Yesterday, the World Bank released: World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change: it says a "Climate-Smart" world is within reach if we act now, act together, and act differently. It is possible to shift to a low-carbon future while reducing poverty and promoting development in developing countries: however, financial and technical assistance is needed from high income countries like Canada and the US.

It's just one more example to show that people who are still are not taking action on climate change seriously are off track with most of the leaders around the world.

I feel hopeful to see that the most respected economic advisors around the world keep telling us the same thing: we can change the world, but we have to work together.

By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola

The Fraser River’s sockeye salmon are in trouble. And when the salmon are in trouble, we’re all in trouble.

The number of sockeye returning from the ocean to the Fraser River this year is one of the lowest in the past 50 and follows two years of dangerously low returns. In fact, we have witnessed decades of decline for diverse sockeye populations from the Fraser Watershed, some of which are now on the brink of extinction.

Many salmon runs besides Fraser sockeye are also endangered, while others have disappeared altogether. As populations decline, so does genetic diversity. This diversity allows salmon to adapt to the challenges they face and keeps the populations strong and healthy.

The total disappearance of Pacific salmon would be devastating not just for First Nations and families that depend on the fish for food, but for all who consider salmon a healthy and tasty food source and who rely on the money salmon fishing brings to the economy. Salmon are also essential to the healthy functioning of ecosystems. They bring nutrients from the oceans to the rivers and forests and are a valuable food source for whales, bears, birds, and other wildlife.

The Fraser sockeye fishery is one of Canada’s most valuable, accounting for close to 50 per cent of the economic value of all salmon caught in B.C. Their extremely low returns have been called a mystery because finding one simple cause or solution is difficult. However, even though we can’t always link an exact cause to every salmon population decline, we do know the major threats, and that gives us hope that we can change things for the better.

Sockeye have been heavily fished over the years, their spawning habitat in rivers and lakes is being destroyed, their survival is threatened by warming oceans and rivers due to climate change, and they are vulnerable to sea lice and diseases from open-net salmon farms.

While we need to invest more funding in science to understand the exact details behind saving our disappearing salmon, we can and must take precautionary actions to curtail activities that we know harm salmon. Canada’s Wild Salmon Policy provides the tools to do this, but although the government adopted this policy in 2005, it has yet to fund it and put it to work. Now is the time to do so.

Specifically, we need to work with government and industry to find ways to catch salmon from healthy stocks while avoiding catching salmon from threatened populations.

Freshwater habitat needs to be conserved and rebuilt, and destructive practices such as converting fish-bearing lakes to mine-tailings ponds or destroying streamside vegetation should be stopped.

We must also make sure that seafood labelled as sustainable truly meets the necessary criteria. Third-party eco-certification, like that offered by the U.K.-based Marine Stewardship Council, must be reserved for fisheries that are well-managed and don’t further endanger threatened salmon populations.

We need to change salmon farming to remove the impacts of sea lice and disease by creating a thriving closed-containment industry that separates farmed fish from wild.

Canada must also combat global warming by committing to major reductions of greenhouse gases at upcoming negotiations in Copenhagen if the salmon are to survive their long journey from spawning grounds to the sea and back over the long term.

Fortunately, leaders are starting to emerge in the struggle to protect the salmon. Fishermen are working with First Nations in the Skeena watershed to use beach seines to selectively harvest abundant salmon runs. Commercial-scale trials of closed-containment salmon farms are underway off the East Coast of Vancouver Island and at other sites around the world. Municipalities such as Maple Ridge have adopted improved development practices to protect salmon streams.

These efforts employ a holistic, ecosystem-based approach that acknowledges the many factors that affect salmon’s ability to survive and thrive.

By embracing our role as a significant part of the ecosystem and acting with the knowledge that we are connected to it for good or for ill, we have a chance to reshape the way we fish, build communities, and live our lives so that salmon remain a healthy part of this coast. We will all be richer if we succeed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and Dr. Faisal Moola is the Director of Science at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola

The world’s richest countries appear to be taking climate change seriously. At their recent meeting in L’Aquila, Italy, G8 countries agreed that global warming should not exceed two degrees Celsius, on average, over the pre-industrial temperature. The European Union, along with more than 100 other countries, heeded the advice of climate scientists some time ago in committing not to breach the threshold – but it took this meeting to get Canada, the U.S., and Russia on board.

The reason for the limit is simple. Scientific research shows that the impacts of climate change would be dramatic if average global temperatures were to rise above this level. Crop yields would decline, many more of the world’s plants and animals would be at risk of extinction, water availability would decrease significantly for many human populations, violent storms would become more frequent, and oceans would rise more quickly.

The threat of sea-level rise is so serious that 43 island states have set 1.5 degrees as their “dangerous” threshold. Scientists predict that an increase of two degrees would raise ocean levels high enough to swamp many of these island nations.

Tuvalu and Vanuatu have asked nearby Australia and New Zealand to provide refuge for all of their citizens as the ocean rises. The 49 countries that make up the “least developed countries” also use 1.5 degrees as their threshold. And Inuit leader Sheila Watt-Cloutier has said that two degrees of warming would provoke “the destruction of Arctic ecosystems” and create serious consequences for Inuit culture.

A pledge by the world’s most prosperous countries to limit warming to two degrees is a step forward, but it’s a small step. To succeed, nations must reduce greenhouse gas emissions sharply over the next decade and continue to reduce them until at least 2050. Action from everybody – governments, industry, and individuals – is essential.

Even if nations fulfill their promises, it won’t be enough. According to a recent article in Nature, “Halfway to Copenhagen, no way to 2°C”, emission-reduction commitments by the world’s industrialized countries are inadequate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that to stay below two degrees, industrialized countries must reduce emissions by 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. But the Nature article calculated that the collective commitments of industrialized countries add up to only 10 to 16 per cent. The research showed that, even if all countries met their targets, there would be “virtually no chance of limiting warming to 2oC.”

The Nature article also concluded that pledges by developing countries are inadequate. This too can be laid at the feet of the world’s industrialized countries. Wealthy nations filled the atmosphere with greenhouse gases over the course of their development, and so they agreed at the United Nations talks in Bali in December 2007 to provide clean technologies and financial resources so that developing nations could grow sustainably. But rich countries have yet to agree on how to deliver that support.

Reducing poverty is often the first priority for developing nations, and many remain reluctant to make any commitments to curb emissions until they get support from industrialized countries. The head of the UN’s climate program, Yvo de Boer, said it would be “like jumping out of a plane and being assured that you are going to get a parachute on the way down.”

All is not lost though. There may be little time before the decisive Copenhagen conference in December, but countries can still work to solve the climate crisis. A G20 meeting in Pittsburgh in September is expected to result in financial commitments for developing countries to adapt to climate change and tackle emissions. Three more UN negotiations are scheduled before Copenhagen.

The discouraging part is Canada’s interpretation of the G8 commitments. The ink wasn’t yet dry on the final agreement at L’Aquila when Environment Minister Jim Prentice said Canada did not have to change its position to meet the two degree commitment.

With the longest marine coastline of any country and an economy that still depends on climate-sensitive activities such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and tourism, Canada is particularly vulnerable to global warming. How can any Canadian leader claim to be working for the future well-being of citizens while stalling on hard targets and deep reductions?

Given that Canada is considered the worst performer in the G8 on climate change and has the weakest 2020 target, the minister should take another hard look at the science.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and Dr. Faisal Moola is the Director of Science at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

This note is a call to action to have each and every person close to Northern NB to come to Bathurst on Thursday  from 2 - 9 At the Atlantic host.  Apparently information will be posted, however no official presentations will be made.    The information session will be concerning a propsed Nuclear Waste Disposal site to be located somewhere in Canada.  

Obviously it is important to see what they have to include in their discussion, however it will be very important to prepare our own list of questions. 

It appears that due to the economy people just seem to see that 1000 jobs will be created but in an era where corporations are going green and we are wanting to try and improve our quality of life it will be important to look and try and preserve our environment in the process.  I am am axious to see if they will respond to questions in writing or if they will only meet with hand selected groups to discussin information and get their approval. 

It is extremely important to think of the future of our kids, water shed and our ability to increase population and other industry. 

I am encouraging everyone that knows someone in Bathurst NB or the entire Northern Region to attend this session and get informed and ask any question that you need to.

I also would like to call on the Provincial Government to act now and ensure that the populations are represented and the not only one municipality will decided where this disposal centre will go.  All surrounding municipalities should have to understand the hightened security risk, the nature of products being trucked in, positive and negative results of  type of arrangement.

 I'm going to find out what the Nuclear people have to say.  I am hoping they will be open to answering questions so that I can be as informed as possible.

By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola

Our planet with its atmosphere is an exquisitely interconnected system of ocean, air, and land. Water flows through all of it and keeps it – and us – alive. Water continually cycles above, on, and below the Earth’s surface, driven by the sun’s energy. It evaporates from the seas, transpires from plants and soil, flows from glaciers and aquifers, and falls as rain or snow. It covers 71 per cent of the Earth’s surface. It can be liquid, gas, or solid. And it regulates the planet’s temperature.

Part of the way water maintains a fairly steady surface temperature on Earth is by mixing with carbon dioxide to create a heat-trapping blanket in the atmosphere. But when we pump too much carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the air and water, it upsets the balance.

Even though our oceans and atmosphere are vital to all life, we often treat them as waste-disposal sites. We are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the plants on land and in the oceans can reabsorb and process, and so it builds up, trapping more heat and causing the planet’s long-term temperature to rise.

Many of consequences have been widely reported, but global warming’s effect on the oceans hasn’t garnered the attention it deserves. As well as raising the temperature of the oceans, increased carbon dioxide concentrations cause acidification. The oceans absorb and store carbon, which makes them a good hedge against climate change. But when too much carbon ends up in the ocean, the ocean’s pH levels fall and the water becomes more acidic.

Scientists warn that this could have a significant impact on coral reefs, perhaps even wiping them out entirely. If the reefs disappear, half of all life in the oceans will go with them. The process that affects corals – lower pH levels hindering their ability to calcify their skeletons – will also reduce the ability of phytoplankton to form calcium carbonate in their shells and skeletons. This, in turn, will reduce the ocean’s ability to absorb and store carbon, leading to increased global warming.

Despite the warnings from scientists, ocean acidification hasn’t been a big part of climate-change negotiations. That may change. In May, delegates from 76 countries at the World Oceans Conference in Manado, Indonesia – many of them island or developing nations that will feel the greatest impact of ocean acidification – drafted a resolution to put the issue on the agenda at the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.

Let’s hope they succeed in waking up the world to this serious issue. We can’t continue to ignore the state of our oceans. Of course, acidification – caused mainly by what we put into the air – is only one problem we’ve created for our oceans. We are also dumping a lot of crap (often literally) into our seas.

One of the most sickening images is of the giant plastic islands swirling in five ocean vortexes. One in the North Pacific is estimated to be larger than Quebec. Now a group of scientists and conservationists is planning to visit the vortex in an effort to figure out how to clean it up.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme, 13,000 pieces of plastic are floating in each square kilometre of ocean, and much of it accumulates in the five large swirling ocean gyres.

Marine animals eat the plastic as it breaks down, and contaminants work their way up the food chain, all the way to humans.

It offers hope to see the scientists looking for answers to this problem, and it’s good to see nations coming together in an attempt to address ocean acidification. But we must all do more to prevent these kinds of problems from occurring in the first place. We can do this by reducing our waste and emissions and by encouraging governments to show more leadership in protecting the Earth and oceans that cover most of its surface.

The oceans are where life is thought to have originated, as is indicated by the saltiness of our blood. The oceans flow through our veins and continue to give us life. Half of the oxygen we breathe comes from the oceans. What we do to the oceans we do to ourselves. It’s something to keep in mind as we celebrate World Oceans Day on June 8. The theme this year is “one ocean, one climate, one future.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and Dr. Faisal Moola is the Director of Science at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

 The news featured a story about a camp for kids being built in a Provincial park that was going to be used as the site of a new Camp for kids.  In the news it said that the camp would be built in an environmental fashion and would offer the kids an environmental component.  It sounded on the news like an attempt to justify the park although no Tim's official was on camera for comment.  I felt it was very important, even though I live in Eastern Canada to inquire about the impact this camp would really have on the environment.  Listed below are the question I sent and the answer I received.

I would like to say clearly that the camp does wonderful things for underpriviledged kids and the camp day fundraiser is important.  I would however ask that all those in Manitoba should attend the public sessions and speak up.  I am not sure from what I have been told that this pristine park and the ecosystem; including animals should be disturbed but not be a resident of Manitoba I think we need people to follow this closely so that a corporation does not destroy habitat when it's not necessary. 

Any information people could share would be great.

 Now is the time to get informed not later after the damage is done.

I would like information on the new Camp for kids that is being built.  I would like to know the companies side of the story.  I am not in favor of destroying a provincial park to build your new camp.

I believe in your camps and the benefit that they provide Children accross Canada, however saying it will be an environmentally friendly run camp does not negate the impact that it will have on the green space that it is alledgedly destroying.

I would like your side so that I can better decide what is really happening.  The news item I saw had basically no comment from Tim's.

Please respond with informaiton.  I support kids camp day because of what it does for those that deserve a good time at camp but I can't condone the impact this could have on the environment if it is true.

Tim's response to my request for informaion

Thank you for taking the time to send us your e-mail about the leadership
camp for underprivileged children proposed by the Tim Horton Children's
Foundation.

The camp will have as little impact at as possible on Whiteshell Provincial
Park and will respect the park's unique environment. The foundation is
working with the Manitoba government, local community and First Nations to
ensure that and is eager to participate in the public consultation process.

We have worked with local communities in similar situations in each of the
other six communities in Canada and the U.S. prior to establishing camps in
Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Kentucky. We invite you to attend
the public consultation sessions to learn more about our vision for the
camp. The Manitoba government will also describe details about utilities
for the camp, including the road. Ultimately, the Tim Horton Children's
Foundation is committed to establishing a first-class facility that
economically disadvantaged children from across Canada, including Manitoba,
can use and be proud of.

I'm not sure how much you know about the Tim Horton Children's Foundation.
It's a non-profit, charitable organization established in 1974. Since then,
more than 120,000 children have had the opportunity to enjoy a camp
experience they may otherwise may not have had.

For many, it's their first chance to ride on a plane and fly to one of the
five camps in Canada. Camping experiences spark confidence in these
children. They learn valuable outdoor and social skills, take pride in
their accomplishments, and leave with a more positive view of the world and
their place in it.

This year, close to 14,000 children from communities across Canada,
including many from Manitoba, will attend one of the camps at no cost to
their families.

We look forward to describing our camp proposal and ensuring it meets the
conservation authority's high standards of environmental responsibility.

Thank you again for contacting us.

Alec
Best Regards,
The TDL Group Corp

Alec
Operations Services Representative

By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola

Why does the public often pay more attention to climate change deniers than climate scientists? Why do denial arguments that have been thoroughly debunked still show up regularly in the media?

Some researchers from New York’s Fordham University may have found some answers. Prof. David Budescu and his colleagues asked 223 volunteers to read sentences from reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The responses revealed some fundamental misunderstandings about how science works.

Science is a process. Scientists gather and compare evidence, then construct hypotheses that “make sense” of the data and suggest further tests of the hypothesis. Other scientists try to find flaws in the hypothesis with their own data or experiments. Eventually, a body of knowledge builds, and scientists become more and more certain of their theories. But there’s always a chance that a theory will be challenged. And so the scientists speak about degrees of certainty. This has led to some confusion among the public about the scientific consensus on climate change.

What Prof. Budescu and his colleagues found was that subjects interpreted statements such as “It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent” to mean that scientists were far from certain. In fact, the term very likely means more than 90 per cent certain, but almost half the subjects thought it meant less than 66 per cent certain, and three quarters thought it meant less than 90 per cent.

According to an article in New Scientist, the researchers concluded that scientists should use both words and numbers to express certainty. For example, the IPCC considers “virtually certain” to mean more than 99 per cent likely; “very likely” to mean more than 90 per cent certain; “likely” to be more than 66 per cent; “more likely than not” more than 50 per cent; and so on.

It’s important to understand the distinctions. People who recognize the urgency of the situation are more likely to get behind solutions. And businesses and governments are more likely to work toward solutions when the public demands that they do.

And how urgent is the situation? The IPCC has concluded it is “very likely” that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet’s surface. Remember, that means they are more than 90 per cent certain. That’s about as close to unequivocal as science gets. The IPCC has also concluded that the consequences could be catastrophic.

This is science that has been rigorously peer-reviewed and that has been agreed upon by the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists, as well as more than 50 scientific academies and societies, including those of all G8 nations. There has been no peer-reviewed scientific study that has called into question the conclusions of the IPCC, which represents the consensus of the international scientific community.

So why does the debate still continue? Why are we fiddling while Rome burns? Well, as Prof. Budescu’s research shows, some people don’t really understand how science works. And people with vested interests, many of whom work with the oil and coal industries, are all too willing to exploit that lack of understanding by sowing confusion.

It’s also true that many people fear change. We’ve seen examples of economic prosperity and job creation brought about by investments in green energy in places such as Germany and Sweden. And leading economists, including former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, have warned that not doing anything to confront climate change will cost us far more in the long run than acting now. But many people still fear that any profound change will upset the economy or diminish their quality of life.

We must also consider the rational argument for taking action on climate change. Even in the highly unlikely event that all the world’s climate scientists have got it wrong, if we still move forward to clean up our act, we’ll end up with a cleaner planet and more sustainable technologies and energy sources. On the other hand, if the scientists are right and we decide to listen to the absurd arguments of the deniers, we’re in trouble. It doesn’t seem like much of a choice.

We may never reach 100 per cent certainty on climate change and its causes – that’s not what science is about – but one thing is certain: if we don’t get together to work on solutions now we’ll have a much tougher time dealing with the consequences later.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and Dr. Faisal Moola is the Director of Science at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

“…And, finally, once we have the concentrated ore, we sell it and make money; and what do we do with the wasterock?”  The ‘Mining and the Environment’ professor often finishes his lectures with this question, and the students all know what he wants to hear in response.

“Put it in the river.”

To the students of the class – whether they’re mining, geological, or environmental engineers – this is a sadly ironic joke.  When you drink your morning coffee, you don’t have it with two creams and two pieces of garbage, so why do virtually that to the environment?  A simple conclusion to draw is that the mining corporations just don’t care.  The reality is a bit different.

Wasterock disposal means finding a place to put millions of tonnes of useless rock that needs to be moved before you can access valuable ore.  The act of moving these rocks creates more exposed mineral surface that can weather, often resulting in harmful chemical runoff.

Take the example of leaving a pile of iron nails outside in the rain beside a block of iron.  After a month of regular weather you’ll return to find a lot more rust on the nails than on the block, simply because of a difference in exposed surface.  The block represents in-situ rock, the nails would be broken up wasterock.

Now, take the same situation, except put the nails in a bucket of water.  When you come back a month later you’ll find little to no rust at all!

This is a simple example of the same science that leads mining companies to use rivers and lakes as waste disposal sites.  It is the best of a very limited set of options. It isn't sustainable, but then again neither is mining.  Outside of halting all metal making, what can be done?

Jack Century, a Climate Project presenter and geologist from Calgary, has just published a letter to the editor where he explains:

In 1987, Norman D. Newell documented the near-perfect statistical correlation between the increase of CO2, carefully measured by Charles David Keeling on top of Mauna Loa, and the detailed growth of population rigorously calculated by others. The correlation between CO2 and people was 0.9985.  

In many of my presentations, people have questioned the correlation between CO2 & human activity, and this is a clear concise explanation of this Anthropocene Epoch. 

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/letters/story.html?id=2ed107e4-ea72-4569-a1ec-041a291f6a59