E-mail A Friend Tell a friend about the information found on this page by sending them an e-mail.   Your Name: Your E-mail:   Type an e-mail address, then click add: Add a Personal Message: (Optional)

July/August 2001 issue	IN THIS ISSUE: Table of Contents Feature: Orcas The Inside Story Editor's Notebook Reverberations À la carte Re:Sources

Killer whales

Your last issue (CG May/June 2001) may have been the best yet. It certainly illustrates the wrong-headed thinking behind spending billions on the development of a non-renewable resource, when a fraction of that would go far in producing power from renewable sources. The almighty dollar triumphs over common sense once again, to the detriment of our environment and the health of the globe and its occupants.

Ken McKee
Salmon Arm, B.C.

When I visited Cowley, Alta., one day last fall, not one of those turbines (photo, page 55) turned one revolution ("Power switch," CG May/June 2001). There are many days throughout the year when those turbines do not produce any power at all.

To generate enough electricity for a city like Calgary requires a reliable constant source of base generation, which will come only from hydro or nuclear plants or through coal-fired generation.

But the largest gains in ensuring surpluses of electrical energy will be through teaching people how to conserve it. In North America, we have no concept of how to conserve energy. Many people live in large homes, which waste natural resources in their construction and in their heating and lighting. Families often own two cars, and most drive to work, since our public transit systems are not up to handling the masses.

It is easy to see that there are cost-effective and logical ways of conserving energy. For the small percentage of the population that can afford and wants to install solar- and wind-power systems — carry on. The rest of us will have to do what we can to conserve the energy we have available at a price we can afford.

R. Bell
Calgary

The editorial introduction was a brilliant summary of our energy gluttony, missed Canadian opportunities to capitalize on early pioneering efforts and barriers that continue to stifle change.

I would quibble only with your reference to wind as "nature's most benign energy source." Solar thermal and photovoltaic panels are quiet, do not kill birds and are mechanically safe and electrically stable. Wind is simply cheaper in dollars/watt and is not particularly benign at hurricane force.

As for solar power, the example of what two doctors can afford is not particularly relevant to most Canadian families. My little house cost less than $50,000 to build, including the $5,000 solar and wind system. I saved $25,000 in power hookup charges the first year and haven't had a power bill since 1995.

Phil Thompson
Saltmarsh Island, N.S.

top

Tearing up the tar sands

Your oil-sands piece managed to bundle all the tired environmentalist scare-mongering tactics into one article ("One last boom," CG May/June 2001).

To say that the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board has never delayed or stopped a project oversimplifies the exhaustive environmental assessment, planning and consultation process that go into a major project specifically so that it will meet or exceed the regulatory requirements and address the concerns of the overwhelming majority of the stakeholders. The oil-sands developments also include the mandatory provision of a reclamation fund entirely at the cost of the developer.

And beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Writer Gordon Laird may think the oil-sands mine is messy, but it is a mine after all, and its appearance has nothing to do with its environmental impact. You could have just as easily graced the cover of the magazine with the words "Inside Canada's ugliest wind farm."

Instead of simply deriding development, Canadian Geographic should also celebrate the vast resources we have and the responsible way in which economic development can progress and has.

Philip Carson
Calgary

It is disgraceful — in any magazine, but especially this one — to see two advertisements by oil companies glorifying their environmental friendliness within your article on the tar sands (which praises one of those companies). Do you offer equal space to environmental organizations that have no funds earned off the environment to spend on such advertising?

Henry Mintzberg, O.C
McGill University, Montréal

The Alberta tar sands are one gigantic mess! Without a doubt, they are the world's largest oil spill. But Earth itself is responsible for the mess. It generated the oil, transported it into the reservoir sands, eroded the overburden and has been polluting the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. During the past 8,000 years, the tar has been polluting the Athabasca River, which cuts through the tar sands. Over the same time period, incalculable amounts of methane and carbon dioxide have been released into the atmosphere by natural processes.
The development of the tar sands is effectively a "cleanup" effort to arrest the natural pollution. The end products are clean white sands and some useful by-products. The emissions from development are no more than the emissions from the microbial action that would occur if nature took its course.

M. N. Chernoff
West Vancouver, B.C.

I wish the author would return to Fort McMurray and, instead of just visiting the bars and casinos, would look at other aspects of our community.

Readers are left with the impression that everyone in Fort McMurray is a drunken bum with no regard for the environment. It would have been nice to see a few positive remarks about the schools, hospital or quality housing.

You went to Fort McMurray looking for an "energy gobbler." But when I am on Highway 401 near Toronto, I wonder who the energy gobbler really is.

Alan Reid
Cremona, Alta.

top

Education, not caribou

I find it deeply disturbing that U.S. President George W. Bush fails to recognize the importance of maintaining a healthy environment, which the Porcupine caribou need in order to calve ("Caribou shuffle," CG May/June 2001). Why risk endangering the future populations of the herd when there are other resources available to provide energy for his country?

Instead of drilling in calving grounds, President Bush should consider educating the population about reducing and reusing. Also, he should consider pressuring the energy giants into renewable-energy sources and developing systems of distribution for these sources to make them economic for all to use.

Cheri Moreau
Ottawa

The meaning of clean

I was interested in "E-car hits the road," describing electric cars as "completely emission-free" ("Discovery," CG May/ June 2001). I would argue that in many cases, these cars are not truly emission-free since they must be charged with electrical power, which, in many parts of Canada, is generated by burning coal. The idea of the electric car is fantastic, but I wonder how much pollution occurs to keep an emission-free electric car running.

Lynette R. Jacobson
Brock, Sask.

Correction: The e-mail address for Richard Harrington, mentioned in "The Inside Story" item on his book Padlei Diary, 1950 (CG May/June 2001), is meypl@yahoo.ca.

top