Plug Out Tune In

By Daan Vander Kroon
July 12, 2010
Lots going on. At least two ongoing public inquiries. Well, only one so far – an inquiry into the disappearance of 8 million Fraser River sockeye and overall decline of the run. Incredibly, there’s still talk of granting the run sustainable status. Calls for a public inquiry into police brutality and excessive use of possibly unjustified force in Toronto.

Here in BC we now have a Harmonized Sales Tax, brought in by your governing Conservative Party of Canada in close cooperation with the local BC Libs. Yeah, it’s a consumption tax which appears to be decent policy, and yeah, some claim it will increase the business sector’s competitiveness, but at the end of the day the overall tax is higher and that can’t be a good thing. You have to compliment them on the clever way in which they implemented, paying the provincial government $1.6 billion in two installments to soften the political blow. Miraculously, they have almost escaped without any blame despite enabling the tax and then rewarding those provincial governments that implemented it. Clever indeed.

Over a month ago now, I was exposed in a lot more detail to Michelle Nickerson’s Ripple Effect. Michelle did the 2009 Sustainable Living Leadership Program, as I did in 2008,This organization, still in its infancy, aims to kick-start salmon restoration projects by using repeat and widespread acts of physical endurance to raise funds for a range of projects, on a variety of levels from small local watershed, to large system watersheds, Riversheds if you will. This was to be accomplished through a multiple person length of the Fraser River swim this year by Michelle and other swimmers. The unexpected challenges of fundraising and trip organization prevented that plan from proceeding fully this year; instead we planned a length of the Fraser River cycle project; a much less capital intensive undertaking, if still a challenging physical feat. This will be the Ripple Effect kick-off for 2010 – a 3 000 to 4 000 km. cycle trip through all communities within the Fraser River Watershed, if not entirely by Michelle and I, by other riders who join the trip.

The trip will lay the groundwork for a 2011 Fraser swim, and has virtually unlimited potential to morph into various fundraising and awareness initiatives, involving acts of physical stamina such as swimming, cycling, and hiking.

Lastly, as a Dutchman I can’t help but follow the Dutch squad’s ascent to the World Cup final. Through no effort of mine, I ended up watching the game on the big screen at Sumas Mountain Coffee Roasters on George Ferguson when I stopped in there after a ride this morning. I’m disappointed at the Dutch squad’s seeming focus on brute strength and aggression – they applied force that wasn’t necessary in far too many fights for the ball, and didn’t show a great deal of offensive creativity. This incarnation of the Dutch squad isn’t really I can support…much as it pains me to say that.

Even more so however, I resent how this World Cup in Johannesburg, a display of primarily physical strength with little true importance has garnered far more headlines than the Earth Summit on Sustainable Development, a discussion on the very future of humanity by some of the world’s brightest minds. That imbalance needs to change if human behaviour is ever to change.

A new song “Landfill in the Sky” has reverberated through communities from the City of Vancouver to Abbotsford to Hope. This modern day protest song voices opposition to a waste management concept of incinerating trash. As former Canadian Idol Shane Weibe sings, “Burning garbage makes toxic waste, incineration leaves a bad taste,” people are asking what all the fuss is about!

Metro Vancouver’s new solid waste management plan has ignited controversy everywhere it has gone for public consultation. The regional district is leaning towards a new and effective way to manage solid waste. At first glance it appears to be a significant step forward in regards to environmental sustainability. Chair of the Fraser Valley Regional District Patricia Ross recently said: “We are happy to support the initiatives in the Metro Vancouver plan to divert waste and increase reduction, reuse and recycling.” By increasing the amount of waste diverted away from landfills through recycling and composting, from 55% to 70%, Metro Vancouver has made a forward-thinking decision that puts more focus on waste reduction. The controversy is over what to do with the remaining 30% of our garbage. The Draft Plan includes three possible options for the leftover waste. Metro’s favoured option is the construction of a new incinerator, followed by incineration in another location, or continued landfilling.

The Metro Board must determine a solution to an issue that is growing, literally, every year. Developing a solid waste management plan that is sustainable, cost effective, and environmentally conscious is not an easy task. The current program of landfilling is admittedly not the optimal solution – based on emissions of methane gas that are released from that landfill, in addition to chemical leeching of products. In a day and age where the provincial government is looking to reduce GHG emissions, it is more than clear that there has to be a better way.

Interestingly enough, environmentalists concerned about climate change have formed their own type of opposition to incineration because the science says that waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities like the one Metro Has proposed, emit more C02 per unit of energy produced than a coal-fired power plant. Ben West of the Wilderness Committee calls emissions from energy production the “low hanging fruit” of reducing our carbon footprint. West explains that, “According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, waste incineration releases 1355 g of carbon per KWh vs. 1020 g per KWh for a coal fired power plant. To put that in perspective natural gas creates 515 g per KWh.” This is information that certainly can’t be ignored in all of the “public consultations” that are being presented around all the communities Metro has visited. In fact, a recent UBC study says “Any new source of combustion in the Lower Mainland, including mass burn waste incineration, is simply not advisable.”

Residents across the Fraser Valley have begun to band together to raise their voice against incineration. I myself have toured a waste to energy facility in Denmark, similar to many of those all over Europe that Metro advisors cite as successful. My experience resulted in skepticism on the topics of emissions, health risks, and economic costs and impacts. My skepticism only grew as I investigated Metro’s draft plan. FVRD Chair Patricia Ross calls the claim of success all over Europe as a “farce.” She says: “There have been bans, calls for bans, and shutdowns. One company Covanta has been fined. People are realizing that incinerators haven’t lived up to their promise, but this technology is new to Canada and we are easy targets for the pro incinerator lobby.”

In many cases, opponents here aren’t even arguing against the case for WTE’s success in Europe. They are saying it’s not right for this air shed, being one of the most sensitive in the world. A new website, Air Quality Matters, explains that: “Coastal wind patterns and the nature of our geography create a sensitive air shed in the Fraser Valley, particularly susceptible to the build up of air-borne contaminants.”

Whether it is the Irish Doctors Association highlighting health concerns over the dioxins and nanoparticles that are produced through the incineration process, or the increased threat to the air shed, garbage in Metro Vancouver has been getting heat from Fraser Valley Residents. The crisis with DDT is something to think about when we utilize technologies and products without knowing the possible risks. Do we want to wait 20 years to find out that the new particles that we have been breathing in have caused mutations and serious health issues? These particles will also contaminate our prime agricultural land, an important aspect of industry and community in the Fraser Valley. So how beneficial will the Hundred Mile Diet be then? Even Chilliwack school trustees have chosen to openly oppose the plan and write a letter to Metro Vancouver.

At the same time, it isn’t just the health and environmental case that causes a stir with opponents. A recent KPMG study questioned the economics of Metro’s business plan, adding to the chorus of concerns over financial estimates as stated by Abbotsford South MLA John Van Dongen: “I am not convinced by the business case. People at the Vancouver Board of Trade and Surrey Board of Trade do not agree with Metro’s estimates.” Chilliwack MLA John Les spoke at a recent public meeting: “The more I listen, the more I hear, the more sceptical I am becoming.” He criticized Metro in regards to Douw Steyn of UBC, a well known expert on air quality who was fired by the GVRD after opposing incineration. “It seems to me that if you propose a certain solution you ought not to be afraid of a wide ranging and open debate” said Les.

Who is paying for this massive capital investment? The plan includes building a new public utility, and my mother says there are no free lunches. If we actually do reduce our waste beyond the 70% number that Metro has decided on – because the market is already starting to drive change, whether it be biodegradable chip bags or otherwise – we stop using the incinerator once we are dependant on the power? Who, at the end of the day will really profit?  John Les ended by saying: “Be very afraid. This could really hit you in the pocketbook.’…………..

Read the rest on the Commonsense Canadian with Rafe Mair and Damien Gillis: ARTICLE

What do you think?  Leave a comment below!

With the G8 and G20 Summits at their completion, one doesn’t have to look far for examples of anger, and frustration of what did and didn’t happen.

Of noteworthy importance are the many questions being posed now that world leaders have left Toronto and the streets have been swept clear of broken glass and trash. From all NGOs being excluded from the media center, (the one with the famous fake lake), the violence on Queen Street in Canada’s largest city, to the reluctant inclusion of topics like climate change; the G8/G20′s legitimacy as effective bodies on global affairs have been called into question.

The concept of an overly expensive summit, which has always been a popular talking point for federal opposition parties, has flourished throughout the last week making the price tag of $1 billion dollars on security a popular buzz word for taxpayers and activists alike. The price tag becomes even more of a black mark on Harper’s government and the entire G20 body when past summit’s security costs have been significantly less.

The knives have come out, whether it be from Toronto Mayor David Miller, asking why negotiations were held in such a large city center, to apparent restrictions on journalists and reporters. Even the “big-city mayors caucus “ is challenging Ottawa to pay up and compensate the businesses affected by protests and civil disobedience.
Public opinion, may heat up one more level as concerns of what The Guardian journalist John Hilary calls `skulduggery` in Toronto this weekend. International media filmed police cruisers going up in smoke while Toronto Police have since been accused of playing public relations. Cruisers were allegedly driven into crowds, and left to be enveloped by flames while TV cameras around the world captured footage of the proclaimed anarchist’s handiwork. Whether there is any legitimacy to these claims of `skullduggery` is irrelevant. The damage has in essence been done.

All of these popular media headlines do little to explain real problems that have developed within the ranks of civil society. Furthermore, they entirely neglected to share with Canadians what actually happened at the summit. Only now have we begun to hear echoes of what happened in regards to the controversial bank tax, climate change, and national debts.

Most problematic is the fact that people have lost faith in the Canadian government, corporations, law enforcement and other relevant institutions. This G8 and G20 illuminated the holes in Canadian accountability, security costs being only the tip of the iceberg in reference to broader issues.

Ideas on conceptualizing what to do to effectively change this situation appear sparse. Perhaps this is the reason why 10,000 people felt they needed to flood the streets of Toronto to yell out their frustrations to what seemed like deaf ears within the summit.

At the Copenhagen Climate Conference last December, the world saw a shift in the so called environmental movement with social justice groups like Oxfam merging with traditionally environmental organizations like Greenpeace on the issue of climate change.

Now, Canada and the global community is looking at a broader problem, one of which determines who gets the say in what direction the world takes economically and otherwise.

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been dispensed on a meeting of the worlds noblesse, while small nations were excluded from discussions on how to handle the global economy. Being that economic institutions and national governments are entirely interdependent, the decisions made at the G8 and G20 will significantly effect the nations that didn’t have a voice at the negotiating table. The significance of this is made increasingly important by the fact that the G20 is a fairly recent creation originally meant for finance ministers that has now extended into a `Leader`s Summit`. The result is a ‘special club’ in which countries like Canada and the USA have a developed aversion to utilizing the far less expensive and already quality controlled United Nations that gives a voice to small countries while allowing effective debate and discussion.

As Toronto returns to normalcy, my view of the G8 and G20 Summits has shifted dramatically. If the real problems of the world are ever to be solved, a more cohesive method of dialogue and debate must be used. Now more than ever it seems necessary to try and unite advocates on the variety of causes people are currently campaigning for. The United Nations, an able body of unity and cooperation is ready for us, let’s use it.

Read it on the Commonsense Canadian, a new multimedia journal with RAFE MAIR and DAMIEN GILLIS

Here are the first of many Plug Out Videos for the new video component!

Check out these interviews at the Draft Solid Waste Management Plan Public Consultation by Metro Vancouver in Chilliwack BC.

All on the new video page: VIDEO TUNE IN

I know that lately there has been an obvious theme to the sparse posts on Plug Out Tune In – I’ve got to let you know about the last of Metero Vancouver’s Draft Solid Waste Management Plan’s Public Consultations in the Fraser Valley. In Chilliwack: “Mayor wants Chilliwack residents to speak out Wednesday against Metro’s plans to incinerate” Read more.

I will be on Country 107.1 Radio: The Morning Show with Steve Fanning between 830-930 tomorrow morning talking on the subject of WTE and the Zero Waste BC that will be taking place at 630 in the evening before the Public Consultation. You can also view a video presentation of the interview later in the day HERE.

Come out to the rally and make your voice heard to advocate clean air in the Fraser Valley!

Zero Waste BC’s demonstration outside the venue will run from 6:30 to 7 p.m. Best Western Rainbow Country Inn, 43971 Industrial Way.