Heather Conn Blogs

                                                                                                                       — Heather Conn photos

Why do these two subversives look so happy? They just heard wonderful news at Roberts Creek’s Earth Day event: farm-gate sales of produce and livestock are no longer illegal in British Columbia. Hurray! That means that B.C. farmers, livestock owners and gardeners can sell meat, produce or eggs from their land directly to customers. Previously, these were illegal acts in this province. Isn’t that outrageous? These women are two of our local Farm Food Freedom Fighters. Yes, they are wearing “Be subversive, Buy local” buttons, complete with logos of a masked chicken and cow.

 

Now, we can tear off those nasty masks. No more outlaw status for people selling organic wares on their farms. Nicholas Simons, our local MLA, and Donna Shugar, chair of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, made the announcement April 25 at the start of Earth Day festivities in Roberts Creek. Nicholas worked particularly hard to enact this status change in farm-gate sales. Thank you to both Nicholas and Donna for striving to reverse this ridiculous law. Nicholas is still working out the details, but the change wil be official soon.

In keeping with this upbeat news, the sun shone for the Creek’s annual funky event, which provided hours of local entertainment, eco-displays, and information tables on sustainable organizations and earth-minded products. Great Sunshine Coast food, as always, was available, from Rashmi’s popular Curry in the Creek to the fish taco stand. This year, the kids were treated to a mini petting zoo with dwarf rabbits, an adorable baby goat, pony rides, and a shaggy llama.

Dave Ryan, fondly known as “Farmer Dave” in the Creek, offered a free tour through the gardens and greenhouse he operates to supply the Gumboot Restaurant next-door with fresh organic produce year-round. Wearing a green hat with a four-leaf-clover insignia, he spent more than an hour answering questions from about 50 local home gardeners.

Dave offered many helpful tips from using shade cover over plants in hot sun to using seaweed in compost (not directly on plants). He praised mushroom compost and recommended “Dr. John” (John Paul, president of Transform Compost Systems Ltd. in Abbotsford, BC) as the top resource in the province for compost information.

Roberts Creek Earth Day offered its usual mix of practical tips and whimsy, from stilt-walkers and The Green Man storyteller to demonstrations of making cob as a sustainable method of house construction.

 

The Sunshine Coast Regional District created a giant tree of large green garbage bags to make local residents aware of waste management practices and how our trash impacts the earth.  Their display included a large sheet of paper on an easel where people could write down the ways in which they reduce their garbage. (Each household on the Sunshine Coast is allowed to dispose of one regular-sized can’s worth of garbage each week.)

Thank  you to everyone who helped make this year’s Earth Day a fun, viable, and educational event.

I have felt so overwhelmed by the short- and long-term ramifications of the recent oil spill in the Gulf Coast that I can barely hear about it. As anyone who watches the news knows, more than 200,000 gallons (757,000 litres) of crude oil are leaking every day into the Gulf since the rig sank April 22.

 

My husband thinks that British Petroleum (BP) will go bankrupt over this mess, but I’m not so sure. BP certainly hasn’t been pouring substantial money and effort into the clean-up. Countless lawsuits will definitely result from this spill, which resulted after a BP oil rig exploded on April 20, killing 11.

 

Relatives of the dead have sued rig operator BP-PLC, while Louisiana shrimpers have filed a class-action lawsuit against both BP and Halliburton, which they state was working to cement the rig’s well and well-cap. The shrimper suit claims that both companies and others were negligent in allowing the explosion that led to the spill. The shrimpers are asking for damages of at least $5 million, charging that the spill threatens their livelihoods.

 

When I think of the lost lives of the 11 men, the death and suffering of thousands of fish and fowl and millions of shell fish, the destruction of habitat, and ruining of wetlands and surrounding ecosystems for multi-years, not to mention the end of livelihoods for many, I feel too distressed to let these impacts fully sink in. As only one example, this spill threatens the future of an eco-tour boat company in Florida, of which my husband is a partner.

 

Here in B.C., some indirect good might come from this devastating event. It will make it much harder for the provincial government to push for oil exploration off the north-central coast, for one. It will also strengthen the case for those trying to prevent construction of the oil pipeline from Alberta’s Tar Sands to Kitimat, which would result in hundreds of oil tankers navigating the interior of north-central B.C., through prime ecosystems and challenging waterways.

 

Yet, I certainly don’t want to sound as if I’m looking for benefits as a result of others’ suffering. My heart goes out to the relatives of the men who died in this tragedy. These deaths seem forgotten amidst the media focus on the clean-up, lawsuits, and economic impact of the oil spill. If we ever wanted more proof that humans need to move beyond oil dependence and exploration and seek eco-friendly alternatives, to save both themselves and the planet, this event is a startling reminder. Let’s not forget the Exxon Valdez disaster either.

 

Meanwhile, on Canada’s Atlantic coast, Chevron plans to start drilling its second deepwater oil well May 9 in Newfoundland, 430 kilometres northeast of St. John’s. That rig is twice as deep (2.6 kilometres down) as BP’s Deepwater Horizon one that ruptured its well in the Gulf of Mexico. Considering Chevron’s horrendous environmental record in Ecuador and the Amazon, I hope that the corporation realizes that the whole world is watching this latest drilling venture.

As I have said numerous times on this blog, I love where I live. This is the uphill view of Roberts Creek from the bridge on Lower Road. Not far from there, northeast down the road, two bald eagles live in a tall Douglas fir with a nest at about 120 feet (36.6 metres) up. Every day, as I sit at my computer, I hear them screeching and calling and can see them gliding effortlessly in the sky.

 

My husband Frank, who had never seen a bald eagle before moving to Canada’s west coast, likes to watch this talkative pair from our front deck, using a telescope. In a recent severe wind storm, the eagles’ nest of large sticks and pine branches appeared to dislodge and break apart. In the past few days, we have seen the eagle pair build a new nest, flying in with long sticks hanging from their beaks. I love having them as neighbours.

 

Our area also has black bears and cougars. Although a few people in the Creek have seen a cougar on the beach and in their yard, Frank and I have only seen their footprints. Several years ago, a neighbour of ours up the hill had a cougar on the roof of their woodshed. I thought that we might have had one on our roof one dark night. I heard something heavy pounce and land on our roof, causing it to shake significantly. Nothing I have heard before or since equalled that shake and sense of weight.

 

Here’s the mouth of Roberts Creek, where it opens into the Pacific Ocean. Vancouver Island is the silhouette on the horizon. We get salmon spawning here every year.

Occasionally, a bear will stroll through our yard, almost always at night. One bear bashed its way through our side gate, knocking out the vertical slats, and got into our garbage. We’re really careful now about not putting out our garbage until the morning of pick-up. The same bear broke through our neighbour Cathy’s front gate three different times, leaving a large hole in the middle of it. The bear awareness official ended up putting a huge bear trap in the parking lot behind our house; it’s a large, mesh tunnel-shaped cage. They didn’t catch anything.

 

Recently, a bear knocked down our bird feeders and our hummingbird feeder, emptying them all. Frank and I feel no ill will towards the creature and are sad that humans have encroached so much on their habitat through housing developments and deforestation. We wish that everyone would be careful about their garbage and fruit trees to prevent attracting bears.

 

This week, Frank  found a small bear claw inside our Mazda Miata on the passenger side. It was below a small slash in the soft-top roof of the car. He had always thought that some vandal had knifed the roof, but that explanation never felt right to me. What a surprise to discover that a bear had caused this damage! We’re keeping the claw as a memento.

 A current lawsuit against Canada’s National Post newspaper and its publisher, editors, and three writers could have huge ramifications for both social media and online dissemination of news.

 

Andrew Weaver, a respected climate scientist and one of the world’s top climate modellers,  has sued the National Post  and related parties for “a series of unjustified libels based on grossly irresponsible falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet.” (The suit includes both hard-copy content and information that appeared on the Post’s four related Internet sites, produced by Canwest Publishing. It acknowledges that electronic versions of the same content can appear in 11 different Canwest publications across Canada, which it names. These range from the Vancouver Sun and Province to the Montreal Gazette. The suit also names five electronic databases).

 

Weaver is a professor and Canada research chair  in climate modelling and analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria. He launched the suit this week (April 20) in the Supreme Court of B.C. via McConchie Law Corporation of North Vancouver.

 

Weaver’s 48-page statement of claim identifies a pattern by the conservative Post of reporting incorrect and critical material about him and refusing to provide corrections or retractions when he brought these to the paper’s attention. For example, the Post alleged that Weaver had, or was going to, quit his Nobel-winning role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He emphatically dismissed this as false.

 

I’m sure that the Post and others will scream “freedom of the press” on this issue, but that is a mere smokescreen. This matter addresses the widespread damage that “false, malicious and defamatory” words can make once they appear in multiple places on the Internet.

 

The suit includes numerous citations, including an article called “Weaver’s web” that identified the client scientist as “Canada’s warmist spinner-in-chief” and “climate alarmist.”  The piece said that Weaver “appears not to understand what solar climate theory actually involves” , makes “distinctly dodgy arguments” and ignores scientific skepticism. The suit charges, among many things, that the related media content suggested that Weaver “engages in willful manipulation and distortion of scientific data for the purpose of deceiving the public in order to promote a political agenda.”

 

If Weaver’s suit is successful, it will have a monumental impact on both online media and anyone who adds comments to an Internet forum. This will result from two elements contained within his suit. First, Weaver cites reader comments on the Post’s website as libellous.  He also asks for a court order, unprecedented in Canada, that requires the National Post  to find and remove its defamatory articles from the many other Internet sites where they were reposted.

 

Kudos to Weaver for having the guts to take on the global warming debunkers and put some legal punch behind his reputation to ensure that lies in print do not stand as truth. His suit has launched what could be a precedent-setting case in determining how media outlets disseminate news and public comment on the Internet. However, it’s notoriously difficult to make libel cases stick. Weaver will undoubtedly face a remarkable challenge in the process and the case could hang around for years. Regardless, he earns my praise.

For more information on this issue, please visit www.desmogblog.com, a site dedicated to “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science.”

  

                                                                                                                                                                                                 — visual by Avril Orloff  

This week, the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) asked 75 green-minded people their view of what’s critical to launching a successful community sustainability program. In a four-hour interactive session, held at the Cedars Inn motel in Gibsons, British Columbia, Canada, here’s how some people responded:

 

Have a sense of urgency. Be bold. Acknowledge risk.
Have strong leadership. Take action and do it with enthusiasm.
Make it personal and engaging.
Understand people’s motivations and value. Recognize their differences.
Demonstrate concrete examples of sustainability and their benefits.
Involve youth and multi-generations.
Reassure people.

 

The SCRD, the local governing body for about 30,000 people who live along the coast northwest of Vancouver, hosted the fun event, which included a free vegetarian dinner and live music by local band Sweet Cascadia. Facilitator Julie Clark, the education and outreach coordinator for the SCRD waste management program, invited participants to respond to three questions:

 

1.  Thinking like the whole coast (region), what do you believe should be the goals of a sustainability education and outreach program?

2.  Think about a time when you experienced fabulous community engagement in action. What were the important elements?

3.  Think about a friend or neighbour who is not involved in the sustainability movement. What suggestions do you have to engage this person in sustainable behaviour?

 

As participants, we discussed responses with three different sets of people, rotating to a new table for each question. We summarized our answers as individual groups, then shared them with the whole group. A wonderfully creative artist, Avril Orloff, wrote our responses on a series of wallboards, using eye-catching imagery and lettering with a variety of coloured felt markers.

 

This process invited maximum participation and allowed us to meet three times as many new people than we would have if we had stayed at our respective tables. Although I was skeptical at first about how effective this method would be in producing practical and meaningful answers, I enjoyed the interaction and brainstorming and found it valuable. I discovered later that we were following World Cafe Guidelines, which I had never known about. The World Cafe Community website defines its approach as “a natural & effective way to host meaningful conversations that awaken collective wisdom & engage collaborative action.”

 

I enjoyed hearing the suggestions from each group; some sought immediate, localized changes, others took a broader outlook, emphasizing life philosophy and motivation more than specific actions. In my first group, I thought that defining sustainability would be a good place to start, since it has become such a buzz word and means different things to many people. Some people prefer the term “stewardship.”

 

A woman in my group recommended the definition offered by Jennifer Sumner, author of the book Sustainability and the Civil Commons: Rural Communities in the Age of Globalization, published by University of Toronto Press in 2005. Sumner thinks that since sustainability is such a vague concept, the forces of corporate globalization can co-opt it. She recommends a new understanding of the term, seeing sustainability as “a set of structures and processes that help build the civil commons.” Sumner defines the latter as “any co-operative human construction that protects/or enables the universal access to life goods” as distinct from market relations. She suggests a new term of “sustainable globalization.”

 

Julie Clark cited the 1987 Brundtland Report , also known as Our Common Future, published by an international group of politicians, civil servants and experts on the environment and development. This report defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The report highlighted three key aspects of sustainable development: environmental protection, economic growth, and social equity

 

The SCRD is putting its sustainability focus on three main areas: water conservation; solid waste (e.g. using it as a resource), and energy and emissions. As if to emphasize how our choices now will affect the next generation, participant Georgina Brandon gave the children who attended an eco-minded art project. She had them draw and paint signs that they paraded through the meeting area: giant vertical footprint outlines that cautioned us to limit our contribution to carbon emissions; a long, horizontal shelf of plastic water bottles, reminding us of landfill clutter and nonrecyclables, and outlines of chickens that encouraged food security and control over one’s own food supply.

                                                                                                                    — visual by Avril Orloff

 

Although this event didn’t result in any earthshaking revolution or instant change, it did provide inspiration, validation, and options for initiating change at a local level. Regardless of what definitions we use for sustainability, only actions will make the difference. I think that concrete goals, such as setting dates for achieving specific reductions of  greenhouse gas emissions, make a good rallying point. Make any efforts solution-oriented rather than harping on problems. The overriding question that Julie Clark posed was the perennial challenge: How do you engage the silent majority?

                                                                                                   – photo copyright Heather Conn

British Columbia’s spirit or kermode bears — a rare genetic white form of black bear — are protected from hunting, yet their black-bear parents aren’t.

 

Ian McAllister of the B.C. conservation group Pacific Wild says that less than two per cent of the “genetic range” of spirit bears are protected from trophy hunting. These white bears, unique to Canada, are found only in north-central coastal B.C., on Princess Royal Island and several river habitats, including the Skeena and Nass valleys. Their highest concentration is on Princess Royal Island, where roughly one in 10 black bears is white.

 

Yet McAllister points out the hypocrisy of making the spirit bear such a popular public icon for British Columbia and Canada when its genetic legacy does not even enjoy protection. He recently told The Vancouver Sun: “How can British Columbia be celebrating the spirit bear in the opening Olympic ceremony and as an official mascot to the Olympics when trophy hunting is allowed in over 98 per cent of the animal’s genetic range?”

 

As a further insult, the British Columbia government in 2006 trademarked the name “spirit bear” — a term used for generations in the oral history of certain coastal B.C.  First Nations — for commercial use. Then-Finance Minister Carole Taylor said that the province  registered ownership of the name so it could legally use it on government publications. This gives the B.C. government legal power to sell the right to use the name “Spirit Bear” to private companies to generate revenue.

For more information on B.C. trophy hunting of bears, click here.

                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                        — Heather Conn photo

I took this photo in east Vancouver en route to the Olympics protest on Commercial Drive. During the February 5 protest in downtown Vancouver, marchers to BC Place yelled out the chant: “Shut down the Tar Sands.” Although I agree with the sentiment, I wondered how many people would draw connections between that environmental issue and the Olympics. Neither the local or international media picked up on this topic in their Olympic coverage. Yes, the Tar Sands project has global environmental ramifications for all of us as a major carbon emissions source, but I don’t think this was the time or venue to try and publicize that message.

In a different context and another country, some could call it treason. In his final address at the Copenhagen climate conference,  Prime Minister Stephen Harper abandoned any notion of Canadian sovereignty by announcing that our country’s climate-change-related policies and laws lie in the hands of the U.S. Talk about ceding responsibility for Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions and environmental future!

 

Harper’s  mention of a “harmonization” of Canada-U.S. policy tied his future decision-making as leader of an independent nation to a U.S. political process over which Canada has no influence whatsoever. It’s unlikely that he even consulted Obama before making this it’s-out-of-my-hands claim.

 

 Harper’s blithe tone and delivery, presented with an offhand smile, conveyed no sense of personal conviction or commitment to Canadian-defined initiatives that address global warming. He still doesn’t even embrace the scientific case for climate change.  

 

During the conference, Harper let his petro-bag man, Jim Prentice, Canada’s so-called Minister of Environment, represent our nation to the media and world. Harper, unable to fulfill the role of a true leader, was probably afraid that if he joined discussions, too many of his favourite words would spill out and spoil the atmosphere: Enbridge, Tar Sands, Exxon, Shell, and so on.

 

 Harper is probably betting that the U.S. Congress will decimate any bill that requires a reduction of emissions. That way, he can continue not only to steer his dear Tar Sands on their present course, but expand them. And hey, that would work so well with having a new Enbridge pipeline through north-central B.C.

 

Why have our media voices remained silent on this issue of ceding sovereignty? As my husband, a U.S. citizen, says: “If Obama had made a similar remark in Congress, there’d probably already be a move for impeachment.” Are we Canadians that passive?

 

Canada currently stands as the top foreign provider of oil to the U.S. In the future, we’re going to be the Saudi Arabia of water, expected to provide fresh-water resources to the United States and many nations without it. We can’t afford to have a leader who’s too willing to give up independent decision-making and sovereign power. We need someone who’ll protect our environment, national interests and Canada’s resources, not someone who likes to woo the oil and gas industry. Who will it be? Certainly no forceful contenders at the moment. Sigh.

I feel embarrassed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his poor showing for Canada at the world climate talks in Copenhagen. He didn’t even bother showing up to hear the speeches made by other world leaders expressing their concern about climate change. He clearly has no interest in threatening Alberta’s oil and gas industries or taking the Kyoto treaty seriously.

 

I’m glad that President Obama officially snubbed Harper at the conference. The U.S. President left him off his guest list for an emergency meeting with 19 other world leaders at the conference. This publicly acknowledges that Obama doesn’t view Harper as a serious decision-maker in the climate change debate. Now our prime minister won’t get to strategize with global players like Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd; British Prime Minister Gordon Brown; French President Nicolas Sarkozy; German Chancellor Angela Merkel; Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei; and Brazilian President Luiz Lula da Silva.

 

Go back to your sandbox, Harper. The big boys don’t want you in the game.

 

 Thanks to Harper, Canada deserves the Fossil of the Year award, presented in a mock ceremony at the Copenhagen conference by the activist group Avaaz. Because of his lack of action, Canada also deserves the two consecutive “fossil” awards from the Climate Action Network, which “honor’  the countries deemed to have done the least to control their greenhouse gas emissions.

What can we do? Vote him out of office. Stay informed. Write to your MP. Support environmental and advocacy groups that work to stop initiatives like the proposed Enbridge pipeline through northern B.C. and serve as watchdogs for Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. There are many climate-concerned organizations out there, from the David Suzuki Foundation and Climate Action Network to Pacific Wild and Forest Ethics.

Remember James Lovelock? He’s the scientist-inventor who published Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth in 1969. Back then, he was a major voice in identifying Earth as a self-regulating organism. Well, now he’s 90 and this year, has published The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning. In it, he predicts that 80 per cent of the human population and most life on Earth won’t last out the century. That’s dire stuff.

 

By 2020, Lovelock predicts extreme heat — he prefers the term “global heating” to “climate change” — and widespread drought. He envisions cities left uninhabitable due to floods and desertification. He thinks that hundreds of millions of climate refugees will make mass migrations to colder areas like Scandinavia, Siberia, Canada’s north — and even the North Pole. (I envision a few skinny polar bears and huddles of frost-bitten people battling for the last ice floes.) In Lovelock’s view, resulting tensions and armed conflict will result in survivalist-style communities.

 

Lovelock thinks that rather than put so much effort into trying to stop climate change, we should be preparing for our possibly ugly circumstances in the future. His suggestions:

• Put huge sun shades into space to prevent some sun from reaching Earth;
• Use aerosol droplets into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space;
• Convert carbon-containing agricultural waste into charcoal and bury it underground. This would reportedly drastically cut down carbon dioxide emissions.

Many scientists pooh-pooh Lovelock’s ideas and consider his solutions unrealistic. He recognizes that, but thinks such geo-engineering solutions might help delay impending disaster. Whether he’s wacky or wise, at least he’s taking the threat of “global heating” seriously. To find out more, see the November/December issue of Ode magazine, a publication I recommend.

 

No more gloom and doom

I certainly accept the grim realities of climate change and its projected impact on our planet. Yet, that doesn’t mean we have to mire ourselves in depression and numb hopelessness.  I like the perspective of Jason Robinson, the CEO and founder of Sustainability Television (STV), an environmental web portal based in Vancouver, BC. He likes to promote progressive, supportive individuals, organizations and communities that focus on positive thought and sustainable solutions. He thinks that too many of our environmental stories perpetuate fear, negativity, and criticism. Sure, he acknowledges the severity of global warming, but doesn’t think that it should immobilize us.

 

Through Sustainability Television, Robinson wants to make messages of sustainable thought and practice available to all. He has created an accessible and vibrant online network that allows people to upload their own sustainability-minded videos or download STV material. Forget about media monopolies and limited broadcasting access. Teams of grassroots filmmakers, including Robinson, go out and shoot their own material and post it on the site.

 

Today’s youth are one of Robinson’s favored audiences. After all, they’re the next generation that will inherit our environment mess. This year, he has offered a youth media contest to encourage young filmmakers and writers to share how their community has created sustainable solutions, from starting a ban on plastic bags to collective composting. What are you and your community doing?

 

Check out the site at the link above. Become a member and discover like-minded, sustainable thinkers in your community. In the interest of full disclosure: I’m an STV member and I write for them.