Just as my first post to Terra Bloga, I thought it would be suitable to introduce myself and some of the topics I’ll be posting about.

It seems like with the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, heavily polluted waters and coastlines and tumbling fish stocks (not to mention all the mercury and dioxin contamination of fish), the public is really opening an eye to the fragility of our oceans and freshwater areas. There’s a lot going on that we have to watch out for now–whether what we’re eating is sustainable or non-sustainable, healthy or contaminated, and whether the water we’re swimming in is toxic or safe. But it doesn’t just stop there, the list goes on and here on land, we’re not exposed to it as directly–or as much as we can see from here.

Growing up on the southern coast of Nova Scotia, I often saw a lot of junk get washed up onto the shores. It made me wonder where it was all coming from; how much of it is still in the ocean and who on this Earth would ever think or want to pollute something so precious as the oceans. I asked a lot of fishermen I knew about this–they said that often times on the fishing boats, there are no designated garbages, and if there are they’re seldom used. Most of the time garbage was just thrown overboard–tin cans, bottles, plastic packaging–all things that would normally go in a household wastebin. But our oceans aren’t just an infinite garbage can. All these objects have added up, and in the case of the case of the North Pacific Gyre, this becomes all too evident.

And it doesn’t stop there, either. There’s the problem of overfishing, as David here on Terra Bloga also talked about in April. It’s a truly scary thought that up to 80% of what is caught is bycatch (species that weren’t intended to be caught), which are injured or killed during the catching process, and thus don’t survive once they’re returned back into the waters. It’s because of this that I’ve boycotted a lot of seafood, including shrimp and oysters.

Then there’s the problem of bottom-trawlers–it’s sort of like clearcutting the ocean, and it’s absolutely heartbreaking to think that once again, most of what comes up after bottom trawling is discarded back into the ocean.

Now, one of the recently talked about problems we’re having is ocean acidification. Some of you may have heard about it, but it was only a few months ago that a good friend told me about it, and it wasn’t until watching this video(also below) that I realized how much of a problem it really was. The oceans are naturally one big carbon sink, absorbing much of the carbon dioxide emitted by the planet. But now that humans are creating more carbon dioxide through emissions, and according to National Geographic, the oceans have absorbed as much as half of what’s been emitted by man so far. However, the oceans can’t keep up with the rate of which our carbon dioxide levels are accelerating, and this is become far too evident. What once was a natural cycle has now become a burden on many of the ocean life, as seen in one of the most basic and fundamental steps in the food chain–plankton and corals. The shells that plankton form for protection could slowly dissolve away in the acidic ocean environment, as seen in species of terapods. Samples of shells from terapods near Antarctica (where the acidity levels have risen the most) show that the shells are indeed becoming more brittle, thus threatening entire species that are vital to the food chain.

Ocean acidification is posing more problems than just on plankton, however. Coral reefs are collapsing, leaving behind flattened, dead substrate only to show off seaweed and algae. What was once a place bursting with life, is become more and more empty. And it isn’t just the acidification that is threatening these beautiful and fragile ecosystems–unsustainable fishing practices have their own part in it as well. You can watch a video on endangered coral reefs here.

The point is, we have a lot to learn about the oceans and there’s a lot of defending we have to do if we want to keep them beautiful, pristine, sustainable and resourceful. After all, the oceans take up more than 3/4 of our planet’s surface. So what I’m going to do is try to touch on as many of the issues with our ocean as I can. If any of you have any further suggestions or things you’re curious about, drop me a comment and I’ll do my best to keep you informed.

Best regards,

Robyn

There is the problem, however, of nutrient loss of your soil due to the past growing season. How will your roses smell as sweet, or your tomatoes taste as good if all the nutrients have been used during the last growing season? If you want your garden to continue to thrive you’d better start the process of soil amendment.

There are many methods of soil amendment to ensure proper growth, the typical methods being chemical fertilizers generated en mass at industrial facilities using petroleum feedstock’s to produce the required nutrients. This uses more of our finite petroleum resources, adds additional industrial burden to the over-exploited Alberta landscape and leads to additional environmental degradation.

You may now be asking, “why exactly are we using petroleum, a known toxic substance, to produce nutrients which are going to be applied directly to our land?” That is a great question, especially since we know that we can derive the same nutrients from our biodegradable wastes (which comprise around 60% of waste going to landfills), and close the loop on our overindulgent society.

Thankfully there is a community-orientated organization out there that is here to serve our needs. Cleanit Greenit Composting System Inc. is an Edmonton based company that serves to provide Organic Soil ™ to consumers in demand for an alternative. This isn’t all however; they also provide their product to community groups around Edmonton as a fundraising activity. 90% of their profits from these fundraisers go directly back to the community groups, with the remaining covering the cost of materials needed to bag and sell!

And what do you know; Cleanit Greenit is getting out there this weekend to provide their product to all of us in dire need of a soil amendment solution! This Saturday, May 8^th, Cleanit Greenit will be hitting the streets in a number of locations supporting a number of groups across Edmonton. So come out and support the community group of your choice, or all of them while keeping your plants happy.

Sales run from 9 am to 2 pm Saturday May 8th at the following locations:

The fallout from the deep water horizon disaster has not been exclusively American, as reported on this week’s Terra Informa; proposed drilling operations in Canada’s arctic are coming under increased scrutiny as well. The increased attention to offshore resource extraction projects comes at a time when the global arctic, due to a changing climate, is charging towards expansive resource development in its oceans and coastal regions.

In 2007, Imperial teamed with ExxonMobil Canada to spend $585 million to buy land in the Beaufort. A year later BP spent $1.2 billion to buy land on the continental slope which leads into the ultra-deep passages along the continental shelf. The companies are (currently) asking the board (National Energy Board, NEB) to reconsider a requirement to maintain a same-season relief well drilling capability as expensive and impractical. It would mean maintaining a rig on standby to respond to a blowout during a drilling season that averages 100 days a year. (Conoco seeks hearing delay on Arctic drilling by Shaun Polczer, Calgary Herald)

A lesson must be learnt from the BP Deep Water Horizon disaster, which may have been prevented if a relief well had been in use, and the test for environmental groups and civil society on this lesson will be the NEB hearings on relief well requirements in the Canadian arctic. An offshore drilling oil spill is always environmentally destructive in some fashion but the arctic regions of the world posse’s unique challenges which make oil spills both more likely and more destructive.

To begin with arctic ecosystems have a far higher ecological vulnerability to oil spills due to two main factors lower biodiversity, which has been suggested to be associated with lower resilience, and the presence of many valuable and vulnerable organisms. The lower biodiversity of the north, when applied to the food chain analogy, means that when certain links get weakened or knocked there are less links that fill that same role resulting in a great chance of the effects being spread across all organisms in the ecosystem. The lower biodiversity in the north is also accompanied by lower regeneration rates due to climatic conditions and sun light availability meaning that the impacts of oil spills will take a much longer time to be worked out of natural systems when compared to more tropical regions like the Gulf of Mexico. The Beaufort Gyre , is another characteristic of the arctic which makes it especially risky to off shore drilling. This wind driven current that accumulates fresh water, sea water, ice and spins them through the lower Canadian arctic archipelago manifesting unpredictable ice patterns, is becoming even more unpredictable as climate change drives sea water composition changes, changes in sea ice patterns and increased fresh water inputs due to melting glaciers. This makes for a more unpredictable environment for offshore platforms and an increased likelihood of difficult clean up conditions.

The nature of arctic ecosystems and human systems both work to limit the capacity to manage, control and reclaim oil spills. The Gulf of Mexico is an area with vast human resources capable of taking on the enormous challenge of simply applying the current method of management which produces limited results. In the arctic where hardly any human resource are present a response to any major oil spill would require mobilization of resources beyond the capacities that presently exist.

With no Arctic seaport, no roads, virtually no Arctic naval capability, and very few airports from which to stage a recovery and cleanup, the government would be hard-pressed to mount an effective response. How would you get a cleanup crew on site with no port or airstrip? We just don’t have the infrastructure. It all boils down to a logistical nightmare. (Ed Struzik, Yale 360)

To me this push for increased offshore drilling at the expense of environmental safety is a clear characteristic of peak oil politics. As the last remaining easily accessible oil is utilized the oil companies are known seeking to use their influence to increase the profitability of the less easily extractable oil. There is no getting around the higher costs of actually drilling the holes, getting the oil and transporting it, these companies see the ability to increase their profit margins by decreasing environmental and work safety regulations.

Western Arctic Member of Parliament (MP) Dennis Bevington says the explosion of BP’s sub-sea well off Louisiana on April 20 — and the resulting oil spill — should raise warning flags in Canada, especially about the need for relief wells in Arctic drilling operations.

“These same oil companies want an exemption from having to drill relief wells for their operations in the Beaufort Sea,” Bevington, a member of the left-of-centre New Democratic Party, said during question period in Canada’s federal parliament Friday. With this clear evidence that the most stringent environmental protections must be applied to offshore drilling, will this government stand up to the oil companies, enforce drilling relief wells and come up with a real plan to deal with disasters in our Arctic waters?”

Oil companies have argued relief wells in the North are not practical, since it would take too long to drill them if there is an accident. But oil industry critics have said the Gulf spill should raise warning flags in Canada, especially about the need for relief wells. (Eye on the Arctic, Gulf of Mexico oil spill raises arctic offshore drilling concerns)

Relief wells are not the solution to the concerns drilling in the arctic but show how the industry prioritizes its profit making abilities above ensuring environmental quality and public concerns are met. The industry has long claimed about the best practices and state of the art technology but that has all been exposed as PR and spin with the failure of BP to have any impact upon the spills dispersal.

“The National Energy Board must resist these lobbying efforts to lower standards, to lower security measures … because what is happening in the U.S. could happen in Canada. Even in the best of conditions, our technology to clean up oil spills is extremely limited, and Canada’s coastlines – particularly in the frozen and fragile North – don’t offer the best conditions.” Steven Guilbeault, cofounder Équiterre (Montreal Gazette, Bid to relax Arctic drilling rules under scrutiny)

The Sierra Club of Canada is leading the way by calling for a moratorium on offshore drilling in Canada so that the proper action can be taken in response to the BP Deep water Horizon disaster so as to ensure that no such risk threatens Canadian ecosystems. I think a harder line needs to be taken by environmentalist in this country. The belief was prevalent before and after the recent events in the Gulf of Mexico the position should only be cemented, under no circumstance am I willing to risk the ecological integrity of the Canadian arctic for the short term profit of oil companies. The drive for arctic resources is indicative of the age of peak oil and a line needs to be drawn somewhere or else oil companies will scourer the world pulling the last drops of oil out of the ground and locking us into our ecocidal trajectory. Allowing offshore drilling in the arctic is not simply accepting the status quo it is allowing the current destructive system to enter a new stage where environmental and human health is increasingly put at risk to allow for sustained profit. I believe that drilling in the arctic is a bad idea in any situation but when there is an abundance of energy alternative waiting to be taken onto the mainstream taking such absurd risk for the preservation of profits and a business model is a case of willful negligence. The disaster in the gulf of Mexico has shown us that despite the oil companies claims of surround “the latest technology” there will always be a significant risk of ecological catastrophe associated with offshore drilling and this risk is totally unwarranted when there is an array of alternative energy options that exist in a more pacifistic relationship with the environment and could provide us with the same benefit without such an enormous risk. If it was my choice I would go beyond a moratorium on offshore drilling in the arctic and ban it completely.

I, like many of the 60-odd participants that weekend, have had a history working towards a justified world, where human life does not trump other forms of life and humans treat one another and the Earth with mutual respect and compassion. My initial impressions from the rest of the group were that we were much in the same boat: we have some idea where we want to be – as ideal a pipe-dream can be – and we may have some idea how to get there – preferably as painless and easy as possible – but… As every activist has come to question one’s actions, there are many flaws in one’s plan for the “dream future,” and one cannot have all the answers, and, when we bring those questions to our communities of comrades, more often than not, we are in the same boat of the blind-leading-the-blind, and no one wishes to say what may be portrayed or interpreted as distasteful, counterintuitive, or counterproductive. Derrick Jensen is one of these few who are not afraid to say what needs to be said.

Sometimes dubbed as the “militant environmentalist” and “pro-violence,” Derrick is a prolific writer, publishing 13 acclaimed and always controversial books and novels in only 10 years, and of course the environmental movement’s quintessential enfant terrible. He is as well a teacher, activist, small farmer, and the leading voice in uncompromising dissent and revolutionary spirit, holding degrees in both creative writing and mineral engineering physics. He was joined this weekend by colleagues Lierre Keith – a radical feminist and author of The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability – and Aric McBay – a writer, activist, and small-scale organic farmer.

Understandably, I could feel the tension in the air on the very first night of the weekend: everyone had their questions – the tough questions – that they felt they could finally talk about and perhaps even begin to conceptualize answers to. How many people do we know personally who could confidently give us credible justification for a new and better world through militant actions? How many people have been able to confide with others that they feel an undeniable and overwhelming unease with direct, violent tactics and feel especially uncomfortable with the idea that, within the conceptually near future, we may be forced to relinquish much, if not all, of our white, Western privilege most likely through external forces? And who of us have had a concrete answer to the overbearing question every serious activist who has grasped the severity and urgency of the social and environmental issues in our world today have asked themselves: how can we reconcile our despair and lack of time with effective action without becoming paralyzed to inaction by it?

In any case, Derrick is an especially adept speaker; by peppering his speech with so many colourful, fragmented narratives and esoteric historical precedents, one gets the impression that the audience clings to his words as they would a stage actor’s soliloquies. Quote after pithy aphorism, it becomes clear that Derrick is an especially well-read and credible author, which made it increasingly difficult throughout the weekend to accuse him of specious reasoning or hypocrisy: this man really cares about salmon.

Let me be clear that, up to this point, I have not read any of Derrick Jensen’s work and that my body of knowledge on the culture of resistance and violent revolutionary sentiments mostly rests upon what I gleaned from this past weekend and Derrick’s philosophies which I have learned strictly by hearsay. That said, I wanted to briefly share some of his primary talking points from the weekend and those ideas to which I gave the most consideration and that have, in the end, convinced me to pick up a copy of Endgame:

• The divide within the culture of resistance does not lie between those who do militant action and those who do not; the divide lies between those who do something and those who do nothing;
• The way to a habitable future is not in military action alone; there are plenty of necessary roles in support work for the radical movement – in other words, not everyone needs to pick up a gun;
• If you are going to do some actions which have real-world consequences, one must lay the groundwork for the resistance movement first by setting community and social norms in order to control the eventual chaos;
• Everyone, including activists, understands that we do not live in a democracy, but we are all doing our work as though we do;
• Civilization – which is a non-democratic power structure – cannot be upheld by free-thinking men and women who think for themselves;
• A culture of complete pacifism – that is, the mentality that it’s “wrong to fight back” – is symptomatic of civilization, and there exist  no indigenous cultures which strictly adhere to a pacifist mindset;
• Find what you love and defend your beloved.

After training on security culture 101; conceptual basics on the principle differences between liberals and radicals; forms of and appropriate responses to oppression; and organizational structures for resistance – not to mention one especially tearful and emotional role-playing scenario – the room was a tangle of individual reactions: some hopeful, some beleaguered, some livid, but all thoughtful. There were those who looked at the progressive movement in a completely different light – that perhaps some forms of violence are acceptable and can be constructive – and there were those who were ever more frustrated by those who are still afraid of sacrificing their privilege, amenities, or even lives for the preservation of the Earth while it is slowly being choked to death. There were those whose paths became ever clearer, and those whose progress has become impeded by even more introspective analysis. There were those who resolved to discover, or re-discover, their love of the world around them, and others who resolved to take up arms to defend it.

All-in-all, Derrick Jensen and his compatriots Keith and McBay initiated a unique dialogue within Edmonton that may never have nor would have ever started without their guidance and wisdom. It may, for that matter, never end. Let’s hope for the sake of all living things that it never does.

For more information on the Deep Green Resistance movement and bringing this workshop to your own community, contact Lierre Keith at tours@derrickjensen.org

Last month saw the passing of World Water Day. Those with a hydrologic inclination gathered at forums, speeches, movie screenings and community events to reflect on all things watery. Documentaries, words of wisdom, and tap water of the highest quality were all consumed with relish.

Whilst these celebrations were a win for the drinking water cause, another watery matter, of the marine variety, went down to crushing defeat. A proposal for a trade ban on the seriously endangered bluefin tuna, was voted down this March at an international gathering in Doha, Qatar. A number of other trade bans proposed for similarly threatened species suffered the same fate.

Bluefin tuna are one on the world’s most desirable fish. These are not the canned fish in your sandwich; these are the delicacy served as the world’s finest Sashimi and Sushi. These are fish that can grow to over 1000 pounds, and can sell for 100 000 dollars apiece in Tokyo’s legendary Tsukiji fish market. And thanks to our ability to vacuum them from the ocean, their numbers are approximately 15% of what they were only a few decades ago.

The tragedy is not just that of a fish species’ demise. The law under which the vote was held, the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) was thought to be one international agreement with real clout. It has the power to ban trade in a species, and can force countries to halt unsustainable exploitation. For the first time, however, it was voting on a creature worth billions of dollars, and unsurprisingly, money won. Whether this amounts to pulling the teeth from this keystone environmental treaty is yet to be seen.

The primary antagonist in this failure was Japan. The country consumes 80 percent of the global catch, and ensures that its allies – many conveniently cashed up with Japanese aid money – attend such forums to repay with their vote. Proposal after proposal for species’ protection was defeated: the hammerhead and oceanic whitetip sharks (shark fin soup), the spiny dogfish shark (fish and chips), red and white corals (for jewellery) and more besides. To add insult to injury, the Japanese delegation served the endangered bluefin at their welcome reception. Subtle.

For arguably the most important case -that of tuna – the excuse provided was that there already exists a body to regulate the catch: the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). Unfortunately for tuna (and ultimately, tuna consumers), ICCAT is embarrassingly bad at fulfilling its mandate. In fishing circles (and perhaps amongst fish) it’s darkly quipped that the acronym stands for ‘International conspiracy to catch all tuna.’ Given that it has overseen the near complete destruction of the Mediterranean tuna stock, it has a ring of truth to it.

Surprisingly, Japan found solidarity with an unlikely ally – Canada. Ottawa voted against the treaty because it would end our own small, but very carefully managed, tuna fishing operations. Good management, however, is not something widely practiced elsewhere. Japan and the Mediterranean countries have run roughshod over the science for years. In 2007, scientists recommended a total catch of 13 500 tonnes – ICCAT settled for 30 000, and then allowed a catch of 60 000 anyway. As a result, the following year’s suggested target was 7000, but true to form, fishing nations decided on double that. The problem is, you can’t bargain with a fish, especially one that’s critically endangered.

Blunt problems sometimes necessitate blunt instruments. A trade ban would have hurt countries that do the right thing, but given the failure of governments to stick to the advised quotas, it was needed as a last resort. The bad news is that collapse of the world’s major fisheries continues apace, and countries such as Japan seem determined to bring about the scientists’ worst fears. The good news is that recent management changes are showing that another way is possible – a recent study in Science magazine suggested that the decline in some fisheries has slowed, marginally. But in the meantime, think carefully about where your sushi comes from.

This article first appeared in Gateway on April 1st, and can be found Here

Back to the interview. Not much was being made of the horrific policies stated, and the absence of statements on larger issues like climate change, untill last week when the Wildrose Alliance publicly supported some of the conclusion made in a Pembina institute report on industry practices in Alberta oil sands (also the report Danielle mention in Davids interview). The Wildrose Alliance was trying to ‘build bridges to environmentalists’ as the Edmonton journal put it, this is part of a change in approach by the Wildrose alliance to begin reaching more moderate Albertans. Their new environmental pitch is slick and designed to appeal to those who have environmental ideals but are wary about the economic effects of a green shift. As the quote bellow from David’s interview demonstrates, Danielle Smith views industry as the one who is marginalized by public opinion due to environmentalist mischaracterizations.

“I don’t believe that industry in this kind of environment, with all of the years and years of advocacy on the environment, I don’t think industry takes that responsibility lightly or sluffs it off. I think what has happened is that a lot of environmental groups perceive that industry is not a good actor and they perceive that they are going to be resistant and they may in some way try and find a way around the rules. That hasn’t been my experience my experience is that industry is doing as much as they can to be able to improve their practices.”

I had to respond to this quote.

While there was a lot of material in that interview to pick apart, this one had to be called out. The fact that she dismisses through ignorance the work of generations in the environmental justice movement is unacceptable. Time and time again it has been demonstrated that corporations and industry will seek out opportunities to externalize costs despite environmental or human costs.

Just because you did not experience a slow contamination of you traditional food sources and environment by carcinogenic tar sand pollution  like the residents of Fort Chipewyan did does not mean you can ignore the realities of corporate deceit. Just because you and your family were not poisoned by sour gas flaring like countless families across Alberta does not mean you can ignore the fact that corporations will put a healthy profit ahead of healthy people. Just because your water has not been poisoned by methane gas due to reckless drilling does not mean you can ignore the abuse of the trust we have placed in corporations environmental practices. And finally just because you were not one of the thousands and thousands of migratory birds that have died in the tar sands tailing ponds does not mean you can continue to ignore the repeated failings in the self reporting mechanism.

I won’t ignore whose side you’re advocating for and neither will Albertans.

This weekend myself along with a bunch of friends and Terra Informa correspondents went to the ARTery to check out the first annual #YEG SWAP. This event is basically what you get when you combined Freecycle, a swap meet, spring cleaning and new social media into a night out with live music. The idea was that you would take something perfectly fine, but a silent space filler in your life, to a bar where upon entrance you hand over this perfectly fine but unwanted item to one of the volunteers who in exchange give you some tickets to the swapping table where your item will find the loving relationship it truly deserves (with another swapper in attendance).

Where does the social media come in? That’s the best part, this event wasn’t put on by a group of devoted thrift seekers but the League of Extraordinary Media, a group which is seeking to integrate social media and technology into the Edmonton’s social and cultural landscape.  The promotion for the event was driven by efforts on the social media front, which framed its presentation, leaving its strong environmental message as a more passive under tone.

The combination of these dynamics produced an excellent event, it was amazing seeing the reaction between people when swaps were made.  My friend brought a popcorn bowl which had been in her possession for a significant amount of time and never been used, and its possession was regarded with indifference. That popcorn bowl did not last long on the swapping table. For another swapper it was love at first sight with that popcorn bowl and I’m sure that witnessing the glee and excitement of this persons find provided my friend with a sense of enjoyment that would never have been attainable for her from its intended use.

There were countless moments and exchanges like this all night, it wasnt so much the existence of these moments but the public and shared nature of them which was so rewarding.  The three R’s are taught to us in strongly individualistic terms and that comes off in the sense of moral responsibility a lot of us have towards waste diversion, but I believe that a more community focus is also beneficial. This entails an understanding that yes we all should recycle, reuse and reduce but when we do it as a community we do it much better and its way more fun. These sort of practices already exists in our communities but #YEG SWAP brought it into the online community, helping make recycling and reusing a more cultural practice amongst youth.

The League of Extraordinary Media’s inaugural event was a success in my opinion for the way in which it intentional structured the event to break down barriers of conventional interaction (a social media-centric event that brings people together in person, a recycling event that largely focuses on socializing and the arts). After putting on this event there is some substantive validity building behind the leagues chosen name. Here are some pictures of the event by blogger Master Maq.

One area we didn’t cover in the discussion is the potential use of abandoned or out of use well for the use of geothermal power generation. Ryan was a coauthor on a report submitted to the Alberta Research Council Ingenuity Challenge titled GeoNow, A novel approach to geothermal energy in Alberta. This report took a detailed and through look at what opportunities for geothermal power generation through abandoned or decommissioned well’s exist in Alberta.   The use of abandoned wells instead of drilling new holes is advantageous because of lower risk as a result of roughly knowing the the temperature of the wells, thus decreasing the cost of construction costs. The GeoNow report estimated that `the total amount of initial capital investment that (could) be saved is approximately 30 to 60 million dollars. This amount is an incredible 40% reduction in construction costs for a typical 20 MW geothermal plant. With this reduction in price, construction cost for the geothermal plant is competitive with a traditional gas or coal based plant’. Such an opportunity requires a precise convergence of numerous variables related to underground thermal gradients,  the underground geology (rock permeability,porosity, and reservoir recharge rates),  proximity to electrical transmission lines and electrical demand as well as  the location of abandoned wells and their associated type, depth, and date of abandonment (GeoNow).

The Alberta Geological Survey and the Alberta Research Council have studied the feasibility(technical and economic) of harnessing Alberta’s geothermal resources and estimated that the translated potential energy of the Alberta’s geothermal waters is roughly equivalent two to five trillion barrels of oil. One of the areas of greatest potential, The Viking Formation aquifer, exists between 1,000 to 3,000 meter with a temperature range of 33 C to 99 C  (or 3.3 C for every 100 metres) with 100,000 abandoned and 20,000 suspended well sites(APEGGA). Despite the existence of these favorable variables optimal sites are not widespread to the extent seen in areas like Iceland but prevalent enough the GeoNow report was able to identified seven areas with significant potential for geothermal power generation with abandoned well sites along with respective limitations and barriers.

Underground temperature isotherms for the northern portion of Alberta (a) at a depth of 5 km (b) at a depth of 2 km

For the purpose of this work, abandoned un-reclaimed wells were targeted for examination, providing a total of 41,310 potential wells. … Locations 1 & 2 have excellent thermal potential, they contain only 32 and 219 abandoned wells, respectively, and are relatively far away from electrical demand and transmission. In addition, site 6 is relatively far away from electrical demand and transmission. As a result, attention was focused on sites 3, 4, 5 and 7, with a total of 233, 700, 37, and 267 abandoned wells per site, respectively. The low amount of abandoned wells in site 5 excluded it from further consideration. The remaining three sites had their average depth examined to determine further consideration for each site. It was found that hardly any abandoned wells in these regions reached a depth of 5km; however, a noticeable portion reached a depth of 2 km. This required a major shift in attention away from temperature isotherms at 5km, Figure 2a, to temperature isotherms at 2km, Figure 2b. After examination of Figure 2b, two very specific locations north of Edmonton and south-west of Edmonton are apparent as possible siting locations. After thorough discussion with the team, the location at site 4 was chosen for further examination… There are 700 un-reclaimed abandoned
wells within Site #4… It was decided that abandoned wells must have a depth of at least 2 km, and that these wells must have been abandoned in 1995 or later. After these two requirements were applied, a total 72 abandoned wells were identified within Site #4…Figure 4 was examined for any cluster of wells, and one location was deemed more suitable than the others. This location would have 14 wells that are ‘close together’, attempting to minimize the amount of piping required to connect the wells with the generation facilities. (GeoNow)

A broader perspective of Site #4 in comparison with Edmonton

This by no means is the only location where geothermal is potentially viable in Alberta but GeoNow and the energy club see it as the most economically and technically feasible location for geothermal energy production to make substantial developments in the province.  What the GeoNow report identifies is that it is entirely possible to transform abandoned well sites into a system of geothermal wells connected to power generation plants around 20MW in size that provides base load power for the Capital region or the surrounding industrial areas. What makes this a truly feasible opportunity right now lies in the effects of the current economic crisis and the crash of the Alberta oil sector.  As Alberta Blogger abraaten of the blog Grandinite commented

small oil & gas drillers have tons of surplus equipment and experienced workers idling by. You’d think some enterprising person might put the drillers together with the engineers and design a geothermal project in the province….We’ve got all this capital and labour located in the northern regions of the province, and it’s experiencing a slowdown….A slowdown in conventional energy does not have to make alternative energy unprofitable. These projects might be made profitable in the future when energy prices spike again, if they are built with cheaper inputs during slowdowns. It’s time for Alberta to stop it with the myopic oil fetish and look at developing something else. We can be drilling these geothermal wells when oil prices are low, and capital, labour and expertise are unemployed by conventional drilling (Thousands of Engineers & Drillers Out of Work In Alberta – A Geothermal Initiative Would Be Good).

As this excerpt demonstrated the surplus of drilling expertise and available machinery offers the geothermal industry a more level playing field than labour strapped markets of the mid 2000`s. With rising numbers of unemployed in the primary industries and low capital cost now is the time for investment in developing Alberta’s geothermal and renewable energy potential. As Ryan mentioned in our discussion geothermal is advantageous due to its ability to provide consistent, reliable base load power with no fuel supply, waste or air pollution.  Geothermal is the often overlooked ingredient to a renewable energy future.  The responsiveness of widespread wind and solar  is capable of dealing with fluctuations in energy demand but with the inclusion of the steady and stable geothermal providing a large percentage of base load power, a shift towards large scale reliance on more variable forms(sun, wind, ect) of renewable power becomes increasingly feasible.

This potential has not been overlooked in other jurisdictions. In Germany, where 12.5%(and climbing) of energy is derived from renewables, a feed in tariff for renewable energy production($0.22/kWh for geothermal) has spurred the geothermal sector into a boom. Closer to home the Obama administration in their effort to increase green energy production has pledged $338-million for the geothermal sector along with low-cost loans and tax incentives, this includes funding for a project in texas which utilizes abandoned wells, similar to the project proposed by the GeoNow report. Nothing of the sort is even being discussed by the Canadian or Albertan government where mining and oil and gas industries receive numerous forms of support which is not extended to geothermal companies. Reallocating the enormous subsidies and tax breaks allocated by provincial and federal governments to the geothermal sector would in effect by an investment in developing the foundations of a strong and vibrant green energy economy. This reallocation of funds would be an effective means to increase employment in the energy industry by opening up new sectors in the industry that would also increase employment in associated support sectors.  By combining the reallocation of tax breaks and subsidies with an investment in education facilities for retraining, the renewable energy sector could  see an expansion that would support Alberta and Canada on a green path to a sustainable energy future.

Why do we need a local food system? Here is a video of Monique Nutter’s Presentation to City Council on June 23rd, 2009 describing the contents and the importance of a local food system.

In November 2008, more than 500 people turned out to city hall to back up GEA’s presentation to Edmonton City Council on their vision for creating a strong local foods economy and protecting the remaining farmland in and around Edmonton. City Council responded cooperatively, and as a result of a lot hard work on the part of GEA’s, local foods team and allies on council, amendments to the MDP were drafted. In June 2009, more than 600 people came out to support amendments that began to entrench farmland protection within the MDP, which was eventually accomplished in November 2009. And who can forget the Great Potato Give away? Check out video here .  These actions, however, have only resulted in tentative successes to date since all of these provisions hinge on the entire plan being passed on February 22.

This plan is likely to pass, but unfortunately action is required on the part of the provincial government, the bane of Albertan environmentalist, to achieve the sustainable food system required for a vibrant and thriving system in Edmonton. Edmonton’s city council has jurisdiction to implement policy for a local food system over a relatively small area of the agricultural lands that are both presently at risk of development, as well as needed for a resilient sustainable city. The government of Alberta has shown little interest in expending political capital on environmental issues unrelated to their international image and even less interest in providing funding. Economic stimulus (let alone green economic stimulus) is not even in the question for the government, or in the larger debate in the media, or amongst most political parties. The connection on why supporting and investing in local food systems needs to be made here. The GEA proposal, entitled The Way We Eat (for those unaware all of the MDP section are named as such, The Way We Live, The Way We Move, etc…) lays out what is known as the local food economic multiplier in the Edmonton context very succinctly.

In early 2009, Greater Edmonton Alliance conducted a Local Foods Survey and Pledge to assess our commitment to supporting a local food economy. 712 Greater Edmonton households, comprising about 2000 individuals, committed to shift 40% of their current food dollars to local food when the important and very important challenges to buying local food are resolved. This would result in a shift of $2.3 million dollars annually to purchasing local foods. If 25% of Edmonton Census Metropolitan Area residents responded similarly, this would mean over $330 million would be shifted to local foods. This would result in a total local food purchasing of $530 million. The multiplier effect would bring the economic impact to over $2 billion. (The Way We Eat)

This multiplier largely works by tightening the entire food system into a city or regional level so all the economic value remains, rather than leaking out as they currently do to large multinational corporations.  More precisely, the stable market a local food distribution system provides allows farmers to transition from corporate controlled cash crops to system that promotes a more sustainable and productive variety of crops and livestock . This product is then delivered to city grocery stores, restaurants and institutions, encouraging development of more value‐added processing facilities. Dollars spent on local food circulate 8 to 15 times in a local economy, this spurs the creation of recession proof jobs, an increased and varied tax base, along with general incomes. The city also decreases its costs as sprawling infrastructure is reduced and community resiliency to climate change and peak oil increases. This isn’t even including the many social, environmental and personal health benefits of local food systems, all which are laid out in GEA’s The Way We Eat.

We need to pack City Hall once again on February 22 to show our support for local food system (and hopefully to celebrate a lot of hard work on the part of GEA and a job well done), but also to send a message to the provincial government that we are not waiting for their leadership to start creating the kinds of communities we need in a future of climate change and peak oil. This is a fight for local foods, but it is also a fight for the long term sustainability of Edmonton. COP15 sent a lot of us into a slump, feeling a dis-empowered. This is the perfect opportunity to begin taking action to create the post carbon society we so desperately need.

The event is at Edmonton City Hall 6-930pm February 22, 2010 (Activist Agenda Link). Your support is both needed and greatly appreciated.

Myles Curry

In addition to the immediate environmental benefits of reducing global carbon emissions and local smog, public transportation, such as the LRT system, offers profound socio-economic benefits in our current economic recession. By investing in public transit development as a combined economic stimulus and climate change policy, both policy goals can be achieved faster and more efficiently. The construction profile of public transit projects offers everything from small scale shovel-ready repairs to long term infrastructure investment opportunities. These in turn provide long term mitigation of CO2 and an excellent proportion of sustained specialized employment in the community. This is shown by graph bellow from a report produced by The Sierra Club, Greenpeace and Alberta Federation of Labour titled Green Jobs: Time to Build Alberta’s Future.

This report   examines public transit investment opportunities for the Government of Alberta and projects that:

Bus and rolling stock repairs and rehabilitation can be started right away and carried out within a year. The construction of separate rapid-bus routes can also begin right away, along with shovel-ready LRT expansions and high-speed rail stations and track along existing rights-of-way. These projects would accelerate over the two years, and into the medium and long term. Assuming $3.5 billion of the $4-$7 billion of transit investments needed in Alberta in the next four to five years are made in the next two years, approximately 43,000 direct and indirect jobs could be created, along with an additional 13,000 induced jobs, for a total of 56,000 jobs. (Green Jobs: Building Alberta’s Future)

The job creation side of this debate has largely  been ignored or underplayed to date. This is largely because the provincial government has  chosen not to engage in the rhetoric of job creation  or entertain stimulus politics, something  that is pervasive in most other jurisdictions responses to the economic crisis.

While globally public transportation is receiving increasing investment from governments in response to climate change and the economic crisis, the Alberta government is deciding to ignore yet another prime opportunity for apparent ideological reasons. In reaction to the budget deficit caused by the drop in commodity prices, the provincial government reneged on its commitment to begin supplying the $2 billion for the Green Transit Incentives Program (Green TRIP)  intended to promote the use of local, regional and inter-city public transit. It was reported that in the province’s second-quarter update the $10-million in spending that was supposed to go to Green TRIP this budget year was canceled, with no specific future spending timeline.   While TRIP got the axe, $2 billion for CCS which was part of the same climate change action policy announcement,  made it in. This essentially provides subsidies for multinational oil companies to deal with climate change and produces few immediate and long term jobs.

Why CCS and not Green TRIP? In my personal view, it’s all about the pervasiveness of  neo-liberal ideology in mindset of this government. They will subsidize corporations to deal with climate change but then ignore communities they are accountable to. Many make the argument that this funding will return but who really needs the money right now, the corporations or the cash strapped municipalities and unemployed workers of this province? And if they can’t make $10 million this year how will they match the promised $150 million for next year (or the $360 million the year after)? The needs of our economy are primarily two fold: employment opportunities, both immediate and long term and adapting to climate change and peak oil. When presented with the choice of investments in public transportation infrastructure or CCS (remember they were part of the same climate change strategy), public transportation clearly surpasses CCS in meetings those needs.

The success of Edmonton City Council in taking the right policy direction in this economic climate really exposes the provincial governments failure to do so. Green TRIP is not dead, it has just been placed indefinitely on the policy back burner. As environmentally and economically progressive citizens, we need to support our municipal government and city councilors to holding the government of Alberta accountable for those commitments  which they to date have reneged upon. Don Iveson and others on city council are proving that effective policy leadership does not exclusively emanate from the provincial level and that by sustaining support for public transit the municipality can influence the provincial government into being responsive to public demands. I am tired of the absence of policy leadership from the provincial government hampering our communities. Edmonton has decided not to wait for the province to come around to public transportation investment and will be in a much better position to lobby for and access funds. With a municipal election coming up around the time the next time Green TRIP could make it into the budget, this may prove to become a bigger issue. I urge you to contact your MLA’s, city councilors and especially the candidates in the newly created wards, in support of investment in public transportation.  As Iveson notes, it’s going to take cooperation amongst all levels of government, which can only be produced by mass public pressure. Let’s make it happen.

The issue at this level is not whether a given line or station go here or there, but how eager are we to bring a vision of this ambition to life? It’s certainly not up to the city alone — projects like this require the alignment of at least two and, properly, three orders of government. It will require the relentless pressure of citizens on Councillors, but more particularly on MLAs and MPs.

I’m game.