magazine / dec11
 |
December 2011 issue |
|
|
|
Reverberations
Capital futures
Regarding the plans being made
for Canada’s capital (“A capital
wish list,” October 2011), an integral
responsibility of the National Capital
Commission (NCC) is the river that runs
through its region. Sadly, the Ottawa
River has not been designated a National
Historic Site of Canada, despite its heritage
in the nation’s development, its
beauty and its role in transporting so
many pioneers and loggers to and from
the northern and western territories.
The Ottawa River still follows its original
course from its headwaters. In comparison,
the Rideau Canal is not a natural
watercourse but a man-made connection
of lakes, small rivers and lowlands. Yet it
received a National Historic Site designation
in 1925.
My suggestion to the NCC is to get
working on a National Historic Site designation
for our beloved Ottawa River.
Otherwise, the endeavours for Canada’s
bicentennial in 2067 will be incomplete.
Mac Hamilton
New Liskeard, Ont.
Rather than look inward at Ottawa-Gatineau, the NCC and Parks
Canada should team up to bring a taste
of the best of our capital directly to
Canadians across this great country.
Over the next 15 to 20 years, I would
love to see two or three federal parks
established in major urban centres in
each region of the country. These could feature a museum with exhibits from
Canada’s national institutions of arts,
humanities and sciences; a public
square where Canadians would gather
to watch and celebrate national sports
and cultural events; and a green space
of at least 10 hectares crossed with
cycling, hiking and ski trails.
These parks would offer bilingual
experiences, and each would be a bit
different, showcasing the contributions
of each region to the great endeavour
that is Canada.
Stephan Paape
Aylmer, Que.
How can the NCC be worried about
2067 when Ottawa continues to
dump raw sewage into the Ottawa River?
Let’s get this priority dealt with before
fussing about any other attributes.
Peter K. Marchant
Pickering, Ont.
Two articles in the October issue —
“Barns and bytes” and “A capital
wish list” — reflected the illusion of continuous
growth based on technology and
cheap oil. We have passed the era of peak
oil and are now on a bumpy plateau of
global oil production. The Association for
the Study of Peak Oil & Gas predicts a
tipping point followed by a permanent
decline in oil production, a corresponding
increase in our energy bills and a localizing
of our food production economies.
The humongous tractor on your poster
will soon be a memory. As the national
economy shrinks, so will the need for a
federal capital. Planning for 2067 by the
NCC is an exercise in futility.
The same issue did have two realistic
stories: one on the need to convert urban
land into food production (“Garden
city”) and the review of Chris Turner’s
book, The Leap. Turner’s call for an
economic model based on sustainability
in the post-carbon era is long overdue.
Bob Stevenson
Ottawa
Frack checking
The article “Fracking friction”
(“Discovery,” October 2011) is
wrong on one point. There is a simple
way to prevent the damage caused by
injecting large volumes of water and still
get the gas: use propane instead of water.
This has advantages to the environment
and to the company extracting the gas.
First, propane works just as well as
water in the hydraulic fracturing (fracking)
process and does not contaminate
the local water supply. Second, because
nearly 100 percent of the propane can
be recovered in the process, the company
saves money on water transportation,
which can be as much as one-third
of the fracking costs.
Richard Dinning
Mississauga, Ont.
“Fracking friction” did not mention a
recent Cornell University study
revealing that 3.6 to 7.9 percent of the
methane in the gas recovered by fracking
leaks into the atmosphere. As a greenhouse
gas, methane is 105 times more damaging
than carbon dioxide in its first 10 years in
the atmosphere. This addition of methane
could negate the touted gains from fracking
compared with burning otherwise
extracted fossil fuels. The study concludes
that the greenhouse-gas footprint of shale
gas is at least 20 percent greater than and
possibly twice that of coal.
Gray Merriam
Arden, Ont.
The House Energy and Commerce
Committee in the United States lists
the chemicals used in fracking for shale
gas and oil, but the BC Oil and Gas
Commission doesn’t require any public
disclosure on fracking chemicals. Of the
750 chemical products identified by the
U.S. committee, some 650 contain possible
carcinogens or air pollutants. In a
May 2011 study, the Canadian Energy
Research Institute in Calgary states that future oil sands projects will not be able
to operate without an abundant and
affordable supply of natural gas. Most
of this supply will likely come from the
shale-gas industry in northeastern British
Columbia. Other studies reveal that the
hydraulic fracture of one horizontal well
in British Columbia’s Horn River Basin
may require as much as 118 million litres
of water. Where are they going to put all
that highly contaminated water?
René Ebacher
Toronto
Urban harvest
I was thrilled to read of the local
food movement in Toronto’s public
housing communities (“Garden city,”
October 2011). What a marvellous
investment in time and people and a
brilliant use of police services. I intend
to send this information to Prime Minister Harper, to add to his
list of alternatives to super jails.
The railway map included
with the July/Aug 2011 issue
was a godsend. I gave it to our
14-year-old grandson living in Spokane,
Washington, because I feel compelled
to remind him that he’s Canadian. Over
the past two autumns, we have travelled
from sea to shining sea on that wonderful
train.
Pat Irwin Lycett
Orono, Ont.
Excellent article on reporting what
people are doing to take back their
own power by growing their own food.
Wholesome organic food is the foundation
for physical health, emotional and
mental balance and the experience of
getting in touch with how Mother
Earth sustains us.
In a time when agricultural superpowers
want to control seeds, crops and
production of everything we our body,
congratulations are due to the groups
that got this initiative off the ground. It is
especially needed in the urban environment,
where people need a more authentic
connection, as evidenced by front
lawns in the city where grass has been
replaced with food production.
Maria Georgas
Guelph, Ont.
Fields for the birds
I am glad to hear of these amazing technologies (“Barns and bytes,” October 2011) that help farmers realize higher yields and, I hope, greater profits. The space age techniques sound great for farmers and consumers, but what about the status of wildlife on these prairie farms?
From childhood, farmers get to know the birds that live and nest on their land. Until two decades ago, they maintained margins around fields and along roads that allowed birds to nest and bird populations to survive, even if restricted to those margins. Can space age GPS tools also accommodate ground-nesting birds? With new knowledge about where certain plants will thrive, there should also be areas left where birds might find food or nest. Remember: no ecology, no economy.
Susan Collacott
Port Credit, Ont.
How high?
I’m not sure where book reviewer Marq de Villiers (“Might as well jump,” “Reviews,” October 2011) gets his information on nuclear power, but it certainly doesn’t agree with the science my organization, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, has
collected. De Villiers says nukes emit “no greenhouse gases at all,” but if one looks at the full production process, beginning with uranium mining, his claim is false. A landmark study published in Scientific American in November 2009 states: “Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are considered.”
De Villiers is also misleading on the issue of cost. He fails to mention that every nuclear reactor in Ontario has gone over budget. On average, these projects have cost more than twice the original estimate. He suggests that the price of nuclear energy is reasonable but doesn’t mention that its cost trajectory is upward, while that of renewables is downward. By the end of this decade, nuclear is projected to cost more than twice what wind does.
None of this is an endorsement of coal-fired power, of course. We need to dismantle that too. But the good news is that by 2030, we should be able to derive all our energy from renewables. As the Scientific American researchers say: “Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world’s energy, eliminating all fossil fuels.”
Gideon Forman
Executive Director
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
Toronto
top
* Letters may be edited for length, accuracy and liability.
|
