Canadians Want a Clean Energy Future

One goal of the Premier’s conference last month was to develop a national energy strategy. That did not happen. According to news reports, this failure occurred because Premier Christy Clark would not agree to any general energy strategy unless BC and Alberta could reach some agreement in their current dispute. Clark had laid down five conditions that would need to be met if the proposed Keystone oil pipeline, promoted by Alberta, was to pass through BC. The single condition that is generating the most controversy has to do with the sharing of the revenues resulting from the export of the bitumen/oil. 

At first glance there seems to be much wisdom in such a stance: if we can’t agree on the detail on this specific aspect of energy development, what’s the point of talking about general agreements. The devil is in the detail.

But on second thought, much of that wisdom evaporates. The dispute seems to be about who gets what revenue. The dispute framed that way assumes the resource, bitumen/oil, ought to be developed, exported and sold. But should and do Canadians accept this assumption?

A new survey commissioned by Tides Canada speaks to this. The results are striking. According to this new poll, Canadians believe the country needs an energy plan that reduces fossil fuel dependence, cuts energy waste, creates more clean-energy jobs, fights climate change, and sets aside a portion of oil wealth to help prepare for a clean and renewable energy future.

“Citizens are hungry for a smart plan that will move the nation forward on the emerging global clean-energy opportunity and tackle climate change at the same time,” says Merran Smith, director of the energy initiative at Tides Canada.

Tides Canada commissioned Harris/Decima to do the survey. Canadians were asked to indicate to what degree they would prioritize a series of objectives for a potential Canadian energy strategy. They identified as a “top” or “high” priority “improving energy efficiency” (82 percent), “creating more jobs in clean energy” (75 percent), “reducing Canada’s carbon pollution to slow down climate change” (66 percent), and “reducing our reliance on fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal” (66 percent).

In contrast, only 33 percent of those surveyed placed a “top” or “high” priority on “exporting more of Canada’s oil and gas resources.” 

 

Meanwhile, 82 percent of those surveyed said that they either “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” that “Canada should set aside a portion of its oil wealth to help prepare the nation for a clean and renewable energy future.”

The idea of a Canadian energy strategy resonates strongly with citizens. Fully 87 percent of those surveyed either “strongly” or “somewhat” agree with the statement “the nation needs a Canadian energy strategy to plan its energy future.” 

Oh that our governments would listen!

Eric Rempel

Does extreme weather add up to climate change?

I have no trouble remembering a time when a drought was just that: a drought. Sure, even as we lapped up the sunshine and enjoyed our ice cream, we were concerned about our gardens and the crops our farmer friends were tending. But no one doubted then, that the drought would come to an end – sometime.

But things are not that way anymore. Now we have extreme weather, and we wonder: is this just another weather cycle, or are we beginning to experience climate change. There can be little doubt that we are experiencing extreme weather. For us in Manitoba it began with the record flooding on the Assiniboine River in the spring of 2011. That was followed by the record dry summer in 2011, an extremely warm winter, and now again record high temperatures and prolonged drought.

Britain by contrast has been incredibly wet. The reporting leading up to the Olympics refers to this every evening. The wettest April ever was followed by the wettest June (more than double average rainfall), and July has started the same way.

Russia had its hottest summer ever in 2010, with peat wildfires raging out of control — over 5,000 excess deaths in Moscow in July alone — but this summer it’s wet in Russia too.

This past week we have been hearing about flash floods in China

One could go on, enumerating extreme weather events in Australia and the US, but in fact, they are all just anecdotal. Anecdotes – extreme weather events – do not prove that climate change is occurring.

So can we say anything about climate change with absolute certainty? Well, no, we can’t. It is just possible that all of the events we are witnessing are just a random collection of extreme events that signify nothing at all. But it’s a long-shot. Occasionally a tossed coin comes up heads six times in a row. But usually it doesn’t.

Were global warming actually occurring we would not feel it. If the actual temperature of our planet went up one or two degrees, we would not notice this. The glaciers and the polar ice caps may be affected, and, say the climate scientests, the weather would get wilder.

We never really experience the climate; what we feel is the daily weather that it produces. A climate that is changing will produce unfamiliar weather — and if it is getting warmer, it will be more energetic weather. Wilder weather, if you like.

That means hotter, longer heat waves, and bigger storms that bring torrential rain and killer wind speeds. But it can also mean prolonged droughts as rainfall patterns change — and much more severe winters, like the “Snowmageddon” storm that hit Washington in February 2010 and shut down the U.S. federal government for a week.

You can’t prove that all this means we are sliding into a new and steadily worsening climate right now — that the long-threatened future has arrived.

The statistics aren’t good enough to support that conclusion yet. But if you have to put your money down now, bet yes.


By Eric Rempel

Phosphates in our Ditches

I have previously written about the phosphate cycle. In nature, plants take up phosphate from the soil, and it becomes a part of plant tissue. The nutrient is returned to the soil when the plant dies. If it is ingested by animals or people, the phosphate is returned to the soil when the animal defecates. The cycle is complete.

In modern food production systems phosphate is a scarce resource. It is mined thousands of miles from here, is transported to where it is needed and applied to fields and gardens. The phosphate works its way up the food chain, and ultimately ends up in a livestock barn or human stomachs.

We flush our toilets and that phosphate is on its way to Lake Winnipeg. Animal manure is applied to agricultural fields. If the same amount of manure phosphate is applied as what the plants will take up, the natural phosphate cycle is intact. If surplus manure phosphate is applied, the extra is on its way to Lake Winnipeg. No matter how the phosphate is treated, it does not simply disappear.

As the phosphates get to Lake Winnipeg, they encourage algal growth in the lake, which in turn consumes oxygen resulting in a sterile lake unable to support fish or anything else. 

There are currently projects underway to see whether excess phosphate can be removed from Lake Winnipeg. Experimentally, cattails in the lake are being harvested and removed to see if the lake could benefit from such a removal. This may offer possibilities, but in my mind, the biggest problem is not addressed: the recovered phosphate is now a long ways from where it is needed, namely the farm fields.

Recently, David Dawson pointed out to me that the Highways Dept and Municipalities cut the grass and cattails in our ditches regularly. The lush growth in the ditches is the result of nutrients coming off the adjacent fields. In spring, many of these ditches become raging torrents. The rotting mass of cut grass is flushed down into the rivers and into Lake Winnipeg where it releases its phosphates.

Suppose, David says, an enterprising farmer cut the grass in the ditch, baled it up, took it to his farm and fed it to his cattle. Then the farmer collected the manure from his cattle and dumped it back in the ditch. There would be an outcry and rightly so. But, in fact, the farmer would be returning less to the ditch than he had taken out. The cattle would have utilized a good part of it. So why is it OK to leave all that grass in the ditch but not OK to dump the manure back in the ditch?

If we are seeking ways of removing phosphate from Lake Winnipeg, surely it makes more sense to prevent the phosphate from getting there in the first place. A relatively simple solution would be that the Highways Dept include in its grass cutting contracts a clause that the cut grass be removed. The material could be composted and recycled for public use. It’s not rocket science.

By Eric Rempel

Fish Lip Service

Imagine that your government would only protect you if you were proven to be valuable to the economy.  Imagine that even if you were valuable to your economy, and therefore legally had the protection of the government, they are careful to point out that they will only protect you, not your home.  Would you feel protected?

This is what has happened to the fisheries act under Bill C-38: the government has been careful to clarify which fish they will protect (only those with commercial value), and they've removed protection for the habitat of fish.  This has all been done for the sake of cutting red tape for development projects, and the government insists that it has not reduced actual protection, just bureaucracy.  But how can they single out a few types of fish to protect in the midst of an ecosystem?  And how can they expect to protect those fish without protecting the places where those fish live, breathe, eat, and spawn?  In this regard, what is true of a fish is also true of you and me: how can we be healthy and safe if our environment, which provides the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, and the materials for our shelter, clothing, and other consumer goods, is not itself healthy and safe?

Of course, just because the government no longer protects the habitat of fish doesn't necessarily mean that they are at risk.  Development projects still must undergo environmental reviews, even though those have been streamlined significantly (read: sped up).  But new legislation actually gives a minister the ability to circumvent the assessment process, if the project is significant enough.  

So we have protection of fish, but without protection of streams; and we have (fast) environmental assessments, unless it's a really big project, in which case it can be skipped.  This speaks volumes about the Harper government's commitment to a growing economy at all costs, as well as its belief that economy and environment are opposed to one another and economy must triumph over environment.  These assumptions are simply untrue.

There is a belief, common in our government, that environmentalists are against the economy.  What an absurd claim!  We have jobs, pay taxes, buy the products we need (and want), give to charity, and volunteer in our communities, just like everyone else.  While we may debate over whether continual growth is positive (or even possible), we know we need an economy to survive as a community, as a nation.  What environmentalists don't believe in is a growing economy at all costs.   

Protection of the environment is not about being a bleeding-heart animal lover, or coveting our favourite canoeing spots.  Economy cannot exist without environment, which is the source of all of our goods and resources.  To pay lip service to protection of the environment while allowing major industrial projects to skip even an assessment is disingenuous, and will ultimately cut the legs of our economy (that is, our environment) out from under us.

Jeff Wheeldon

Rethinking Global Finance (II)

Two  weeks ago I alerted readers to the fact that global financial institutions, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), are presently in the process of rethinking the advice they give to governments around the world. They have become acutely aware that the present trajectory of financial practices is simply not sustainable.

Johnny West, founder of OpenOil, a Berlin-based consultancy in oil and other extractive industries, and columnist for Petroleum Economist, has written extensively about some of the new thinking that is happening in these global institutions.

At the heart of this re-orientation is the notion that much more of the profits of extractive industries like oil and mining should flow towards local governments. According to Paul Collier, governments should then use these funds to “Invest in investing: the creation not of industries but of the infrastructure to support them, that infrastructure being partly physical, such as roads and utilities, and partly social, such as developing trading and legal systems which encourage private investment.”

Unlike manufacturing that actually makes something people need, extractive industries are making massive profits by delivering products to people who own them in the first place. (Consider that in 2008 Exxon made a profit of $45 billion dollars – the largest profit ever recorded by a company.) Because of this unique dimension of extractive industries, it is argued that we can stay well within capitalist orthodoxy by also applying unique taxation practices for these industries without creating market distortions.

The traditional argument is that these massive profits are justified because of the huge risks these companies take in discovering their products. However, with present computerized data now available on the substructure of most of the earth’s surface, the risks are substantially reduced. Why, for example, should government not use this data to identify where oil and minerals are located and then auction off the rights of extraction to the highest bidder. Nova Scotia did just that recently. It invested $15 million in oil exploration and then sold extraction rights for $900 million. You could argue that the rightful owners got the lion’s share of the profits.

There is cause for concern, for example, when corporations are extracting large amounts of oil from some African countries which are largely fed by Save the Children or the World Food Program. What would happen if, in such cases, the IMF moved in to advise local governments to insist that most of those oil profits should go to feed their own people and strengthen local infrastructure?

Some of the impetus for this new way of thinking is coming from Latin America where an increasing number of countries are claiming ownership of their own oil and minerals. It is becoming clear, that if private companies want to stay in the game, they will have to be willing to make major concessions. The World Bank and the IMF should see the writing on the wall and begin advising governments differently in relation to their extractive industries.  

Jack Heppner

Pesticide Ban in Manitoba

The Manitoba government recently gave notice that it is leaning toward banning the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes. We remain one of four provinces without such a regulation. So it appears likely that it is only a matter of time before Manitoba follows suit. 

Of course, there will be opposition from chemical companies. Like tobacco companies before them, the chemical industry continues to argue that there are no conclusive, scientific studies that prove that such chemicals are harmful to human health. And they may have a point. But just like any person of average intelligence knew a few decades ago that inhaling smoke was not healthy, so it is becoming increasingly clear that exposure to industrial chemicals can be harmful, especially to young children. There is no shortage of anecdotal evidence to support such an assertion.

Many will charge that such a ban is a threat to individual freedom; another example of the government telling me what I cannot do! I concede that sometimes government regulations are unfair and favor only certain sectors of society while, at the same time, harming others. However, from my point of view, this coming regulation will benefit us all in the end with respect to what really matters.

Most of us have been used to the “Betty Crocker” approach to maintain our lawns and gardens in the past half century or so. (Do you have a problem? Reach for the latest chemical and spread it around!) So the move toward a chemical-free approach is almost unthinkable. But one should remember that there were lots of lawns and gardens around before the age of unlimited access to chemicals.

Moving toward chemical-free lawns and gardens is not a regressive step, as some charge. Even while chemical usage was mushrooming, various groups and individuals suspicious of this new trend were developing techniques for chemical-free gardening. They discovered things that even our grandparents didn’t know. So the coming ban on pesticides does not spell a cataclysmic end to lawns and gardens.

What is required, however, is a reorientation of our approach to lawns and gardens. No longer able to “spray and forget,” we will have to enter into a long-term relationship with our soil and our plants to ensure a better future.

I offer a few pointers to help us move in that direction. Reduce the size of your lawn. Spread compost and aerate your lawn regularly. Don’t insist on a “monoculture” lawn. Remember that a healthy lawn is the best defense against unwanted weeds. I know, because it works for me. 

Similarly, in your garden, make generous use of compost, green manure and straw to create a vibrant soil and control weeds. Try companion planting and crop rotation. Reduce the size of your garden by making use of raised beds and vertical gardening techniques. And finally, don’t be afraid of getting some exercise in your garden.

In light of the coming ban on pesticides, it is fair to say that the best is yet to come!

 By Jack Heppner

When in Doubt, Use Caution

When in doubt, proceed with caution! When an input is scarce, use it sparingly! To my way of thinking, these are two core conservative values. I believe in these values, and find it puzzling that these values seem absent from many of the policies and actions of our current conservative government.

Take the promise, in the recent federal budget, to streamline environmental approvals. In general we all agree that streamlining is good thing. It removes unnecessary bureaucratic blockages. But if statements made by Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, are any indication of government intent, the intent of this streamlining is to not to assess the process. Instead, it seems, the government simply wants to get the environmental review process out of the way as quickly as possible so it can get on with its real agenda. Where is the caution here?

Why the rush? A successful business needs to know when to bring its product onto the market. It is not uncommon for a business enterprise to have to make a choice. It can choose to bring an inadequately developed product onto the market early and capitalize on an “early delivery” premium. Or it can spend more time on product development, sacrifice the “early delivery” premium, but deliver a good product.

I can understand why the oil companies are in a hurry to get things done. Each company wants to get in ahead of the other company because there is a premium in that. I can understand why the oil importing countries are lining up to fund the building of Canada’s pipelines. If they get in early, they have a better chance to get Canada’s oil.

But I can see no reason why Canada needs to be in a hurry. Why the hurry in exporting Canada’s oil resources? Why the desire to shorten the environmental approval process? Why the desire to attract non-Canadians to invest in the extraction of Canada’s oil? Why create jobs in the oil industry, when the jobs need to be filled by attracting immigrants? I could understand the hurry if it would be likely that we would lose if there were a delay in getting our oil onto the market.

But Canada won’t lose if we take our time in getting our oil onto the market, if we “take the time to develop a good product.” As the world oil supplies become harder to get; as the oil the world depends on comes increasingly from sources hard to get at (such a deep sea wells and Alberta’s tar sands), the price of oil will only go in one direction – up. The longer we delay in bringing this resource to the market, the higher will be the price. What’s to lose?

If Canada slows the delivery of tar sand derived oil onto the market, this delay will accelerate the rise in world oil prices. And this will affect what we pay at the pumps. That will hurt. It always does. Be that as it may, a substantial increase in the price of oil is inevitable. If not sooner, then it will be more later. Higher prices mean more pressure to find alternatives. We need that pressure. We need it soon.


By Eric Rempel

Everything we thought we knew is wrong!

Okay, maybe not everything. But what if some of our core beliefs about how the world works turn out to be seriously flawed? Last Thursday some of us watched a documentary that flipped our world upside down to see what makes it tick, as it explored the most critical question of our time:

How do we become a sustainable civilization?

Water shortages, hunger, peak oil, species extinction, and even increasing depression are all symptoms of a deeper problem – addiction to unending growth in a world that has limits. GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth goes way beyond prescribing Band-Aids to slow the bleeding. This film examines the cultural barriers that prevent us from reacting rationally to the evidence that current levels of population and consumption are unsustainable.

It asks why the population conversations are so difficult to have. Why it’s more important to our society to have economic growth than clean air. Why communities seek and subsidize growth even when it destroys quality of life and increases taxes.

Our growth-centric system is broken. It’s not providing the happiness or the prosperity we seek. But that’s good news; it means a shift to a sustainable model will be good for us. We’ll be happier and more prosperous!

Individual and public policy decisions today are informed by a powerful, pro-growth cultural bias. We worship at the Church of Growth Everlasting. Undeterred by the facts, we’re on a collision course powered by denial and the illusion that growth brings prosperity. Before we can shift our civilization meaningfully, effectively, and substantially toward true sustainability, the world must be “prepped.” We must become self-aware and recognize the programming that keeps us hooked. GrowthBusters attempts do just that. We heard from leading thinkers of our time – scientists, sociologists, economists – to help us separate fact from superstition.

We’re approaching the end of growth. Will we embrace it and find a winning solution? Or will we deny it and go down fighting?

From Las Vegas to Atlanta, Mexico City to Mumbai, the White House to the Vatican, GrowthBusters took us on a whirlwind tour of growth mania. Kind of like Wild Kingdom with a twist: the cameras are turned on humanity as our own survival skills were examined. GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth looks into the psychology of denial and crowd behavior. It explores our obsession with urban and economic growth, and our reluctance to address overpopulation issues head-on. This documentary holds up a mirror, encouraging us to examine the beliefs and behaviors we must leave behind – and the values we need to embrace – so our children can survive and thrive.

The movie, of course, does not focus on southeastern Manitoba. It looks at the world as a whole, and examines how embracing growth has affected some specific communities. The people of New York, Toronto, Hong Kong and Mexico City need to ask how they should be living if they want to leave a habitable planet for their children. But it’s a question we, living in southeastern Manitoba, need to ask as well. When will we do that?

Eric Rempel

Building for Tomorrow

It seems today’s home owners and home builders would rather bury their heads in the sand than work at envisioning the future. Conventional, contemporary home building technology has been developed in a situation when energy for home heating was cheap. It still is cheap – but for how long?

As we make decisions about the houses we build today, we ought to be making our best guess as to what energy will cost twenty or thirty years from now, and build accordingly. But we don’t. We go to default mode, and expect implicitly that energy prices in the future will not change significantly. We all know that’s absurd, but we do it anyway. In reality, humans are remarkably uncomfortable with forward thinking.

These were the thoughts going through my mind at the information event Solar in the Southeast last Thursday evening. The South Eastman Transition Initiative had organized the event. Three southeast homeowners shared their experience with building and living in energy efficient homes. Listening to these homeowners, there was little doubt that they, at least, are convinced that most of us are headlong into a herd mentality.

An annual heating bill of $800 or $1,000 is acceptable today for most homeowners. But energy prices will go up! Then what?

Today it is practical and cost effective to build a house that can be heated for $100 annually. In Europe, where energy prices are much higher, passive house design is becoming normal. In North America, innovative builders, here and there, are building energy efficient houses. CMHC has a program promoting energy efficiency in housing. But interest in these housing technologies remains far from the main stream.

Donald and Randy Proven are strong advocates of energy efficient home construction. They have concentrated on infill housing. They have done both, built new houses as well as retrofitted old, drafty houses. Where standard construction today expects walls with R20 insulation, they strive for R60. Where many houses today have 6 air changes per hour, they strive for 0.6. Most of the heating their houses need comes from solar, but when the sun don’t shine, they do use electric heat.

Kyle Friesen, who lives near Mitchell, has put a large solar array on the roof of his house. The array is hooked into Manitoba Hydro. When Kyle’s array generates more electricity than his household uses, Hydro buys his surplus. When the sun don’t shine, Hydro makes up the difference. Manitoba Hydro does not pay much, so this is not a great money maker, nevertheless Kyle expects to recover his investment over the long haul. Kyle admits, “If I had invested this money in the Alberta Oil Sands, I would be getting a better return on investment, but” he adds, “an investment in the oil sands is not an investment in the future.”

Herman Unrau of St. Malo has had vacuum evacuated tubes on his roof for three years. He continues to be very happy with them.

If energy efficient housing interests you, there is more information on our web site southeasttransiton.com.

By Eric Rempel

Giving to the Earth this Year

The time of gift giving is upon us. Most people spend many hours planning and shopping for loved ones. Sadly, most items in our stores are manufactured from cheap plastics or thin metals that break quickly. Current available merchandise has degenerated to the point where what we buy is often low priced and low quality, and an item that the recipient does not really want or need. Unfortunately, for obvious reasons, the gift quickly ends up in the garbage.

Once these items are in the landfill their fate is to sit for thousands of years. Our landfills are already bursting at the seams from daily waste produced by every household; there really is no room for additional holiday garbage.

Gift giving is an important part of our Christmas season. By changing the way we give gifts we can increase their longevity. Instead of each individual relative buying each child a less expensive toy, relatives could pool their money to buy one higher quality, more expensive toy that will last through the rough and tumble play of childhood. Toys that are made from strong durable materials can be enjoyed by one child and then passed on to younger children, delaying their trip to the landfill.

Giving a child one highly valued, good quality gift also helps reduce that child’s insatiable appetite for presents that often develops at Christmas time.  Teaching a child to treasure one truly special toy will send the message that gifts are not expendable, that toys are to be treasured and not tossed in the trash when something better comes along.

Adult presents are sometimes a challenge because adults often buy what they need during the year. What is left for a relative to give during the holidays? Instead of buying something cheap and unnecessary, give tickets to a local play or musical or a sentimental gift such as a photo-book or photo-calendar. These types of special gifts will not be easily tossed.

Perhaps the pinnacle of gift giving is finding a well-suited, used gift at a thrift store. Gifting used items benefits the Earth in a two-fold way: firstly, this delay’s that items trip to the landfill for many years and, secondly the money spent at the thrift shop goes in-part towards funding programs to help others live sustainably in the Third World.

Finally, when you do decide what to buy for your family consider the wrapping. How absurd that commercial wrapping paper once purchased is immediately tossed! Consider using recycled items to wrap your presents: the comics from the newspaper or handmade reusable cloth bags. Avoid expensive Christmas cards that are read only once and then added to the holiday layer at the landfill.

  

How ironical that the holiday season, which is a special time to celebrate generosity, contributes to a stressing of the Earth we live on. This year give the Planet a present: think carefully how your gift giving will affect the environment. 

By Rebecca Hiebert

Presenting the Steady State Economy

Addressing the economic and ecological problems of the 21st century

The human family is about to get a little bigger. According to the United Nations, the global population will reach seven billion this Halloween – on October 31, 2011. It would be too easy to say that the coincidental alignment of this milestone with Halloween should be cause for fear. We don’t need to be afraid of a few more babies; birthrates are even decreasing in some parts of the world. What we should be deeply concerned about is the likelihood that these babies will one day aspire to Western lifestyles at a time when the planet simply can’t handle any more materially opulent aspirations.

Our way of life in the West not only puts immense pressure on the environment, it has also become a catalyst for economic volatility on a scale we’ve never seen before. We have designed our economic system to – as economist Tim Jackson describes – “spend money we don’t have on things we don’t need to create impressions that won’t last on people we don’t care about.” Unlike what most mainstream economists will tell you, that’s a recipe for disaster, not prosperity.

Take a moment to consider how the global economy is performing. Oil prices reached $113 a barrel earlier this year, contrasted with a low of $13 a barrel in 1999 (today they hover around $86). Stocks have seen unprecedented volatility; so too have the prices of grains and other essential foodstuffs. Major economies still haven’t fixed a broken financial system that inflates the prices of assets (such as mortgages) and permits a wasteful kind of “gambling” with legitimately earned money. If investment banking was working properly it would be facilitating much-needed investment in green infrastructure, not phony new financial products that consume rather than produce capital.

If this is what a “growing economy” looks like in the 21st century, we should clearly be aiming for something better! It’s time to start being rational rather than dogmatic about the word “growth.” We need to shake ourselves out of collective denial and engineer an economy that is more practical, meaningful and truly prosperous. Recent global protests such as Occupy Wall Street represent an awakening economic consciousness and a backlash against the status quo. They are revealing the cracks of a deeply broken system. But they’re not yet specific and productive.

I invite you to join me in applying specific solutions to these problems by engineering a new economy with a firm foundation. Fostering economic degrowth towards a steady-state doesn’t mean recession; it means fostering a balanced, manageable level of resource flows. It doesn’t mean going back to the dark ages; it means a life more happily and meaningfully lived.

Using the power of entrepreneurship and innovation, we need to find common purpose in the realignment of our overarching social and economic goals — not toward yesterday’s notions of solidarity or neoliberalism — but towards pragmatic and meaningful capital maintenance for prosperity without growth.

Join us on October 27th at 7pm at the Eastman Education Centre to learn more about how we can engineer prosperity without growth.

by James Johnston of the Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE)

Can We Recycle the Phosphate?

Readers of this column will have noted that two weeks ago I wrote about the pending worldwide scarcity of phosphate. Last week I wrote about the pollution caused by phosphate. This week I deal with some ways of addressing both problems.

As we have noted, all animals ingest phosphate. It is a necessary component of the food they eat. Their bodies use a very small portion of the phosphate they ingest. The remainder is expelled in the urine and feces. That phosphate can have one of two destinies, but only two: it can recycle and again become a plant nutrient; or it does not recycle, and becomes a pollutant.

So there is an incentive for us to find ways of recycling the phosphate.

Were phosphate the only component of interest in excrement, we would probably be recycling the phosphate now. However, we have been much more interested in the pathogens found in excrement. We have become singularly adept at dealing with those pathogens. We are all familiar with the tragic part of the Walkerton story, but we should also note the other part of that narrative – the Walkerton story is unusual, a commentary on the effectiveness of our common treatment technologies in dealing with these pathogens. Unfortunately, as we deal with the pathogens, we more or less disregard the phosphate.

It need not be so. There is technology that will deal with human excrement in a way that will kill pathogens and allow the recycling of the plant nutrient component. The most familiar technology is composting toilets. These come in many designs, but all ultimately convert the excrement into compost in a way that will kill any pathogens. Unfortunately, managing a composting toilet is not as easy as pressing a leaver to generate a five-gallon flush. Any composting toilet requires committed management if it is to work well.

There are also technologies that allow for the safe application of municipal sewage onto cropland in a way that conserves the plant nutrients. Nevertheless, because of the way the sewage has been treated before it gets to the application stage, this is problematic. Firstly, our households dilute any organic effluent with prodigious amounts of water. This water needs to be dealt with if the organic matter is to be applied to cropland. Secondly, so much of what we flush plants do not like, things like cleaning agents, paints, and petroleum derivatives.

The best way of dealing with the phosphate and other potential plant foods generated in our households is to separate them from other waste at source. This way we would not dilute it with perfectly clean water or contaminate it with other waste. This could be done quite easily at the municipal level, but requires a cultural commitment to work.

At this time, we are probably not ready to change the way we treat human effluent, but as phosphate for food production becomes harder to get, and the impact of the pollution of our waterways with phosphates becomes more evident, we will have little choice but to become more resourceful in what and how we recycle.

Eric Rempel

What Happens to the Phosphate?

Last week I wrote about the need to respect nature's phosphate cycle. After all, the world supply of accessible phosphate is limited. Phosphate is a scarce resource. It ought to be used carefully and sparingly.

But phosphate also can be a pollutant. We see this in Lake Winnipeg today. When the phosphate in a water body exceeds a threshold concentration, the result is excessive algal growth. When these algae die, their decomposition uses up oxygen in the water. When that happens, other living organisms, such as fish, suffocate and die.

All of us ingest plants. We call this eating. The carbon and hydrogen component of the food we eat is converted to energy as we live and work. Our body expels the food components our body does not need. What our body expels, either as feces or as urine, we call human waste, but that is a misuse of the word “waste”. Plants do not consider this waste. For plants, this is food. There are only two possibilities for this excrement: either it nurtures plants, or it pollutes our environment. These are the only two options.

Have you ever considered what happens to the stuff you flush down the toilet? If you are at all thoughtful (most of us are not), you realize it does not disappear with the flush. It goes somewhere. If you live in Steinbach, it goes first to the treatment centre and from there to the lagoon. The treatment centre deals with pathogens and fats, but does nothing with the phosphorus. You cannot get rid of it. It needs to go somewhere. It is my understanding that most of it remains as sludge at the bottom of the lagoon. The sludge has a potential as plant nutrient for the cropland around the lagoon, but the quality is seriously compromised because of contamination by the other products we flush down the sewer; products such as cleaning agents, paint and petroleum products. The Steinbach city lagoon is rarely de-sludged. So what happens to the phosphorous ingested by the 13,000 Steinbach residents? Believe me, it does not disappear.

In 1995, I was involved in the start of a manure management company. The focus of this company was the management of manure coming from the industrialized hog farms springing up in this area. At the time of our formation, there had been no effort to apply science to the way manure was applied to cropland. Our focus then was nitrogen, and our goal was to match nitrogen application with nitrogen uptake by the crop. We quickly noticed that as we were optimizing nitrogen, we were over-applying phosphate by a factor of two. “No problem”, everyone said, “our Manitoba soils can handle that.” I spoke to many people about this over-application of phosphate, and no one I talked to foresaw a problem.

In 2002, just a few years later, we began hearing about the eutrophication of Lake Winnipeg, the result of precious phosphate flushed down the toilets of our cities, and the over-application of livestock manure. We pretend phosphorous disappears when we flush at our peril. It does not disappear.

Eric Rempel

Twenty Years

I will be 27 years old this year, so perhaps my scope is a bit small, but when I think about the passing of twenty years it seems to me to be a long time. A lot can happen in a day, much less a year; and being only 26 years old, I’m well aware that much has changed in my lifetime. Twenty years, in terms of our planet, is a drop in the bucket; but in terms of the way we humans change our world, and change the way we interact with it and with each other, twenty years holds an awful lot of change. Or does it?

Reading a book from 1990, I came across a section on “The Ecological Crisis.” I was continually surprised to find the dates of references to be no later than 1990, because they read like today’s newspaper. Twenty years ago, we faced the same ecological issues we face today, including climate change, water and air pollution, threats from non-native species that lack predators in their new environments, overflowing landfills, and the extinction of as many as two dozen species per day, to name but a few. We’ve come so far since then in technology, human rights, health, and many other areas; why hasn’t the headline changed for ecology?

That’s not to say that we’ve done nothing. In 1990, when I was six years old, there were only two ecological problems that I was aware of: acid rain, and the hole in the ozone layer. Both of those issues have, to some extent, been solved by new technology. But what hasn’t changed at all was the real cause of those issues: human consumption of fossil fuels, and the over-use of chemicals. Since 1990 our culture has changed dramatically, our access to information has never been better, and our connectivity to one another and the rest of the world is almost beyond belief – yet when it comes to the environment, we’ve merely replaced one chemical with another rather than change our behaviour. And these are for our environmental successes: there remain the issues of deforestation, destructive mining practices, extinction of species, and of course climate change, that we’ve hardly begun to address.

Since 1990 we have seen some improvements in the way we think: attitudes about things like recycling and smoking have changed dramatically. Green has become chic. But attitudes and actions do not always go together, and if we want to live responsibly in this world, they must. I don’t expect human behaviour to change as quickly as technology, or even as quickly as attitudes; meaningful trends take longer to develop than fashion or technology. But what if we didn’t wait for the trend to develop, and instead were intentional about making a change, as individuals, as communities, and as a nation? If we set our minds to it, there doesn’t seem to be much that we can’t accomplish in a very short time. Let’s make the next 20 years count.

Jeff Wheeldon