversity."

GL thinks the idea of using resources such as water to raise food instead of impatiens, even on a small scale, is a really good idea. A number of heritage and other vegetables have beautiful leaf colours, for example Red Coral Lettuce (Seeds of Diversity), although GL thinks food plants don't have to have nice colours to be beautiful. After all green is good. Curly parsley, for instance, makes a great bright green edging and is high-dose nutrition. Food in the ornamental beds is best if no pesticides are applied. GL attended the Canada Blooms show in March where there were a surprising number of exhibits where food plants were integrated into the home landscapes so it is just one more step to include it in the streetscape as Last was doing.

The City of Toronto also had a great exhibit at Canada Blooms on water efficiency through container food gardening using plastic storage boxes available at hardware and other retailers. The boxes are converted to have a raised section under which water is stored and fed by a capillary action back up into the growing area. The box has to have a hole to let water out at the level of the platform to ensure plants get good drainage.

Container plants particularly hanging pots can be notorious water consumers often requiring water at least once a day. Those upside down growing tomatoes may need 4 litres a day, according to an article in the Hamilton Spectator.

So the idea of water-capturing containers with capillary action to send stored water to the soil has the potential to reduce water use in the streetscape. For example, a UK company Amberol Ltd says it has "pioneered the use of self-watering planters and containers for use by local authorities and now, in their 40th year, they believe their Aquafeed system is the best on the market." They have piloted their product in the cities of Birmingham and Nottingham for the last two years and say that councils see considerable water and labour-saving benefits.

Paid subscribers see link to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

EARTH DAY: EMPHASIZING INDIVIDUAL INVOLVEMENT BUT COLLECTIVE ACTION

Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice was on the CBC TV Newsworld with Heather Hiscox on Earth Day. Several questions from viewers related to federal policy such as on electric vehicles/hydrogen but the Minister concluded by saying that Earth Day was about individual action so his message was to get out there and pick up litter on campground sites.(1)

Earth Day was never meant to have such a narrow interpretation, The Earth Day Canada web site states, "Earth Day is a powerful catalyst for change. The first Earth Day, spearheaded by Wisconsin Governor Gaylord Nelson and Harvard University student Denis Hayes, involved 20 million participants in teach-ins that addressed decades of environmental pollution. The event inspired the US Congress to pass clean air and water acts, and establish the Environmental Protection Agency to research and monitor environmental issues and enforce environmental laws." That was in 1970, forty years ago. When the event came to Canada twenty years ago, the Earth Day Canada's web site states, "In 1990, two million Canadians joined 200 million people in 141 nations in celebrating the first International Earth Day. In many countries, the global event brought pressure on heads of state to take part in the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to address issues such as climate change and the world wide loss of species."

Paid subscribers see link to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

CLIMATOLOGIEST ANDREW WEAVER SUES NATIONAL POST

Canadian climatologist, Andrew Weaver, described, even by those who call climate science a scam, as among the world's leading climate scientists, has launched a lawsuit against the National Post for libel. He accuses the newspaper, which regularly publishes comments against human-caused climate change, of falsely calling him a corrupt scientist. He also asked as part of the suit that the newspaper be required to help him remove articles based on the NP stories from the internet.

Some bloggers who support Weaver worry about the implications of removing reposted material from the Internet while others say this just adds costs for the NP and is only fair as otherwise libellers will just get someone else to keep reposting. One blogger who calls global warming a scam calls Weaver's suit a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), a term more usually applied when government or big companies sue to shut up activists and media. Apparently in the US, Michael Mann, who published the "hockey stick" graph which illustrates temperature over 1000 years and a relatively steep incline in the 1900s, also threatened a lawsuit. Minnesotans for Global Warming (M4GW) posted a YouTube episode called  a satirical "Hide the Decline" since removed accusing the scientist of faking data. M4GW say global warming is a joke. Apparently living in cold-and-snowy-in Minnesota is proof enough that human-caused global warming is absurd.

Weaver's lawsuit, filed in British Columbia, is against Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster, Kevin Libin, Gordon Fisher, National Post Inc c/o Douglas R. Johnson and various unknowns (Jane Doe, etc). The solicitor is Roger D. McConchie of McConchie Law Corporation.

Weaver is a professor and Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria BC and was a lead author in the Nobel Prize winning organization Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC

The claim addresses not only the NP but also other papers each of which has its own electronic database of archived stories. Articles published in the NP are also published in various local and regional papers such as Edmonton Journal, Vancouver Sun, Windsor Star, Ottawa Citizen, Regina Leader Post and The Gazette (Montreal). The newspaper chain's stories are also widely distributed by other databases e.g. Proquest in libraries, LexisNexis, and Canadian Periodical Index.
The stories claimed to be defamatory have phrases underlined. These phrases are said to be false, malicious and defamatory. A rebuttal of each phrase is provided e.g. Weaver’s claims says that despite what the NP says, Michael Man's "hockey stick graph" has been never been shown to be false.

The allegation also said that the ordinary readers would infer from the articles that among a number of things, Weaver is "untrustworth, unscientific and incompetent" and that he fabricated stories about a break-in into his office. Another inference readers might make is that the scientist is corrupt. Lots of the comments identified are made by commentators on the NP web sites. Links to web sites known to have reposts or edited the same alleged defamations are also included and take three pages.

The claim also alleges that these four stories aren't isolated events but part of many years of bad faith and malicious attacks.

Paid subscribers see link to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

PRODUCT OF CANADA AND SUGAR

GL's editorial in our last issue was on the proposed revision of the newly-revised "Product of Canada" labelling rules. The focus of the article was that full throttle ahead by the Prime Minister without due consideration can result in regulations which may cause more harm than the original regulation. The example we gave related to apple pie and use of sugar where a commercial pie maker would not be able to label the product of which the major part of the pie is Canadian apples and the pie is made in Canada as a Product of Canada if the crop used for making the sugar is not Canadian. In order to be labelled Product of Canada, 98% of the product has to be Canadian ingredients. Herb Barbolet, active in various local food initiatives in British Columbia, sent a note to the BC Food Systems Network listserver and us suggesting that this may be undermining what they are working towards. His email read:

"Hi All
This post (GL: attached was our editorial) concerns me a great deal. While I have utmost respect for Gallon Environment Letter (and was a close friend of Gary Gallon eons ago), on this they are wrong. The entire rationale for rejecting changes to the ‘Product of Canada Rule’ seems to be “there is not enough Canadian grown and processed sugar to make a commercial apple pie”.Is this actually true? Even though sugar growing and processing is much reduced from former times, there are still two huge sugar processing operations in Canada. Surely they could supply sugar for apple pies. The regulatory and labelling changes were necessary because food items could be labelled ‘Product of Canada’ even when 0% of the contents, and only the packaging was produced in Canada – if the packaging cost more than the content.

Rather than hurting small, local producers this really restricts the trans- and multinationals who want to cash in on the new local interest. Calls to loosen the labelling requirements on ‘Product of Canada’ feel similar to huge corporations’ attempts to water down Organic regulations.
Herb Barbolet
-Associate, Centre for Sustainable Community Development, SFU Food Security and Sustainable Community Development,
-Associate, SFU Centre for Dialogue,
-Research Associate, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, BC
- Member, Vancouver Food Policy Council and Local Food First"

GL always appreciates the feedback and is always interested in who reads and how they agree, disagree or otherwise think about what we write. As always it is a little unfair for us to editorialize further on this letter as Herb Barbolet isn't in the room so to speak, but he has the listserver so because he raises some interesting points we can't resist.

It is not our intent to undermine local food initiatives. The interest in local food has done wonders for the growth of fresh farm-produced food here in Haldimand County and elsewhere. A decade ago we had to drive to Hamilton, an hour away, to buy fresh farm produce of sufficient selection to meet the demands of our taste buds. Now the local farmers markets are thriving (although some of the farmers are now driving some distance to get to these markets). We now also buy from four or five certified organic suppliers within a country mile, something we thought was never even in the range of possibility ten years ago, Some local food claims in regard to the environmental advantages are too generous and too generic but local food gives consumers more chance to influence how the food is grown for environmental benefits, improves the economic condition of some farmers and has an important role to play in food security including retaining the expertise of how to grow food. Steve and Lisa Cooper who farm near Zephyr in Durham Region won the 2010 Ontario Outstanding Young Farmers award held in Belleville March 30. 2010, Steve contributes part of their success to "being on the right side of a trend. We were really lucky to have had a business that we could quickly expand when the local food movement started to gain momentum." Relying too much on imported food and farmers has inherent risks if the supply chain is cut. Technically, though, the Product of Canada is not a local food issue because in many cases the distances across Canada are too large for, say, Alberta food products to be considered local to Ontario.

Most of the sugar in Canada (not counting glucose/fructose) is refined here from imported raw cane sugar; in 2008 this was 1.2 million tonnes and cannot be called either local or Product of Canada.Refined sugar made from sugar beets is estimated by the industry to be 56,463 tonnes, less than 5% oif total canadian consumtion. More than 85% of sugar sold is for industrial purposes, food manufacturers and food service outlets.

Sugar beets are grown in Alberta and Manitoba and shipped to the Rogers.Lantic Sugar refinery for processing in Taber, Alberta. In Ontario, sugar beets are shipped to Michigan Sugar for refining but cannot be shipped back to Canada because of sugar rules in the US. A commercial apple pie maker could access Canadian sugar but the amount of sugar from Canadian-grown sugar beets is too small for the quantity of food for which we would certainly like to see Canadian raw inputs used. GL thinks that if the requirement for using the Product of Canada is excessively stringent, then the food processor, in our example, the pie maker, might not bother to use Canadian apples either. In other words, the perfect solution may mean that less Canadian farm-produced food is used in food processing in Canada. Our editorial didn't suggest going back to the old version where it was possible for none of the food to be Canadian grown. In the old version, the product could still be labelled as Product of Canada if the value-added was significant in processing.

Food labelling is hardly relevant in farmers markets, where labels are rarely applied. If we want to encourage the use of locally produced food we must work to get locally grown and processed food into the supermarket system. Implementing rules that are too stringent has already cost many growers access to processors and mass markets. We stand by our opinion that a Product of Canada apple pie should contain Canadian apples, Canadian wheat, and Canadian shortening but prohibiting a pie from carrying a Product of Canada label because it uses imported sugar when the only Product of Canada sugar comes from a small processor in Alberta is unnecessarily hurtful to Canadian growers of apples, wheat, and shortening.

By the way, both Alberta and Manitoba grew genetically modified sugar beets beginning in 2009. The sugar from the Taber plant presumably contains material from genetically modified beets and it is not organic. While a US lawsuit and campaigns against GM sugar beet in Canada are active, we believe that many Canadians would prefer to eat imported sugar than sugar from GM plants. We would urge the local food movement to encourage maximum consumption of locally grown products rather than trying to maintain a perfectly Canadian product, something which will not exist if consumers want a few raisins or a pinch of cinnamon in their apple pie!

Paid subscribers see link to original documents and references here.
 
Daynard, Karen. Announcing the 2010 Outstanding Young Farmers for Ontario.
Ontario Outstanding Young Farmers Program. Press release. Guelph, Ontario: April 1, 2010. http://www.oyfontario.ca/2010 Winners news release.pdf
****************************************************GOINGGREEN: GREEN AT THE (LAW) OFFICE

Stikeman Elliott LLP, a large Canadian law firm with Canadian offices in Toronto, Montréal, Ottawa, Calgary and Vancouver as well as international offices was one of the "Green 30" employers. a list of businesses compiled by Maclean's and Canadian Business magazines with Hewitt Associates. The company has a GoingGreen of environmental initiatives. Among its components are:
Stikeman Elliott LLP. Stikeman Elliott recognized as one of Canada’s “Green 30” environmentally friendly employers. Toronto, Ontario: April 22, 2010. http://www.stikeman.com/Green30_Announce_EN.pdf
**************************************************** 
 
BP WELL OUT OF CONTROL - WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT OIL DRILLING RIG SAFETY

BP spoke of relatively low risk to the environment and society in its exploration plan for the well over which the Deepwater Horizon rig sank. The risk was said to be less due to the 48 miles from the well to the coast. Originally the rig was to be Tranocean's Mariana rig, but this was changed to the Deepwater Horizon, both semi-submersible drilling rigs to be used for two exploratory wells which would later be temporarily abandoned.  A section on spill response identifies locations for response but is prefaced with"in the unlikely event of an oil spill resulting from the activities proposed in this plan."  The plan certifier for BP attests that "BP Exploration & Production has the capability to respond to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge." Also "No adverse activities to fisheries are anticipated as a result of proposed activities."  "There is little risk of contact or impact to the coastline and associated environmental resources." Ditto for a number of other risks.
 
A 2007 US government study reported on 70 blowouts from 1971 to 1991 and 39 blowouts between 1992 and 2006. Most of these occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. The percentage of blowouts associated with cementing operations increased from 26% to 46% in the most recent period. News reports indicate that crews were cementing (installing casing to secure the walls of the well) at the time the explosion hit the Deepwater Horizon rig.

"Rigs are some of the safest places." "As someone who has been around the oil industry, been on a rig and even been evacuated from one during an emergency, I know about the safety issues on rigs and how they are handled." Canadian Ali Velshi, CNN's Chief Business Correspondent, reporting right after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon. GL's conclusion: when seeking reassurance about safety, don't always believe what you hear on CNN.
 
Paid subscribers see link to original documents and references here.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Copyright © Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment 
119 Concession 6 Rd Fisherville ON N0A 1GO Canada. Fisherville & Toronto
All rights reserved. The Gallon Environment Letter (GL for short) presents information for general interest and does not endorse products, companies or practices. Information including articles, letters and guest columns may be from sources expressing opinions not shared by the Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment. Readers must verify all information for themselves before acting on it. Advertising or sponsorship of one or more issues consistent with sustainable development goals is welcome and identified as separate from editorial content. Subscriptions for organizations $184 + GST = $193.20. For individuals (non-organizational emails and paid with non-org funds please) $30 includes GST. Issues about twelve times a year with supplements. http://www.cialgroup.com/subscription.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx