The Dominion - Yuill Herbert

Smoking in the Greenhouse

dru — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:13:10 +0000

Tar sands growth makes meeting Kyoto targets less likely

The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement to the international treaty called the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its objective is “the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

The Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce global emissions by five per cent by 2010. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that reductions of 50 to 85 per cent by 2050 are needed to stabilize the climate at safe levels.

Under the Kyoto agreement, Canada is committed to reducing emissions to 563 megatonnes. At current trends, Natural Resources Canada projects Canada's emissions will exceed this level by 36 per cent--or 265 megatonnes--by 2010. By international law, countries that exceed their targets are required to make up the difference, plus an additional 30 per cent, in the next commitment period.

In a detailed analysis, the Pembina Institute concluded in 2005 that oil sands are the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions growth in Canada, with a rapidly increasing share of the country's total emissions. Emissions from the oil sands are projected to increase between 450 and 560 per cent between 2003 and 2020.

Commercial development of the oil sands began in 1967. In 1995, the Alberta Chamber of Resources laid out a strategy that envisioned tar sands production doubling or tripling by 2020. This timeline was exceeded by 16 years--oil sands production more then doubled by 2004 to 1.1 million barrels per day. Current projections range from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers' estimate of 2.7 million barrels per day by 2005 to the government of Canada's estimate of 6 million barrels per day by 2030.

Greenhouse gas emissions projections for the oil sands are complex. For example, high pressure steam is used to melt the bitumen so it can be extracted from the sand--for this reason, producing oil from bitumen results in three times the greenhouse gas emissions compared with the equivalent barrel of light or medium crude. While relatively clean-burning natural gas is currently used to provide the steam, proposals for coke or bitumen could double the emissions, while nuclear power would lower greenhouse gas emissions but produce nuclear waste.

The federal government has not publicly released its projections of future GHG emissions from the oil sands since December 1999. However, the rapid growth of the oil sands corresponds with the dramatic increases in the government's estimate of how much Canada will overshoot its Kyoto target. In 1997, Canada anticipated its emissions would exceed its Kyoto target by 137 MT, whereas the most recent estimate in 2005 was 270 MT, a one hundred per cent increase.

Pembina Institute offers the only concrete numbers. In 2003, emissions from the oil sands accounted for 3.4 per cent of Canada’s total. As the oil sands continue to grow, Pembina projects that by 2010 they will account for 7.5 to 8.2 per cent of Canada's total emissions, under current trends.

Between 2000 and 2020, the Canada Research Energy Institute anticipates that development and production activities in the oil sands will lead to an increase in GDP of $885 billion, reaching three per cent of the country's total GDP by the end of 2020. As Stéphane Dion famously stated in an interview when he was environment minister: "There is no minister of the environment on Earth who can stop this [oil sands development] from going forward because there is too much money in it."

At the UN emergency meeting on climate this October, Stephen Harper stated, “The core principle of Canada’s approach to climate change is balance. We are balancing environmental protection with economic growth.”

Harper's greenhouse gas emissions strategy is based on carbon intensity. This means that instead of reducing overall GHG emissions, oil sands projects can successfully meet the Harper government targets while, reports Pembina, quadrupling output with the end result of tripling emissions. The regulations also give new oil sands projects a three-year grace period from any emissions restrictions, with an unknown impact.

The Pembina Institute is calling for the oil sands to be carbon neutral by 2020 by using a combination of offsets and carbon capture and storage. Such a strategy has its detractors; organisations such as Carbon Trade Watch argue that offsets encourage a business-as-usual approach, when in reality dramatic changes are required.

Source: The Climate Implications of Canada’s Oil Sands Development Matthew Bramley, Derek Neabel and Dan Woynillowicz. 1995- the Pembina Institute.

Projected Emissions by Province

Tar sands emissions: projected

Genetically Modified Diplomacy

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:12:52 +0000

Canada's International Biotech Agenda

Critics argue that government is being influenced by large biotech corporations and regulatory norms in the US. photo: Jessica Bray

According to several observers, Canada's diplomatic maneuvers at the UN and WTO could weaken international environmental law and accelerate the spread of unpopular genetically-modified organisms around the world.

In 2003, Canada, along with the US and Argentina, initiated proceedings at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to challenge the European Community's (EC) ban on Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs). On September 29 of this year, the WTO declared the EC's GMO regulations illegal and instructed it to modify its laws accordingly.

"Although politicians claim that environmental law and trade law support each other, this ruling demonstrates that in the hands of the WTO, environmental law is in fact made subservient to trade laws," said Duncan Currie, international law expert and author of a Greenpeace assessment of the WTO case. Canada was the first industrialized country to ratify the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, which was first agreed to at the UN Earth Summit in 1992 and reaffirmed in 2002. The Convention includes the Biosafety Protocol, which regulates the movement of GMOs across borders.

"The ruling contradicts what heads of state agreed at the UN World Summit," said Currie.

The WTO ruled that the precautionary principle, a mainstay of international environmental law, was too controversial and unsettled a concept to be a general principle of law. The precautionary principle states that if the potential consequences of an action are severe or irreversible, in the absence of full scientific certainty, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

"If taken as precedent," writes Canadian law firm McCarthy Tétrault, "this position could affect the regulation of many other industries." McCarthy Tétrault gives the example of the EC's draft rules for testing the effects of certain industrial chemicals for public health consequences. "If those rules incorporate the precautionary principle, any resulting restrictions could be challenged for not being based on hard scientific evidence."

"This ruling is important," says Howard Minigh, former vice-president of DuPont and [current?] president of Brussels-based CropLife International, which represents biotech companies. "Regulations based on political expediency and excessive precaution encouraged by propaganda from anti-biotech groups" put producers of farm goods at a disadvantage, he says.

The Canadian government claims that its domestic GMO testing system is foolproof and that Canadian-approved GMO products are safe. A review of decisions by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency shows that all 61 applications for GMO animal-feed products were approved. Agriculture Canada has also approved 89 GMO food products for human consumption.

Are Canada's regulations for GMOs safe? GMOs are not labeled, and thus difficult to test, but according to Dr. Joe Cummins, "there has been a large increase in food allergy and food-related illness after the GM foods were spread around North American markets."

"In Canada," said Cummins, who is a member of the UK-based Independent Science Panel and an emeritus professor of genetics at the University of Western Ontario, "most processed foods contain GM corn, soy or canola products."

"Even though it is not possible to do good science of the unlabelled foods, laboratory animal studies showed a range of adverse effects from allergy, inflammation or pre-cancerous lesion of the digestive system. Such studies are ignored by the Canadian government but they are well documented."

A 2004 report by the Polaris Institute looked at the 58 recommendations to protect public health by the Royal Society's 2001 Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology. The report found that while some progress has been made, there is still a great deal that needs to be done before Canadians have a precautionary regulatory system to protect their families and the environment from the risks of GMOs.

"It appears to me that the government has been unduly influenced by large biotech corporations and the regulatory norms in place south of the border," said Dr. Peter Andree, author of the Polaris report. "As a result, in general I think it is fair to say that Canadian regulators do not recognize the potential severity of the risks of products of biotechnology, or the value of a more precautionary response to those risks."

In the meantime, the Canadian government is campaigning to open the world market to GMOs, including the 'Terminator' gene. Terminator seeds are genetically engineered to result in crops that don't grow viable seeds. Farmers who use the Terminator seeds cannot save seeds from their crops and are forced to buy new seeds. There is a currently an international moratorium on the use and marketing of Terminator seeds.

"Terminator seeds are a weapon of mass destruction and an assault on our food sovereignty," said Viviana Figueroa of the Ocumazo indigenous community in Argentina on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity.

"Terminator [technology] directly threatens our life, our culture and our identity as indigenous peoples."

In 2005, a leaked report obtained by the ETC Group indicated that Canadian diplomats were heading to a Convention on Biodiversity meeting with instruction to "block consensus" in order to help lift the moratorium.

The Canadian government was swamped with letters of protest from around the world and references to the Terminator were deleted in the official text after strong objections from other countries.

"This is a momentous day for the 1.4 billion poor people worldwide, who depend on farmer-saved seeds," Francisca Rodriguez of La Via Campesina, a global network of peasant farmers, said of the decision.

In spite of the international outcry, Pat Mooney of ETC Group noted that Canada continued to support Terminator technology at the last Biodiversity Convention meeting in Curitiba, Brazil, in 2006, but in a "low-key way."

"In the end," continues Mooney, "efforts by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA were blocked by the EU and developing countries and the Convention on Biodiversity ultimately strengthened its moratorium against Terminator."

"We nevertheless have the impression that Canada will continue to push for Terminator both in trees and crops."

Canada is also using its international aid program to spread biotech.

Through the Canadian International Development Agency, Canada is developing a biosciences centre for East and Central Africa, as one of four "agricultural centres of excellence" being developed around Africa, with an estimated cost of over $30 million. The United States is expected to build a centre in North Africa; the UK will build one in South Africa, and France; one in West Africa.

"It is clear from the information we have gathered," said Mooney, "that BECA is being built to promote agricultural biotechnology."

The WTO decision will open up new markets for Canadian biotech, an industry with annual revenues of $5 billion and an annual research expenditure of $3 billion.

Yuill Herbert examines Canada's international biotech agenda and the government's most recent GM 'victory.'

A Bear Of A Deal

Mon, 06 Mar 2006 22:27:08 +0000

A decade of negotiations give way to an unprecedented agreement

The protected area is three times the size or Prince Edward Island. photo: The Coast Forest Conservation Initiative

In February, the Great Bear Rainforest agreement was announced in the media around the world; the story was printed in over a thousand newspapers, including coverage in India, Russia and China.

The agreement covers an area that represents 45 per cent of North America's three temperate rainforest ecoregions. New parks total 1.8 million hectares – more than three times the size of Prince Edward Island. Another 4.6 million hectares are subject to a strict new management regime that puts the ecosystem first.

The Great Bear Rainforest contains the world's largest tracts of intact temperate rainforest, and it is home to spawning runs for 20 per cent of the world's remaining wild salmon. The area is so rich in wildlife and flora that biologists have compared it to the Galapagos Islands and the Amazon jungles. The agreement means that habitat for endangered species including grizzlies, the total population of 400 white "spirit" bears, coastal wolves, peregrine falcons, and the Northern Goshawk is preserved.

Unprecedented collaboration

In 1993, following protests and blockades, the British Columbia government announced the Clayoquot compromise – a deal that protected 33 per cent of the region, leaving the rest to be logged. The decision sparked the largest act of civil disobedience in Canada's history; that summer more than 850 people were arrested. First Nations were not consulted and the communities remain divided over logging in Clayoquot Sound.

The focus shifted to the Great Bear Rainforest with its hundreds of pristine and intact watersheds. In a high profile international campaign, a collaboration of environmental groups forced the customers of the companies operating in the Great Bear Rainforest to cancel contracts. Over 80 companies, including Ikea, Home Depot, Staples and IBM, committed to stop selling wood and paper products made from ancient forests.

As a result of the market pressure lumber companies on the coast began to shift their approach and agreed to sit down with the environmental groups.

"It was tough in the beginning, but everyone agreed in the end," says Lisa Matthaus of the Sierra Club. "People came to accept that they no longer had the social licence to log in the way or in the places that they were, so it had to change."

The Joint Solutions Project was formed in 2000 as an initiative between coastal forest companies and a coalition of environmental groups including ForestEthics, Sierra Club of BC, Greenpeace and Rainforest Action Network.

While a land use plan was being developed, the coastal forest industry agreed to stop logging in exchange for a hold on the environmental groups' market campaigns. They then agreed to create a team of international and local scientists to create ecosystem-based management (EBM) for the coastal forests using the best available conservation biology. Environmental groups and industry each raised $600,000 to support this process with provincial and federal governments providing the remainder.

Two multi-stakeholder processes had been mandated by the province to develop land use plans for the Great Bear Rainforest region. The Joint Solutions Project fed the conclusions of its scientific work into this process.

Meanwhile, but separately, the David Suzuki Foundation was working with a group of eight coastal First Nations in an initiative called the Turning Point to develop a set of principles for EBM. To many coastal First Nations, EBM represents a scientific articulation of thousands of years of cultural practice and traditional resource use.

photo: savethegreatbear.org

The area that is not protected will be managed according to the EBM process. "This is a transformation of what happens in the British Columbia forest," Merran Smith of ForestEthics says. "The revolution is looking at a standing forest not as a commodity, but as an economic model based on conservation."

The BC government took the land use plans developed by the multi-stakeholder committees and entered into unprecedented government-to-government negotiations with the First Nations, who had developed their own land use plans. The final outcome is a compromise between the two parties.

"It's a cultural shift," says Shawn Kenmuir, an area manager for Triumph Timber, which has already forsaken old clear-cut practices and begun consulting with the Gitga'at before cutting on their traditional lands. "We've started the transition from entitlement to collaboration."

Many areas that will be preserved have been chosen based on the oral tradition of native groups and the opinions of their elders. These include areas with cultural significance such as ancient cemeteries, or areas that contain medicinal herbs and cedars big enough to make totem poles, canoes and longhouses.

"We are [excited]. We all [coastal First Nations] came together and agreed to something that hasn't happened for a long time", says Ross Wilson, chairman of the tribal council of the Heiltsuk, one of the native nations involved.

"Now we can manage our destiny. Without this agreement, we would be going to court forever and we would have to put our children and old ladies dressed in button blankets in the way of the chain saws."

Transforming the economy

"For all the First Nations the value to protect the Great Bear Rainforest is utmost, not only for cultural and environmental but also for economic reasons," says Ross Wilson. To emphasize the economic benefits of preservation, he adds, "The hunter comes in and pays a lot for one night but you can never see that bear again; with wildlife viewing, as long as that bear lives you can have tourism activities that happen year after year."

This philosophy is supported by an innovative $120 million endowment to support the creation of a conservation economy in the Great Bear Rainforest. It includes: $30 million contributed by the BC government to help ease the transition of impacted forestry workers; $60 million raised by the US-based Nature Conservancy from donors and foundations; and a $30 million contribution from the federal government.

The endowment includes a Coast Conservation Fund that will invest in skills development and monitoring amongst First Nations to guarantee the implementation of the Great Bear Agreement. A Coast Economic Development Fund will invest in shellfish aquaculture, cruise-ship tourism, sustainable forestry, conservation activities, fisheries, high-end lodge tourism, and pine mushroom harvesting, potentially creating up to 1700 new jobs.

In addition, Vancouver-based credit union VanCity will create an innovative fund with up to $80 million dollars from socially responsible investors for sustainable economic initiatives on the coast.

Challenges Remain

Environmental groups acknowledge that challenges remain. It is not clear what EBM will actually look like on the ground. A number of First Nations groups have yet to sign government-to-government agreements.

Both the David Suzuki Foundation and the Raincoast Conservation Society point out that the agreement does not meet the minimum target of 44 per cent protection that the scientific body indicated was required to ensure that biodiversity is maintained.

"Raincoast supports the legislating of the proposed protected areas, but the province should do so with the full knowledge and recognition that lasting protection of the Great Bear Rainforest will require additional steps and commitment from all parties," says Raincoast Conservation Society's executive director, Chris Genovali.

The entire population of the spirit bear lives in the Great Bear Rainforest photo: Forest Ethics

And, as the Globe and Mail article pointed out, if the lifting of the oil and gas moratorium on the BC coast will mean that supertankers loaded with tar sands oil enter the Queen Charlottes basin, then an ecosystem that is inextricably linked with the ocean will be endangered.

"Greenpeace will be watching to see if the British Columbian government follows through on these commitments and takes this opportunity to make the Great Bear Rainforest a global model of forest sustainability," says Amanda Carr, forest campaigner for Greenpeace Canada.

Ecosystem-Based Management Guiding Principles
Ecological Integrity Is Maintained: Biological richness and the ecosystem services provided by natural terrestrial and marine processes are sustained at all scales through time.
Wellbeing Is Promoted: A diversity of economic opportunities is key to healthy communities and sustainable economies.
Cultures, Communities, and Economies Are Sustained within the Context of Healthy Ecosystems: This idea of entrenching a demand for both human wellbeing and ecosystem integrity veers sharply away from thinking in terms of a "trade-off" between people and the environment.
Aboriginal Rights and Title Are Recognized and Accommodated: First Nations assert aboriginal rights and title to the lands and resources within their territories.
The Precautionary Principle Is Applied: the proponent of change in the ecosystem should err on the side of caution, and the onus is on the proponent to show that ecological risk thresholds are not exceeded.
EBM Is Collaborative: Collaborative processes are broadly participatory; respect the diverse values, traditions, and aspirations of local communities, and incorporate the best of existing knowledge (traditional, local, and scientific).
People Have a Fair Share of the Benefits from the Ecosystems in Which They Live: In the past, the burdens imposed on the local communities by externally driven activities have been greater than the benefits the communities have received.

Source: Coast Information Team (2004): Ecosystem-based Management Framework.

After over a decade of negotiations, environmental groups, industry, First Nations and the Canadian government have come to an unprecedented agreement discovers Yuill Herbert

Nanotechnology and the Rebirth of Alchemy

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:59:53 +0000

Are converging technologies laying a golden egg?

This February, the smallest test tube in the world was manufactured by scientists at Nanotech.org, a joint venture between the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and Hitachi Europe Ltd. The test tube is so small that around 300 billion of them would fit into one of the periods (.) on this page.

In January of this year, researchers at the University of Toronto reported that they had combined quantum dots with a polyment to create a new type of solar panel five times more efficient than current technology.

A computer generated illustration of the 'pea pod' system, a nanotube is filled with fullerenes. Photo: Nanotech.org

In Thailand, scientists at Chiang Mai University's nuclear physics laboratory have rearranged the DNA of rice by drilling a nano-sized hole through the rice cell's wall and membrane and inserting a nitrogen atom, changing the colour of the grain from purple to green.

Kraft, Nestle, Unilever and others are employing nanotech to change the structure of food. Kraft is creating "interactive" drinks, for example, that can change colour and flavour.

Even in an era of radical technological change, it sounds like science fiction. But this type of research is typical in a field that is working at a scale so small that the laws of physics and chemistry governing everyday life no longer apply.

IN BOX:
Nanotechnologies either on the market or soon to be on the market:

stain-resistant fabrics for clothing and bedding
cosmetics and sunscreens
tennis balls and racquets
bowling balls
odor-eating socks
time-release perfumed fabrics
paints
capsules carrying hemoglobin (under development)
sensors to test water impurities
spray-able vitamins
nanoparticle water purifiers
ski wax
Humvee turrets
longlasting paper
nanotubes for flat panel display screens
artificial silicon retinas
several drug delivery systems
flash memory devices
diagnostic agents for use in MRI scans

Two years ago, the ETC Group, an Ottawa-based think tank that monitors technological developments, called for a moratorium on nanotechnology research. Their justification: research and commercialisation of nanotechnology is happening below the radar screen of regulatory agencies, limiting society's ability to assess risks and regulate dangerous uses.

Two years later, the call for a moratorium still stands. In a telephone interview, ETC Executive Director Pat Mooney said "Today, there are more reasons to be concerned, as there are now [nanotech] food products and pesticides on the market".

A number of recent studies point to possible health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology. Guenter Oberdoerster, an environmental toxicologist from the University of Rochester, reported in Inhalation Toxicology (2004) that inhaled nanoparticles accumulate in the nasal passages, lungs, and brains of rats. In Toxicological Sciences (2004), NASA scientist Chiu-Wing Lam reported that a suspension of carbon nanotubes (one of the most widely used nanoparticles) placed directly into mouse lungs caused unusual lesions that can interfere with oxygen absorption.

The first study of the impacts of nanoparticles on a species in their natural habitat was conducted by Eva Oberdorster in 2004 and the results were published in the Environmental Health Review. Largemouth bass suffered oxidative damage to their brains and water clarity increased, possibly indicating that bacteria were being killed.

The UK government commissioned the Royal Society to investigate the ecological and health risks associated with this new technology and the resulting report, released in the middle of 2004, was strikingly cautious. "Until more is known about environmental impacts of nanoparticles and nanotubes, we recommend that the release of manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes into the environment be avoided as far as possible."

According to Mooney, "The report shocked the Americans that the British were expressing so much concern. They were taken off guard. Industry was caught with its pants down. They are embarrassed that there are more than 400 products in the market place that are not regulated.".

Sean Murdock, executive director of the NanoBusiness Alliance, a nanotechnology trade association, is quoted in the Environmental Health Review, "The risks are there, they're real, but they're manageable," he says. "And on balance, with the right processes in place, we're going to be able to deal with all of those risks, we're going to mitigate those risks, and we're going to realize the upside of the potential."

There is now a flurry of discussion in industrialised countries about regulation. In Canada, the issue is being considered by an interdepartmental committee. Canada has also placed it on the agenda for the upcoming Edinburgh G8 meeting to initiate international discussions.

Nanotechnology is unusual in its scope; its interdisciplinary nature spans the physical, biological and engineering sciences and leaves no major research area untouched. On agriculture alone, its potential impact is overwhelming, according to a report published by the ETC Group last fall. Hope Shand, ETC Group's Research Director said, "Over the next two decades, technologies converging at the nano-scale will have a greater impact on farmers and food than farm mechanisation or the Green Revolution."

In Canada there are active nanotechnology clusters of approximately fifty firms in Edmonton, Montreal and Vancouver. In 2001, the Canadian and Albertan governments and the University of Alberta jointly announced the creation of the National Institute for Nanotechnology, a $120 million investment over five years.

Global Investment in nanotechnology research and development has increased approximately seven-fold in the last six years from $432 million in 1997 to $3 billion in 2003 with at least thirty countries initiating publicly funded activities. If private investment was included, this total would reach $8.6 billion by 2004, according to US analysts at Lux Research.

The issue goes beyond nanotechnology to the convergence of a range of technologies. ETC writes "the US government refers to convergence as the integration of Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science (NBIC) and envisions that the mastery of the nano-scale domain will ultimately amount to the mastery of all of nature. At the molecular level, in the NBIC worldview, there exists a "material unity" so that all matter--life and non-life--is indistinguishable and can be seamlessly integrated. The goal of NBIC is to 'improve human performance,' both physically and cognitively (e.g., on the battlefield, on the wheat field, on the job)"

Nanotechnology challenges society with fundamental ethical issues, according to Pat Mooney, "What is life and who is human? ...bio-nanotechnology raises questions around biodiversity and what constitutes living material that have to be addressed right now".

Is nanotechnology moving too fast for us to assess the risks that might be involved? Yuill Herbert reports.

President Bush, See You in Court

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:27:17 +0000

Judging the cost of climate change

As climate change increasingly affects islanders and those living in the North, many are seeking legal recourse in international venues.

Frustration with the Bush Administration's failure to take meaningful action on climate change is spilling over into the courtroom. Victims and potential victims of climate change, ranging from community organizations to city councils to entire nations, are taking legal action to force the US government to address the issue.

The Inuit people from the north of Canada and Alaska have indicated that they will launch a case against the American government at the Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Sheila Watt-Cloutier is the chairwoman of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which represents all 155 thousand of her people inside the Arctic Circle. She announced the lawsuit at a meeting where 140 governments were negotiating the final details of the Kyoto Protocol in December last year. "This a David and Goliath story. Most people have lost contact with the natural world. They even think global warming has benefits, like wearing a t-shirt in November, but we know the planet is melting and with it our vibrant culture, our way of life...Europeans understand this issue but in America the public know little or nothing and politicians are in denial."

The US is the most obvious target for a climate change lawsuit according to a report written by Andrew Strauss, a professor of International Law at Widener University. He explains that although the US has 5 per cent of the world's population, it emits 25 percent of the world's emissions and is actively impeding the ability of the global community to take collective action.

The government of the island nation of Tuvalu is also planning a case against the US and/or Australia at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Tuvalu's highest point is only four meters above sea level and scientists are predicting that the rising sea levels caused by climate change will swamp the island within the next fifty years. Despite being in one of the most extreme positions in terms of damage from climate change, Tuvalu will have difficulty gaining a chance to make its case. Neither the US nor Australia is expected to agree to the jurisdiction of the court, which is the most straightforward method for Tuvalu to gain a hearing; other options, such as International Court advisory opinions and dispute resolution clauses, do not present a clear legal path.

Although the court system is being promoted by experts such as Strauss as having a great deal of potential to force action on greenhouse gas emission reductions, the legal process is also extremely complicated, and with an issue as complex and far-reaching as climate change, promises to be slow and costly.

In his report Warming Up To a Not-So Radical Idea: Tort-based Climate Change Litigation, lawyer David Grossman suggests using the example of legal action brought against tobacco companies. In these cases, expert testimony and scientific and statistical evidence showing the probability that smoking causes cancer was sufficient for the courts; the same methodology would likely apply to climate change. With this method the courts will be less likely to fall victim to the same skepticism and haggling over facts that has toned down the wording of statements by international scientific bodies.

There are three broad legal options to encourage the US to address climate change, according to Strauss. Plaintiffs harmed by climate change can bring actions against the Bush Administration in US federal court. Plaintiffs can sue companies who have done a disproportionate amount of damage in either US federal court or foreign courts, or plaintiffs can call the US government itself to an international tribunal.

While the Inuit and Tuvalu have chosen international legal options, organizations within the US have launched cases in the federal courts. The cities of Oakland, California, and Boulder, Colorado, in partnership with the Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, have gone to court against two US government agencies-the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)-for funding fossil fuel projects. After the city council voted to join the lawsuit, Boulder Mayor Will Toor said, "All of the work that the city of Boulder does to maintain the quality of life for our residents will be negatively impacted by the detrimental effects of climate change. We believe that this lawsuit is one way to force the federal government to start paying attention to this critical issue."

At the same time, twelve US states, several cities, and over a dozen environmental groups have joined forces to challenge the US Environmental Protection Agency's decision that it does not need to regulate US greenhouse gas emissions. "The Bush Administration is asking for five more years of studies while the world is warming and regular people will pay the price," said Gary Cook, climate coordinator for Greenpeace. "We are now asking the courts to intervene and order the EPA to enforce US environmental laws and take action to address global warming."

Although a variety of legal avenues are being explored, the United States seems to be a common target. Watt-Cloutier explained why the Inuit have taken this approach, "We are hunters and we are trained to go for the heart. The heart of the problem is in Washington."

Is there legal recourse for those who are losing their land and livelihood to climate change? Yuill Herbert finds out what courts will hear their cases, and what precedents might help.

Cruise Control?

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:51:46 +0000

What images spring to mind when you imagine a northern cruise vacation? Crystal clear water, teaming with sea life; humpback whales, porpoise and dolphin frolicking for your viewing pleasure; or perhaps just the vastness of a clean, wild ocean untouched by human pollution. These images contradict the current reality of the cruise industry.

A single cruise ship discharges approximately 1.3 million litres of waste water per day, more than the port city of Haines, Alaska. Haines can expect several ships per day, creating a floating mega-city in the harbour. NGOs concerned about cruise ship pollution have found that cruise ships burn fuel that has a 90% higher sulphur content than that used by cars. An American environmental group, the Blue Water Network, estimates that 77% of all ship waste comes from cruise ships. About two billion pounds of trash is dumped into the world's oceans each year and 24% of that waste comes from cruise ships. Approximately 14 million kilograms of waste was produced in 2000 on the Alaska-Canada route. With the exception of plastics, most of this waste can be ground up and legally dumped.

A single cruise ship discharges approximately 1.3 million litres of waste water per day, more than the port city of Haines, Alaska.

John Hansen of Northwest Cruise Ships Association is puzzled at the concern of many environmental groups and citizens. "I can't quite understand the degree of interest that they have in our industry and where it stems from". Ross Klein, author of a detailed study of cruise ships titled Cruise Ship Blues, thinks there are obvious reasons for the interest, "One needs to keep in mind that three of the four major cruise companies are convicted environmental felons, with those convictions occurring since 1998." Cruise ships have accrued over 60 million dollars in environmental fines over the last five years in the United States. Yet, in Canada there have been no fines despite the fact that these same ships visit our waters. The only explanation is a lack of Canadian monitoring and enforcement.

Even more disturbing is the nature of some of the environmental violations, companies purposely and systematically polluting throughout their fleet. The Royal Caribbean Cruises Incorporated and Norwegian Cruise Lines were caught having installed lines to bypass the oil/water separator, a mechanism used to clean water of oil before being discharged. These lines were removed during US coast guard inspections to avoid detection. Both of these companies were also found guilty for dumping purposely hazardous waste into their waste water. Ironically RCCI was promoting its "Save the Waves" campaign while purposely and illegally polluting our oceans. Carnival Corporation Limited also had to pay for dumping oily waste from 5 ships, and making false entries into their log books.

There is a serious need to strengthen environmental regulations that govern cruise ships. Linda Nowlan, of West Coast Environmental Law, points to one area of weakness, "A ship that sails from Seattle to Alaska can't dump sewage in Washington's waters and it can't dump in Alaskan waters. But it can dump raw sewage for most of the thousand kilometres it travels in BC."

Most of the ships that ply through Canadian waters are also flying "flags of convenience". Companies register vessels in countries that charge little or no tax and turn a blind eye to international conventions on marine safety, the environment and labour standards. Some nations that offer flags of convenience include Panama, Burma, Cambodia, Lebanon, the Bahamas and Liberia. Liberia gains $15-20 million per year for its registered cruise ships and allegedly uses this to support brutal rebel groups in neighbouring Sierra Leone.

Canada has recently ratified the Kyoto Protocol, yet a loophole benefiting cruise ships has emerged. Greenhouse gas emissions of international ships are excluded from the national emissions inventories. Bunker fuel emissions of commercial vessels (whether registered as domestic or foreign-flagged), like airplanes, whose "point of departure or point of destination" is outside territorial waters, will find their emissions are not counted.

Over the last three years there has been a 300 percent increase in cruise ship traffic in Victoria, British Columbia. The cumulative impact of this year's 320 000 passengers and crew members from almost 160 visits has not been studied or planned for in Victoria despite the fact that the cruise port resides in a residential neighbourhood, with massive ships less than 300 metres away from the front-steps of people's homes.

Local citizen's groups have begun to take action on the issue of cruise ships. In a report titled Ripple Effect, the Vancouver Island Public Research Group (VIPIRG) is calling for a public assessment of the cruise ship industry, in particular relating to impacts on the environment, and the community.

For more information, read Vancouver Island Public Interest Research Group's report, Ripple Effects: The Need to Assess the Impacts of Cruise Ships in Victoria B.C.

Divide and Conquer: Bilateral Trade Agreements

Tue, 06 Apr 2004 23:35:30 +0000

The US is using a new approach to sidestep developing countries' unified demands

"Americans: we are no longer your back patio." In many countries, social movements are the only thing checking the overwhelming bargaining power of the United States in bilateral trade agreements. photo: Venezuela National Radio

Last September saw the spectacular collapse of World Trade Organization treaty talks in Cancun, Mexico. Joseph Stiglitz, former Chair of Clinton's council of economic advisors and Nobel Prize winner described the talks as "the usual: hard bargaining, extreme positions, last-minute concessions, arm twisting, peer pressure, tacit threats of cutting off development assistance and other benefits, and secret meetings among a small number of participants are all designed to extract concessions from the weakest".

Negotiators from the "Group of 21" developing nations walked out of the summit, vowing not to return to the table until the US and Europe reversed their stance on agricultural subsidies. Walden Bello, a long-time trade analyst from the Philippines, argued that the walkout was the result of the developing countries' frustration at the lack of transparency in the negotiations, and more importantly, their ability to translate that frustration into action on a united front. "Here we are with 70 or more developing countries speaking up clearly in the consultations, having a consensus document clearly expressed, and the revised Text just ignores their position and takes the opposite position," said a negotiator from one Caribbean country. "What kind of organization is this? Who does it belong to? Who does the drafting? Who appointed them? Why waste our time engaging seriously in consultations only to find our views not there at all in the draft?"

The collapse of the Cancun WTO meeting resulted in heightened political pressure on the US to achieve a result in Miami at the ministerial of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). Faced with strong opposition to a NAFTA-style trade accord by both Brasil's Lula and Venezuela's Chavez due to their concerns about potential wide-ranging impacts, the United States was forced to accept either an 'a la carte' agreement or nothing at all. In his March 11 speech to the US House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, Trade Representative Robert Zoellick described the result; "we developed a pragmatic approach to match the different circumstances of the 34 nations of the hemisphere[1]". But the new 'pick and choose' FTAA does not meet the needs of the American business, because it allows countries to protect various sectors. In response to the prospect of a limited FTAA, Franklin J. Vargo of the National Association of Manufacturers remarked to the Washington Post, "We want full benefits out of Brazil."[2]

It is in this context that the US has been vigorously pursuing trade agreements bi-laterally, or one country at a time, an approach that is proving more successful. Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, bluntly describes US efforts with the recently concluded, but as yet un-ratified, Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). "After ten years of terrible real life effects, the NAFTA model is in such ill repute that its Bush Administration boosters struck out at the WTO in Cancun, were forced to shrink the FTAA in Miami and now have to rely on bullying a few relatively weak Central American countries into accepting the NAFTA poison through the proposed CAFTA."

In the past two years, the US has initiated comprehensive free trade negotiations with 19 countries, a market representing an estimated US $2.5 trillion worth of opportunities to American business[3]. Simultaneously, however, these agreements open the American market, exposing, in particular, US industries dependent on sweat labour that cannot compete with low labour costs in poorer countries around the world. The difference is that the US has the resources to diffuse the pain of the transition, amounting to support of US$1.8 billion in 2003 [4], while developing countries simply suffer.

Each of these trade agreements is based on the NAFTA model, further refined in more recent bi-lateral agreements with Chile and Singapore. These agreements are binding and contain enforcement mechanisms. According to Zoellick, "[foreign countries] keep our products out, they illegally copy our technology, and they block us from providing services. We want to make sure our products and services get a fair chance to compete, and to be vigilant and active in enforcing our trade agreements so that American workers have a level playing field".

In reality, bilateral agreements give US companies and investors un-equalled access to foreign markets. They open up service sectors, including health and education, to US companies. And they give corporations the right to sue for damages if past, present or future investments are jeopardised by legislation. Presently, this new corporate-national relationship is playing out in Costa Rica at this moment. In 1994, as part of a structural adjustment program sponsored by the International Monetary Fund, Costa Rica granted concessions for oil exploration. Harken Energy, an oil company that is reported to have close ties to President Bush, acquired exploration rights to pristine sections of the Caribbean coast. When Costa Rican environmental impact legislation prevented Harken's drilling plans, the company sued the country for US$57 billion, more than three times Costa Rica's GDP, through the World Bank's International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. On March 11, the government announced that it does not have to pay Harken anything as it has the jurisdiction to protect its natural resources. However, that may all change if CAFTA is ratified by government, as it includes the investor state mechanism. In a similar case, the Canadian government backed away from a health regulation and paid US$13 million, rather than paying US $251 million in damages after being sued by Ethyl Corporation using the same clause in NAFTA.

Further, governments at all levels lose the ability to give preferential treatment to companies in order to boost local employment or meet other qualitative objectives. Governments cannot support specific sectors such as agriculture or industry in order to meet social objectives. And protection of intellectual property rights is guaranteed for up to 30 years, an increase over the period of 20 years outlined in the World Trade Organisation, minimising options for low cost drugs and protecting companies who patent biological resources. In summary, bilateral trade agreements significantly constrain decision-making in what has traditionally been considered the realm of public, democratically-elected governments.

In Cancun, a core group of developing nations, centred around Brazil, demonstrated that they would not accept the neo-liberal agenda of the economic superpowers, effectively halting the WTO negotiations. However, such solidarity is not possible in the bilateral negotiations that are currently the focus of US efforts. Faced with the overwhelming resources and shear economic might of the US, the agreements are driven by the US agenda. In a speech in 2001, Zoellick remarked, "economic strength - at home and abroad - is the foundation of America's hard and soft power...Trade is about more than economic efficiency. It promotes the values at the heart of this protracted struggle."[5] Exactly what 'protracted struggle' Zoellick is referring to is not clear, but to developing countries, his words are ominous.

Take Bolivia, which is likely to begin negotiations with the US sometime this year as part of the Andean Free Trade Agreement (AFTA). Bolivia will be bargaining from an impossible position. Each year, Bolivia receives US$107 million in social and economic aid from the US, as well as US$59 million for the police and military. Its GDP is US$7 billion and its debt is US$4.5 billion. At US$800 million, external assistance from governments, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank equals ten percent of the GDP--one third of public expenditure[6]. The US strategy of negotiating the AFTA one country at a time means two things--a previous treaty with Chile, and most likely one with Columbia, will set the standard for the scope of the agreement and secondly, there is no opportunity for solidarity in the negotiations. Combine Bolivia's economic desperation with technical and legal inexperience and the impoverished country is in no position to negotiate favourable terms. The only card left to play is the strength of the social movements within Bolivia, battle-hardened from recent upheavals over water privatization, which are certain to resist new trade agreements.

Bilateral Trade Agreements with the United States

World Trade Organisation (WTO)	146 countries	Stalled, Sept 2003
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)	Canada, Mexico	Announced Dec 1992
Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA)	North, Central and South Americas (Excluding Cuba)	Framework Agreement Announced Nov 2003
Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)	Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic (negotiations initiated 2004)	Announced Jan 2003 Concluded Feb 2004
Andean Free Trade Agreement (AFTA)	Chile (2003), Peru (negotitations initated 2004), Colombia (negotiations initiated 2004), Bolivia, Ecuador	Announced November, 2003
Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA)	Jordan (2001), Israel, Morocco (2004), Bahrain (negotiations started 2004)	Announced May 2003
Enterprise for ASEAN nations	Singapore (2003), Thailand (negotiations initiated 2004)	Announced Oct 2002
South African Customs Union (SACU)	Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland	Announced June 2003
Manufacturing FTA	Australia	Concluded Feb 2004

Further, the negotiations surrounding CAFTA illustrate the manner in which these agreements are being concluded. The entire process took less than a year, making the possibility of meaningful analysis by government or civil society groups extremely limited. At the beginning of negotiations the US demanded that all parties sign a confidentiality agreement, classifying the texts as national security. According to the agreement, negotiators could not reveal even the agenda of meetings without the unanimous consent of all negotiating teams -giving any one country a veto over what information was released[7].

So what is the agenda? Is it "a vision of a world in which hundreds of millions of people are lifted from poverty through economic growth fueled by trade"[8], as Zoellick claims?

There is increasing evidence that the trade and investment theories are not delivering for the poor countries. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)'s 2002 Trade and Development Report stated that developing countries have not garnered rapid and sustainable income gains from trade and investment. "With the exception of a few East Asian first-tier newly industrializing economies (NIEs), with a significant industrial base already closely integrated into the world trading system, developing-country exports are still concentrated on products derived essentially from the exploitation of natural resources and the use of unskilled labour which have limited prospects for productivity growth and lack dynamism in world markets. The statistics showing a considerable expansion of technology-intensive, supply-dynamic, high-value-added exports from developing countries are misleading," observes UNCTAD[9].

UNDP's Human Development Report in 2003 indicated that 54 developing countries suffered average income declines over the course of the decade. "Reversals in Human Development Index are highly unusual as these indicators generally tend to edge up slowly over time," said Mark Malloch Brown, UNDP Administrator.[10] But perhaps the most staggering indicator is 2004 Forbes magazine report that lists a record 587 individuals and family units worth $1 billion or more, an increase from 476 in 2003. The combined wealth of this year's billionaires also reached record levels--a staggering $1.9 trillion, an increase of $500 billion in just one year[11]. The wealth of these few hundred people exceeds the gross domestic product of the world's 170 poorest countries combined. Such data makes it clear who is gaining and who is losing from these powerful trade agreements.

There are clearly many holes in the argument that such trade agreements will alleviate poverty. And to propose that the US trade representatives are acting on the interest of the American people by negotiating these agreements is clearly only part of the story. The US recently used trade agreements to force Chinese regulatory approval of biotech soybeans, cotton and corn and is attempting to do the same with the European Union through the World Trade Organisation. Six multinational companies, Aventis, Dow, DuPont, Mitsui, Monsanto and Syngenta, control nearly 70 percent of the patents on five essential food crops - rice, wheat, corn, soybean and sorghum. Friends of the Earth Policy and Campaigns Director Liana Stupples said: "The Bush White House and American business interests should not have the right to make decisions about what people in Europe get to eat. But the current WTO system means that this could be the case".

The Free Trade Agreements that are being vigorously negotiated by the US are empowering corporations in a manner that places them at the top of a global hierarchy, matching their economic might with political rights that bypass processes of democratic decision making.

In the preface to the landmark report released February of this year by the World Commission of the Social Dimension of Globalisation, co-chairs Tarja Halonen, President of Finland and Benjamin William Mkapa, President of Tanzania, wrote words that could be directly aimed at US trade policy "We believe the dominant perspective on globalization must shift more from a narrow preoccupation with markets to a broader preoccupation with people. Globalization must be brought from the high pedestal of corporate board rooms and cabinet meetings to meet the needs of people in the communities in which they live".

Footnotes:

1 Statement of Robert B. Zoellick U.S. Trade Representative before the Committee on Ways and Means of the United States House of Representatives. March 11, 2004

2 Free Trade Agreement of the Ameritas May Be Limited. The Washington Post. November 18, 2003 Paul Blustein.

3 Statement of Robert B. Zoellick U.S. Trade Representative before the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate March 9, 2004

4 Sum of $1.3 billion from Trade Adjustment Assistance Program and $500 million from the Jobs for the 21st Century.

5 The Institute for International Economics Washington, DC September 24, 2001 "American Trade Leadership: What is at Stake"

6 World Bank (2004). Country Assistance Strategy. The Republic of Bolivia

7 Centre of Concern/US Gender and Trade Network. Fact Sheet 2: What do you need to know about the US-Central America Free Trade Agreement.

8 Statement of Robert B. Zoellick U.S. Trade Representative before the Committee on Ways and Means of the United States House of Representatives. March 11, 2004

9 UNCTAD. Trade and Development Report (2002).

10 http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/pdf/presskit/HDR03_PKE_complete.pdf

11 "The Rich get Richer," Luisa Kroll and Lea Goldman February 26, 2004 http://www.forbes.com/maserati/billionaires2004/cz_lk_0226mainintrobill04.html

The US is using a new approach to sidestep developing countries' unified demands

Last September saw the spectacular collapse of World Trade Organization treaty talks in Cancun, Mexico. Joseph Stiglitz, former Chair of Clinton's council of economic advisors and Nobel Prize winner described the talks as "the usual: hard bargaining, extreme positions, last-minute concessions, arm twisting, peer pressure, tacit threats of cutting off development assistance and other benefits, and secret meetings among a small number of participants are all designed to extract concessions from the weakest".

by Yuill Herbert

A New Era in Conservation

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:41 +0000

The Canadian Boreal Initiative (CBI), launched at the end of last year, is a common vision for the largest conservation agreement in the world. It proposes a plan to protect approximately 265 million hectares of forest and to manage a further area of equal size according to stringent ecological standards of development.

"We have a unique opportunity to pursue a balanced vision to conserve the entire Canadian boreal region, while providing for extensive economic benefits," explained CBI's Director, Cathy Wilkinson.

Canada's Boreal Forest is the largest intact forest ecosystem in the world. photo: Bryan Evans

Stretching across most of northern Canada, the boreal forest is the largest intact forest ecosystem in the world.

The vision is powerful due to its unusual mix of proponents, representing cooperation on an unprecedented scale. The Boreal Leadership Council, the spearheading committee of the initiative, is a mix of industry, environmental and First Nations organizations, including representatives of some of the most significant political and economic interests in the boreal region. The World Wildlife Fund, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Forest Ethics and Ducks Unlimited Canada are the environmental groups involved. The Deh Cho First Nations, the Innu Nation and Poplar River First Nation are also at the table. Most intriguing are the industry representatives, including forestry companies Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries, Tembec Inc, Domtar Inc and Suncor Inc.

"We know that it is crucial for the Canadian boreal region to be managed in a responsible way if we want future generations to benefit from its economic, environmental, and social value," said Raymond Royer, president and chief executive officer of forestry company Domtar Inc. Royer believes that Domtar's involvement in CBI does not only demonstrate good corporate citizenship, but also good business.

"It will allow us to better understand stakeholder concerns," he explained, "which will in turn improve our planning for future fiber supply."

The economic value of the boreal is rivaled only by its ecological significance. Globally, the boreal forest is of vital importance. A 2001 report by the United Nations Environment Program called on Canada and a handful of other countries to take immediate steps to protect the remaining large swaths of untouched forest. It found that just 21 per cent of the planet's land area was still covered with healthy forests, including large chunks in Canada, Russia, the United States, the Congo and parts of South America. Globally, the largest conservation commitments to date have been made by the Sakha Republic in northern Russia with 70 million hectares, and by the Amazon Region Protected Areas Agreement, which protects 40 million hectares. "By acting now, Canada can safeguard one of the world's remaining large ecosystems - while it is still for the most part ecologically intact," urges Wilkinson.

Although the over 500 million hectares involved in the CBI far outdoes earlier conservation commitments, the unusual nature of the partnership, the magnitude of its vision and the process itself have generated controversy amongst environmentalists. Charles Caccia, a Toronto MP and chairman of the House of Commons Environment Committee, believes that protection of only 50 per cent of the Boreal is not enough, suggesting instead that the target should be set at 80 per cent.

But according to Monte Hummel, one of the agreement's chief architects and president of the World Wildlife Fund, the CBI goes far beyond the 80 per cent proposed by Caccia.

"The Boreal Forest Conservation Framework targets 100 per cent of Canada's boreal region for 'conservation,' where conservation is defined as striking a balance between strict protection and sustainable use that meets the highest international environmental standards," said Hummel.

The standard that the agreement proposes is the Boreal Forest Stewardship Standard, which was recently approved by Forest Stewardship Council, a certification process that is based on the principles of ecological protection and respect of the First Nations.

Caccia is also concerned by who is leading the initiative.

"It is the task of elected governments--not of private sector businesses and organizations--to produce a framework for a very sensitive and fragile resource that has more than monetary value."

According to Hummel, however, the initiative is not taking over the government's job, but helping the government to do its job better.

"Our initiative should be understood for what it is - an attempt by leading non-government parties and Aboriginal peoples to collaborate and generate solutions for governments to consider. In the past, governments have claimed their options were severely limited by adversarial relationships between First Nations, industry, and conservation groups. This constant warfare has forced governments to referee among competing interests - a dynamic which... has not historically benefited Canada's forests".

The government shares Hummel's view, but makes no committments. Brian Emmett, who heads Canadian Forest Service, said, "We see CBI's contribution as a potentially positive input in the on-going global and informed debate on how best to practice sustainable forest management".

In the meantime, the logging continues, and one wonders for how long the boreal forest can simultaneously be both the world's largest remaining wilderness and the world's largest source of facial tissues and advertising fliers.

Growth at Any Cost

Tue, 02 Dec 2003 02:28:31 +0000

“NAFTA on steroids” a site for protest and paramilitary-style police action

Police charge a crowd of protesters in Miami.

On November 20th, behind five ranks of riot police, a 10 foot high reinforced fence, water cannons, and light armoured vehicles, ministers representing thirty-four countries agreed to a "lite" version of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA).

More than 10,000 protesters joined ministers in Miami and marched in circles outside the fence and outside the sight of the negotiators inside. Over 300 were arrested and many more were subjected to rubber bullets, stun grenades, and tear gas. Undercover police used tasers and electric shock guns to arrest demonstrators in the midst of the crowd.

"The police presence was totally excessive and unnecessary given the nature of the protest," said protester Anna Kirkpatrick. "The large number of heavily equipped officers was very intimidating."

The Palm Beach Post declared, "Miami has resembled a city under martial law."

Environmental organizer Ben Trevelin of New York was frustrated by the slant of most media covering the protests. "It's a shame. The violence here will overshadow the real violence of the day at the Intercontinental Hotel[the location of the meeting]."

Inside the hotel, negotiators managed to avoid a collapse of talks, like the one that occurred during the World Trade Organization Ministerial in July, by settling on a compromised agreement. The "FTAA lite" allows countries to decide on varying levels of commitment in each sector of the agreement.

The Palm Beach Post declared, "Miami has resembled a city under martial law."

"Powerful social movements in Latin America against the FTAA have made it impossible for those governments to agree to a full North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) expansion. Thus, the US chose this week to make the uber concession - to move away from its 'single undertaking' vision of the FTAA," said Lori Wallach of Public Citizen, an organization founded by Ralph Nader.

As a result of their limited success negotiating multilateral agreements, the US has been focusing more recently on bilateral or regional pacts, like the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). CAFTA, an agreement between the five Central American nations and the US, is expected to be based on the neo-liberal NAFTA. Activists like Wallach are concerned that the economic power of the US will overwhelm the negotiating ability of smaller countries in such deals.

According to the over 10,000 people that gathered in Miami to protest the FTAA, the agreement is bad enough already.

"Somebody ought to be talking about the morality of free trade. They're not talking about it at the meeting inside the hotel," said Reverend Frank O'Laughlin, a Catholic priest who travelled from Lake Worth, Texas, to join the protests. O'Laughlin described the FTAA as "... a trade agreement that will.... make a few people rich at the expense of spreading hemispheric poverty."

Root Cause, a coalition of grassroots organizations based in South Florida that represents immigrant workers, people of colour and other marginalized groups, used Miami as a case study to illustrate the social and environmental impacts of international trade. Their Community Impact Report found that dramatic income disparities lead to a concentration of polluting industries in poor areas.

According to the report, in Dade County, a suburb of Miami, people of colour are three times more likely to be exposed to toxic chemicals than whites. The county also has four times as many Superfund sites (major toxic waste concentrations) per square mile than the rest of Florida, with most of those in communities of colour. Latinos and African-Americans have the highest lifetime cancer risk from hazardous air pollutants, particularly if their income is under $25,000.

"When I would go visit my Aunt Berta there was always the smell of gas fumes presen," said Keith Ivory, a resident of Overtown, Miami. "Years later, Aunt Berta would die of some type of respiratory problem, even though she never smoked. Today I still smell those fumes from People's Gas and I wonder who will be next: a family member, friend, or me."

The draft FTAA contains no provisions or safeguards for environmental security to limit or mitigate these impacts.

A more fundamental ecological critique of such free trade agreements comes from a New Economics Foundation report. The report, titled Collision Course, outlines the conflict between trade agreements and the multilateral environmental agreement to halt climate change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

"International trade is set for a head-on collision with attempts to control global climate change. Trade makes up a growing share of an increasingly fossil fuel-hungry global economy. The transport it depends on is one of the fastest rising sources of greenhouse gas emissions that add to climate change," says the report.

Despite concerns raised by citizen and environmental groups in Miami, many proponents of the FTAA are disappointed that talks aren't moving fast enough. Canada"s Trade Minister, Pierre Pettigrew is one of them.

"We want to move [as] 34 and when you see an absolute resistance to your higher level of ambition, you register it. You may deplore it, you may think it's not the way we should be goin,g but we are quite satisfied that all these elements, investment, and services are remaining on the table."

Although the FTAA negotiations have been slowed by the Miami compromise, January 2005 remains the firm deadline to end negotiations and sign the final agreement, which aims to eliminate "barriers to trade and investment" amongst countries in the Americas and the Caribbean, excluding Cuba.

(With files from Palm Beach Post and the Free Trade of Americas Indymedia.)

"NAFTA on steroids" a site for protest and paramilitary-style police action

Cheam People Shut Down Railway and Halt Logging

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:16:58 +0000

A saga of resistance

At about 4 pm on October 2nd two trucks pulled to a halt while straddling the railway tracks that bisect the Cheam Reserve. A small crowd, including members of the Cheam Nation and supporters from local communities, gathered around the trucks forming a human blockade against the trains. Earlier that day, elder and former Chief June Quipp had warned Canadian National Railways that trans-Canadian train travel would be halted, and that she was good on her word.

The blockade is the latest action in the Cheam's struggle for unceded territory that began with a protest fishery three years ago and continues today. This time, however, the blockade is about a new threat to the Cheam's land and way of life: the clearcutting of an old growth forest to make way for a ski development on their sacred mountains.

The Cheam Reserve is situated on the Fraser River close to Chilliwack, British Columbia. CN's mainline railway track bisects the Reserve, passing at some points within ten metres of houses. The ground shakes and conversations halt at least once an hour, as trains rumble past. The shrill whistle warns drivers at several crossings, one of which recently proved deadly for an elder with poor hearing. Many of the houses in the Reserve overlook the major employer, a garbage dump servicing the Chilliwack area.

Logging commenced several weeks ago in the Elk Creek Rainforest above the Reserve, the last old growth in the lower Fraser Valley. The sacred mountains are the site of a proposed Whistler-style mega development, to be operational for the 2010 Olympics. Resorts West, the developer, envisions twenty ski lifts on eight peaks, three resort villages, a golf course, retirement community, condos, and four hundred thousand annual visitors. A late elder's words convey the importance of the proposed site to the Cheam people: "the mountains are our leaders, the mountains are our idols, the mountains are our source of food, medicine and communication, a place for us to pray, and a place of teaching and learning."

Heidi Smith, a recent graduate from Ontario, has been living on the reserve for two months. "I have experienced every emotion in the past week. It makes me physically sick to see the lie I have been raised in. To me it seems so extreme, the police and the blockade, but to the people who live here it is nothing, it is what they live with."

Within four hours of the blockade's formation, thirty-two police officers had arrested seven people, breaking one person's arm and badly bruising a grandmother in the process. The blockade persisted until dark the next day, when a forty member tactical police team moved in with dogs, prison vans and a Supreme Court order to clear the tracks. A peaceful dispute resolution process resulted in the removal of the blockade in exchange for a meeting with the Minister of Forests the following day.

Elder June Quipp told the story of one young member of the band whom she had to convince to leave the train tracks after the blockade had ended. "It frightened me because probably both he and I would be killed if a train came. He had sacred items in the mountains and said that if the mountains are ruined, his spirit would be gone. He said that he may as well lie down and die. That is what a lot of people are thinking. I know I am."

Underlying the actions of the Cheam people is a deep conviction in their inherent right to traditional territories, stemming from use and possession of the land since time immemorial. Having never ceded their land, the Cheam demand a degree of consultation over their territory. According to elder June Quipp, that they are not heard is not for lack of trying. "We have tried negotiations, litigation and written notices, so far none of these tactics have worked. It does not matter what we say, governments, and big corporations go ahead and do what they want even if it means destroying someone else's life."

It is for this reason that the people of Cheam fall back on blockades: they are effective. The Minister of Forests, Mike de Jong, arrived the following day and listened to two hours of testimony from protesters, explaining why they believe the area should not be logged. He left the meeting without any conclusive plan but promised to take the issue to cabinet. Finding this vague commitment insufficient, a police negotiator secured a one-week grace period during which no logging would take place.

This lag in logging activity does not mean rest for the Cheam community however. The people of Cheam are planning to restrict access to others places of worship in the community, an action symbolic of the way in which their spiritual locations are treated.

As June Quip states. "so we are back to direct action. We have got a lot of sympathetic ears and supporters. We are really really busy."

North America in the Dark: the Blackout in Context

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:12:44 +0000

On August 15th, 50 million people in the United States and Ontario found themselves in the dark, but many argue that North Americans have been 'in the dark' about the global context of their energy consumption for far too long. The 'biggest blackout in history' can shed some light on the inequalities of global energy consumption. The course that policy makers chart in the future must stretch beyond blackouts to looming problems that face all societies across the globe.

"America, welcome to Kenya, see what we go through," said Alex Mwaura, a logistics officer with an aid agency in Nairobi, according to Reuters. "I'm happy -- let them experience how bushmen live without power, even for just one minute," added Emma Nzau, a 28 year-old receptionist. "Americans are so used to electricity, they should be like the Chinese and ride bicycles to work."

Figures from the International Energy Agency illustrate the global inequities of access to electricity. The power that wasn't consumed as a result of the recent blackout could have satisfied all the power requirements of India's nearly one billion people for twenty four hours. Or Africa's 760 million people for a day and a half. Or Burma's 44 million residents for a year.

North American's energy gluttony goes beyond the issue of inequities in energy consumption; the pollution from the burning of fossil fuels in the US and Canada is causing disproportionate harm to communities around the world. The United States has five percent of the world's population but accounts for twenty five percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions are altering the climate around the planet, causing extreme weather events such as storms and droughts. The development charity Christain Aid reports "The burden of dealing with such enormous disruption will fall on countries where many already lead subsistence lives. The most affected will be people with the least access to adequate health systems, alternative housing and other social safety nets. These are countries which already survive with little room for error when growing food. Small amounts of disrupted production due to changed weather patterns, drought and flooding, could wipe out marginal agricultural surpluses".

Because there are major costs associated with climate change, in particular for poor countries, yet the benefits of using the fossil fuels were primarily incurred by wealthy nations, the idea of a carbon debt has become a significant discussion point at climate negotiotiations. Christain Aid is unequivical. "The rich countries' carbon debt is now the clearest argument for conventional debt cancellation, but should also be linked to a better deal on trade, aid, greater technology transfer from rich to poor and, vitally, a commitment to tackling climate change built on the foundations of equity".

"There must be limits on all greenhouse gases if the danger to our climate is to be averted... A globally agreed ceiling of greenhouse gas emissions can only be achieved by adopting the principle of per capita emissions rights...," declared the Africa group of nations at the climate negotiations in Berlin, five years ago. The proposed policy framework for stabilizing the climate in an equitable manner is titled contraction and convergance. The industrialised countries must contract their emissions and all countries converge at a safe emissions level of 0.4 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per capita. North Americans currently emit around 20 tonnes.

This is the context that policy makers face when they are devising a system to fix North America's energy network.

The first step is to save energy. The Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) is headquartered at an elevation of 7000 feet in the moutains of Colorado. Home to banana trees and an iguana, the Institute is heated by the passive thermal power of the sun and electricty is generated by solar panels. Amory Lovins is one of the founders and has been a prominent analyst on energy issues for twenty years. He originated the idea of a negawatt, a unit electricity which is simply not used.

In the Globe and Mail Lovins wrote "The cheapest, fastest way to save energy dollars and pollution is to use energy efficiently. My household electric bill is $7 a month for a 372 square-metre living space, before counting my larger solar production, which I sell back to the local electricity power co-operative at the same price -- now allowed in 38 states."

The Centre for the New American Dream proposes a voluntary blackout, not only as a means to curb energy consumption, but as a socially beneficial exercise. "At 7pm on June 21, turn off your lights and unplug whatever you can unplug in your house. Light a candle, take a stroll in the dark, tell ghost stories, get together with your neighbors, anything that's not electronic. This isn't about shivering in the dark, knitting sweaters out of mopheads. It's about taking some time to reflect on the role of fossil fuel in our lives and its impact on our ecological life support systems... and to take some time to just have fun in the dark!"

Next is the matter of choosing the appropriate technology. Solar energy is toted as a solution both to a changing climate and problems with the grid, as it is decentralised and can be installed in a variety of locations. Jeremy Leggett, CEO of solarcentury and Associate Fellow at Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute doesn't mince words on the lack of widespread use of solar: "I literally seethe with frustration that the solutions to global warming are ready for mass deployment - technologies like solar power which ironically needs nothing like this amount of sun to work, just a bit of light. It is bewildering to me that governments are not galvanised into action by what is happening to the world's weather."

Solar power has the added benefit of addressing global energy inequities. The Worldwatch Institute reports "Already the cheapest source of power in many remote, off-grid locations, solar cells can help meet the power needs of some of the 2 billion people who now lack access to modern energy services. Having rejected new coal plants for environmental reasons, Thailand will soon host Southeast Asia's largest solar installation and plans to expand capacity in the vicinity to 4.7 MW over the next several years. The Indian government aims to electrify 18,000 villages by 2012, most with solar power".

Technology will play a major role in addressing the issue of climate change but it must be in a framework of equality to satisfy political insecurities. "We cannot lecture developing countries about the importance of protecting then environment from behind the luxury of our own high living standards," said former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook in an interview with United Nations Environment Program.

- by Yuill Herbert -

Is Climate Change Burning up British Columbia?

Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:10:11 +0000

"While one event does not prove climate change, the overall trend is convincing." photo: NASA

Are the forest fires in Western Canada part of climate change? Scientists say that it is likely, and environmental groups are urging Canadians to begin making the connection between the burning forests and the country's rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr. Jim Bruce, former Environment Canada scientist, and Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group, the United Nations body that studies climate change, warns that, "These forest fires are the kind of thing we expect with a warming climate. While one event does not prove climate change, the overall trend is convincing."

British Columbia is warming up. The Provincial government's state of the environment report indicates a 1.1 degree Celsius increase in average annual temperatures over the course of the last century. The warming climate means more lightning, which ignites forty percent of the fires in British Columbia. Environment Canada expects this summer to be the driest on record. Combined with increased heat, the result is a forest which is tinder dry, an ideal fuel source. Increased wind and heat, which can also be attributed to a warming climate, lead to conditions for ferocious burning. The result is this summer's widespread devastation of the forests and small communities in interior British Columbia.

Dr. Mike Flannigan is a senior scientist at Canadian Forest Service and studies the relationship between forest fires and climate change. "The drought is an unusual extreme event and maybe a glimpse of what the future will be like. I do not expect every year in the future under climate change to be like this one for BC, but we can expect more severe fire seasons in the future"

Dr Flannigan and other scientists use complex computer programs and paeleoecological data from the bottom of lakes to model climate change. The models paint a stark picture for the future. According to Dr.Flannigan, "recent work suggests that area burned could increase 50 to 100 percent in the next 50 to 100 years. So if we're running around 2.8 million, we could be seeing 4 to 6 million hectares burned annually. So this is a significant increase".

This year, the fire season in British Columbia is far from over, but by mid-August, the province had experienced a two hundred percent increase of area burned over the twenty-year average.

An environmental group in the area impacted, Shuswap Environmental Action Society (SEAS), and the Sierra Club of Canada have issued press releases pointing out that unless society begins to seriously address the use of fossil fuels, fires such as those that have so severely impacted interior communities of British Columbia will become more frequent and more intense. Burning fossil fuels produces the greenhouse gases that are causing the warming climate and thus creating conditions for increasingly severe forest fire seasons.

Environmental groups have documented the provincial government's failure to take action on climate change at a website called BCFacts.org. In 2002, the British Columbia government lobbied against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, setting the stage for an ongoing policy that has promoted the fossil fuel industry as a major source of prosperity for the province. The government's goal to double oil and gas production in the province by 2008 will be achieved through measures such as subsidized road construction for exploration, providing $50,000 tax credits for new coal bed methane wells and reducing regulatory mechanisms. The flagship of this effort is an aggressive campaign to promote offshore oil and gas development. This, in the face of a long standing federal moratorium that was designed to protect the delicate coastal ecosystem. These policy changes will further magnify a trend of increasing greenhouse gas emissions in the province. Between 1990 and 1999, emissions climbed by twenty percent, a rate five to six times greater than the global average.

The fires do not appear to have shifted the government's perspective towards climate change. British Columbia's minister responsible for both science policy and tourism, Rick Thorpe, was is quoted in Maclean's Magazine as saying: "To say that the fire situation is the result of climate change and that it will be permanent is, in my opinion, naive."

The effects of climate change continue to be felt around the world, with increasing severity. A death toll of approximately 3000 people due to a heat wave in France comes one year after French President Jacques Chirac's speech at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, "Our house is burning down and we're blind to it...The earth and humankind are in danger and we are all responsible. It is time to open our eyes. Alarms are sounding across all the continents . . . We cannot say that we did not know! Climate warming is still reversible. Heavy would be the responsibility of those who refused to fight it."

As the fires continue to ravage British Columbia, the French President's sentiment is echoed by local environmentalist and SEAS president Jim Cooperman "We call on industry and government to get serious about climate change and the Kyoto process. Citizens can help by pressuring government to take action and by supporting those politicians who are taking action".