Readers will be interested in an article from the Environment News Service (that I've pasted below) in which scientists state they've calculated the degree to which increased hurricane strength is recent years is a result of global warming, as opposed to what portion can be attributed to natural cycles (such as the multi-decadal mid-Atlantic oscillation). If you track these things, this article is worth saving in your "global warming" clippings file.

On another note, I'm attending two very interesting events this week. The first (today, Wednesday) is a lunch presentation at the Economic Club of Toronto by Paul Pabor, VP of Waste Management Inc. Renewable Energy on the topic of "Waste-derived energy." The remarks are apparently going to talk about the environmental and economic benefits of landfill gas and other forms of waste to energy. I'll report in this space something of what we learn later in the week.

On Thursday I'm participating in a "Waste Options Summit" presented by John Tory and the Ontario Progressive Conservative Caucus at Queen's Park. I've taken to avoiding political policy development forums like the plague after having had a very disappointing experience serving as co-chair of the Ontario Conservative Party's environment policy committee back in the mid-1990s. (Long story short: My co-chair John Snobelen and I developed all kinds of terrific policy initiatives that were totally ignored by the party and the Mike Harris government after they came to power in 1995. Worse, I found out that a bunch of industry lobbyists formed their own "ad hoc" environment committee as part of the Red Tape Review panel, and the government actually followed their totally self-serving guidance. The experience left me with a feeling of democracy being subverted by big money and I became convinced that industry should be banned from making financial contributions to political parties. Mike Harris and crew spent their tenure "paying back" their industry supporters with all kinds of policy initiatives that benefited the companies and not the public interest [or that of the environment].)

However, I want to listen to what folks have to say at this summit, since incineration and other options are back in a big way in Ontario, and maybe some of us who work in the waste management and recycling business can nudge the opposition party (and perhaps future government) toward some practical solutions to our diversion and disposal challenges. Again, I'll report more here later in the week or early next week after the meeting.

Now, here's that interesting article I told you about (click on the green text to continue):

Global Warming Kicked 2005 Hurricanes Up A Notch

BOULDER, Colorado, June 26, 2006 (ENS) - Global warming created about half the extra warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic that stimulated hurricane formation in 2005, while natural cycles were a minor factor, a new study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research demonstrates.

The research by world leading climate scientists contradicts recent claims that natural cycles are responsible for the increase in Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995 and adds support to the theory that hurricane seasons will become more active as global temperatures rise.

While researchers agree that the warming waters fueled hurricane intensity, they have been uncertain whether Atlantic waters have heated up because of a natural, decades-long cycle, or because of global warming.

The new analysis by lead author Dr. Kevin Trenberth and associate scientist Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) will appear in the June 27 issue of "Geophysical Research Letters," published by the American Geophysical Union.

"The global warming influence provides a new background level that increases the risk of future enhancements in hurricane activity," says Trenberth, who heads NCAR's Climate Analysis Section.

Last year produced a record 28 tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic. Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma all reached Category 5 strength, the highest level on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. Category 5 hurricanes carry winds greater than 155 mph (249 km/hr). The storm surge is greater than 18 feet (5.5 meters) above normal.

This year the National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center forecasts a "very active" season, with 13-16 named storms, 8-10 hurricanes, and 4-6 major hurricanes.

The 2006 prediction indicates a continuation of above-normal Atlantic activity that began in 1995, but forecasters say they do not currently expect a repeat of last year’s record season.

Trenberth and Shea's research focuses on an increase in ocean temperatures.

During much of last year's hurricane season, sea-surface temperatures across the tropical Atlantic between 10 and 20 degrees north, where many Atlantic hurricanes originate, were a record 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1901-1970 average.

By analyzing worldwide data on sea-surface temperatures since the early 20th century, Trenberth and Shea were able to calculate the causes of the increased temperatures in the tropical North Atlantic.

Their calculations show that global warming explained about 0.8 degrees F of this temperature rise.

Aftereffects from the 2004-05 El Nino accounted for about 0.4 degrees F.

The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO), a 60 to 80-year natural cycle in sea-surface temperatures, explained less than 0.2 degrees F of the rise, Trenberth says.

The remainder is due to year-to-year variability in temperatures.

Earlier studies have attributed the warming and cooling patterns of North Atlantic ocean temperatures in the 20th century - and associated hurricane activity - to the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.

But Trenberth, suspecting that global warming is also playing a role, looked beyond the Atlantic to temperature patterns throughout Earth's tropical and midlatitude waters.

He subtracted the global trend from the irregular Atlantic temperatures - separating global warming from the Atlantic natural cycle.

The results show that the AMO is weaker now than it was in the 1950s, when Atlantic hurricanes were also active.

However, the AMO did contribute to the lull in hurricane activity from about 1970 to 1990 in the Atlantic.

Global warming does not guarantee that each year will set records for hurricanes, according to Trenberth. He notes that last year's activity was related to very favorable upper-level winds as well as the extremely warm sea-surface temperatures.

Trenberth says each year will bring ups and downs in tropical Atlantic sea-surface temperatures due to natural variations, such as the presence or absence of El Nino, a warming pattern in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

Still, the researchers conclude that over the long-term ocean warming will raise the baseline of hurricane activity.

Source: Environment News Service

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 6:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

On June 22 I moderated the final panel discussion (on blue box funding) at the annual conference of the Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) in my home town of Collingwood, Ontario. I think I need to go out and buy a lion tamer’s costume for next year, because -- with remarkable consistency -- this year’s end-of-conference panel discussion was very heated and I thought might even erupt into fisticuffs. (I’m only slightly exaggerating.) Somehow we always manage to end the conference on a raucous note and it’s sort of “expected” now that the session I always moderate will be lively and entertaining in this way, and I dread the day it’s ever dull. (As an aside, I forgot to get the group to pose for a photo in a “group hug” afterward like we did last year. Pity.)

The presentations included a very informative and worthwhile explanation of Ontario’s complicated blue box funding formula from Guy Perry (of Stewardship Ontario). Somehow I felt I actually understood the formula after Guy’s PowerPoint presentation (a thought that scares me a little!).

But the sparks really flew when the presentations moved on to two things: glass markets in Ontario and the LCBO’s sponsorship of wine in Tetra Pak containers. Lyle Clark had presented on the LCBO’s new marketing and branding strategies in the morning. Usman Valiante, in my panel, sat beside Lyle and the two had a lively exchange over what Usman claimed was a commercial agenda on the part of the LCBO to develop its own house brands of imported cheap wine that it will sell as “premium” wine with a huge markup, in Tetra Paks. I won’t get into that debate here, but instead direct you to read Usman’s blog entry (see Contributor’s Blog) on this and the associated downloadable files (look under Posted Documents on the home page). It makes for interesting reading, whatever your position is on Tetra Paks and related packaging issues.

The other topic that the panelists scrapped over was the market for recycled glass in Ontario. As luck would have it, this is a timely issue for Lyle Clark and the LCBO which (along with Stewardship Ontario) is sponsoring the establishment of a large glass recycling plant in Ontario. John Mullinder of PPEC was also on the panel, but this time in his capacity as a CERB member (which represents packaging stewards who are concerned about the status quo of the blue box and also see the funding formula as somewhat perverse, in that the brand owners whose materials are recycled at the highest rates [i.e., who are the best environmental performers] pay the steepest bills). Guy Perry weighed in on the glass recycling issue since he’s with Stewardship Ontario, and Usman declared his interests up front, since his clients include the Brewers of Canada and OI Canada (the largest glass recycler and bottle maker in the province).

In short, this was a knowledgable group, but with very different ideas about what should happen with glass, whether or not there should be a deposit-refund system for LCBO glass, and related issues.

I’d like to mention here that I pointed out to the group that Ontario still collects a 10 cent “recycling levy” on all alcohol beverage containers sold in the province. This levy collects a staggering $60 million annually for the government which, alas, puts it into general revenues and doesn’t “recycle” it into recycling (as it were). Another tax grab. I failed to point out at the time that this amount is, ironically, roughly equal to what the public pays province-wide for its half of the net cost of the blue box (industry pays the other 50 per cent). I think an interesting discussion should take place about the proper use of these funds. In my opinion, either we should scrap the levy or direct it to support the recycling infrastructure in Ontario. Lyle Clark kept stating that he didn’t think people would like to see, say, $250,000 used to sponsor a lifecycle assessment of Tetra Paks used for wine. Methinks that’s chump change with $60 million collected every year from the recycling levy. (By the way, partly because of my annoying questions, Tetra Pak is actually funding just such a study via Franklin Associates, so eventually we’ll get some useful data on all this.)

The detailed arguments back and forth about glass markets are too complicated for me to recap here, but I thought I’d follow up by drawing everyone’s attention to a news item about a new study that has implications for one of the main bones of contention. What is that bone? That rather than being “recycled” in the true sense, Usman alleged that too much of the glass collected via the blue box is being “downcycled” into aggregate products whereas much of the “embodied energy” of a bottle, for instance, could be better preserved in true bottle-to-bottle glass recycling.

Anyway, an article appeared in the RCO’s Highlights and Headlines email newsletter about a glass recycling study from the UK -- and I’ve ordered a copy of the study referenced in the article.

Actually it was Usman Valiante who told me about this study, still a bit agitated about the debate at the MWIN conference. He suggests we all consider the article below in the context of the fact that the two OI Canada glass manufacturing plants in Brampton and South Etobicoke have agreed to buy all (including green) of the glass recovered from any LCBO deposit-refund system. In this context, Usman asks: Does it make any sense to crush and color mix glass in single-stream collection systems, invest more energy and effort to “beneficiate it” (all at municipal cost) and then use it as aggregate replacement?

He says we need a definition of recycling that is tied to net environmental benefit. Anyway, here’s an article about the study, which gives you the gist of what the study is about. There’s an interesting dimension here in which the evaluation of recycling programs is tied to greenhouse gas emissions -- something we’re likely to hear a lot more about in future.

Click below to scroll down and read the article:

Recycling glass can harm environment, says report

FIONA HARVEY

Financial Times. Jun 24, 2006. pg. 6

Recycling some materials can do more harm than good to the environment, a report has found.

Recycling materials such as glass can consume more energy than disposing of them in landfill sites, thereby increasing the production of greenhouse gases, according to a report on the waste management business published this week by Grant Thornton, the accountancy firm.

The report is strongly critical of the government’s recycling targets, which focus on increasing the amount of rubbish that is recycled by weight, rather than by any other measure.

This ignores the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, which are widely regarded as the most important environmental concern because of their contribution to climate change, and because of the government’s obligation to reduce such emissions under the Kyoto protocol.

Nigel Mattravers, senior manager at Grant Thornton, said: “The UK’s waste policy has not addressed the impact on carbon dioxide levels and climate change.”

Grant Thornton found the government’s target of recycling 60 per cent of glass would be achieved by encouraging the grinding of the product, in order to manufacture a substitute for the sand used for architectural and filtration purposes.

But it said: “This energy-intensive recycling process generates more carbon dioxide than if the glass was sent to landfill.”

The glass could be turned into bottles instead but is not because the supply of new green glass outweighs demand. The report found that if more alcoholic beverages were bottled in the UK rather than abroad this would change the balance, and the remainder of the excess bottles could be shipped abroad for re-melting.

It concluded: “(The current adverse) outcomes occur because financial instruments and policy interventions have been designed to encourage tonnage diversion from landfill, regardless of the carbon dioxide implications.”

http://www.grant-thornton.co.uk/pages/press_room-homepage_news-consumers_recycling_hits_glass_ceiling_according_to_new_research.html

FURTHER DETAIL

The government’s policy of tonnage-based recycling targets delivered at the lowest possible cost means that no distinction is being made between recycling processes that reduce CO2 emissions and recycling processes that increase CO2 emissions, according to research carried out by Grant Thornton Project Finance in association with Oakdene Hollins. This means that the preferred method of recycling for materials such as glass, is having a negative impact on the environment.

The current 60 per cent recycling target for glass is expected to save around 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per year by 2008. However, Grant Thornton and Oakdene Hollins believe that if policies were better directed, the same projected recycling target could save a further 100,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions from 2008 onwards. This could be done at no additional financial cost.

The report’s key findings include:

Closed loop recycling

The most carbon reduction friendly method of recycling is closed-loop recycling, where a material such as glass is re-melted as new glass. However, current carbon-blind policies mean that local authorities often collect green, clear and brown colored glass together. Since the glass is not color separated by the consumer or the local authority prior to recycling, it is difficult to use it for re-melting as new glass due to the man hours and expense that would be involved in the color separation process.

Open loop recycling

In order to meet tonnage-based recycling targets at the lowest cost, the grinding of glass to make sand and other materials is encouraged even though this form of recycling offers little or no CO2 reduction benefits. This energy-intensive form of recycling, or open loop recycling, generates more CO2 than if the glass was sent straight to a land fill site.

Nigel Mattravers, waste specialist within Grant Thornton’s Project Finance team commented: “The Government has done a good job in promoting recycling awareness and raising recycling levels. However the current focus on how many tonnes we recycle and the fixation with meeting weight-based targets rather than on energy efficient recycling methods is actually having an adverse effect on the environment.”

“Energy intensive recycling methods such as glass grinding for use in the construction industry may be helping us to meet tonnage-based recycling targets. However, they are failing to reduce harmful CO2 emissions, which would be lower if all the glass was sent directly to landfill sites,” he continued.

“The current basis for establishing landfill diversion targets, and the balance within the resource recovery agenda is incorrect and should be supplanted by a better driver of sustainability based on the carbon impact or green house gases,” said Mattravers.

Grant Thornton and Oakdene Hollins’ recommendations

Grant Thornton and Oakdene Hollins believe that one of the ways in which the government could achieve higher recycling targets as well as much higher carbon dioxide reductions (without spending any additional money) is to increase the international trade of glass cullet.

Mattravers cited an example: “The UK currently imports approximately 500,000 tonnes of green glass as packaging for wine consumption. No more than 45 per cent of this can be used for re-melt in the UK because the supply of new green glass outweighs demand. However, the remaining 55 per cent could be exported for re-melt in bottle manufacturing sites in other countries -- particularly those which are large producers of wine.”

Grant Thornton and Oakdene Hollins also suggest that government policy could be directed at encouraging the bulk import of alcoholic beverages, especially wine and beer which are traditionally drunk from green bottles, for bottling inside the UK, rather than in their country of origin.

Mattravers points out that the renewables sector has seen a substantial increase in investment activity over the past ten years. He asserts that clear signals in the policy landscape and regulatory framework, coupled with outcome-orientated economic incentives, such as ROCs (renewable obligation certificates) has led to a commensurate demand for finance.

“There is a real danger that unless the relative carbon effect of different recycling strategies is properly understood and acted on, the hard-won gains in the renewables sector may be eroded. We think that the government is starting to recognize the carbon effects of current recycling policies. However, this means that the waste management business needs to be cautious about adopting recycling technologies which are not working in partnership with the carbon agenda and be aware of the fact that the government may change its recycling policies in the near future,” Mattravers concluded.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 6:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

You've likely encountered recent media coverage of Canada's Federal Environment Minister Donna Ambrose and her government's admission (to its citizens and international bodies) that it's unrealistic for Canada to attain its Kyoto commitments, and that the country instead will develop a "made-in-Canada" solution to lower global warming gas emissions. Ambrose has been criticized for this, and for lacking leadership on the climate change portfolio.

A couple of things are worth noting as you think about this unfolding issue. (As an aside, I've come around to thinking we should participate in Kyoto and do our share, but with some qualifiers as per below.)

1) The Liberals under Jean Chretien put forward an emissions target that was determined without any meaningful assessment of what we could or could not do, and what effect it might have on the economy. In 1997, the target was set to cut emissions by 6 per cent below 1990 levels (to be attained by 2012). Instead, our emissions have already grown to 34.6% above that target.

2) In reality, what drove Canada to choose the 6% reduction target was simply that Chretien and his crew wanted to show up the Americans (this is documented) who were negotiating a 5% reduction target. Chretien simply wanted to be able to claim that Canada was 1% more stringent than its neighbors to the south.

3) Ironically (and predictably) the Americans never signed on or ratified Kyoto. There has never been any support whatsoever for Kyoto ratification in the U.S. senate, and every poll of senators reveals that all but one or two would refuse. It's just a non-starter there. So here we are, having agreed to an arbitrary target set to only to outdo the U.S., which isn't even in the Kyoto Accord.

4) Like Australia, Canada's economy is disproportionately resource based, particularly in regard to oil and gas production. We encourage immigration and have a rising population. Our situation is totally different than that of the moribund economies of France and Germany, etc. that lack our oil and gas export businesses and whose populations are not growing, and are in fact aging into a Japan-like negative growth scenario. I'm not saying this means we shouldn't do anything about climate change, but we negotiated a target without any maeningful analysis of what it meant to our economy versus that of the other signatories.

5) Canada was really the naive "boy scout" at the negotiating table. The UK was able to meet its commitments easily by shutting down inefficient coal-fired plants that it planned to close anyway. Germany did the same thing after it merged with Eastern Germany and closed the old Soviet-style factories and energy plants. We certainly don't have easy options like that.

6) The most infuriating thing is that it's come out that pretty much all along, the federal bureaucrats and the Liberal government at the time knew perfectly well that the Kyoto targets would not be met. They simply wanted to adopt the "pose" of being environmentally superior, without actually doing anything. In that sense, at least Ambrose's statements are honest, and she's taking the rap for revealing what essentially amounts to a cover up by the previous government.

7) I met a fellow from Natural Resources Canada at a conference recently who admitted that there are whole offices and floors of buildings filled with staff who formerly worked on Kyoto "programs" who now do nothing but sit around and play cards all day. (He was serious!) I told him that they (without government money!) should get off their butts and start companies to solve global warming problems. My first suggestion was a company to manufacture and install "smart meters" for household appliances. Such devices are being put into California homes right now, and allow a person to monitor, in real time, how much power each appliance is drawing and the cost per Kilowatt hour. These meters encourage people to switch out old appliances for new energy efficient ones, and to use them during non-peak times (e.g., put the clothes or dishwasher on after midnight). If everyone used these and did this, we wouldn't need much in the way of new energy plants for the foreseeable future, because the "peak use" would be smoothed out.

8) Canada actually is in a great position to reduce its emissions, whether or not it does so to comply with Kyoto. A lot of how we do this relates to how we develop the oil sands, because if we use natural gas to melt the bitumen and just release all the CO2 from the gas production and the oil melting into that air, we will be WAY out of compliance. But the technology exists to capture that CO2 and sequester it underground. Interestingly, Saskatchewan has the perfect underground geological formations to pump liquified CO2, and has enough storage room for all the world's CO2. We're in a great position to demonstrate to the world how to produce oil from the Alberta oil sands and sequester the carbon underground. This is a techique and a service Canada could offer worldwide.

9) Finally, there are some interesting technologies out there that can help us out. For example, it's possible to obtain natural gas from coal and burn it for power, then capture the CO2 and sequester it. Yes, a lot of engineering challenges remain to be solved, but this is a lot easier than, for instance, figuring out nuclear power. Canada could cut its emissions dramatically and become a world leader (and vendor) in the field of producing CO2-free power from oil, gas and gas-from-coal. What's missing right now is leadership, and I think the federal government is afraid to alienate its western voter base by pushing hard on this issue. Hopefully that will change because there's both a power and an environmental "win" available to us if we move on these ideas.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 8:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Here's an interesting story related to global warming that sounds like something from science fiction. It makes me think maybe the world really is coming to an end. A fascinating idea here, and one that no doubt will eventually be applied to animal DNA, if it hasn't been done already.

Norway to house seeds in doomsday vault

By DOUG MELLGREN, Associated Press

It sounds like something from a science fiction film — a doomsday vault carved into a frozen mountainside on a secluded Arctic island ready to serve as a Noah's Ark for seeds in case of a global catastrophe.

But Norway's ambitious project is on its way to becoming reality Monday when construction begins on the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, designed to house as many as 3 million of the world's crop seeds.

Prime ministers of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland were to attend the cornerstone ceremony on Monday morning near the town of Longyearbyen in Norway's remote Svalbard Islands, roughly 620 miles from the North Pole.

Norway's Agriculture Minister Terje Riis-Johansen has called the vault a "Noah's Ark on Svalbard."

Its purpose is to ensure the survival of crop diversity in the event of plant epidemics, nuclear war, natural disasters or climate change, and to offer the world a chance to restart growth of food crops that may have been wiped out.
The seeds, packaged in foil, would be stored at such cold temperatures that they could last hundreds, even thousands, of years, according to the independent Global Crop Diversity Trust. The trust, founded in 2004, has also worked on the project and will help run the vault, which is scheduled to open and start accepting seeds from around the world in September 2007.

Oil-rich Norway first proposed the idea a year ago, drawing wide international interest, Riis-Johansen said.
The Svalbard Archipelago, 300 miles north of the mainland, was selected because it is located far from many threats and has a consistently cold climate.

Those factors will help protect the seeds and safeguard their genetic makeup, Norway's Foreign Ministry said. The vault will have thick concrete walls, and even if all cooling systems fail, the temperature in the frozen mountain will never rise above freezing due to permafrost, it said.

While the facility will be fenced in and guarded, Svalbard's free-roaming polar bears, known for their ferocity, could also act as natural guardians, according to the Global Diversity Trust.

The Nordic nation is footing the bill, amounting to about $4.8 million for infrastructure costs.

"This facility will provide a practical means to re-establish crops obliterated by major disasters," Cary Fowler, the trust's executive secretary, said in a statement, adding that crop diversity is also threatened by "accidents, mismanagement and shortsighted budget cuts."

Already, some 1,400 seed banks around the world, most of them national, hold samples of their host country's crops.

But these banks are vulnerable to shutdowns, natural disasters, war and lack of funds, said Riis-Johansen.
Storing duplicate seeds in the Svalbard vault is meant to offer a fail-safe system for the planet.

The idea of a global seed bank has been around since the early 1980s, but unresolved issues, such as ownership rights to genetic material, stalled it until the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization adopted the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in 2001.

While Norway will own the vault facility, countries contributing seeds will own the material they deposit — much as with a bank safe deposit box. The Global Crop Diversity Trust will help developing countries pay the cost of preparing and sending seeds.

On the Net:

http://www.odin.dep.no

http://www.croptrust.org

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 2:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Guelph Mercury has printed a very good seven-part series about waste management that deals with broad issues as well as Guelph's recent waste facility troubles. Guelph is an interesting study because it's a small city, and is quite progessive. A lot of what it has learned over the years has applicability to large towns or other cities. Click on the link below to reach the articles. I was interviewed at length for background.

http://www.guelphmercury.com/state_of_waste/index.html

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 1:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There was a public rally yesterday to protest the land application of papermill sludge at a site near Pelham, Ontario. The rally points up the fact that Ontario's Environment Minister Laurel Broten has not followed through with the full application of recommendations from an expert panel assigned to study appropriate handling and disposal of papermill sludge.

A letter I received via email from activist Maureen Reilly outlines the position of people opposed to the casual land application of papermill sludge, who are calling for the implementation of the expert panel's recommendations. I've reproduced the letter below with minimal editing, and I've also cut and pasted two other things Maureen sent me: a Hansard transcript of an exchange in the legislature over this issue and also the expert panel's recommendations.

Dear Guy:

There was a big picket line in the rural community of Pelham, Ontario yesterday, as residents expressed their anger and concern about hundreds of truck loads of industrial papermill sludge dumped in their community. The Ministry of the Environment has failed to implement the recommendations of their own panel of scientists, physicians and experts as to how to manage this sludge material. The experts told the Minister to manage the material as a waste.

Instead the material is dumped in rural communities with no waste permits whatsoever.

Despite this, Laurel Broton, the Ontario Minister of the Environment, rose in the House to answer questions from Oppositon member Peter Kormos, and lied to the Legislature.

She said:

"I think it’s important for the people of the community to understand what the expert panel did say. The government’s actions are exactly consistent with what the expert panel said. "

OH REALLY?

1. The Expert Panel said that any proposed site to receive the Sound-Sorb material needed a hydrogeological assessment before the sludge arrived. It said a Site Specific Risk Assessment may also need to be undertaken.

So where is the hydrogeological assessment for Pelham? Where is the Site Specific Risk Assessment for Pelham?

2. The Expert Panel said the sludge needed to be managed as a waste under a Certificate of Approval.

So where is the Certificate of Approval for the site? Why is the sludge hauled by trucks with no waste licence?

3. The Expert Panel said the sludge needed to be composted before it was brought to the site.

In fact uncomposted sludge is being brought to the site...so it is not consistent with the recommendations of the Expert Panel.

4. The Minister suggested that the sludge at Pelham had been tested for 90 chemical and bacterial parameters.

But the Ontario Minsitry of the Environment refused to provide any test results on the sludge at the Pelham site, and it is not clear that any testing was done at the site. The tests referred to by the Minister are not the same sludge as at the Pelham site. This sludge comes from Abitibi Thorold, a completely different facility than the tests provided to the Expert Panel which were from Atlantic Packaging in Scarborough and Whitby.

And since Sound-Sorb is may contain any liquid, industrial or hazardous waste there is no telling what hazardous waste material is being brought to any particular site.

Conclusion:

The minister should publicly apologize to the Legislature for lying. And the minister should be forced to read aloud the true recommendations of the Expert Panel in the Legislature and immediately implement them.

Hansard and expert panel recommendations are pasted below.

Draft Hansard for June 12, 2006

What was said in Question Period about Sound-Sorb environmental protection

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question for the Minister of the Environment. Down in Pelham, folks are concerned, angry and afraid about a growing mountain of paper fibre biosolids, paper sludge down on Church Street. You know about paper sludge. It contains significant concentrations of acrylamide polymer, a known animal carcinogen, as well as total petroleum hydrocarbons, along with other contaminants. Despite the implications for human health and the environment that were outlined, in fact, by your expert panel, you continue to allow paper sludge to be dumped anywhere, any time with no policing, no monitoring requirements and no regulatory oversight.

Minister, will you intervene immediately to stop the dumping of paper sludge in Pelham and immediately require hydrogeological monitoring of the dumpsite that your own expert panel recommended over a year and a half ago?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): I thank my friend opposite for the question. It has been brought to my attention that the local residents in Pelham are concerned about these issues, and these issues were raised at the town of Pelham council meeting on June 5, just last week.

Let me be clear to the people of this community, our government favours taking a science-based approach to the assessment of the material and a precautionary approach. The ministry regularly inspects sites where the material is being placed, and at the ministry’s urging groundwater monitoring wells are being installed on some of the sites where the proximity of water is evident and any odour are dust problems are promptly being required to be responded to. I think it’s really important for the people of Pelham to know the ministry’s watching this circumstance very closely and will be there to require these steps be taken.

Mr. Kormos: Minister, it’s a frightening observation to make. The member for Erie-Lincoln and I were there on the weekend. The trucks continue to bring this sludge into this site adjacent to the Welland River and other waterways, adjacent to residential and very important farming properties.

Your own expert panel told you that there has to be not only hydrogeological monitoring but a legal framework within which the dumping of this dangerous sludge can be policed and controlled. It’s being dumped willy-nilly on property in Pelham and, in fact, across the province of Ontario.

Eighteen months after this report from your expert panel, you’ve done nothing. The people in Pelham don’t want you to watch, they want you to act. They need your protection against a potentially toxic site and against the poisoning of their waterways, their groundwater and their land. When are you going to act on this and do something positive and concrete? Do your job?

Hon. Ms. Broten: I think it’s important for the people of the community to understand what the expert panel did say. The government’s actions are exactly consistent with what the expert panel said. They said to take a science-based approach, and they said that we did not need to ban the material, but we had to take precautions. We had to put measures in place to make sure that the environment and human health were protected. The ministry has tested it for 90 chemicals and bacteria, and the tests did not indicate that there were significant effects on the environment and human health. What they did have concerns about was the groundwater, and that’s exactly the issues that I’ve mentioned the ministry is taking. Monitoring wells are being put in place and odour and dust problems are being forced to be mitigated promptly.

Recommendations of the Expert Panel on Sound-Sorb from:

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/techdocs/5011e.pdf

6.0 Recommendations

1. There is no need to ban the use of PFB mixed with mineral soil (Sound-Sorb) for bulk use in berms.

2. There is no need to remove the OSGC berm provided long-term monitoring of the groundwater is continued.

3. Existing berms at other gun clubs should have a hydrogeological assessment. A monitoring regime in accord with the algorithm found in Chapter 4 should be established. Removal of a berm would only be appropriate as a mitigation option if contaminants in excess of the Ontario Drinking-Water Quality Standards were found in groundwater leaving the site or significant risks to human or environmental health were found on an SSRA or other risk assessment.

4. PFB should be composted before it is used in a berm.

5. Before a berm constructed of PFB and mineral soil is placed at any new location, a hydrogeological assessment should be done, and a SSRA done if the assessment indicates that one is necessary according to algorithm found in Chapter 4. The use of the proposed site for a new berm should be subject to MOE control by a Certificate of Approval or legal instrument that provides equal or better protection for human health and the environment.

6. Paper fibre biosolids should be controlled by Certificates of Approval or legal instruments that provide equal or better protection for human health and the environment at all stages from its generation, through transport, composting and final use in the construction of berms. The use of paper fibre biosolid material mixed with mineral soil should also be subject to MOE control with respect to its preparation and use in the environment by a Certificate of Approval or legal instrument that provides equal or better protection for human health and the environment.

Page of Ontario Gov't documents on Sound-Sorb

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/land/soundsorb/soundsorb.htm

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday I went to see the new documentary starring Al Gore entitled An Inconvenient Truth. Before I say anything about the movie, I have to say that seeing it, in Ontario at least, is very inconvenient in itself because it's showing in only ONE theatre in the province! (The Cumberland Four, which is right downtown in Toronto's tony Yorkville area.)

However, I made this special pilgrimmage for you, gentle readers, because I felt it was my duty to see the movie and give you an early reaction so you can decide whether it's worth seeing.

My answer is a definite "Yes." I think this is a must-see film, and is one of those things that you can recommend to friends and relatives to give them a quick overview of the topic. Actually, that's a bit unfair -- it's more than a quick overview and does offer some depth on certain aspects. It's got some amazing visuals and brings to life some material that, being based on Gore's PowerPoint presentation, could have been dullsville.

Now I caution you that this movie presents the facts from the global warming side and tends to be very dismissive any skepticism. The film could rightly be criticized for trying to suggest that there is no scientific debate over global warming and that it's a closed matter, which in some respects it is not. But let's give the filmmakers a break -- they're presenting a film version of this compelling lecture and it doesn't have to argue all sides of the issue (for which there wouldn't be time, in any case). It's a very powerful and persuasive film that warns us of the dangers we face. It would be foolish not to read anything more about the issue, including some of the subtleties about how things may or may not play out in future. But that's harder work and doesn't negate this film's value in articulating the core issues, that are certainly among the most important that we must all analyze and debate in our era.

So, go see the film. I'll expand upon some global warming issues that film raised in future blogs, but I wanted to give you this quick reaction. And I would have told you if it'd been a waste of time. One more thought. Some critics have stated that they thought the personal segments about Gore were irrelevant or somehow pandering to a liberal audience. I disagree. I feel the segments humanized Gore and give us insight into a person who is actually deeply passionate and articulate. I very much like the man after seeing this film, even though I would no doubt take issue with a couple of the film's slightly simplisitc claims. The film is much more personal and interesting because of its sections portraying Gore the man. Some of the information about the earliest days of global warming science (Gore was in the classroom of the professor who first measured CO2 emissions on a regular basis) were fascinating. I also enjoyed seeing how the White House and the U.S. goverment generally at times has suppressed the writings and opinions of scientists.

Footnote: There was a trailer for a fascinating documentary entitled "Who Killed the Electric Car" that ties in well with the Gore film. Frankly, it looks even more interesting than An Inconvenient Truth. I'll try and catch that one when it comes out and review it for you.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There was an interesting article on today's Financial Post op-ed page critical of the new Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth. I'll be viewing the flick tomorrow and will report back on it in this space. I think it's useful reading the skeptical material, especially when it counteracts certain exaggerations. Readers of this blog know that I've gradually come around to the belief that we should take preventative Kyoto-type measures as a sort of "insurance policy" in case global warming is happening as claimed. In fact, Kyoto could be viewed as little more than a "downpayment" on an insurance policy that we'll be glad we made if the science unfolds on its current trend, because in a few years we might have to make some truly drastic changes. I'll keep advocating the easier initial steps in this space.

For your convenience I've pasted the article below. The actual FP op-ed page contains an editorial by Peter Foster that opines on these matters, but I think this article is more interesting.

The gods are laughing

Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change
Tom Harris

National Post

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Albert Einstein once said, "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

While the gods must consider An Inconvenient Truth the ultimate comedy, real climate scientists are crying over Al Gore's new film. This is not just because the ex-vice-president commits numerous basic science mistakes. They are also concerned that many in the media and public will fail to realize that this film amounts to little more than science fiction.

Gore's credibility is damaged early in the film when he tells the audience that, by simply looking at Antarctic ice cores with the naked eye, one can see when the American Clean Air Act was passed. Dr. Ian Clark, professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa (U of O) responds, "This is pure fantasy unless the reporter is able to detect parts per billion changes to chemicals in ice." Air over the United States doesn't even circulate to the Antarctic before mixing with most of the northern, then the southern, hemisphere air, and this process takes decades. Clark explains that even far more significant events, such as the settling of dust arising from the scouring of continental shelves at the end of ice ages, are undetectable in ice cores by an untrained eye.

Gore repeatedly labels carbon dioxide as "global warming pollution" when, in reality, it is no more pollution than is oxygen. CO2 is plant food, an ingredient essential for photosynthesis without which Earth would be a lifeless, frozen ice ball. The hypothesis that human release of CO2 is a major contributor to global warming is just that -- an unproven hypothesis, against which evidence is increasingly mounting.

In fact, the correlation between CO2 and temperature that Gore speaks about so confidently is simply non-existent over all meaningful time scales. U of O climate researcher Professor Jan Veizer demonstrated that, over geologic time, the two are not linked at all. Over the intermediate time scales Gore focuses on, the ice cores show that CO2 increases don't precede, and therefore don't cause, warming. Rather, they follow temperature rise -- by as much as 800 years. Even in the past century, the correlation is poor; the planet actually cooled between 1940 and 1980, when human emissions of CO2 were rising at the fastest rate in our history.

Similarly, the fact that water vapour constitutes 95% of greenhouse gases by volume is conveniently ignored by Gore. While humanity's three billion tonnes (gigatonnes, or GT) per year net contribution to the atmosphere's CO2 load appears large on a human scale, it is actually less than half of 1% of the atmosphere's total CO2 content (750-830 GT). The CO2 emissions of our civilization are also dwarfed by the 210 GT/year emissions of the gas from Earth's oceans and land. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the uncertainty in the measurement of atmospheric CO2 content is 80 GT -- making three GT seem hardly worth mentioning.

But Gore persists, labeling future CO2 rises as "deeply unethical" and lectures the audience, "Each one of us is a cause of global warming." Not satisfied with simply warning of human-induced killer heat waves -- events in Europe this past year were "like a nature hike through the Book of Revelations," he says -- he then uses high-tech special effects to show how human-caused climate changes are causing more hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, infectious diseases, insect plagues, glacial retreats, coral die-outs and the flooding of small island nations due to sea level rise caused by the melting of the polar caps. One is left wondering if Gore thinks nature is responsible for anything.

Scientists who actually work in these fields flatly contradict Gore. Take his allegations that extreme weather (EW) events will increase in frequency and severity as the world warms and that this is already happening. Former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg Dr. Tim Ball notes, "The theories that Gore supports indicate the greatest warming will be in polar regions. Therefore, the temperature contrast with warmer regions -- the driver of extreme weather -- will lessen and, with it, storm potential will lessen."

This is exactly what former Environment Canada research scientist and EW specialist Dr. Madhav Khandekar found. His studies show there has been no increase in EW events in Canada in the past 25 years. Furthermore, he sees no indication that such events will increase over the next 25 years. "In fact, some EW events such as winter blizzards have definitely declined," Khandekar says. "Prairie droughts have been occurring for hundreds of years. The 13th and 16th century saw some of the severest and longest droughts ever on Canadian/American prairies." Like many other researchers, Khandekar is convinced that EW is not increasing globally, either.

On hurricanes, Gore implies that new records are being set as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions. Besides clumsy errors in the presentation of the facts (Katrina did not get "stronger and stronger and stronger" as it came over the Gulf of Mexico; rather, it was category 5 over the ocean and was downgraded to category 3 when it made a landfall), Gore fails to note that the only region to show an increase in hurricanes in recent years is the North Atlantic. Hurricane specialist Tad Murty, former senior research scientist Department of Fisheries and Oceans and now adjust professor of Earth sciences at U of O, points out, "In all other six ocean basins where tropical cyclones occur, there is either a flat or a downward trend." Murty lists 1900, 1926 and 1935 as the years in which the most intense hurricanes were recorded in the United States. In fact, Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, has stated that global warming has nothing to do with the recent increase in hurricane frequency in the North Atlantic. Murty concludes, "The feeling among many meteorologists is that it has to do with the North Atlantic oscillation, which is now in the positive phase and will continue for another decade or so."

In their open letter to the Prime Minister in April, 61 of the world's leading experts modestly expressed their understanding of the science: "The study of global climate change is an 'emerging science,' one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system." It seems that liberal arts graduate Al Gore, political champion of the Kyoto Protocol, thinks he knows better.
Institut Pasteur (Paris) Professor Paul Reiter seemed to sum up the sentiments of many experts when he labelled the film "pure, mind-bending propaganda." Such reactions should certainly cause Canadians to wonder if Nobel Prize-winning French novelist Andre Gide had a point when he advised, "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

Tom Harris is a mechanical engineer and Ottawa director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company.

SEA LEVEL FALLING, POLAR BEARS STABLE, ICE CAPS THICKENING ...
"I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands has fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific." -- Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, N.Z.

- - - "We find no alarming sea level rise going on, in the Maldives, Tovalu, Venice, the Persian Gulf and even satellite altimetry, if applied properly." -- Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden.

- - - "Gore is completely wrong here -- malaria has been documented at an altitude of 2,500 metres -- Nairobi and Harare are at altitudes of about 1,500 metres. The new altitudes of malaria are lower than those recorded 100 years ago. None of the "30 so-called new diseases" Gore references are attributable to global warming, none." -- Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, unit of insects and infectious diseases, Paris, comments on Gore's belief that Nairobi and Harare were founded just above the mosquito line to avoid malaria and how the mosquitoes are now moving to higher altitudes.

- - - "Our information is that seven of 13 populations of polar bears in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (more than half the world's estimated total) are either stable or increasing..... Of the three that appear to be declining, only one has been shown to be affected by climate change. No one can say with certainty that climate change has not affected these other populations, but it is also true that we have no information to suggest that it has." -- Dr. Mitchell Taylor, manager, wildlife research section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut.

- - - "Mr. Gore suggests that the Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005. But 1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland and the melt area of ice sheet was exceptionally low due to the cooling caused by volcanic dust emitted from Mt. Pinatubo. If, instead of 1992, Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new Ice Age is just around the corner." -- Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.

- - - "The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling.... Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all." -- Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

- - - "Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening. The temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than one degree C since 1950. And the area of sea ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years." -- Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.

- - - "From data published by the Canadian Ice Service, there has been no precipitous drop-off in the amount or thickness of the ice cap since 1970 when reliable overall coverage became available for the Canadian Arctic." -- Dr./Cdr. M.R. Morgan, FRMS, formerly advisor to the World Meteorological Organization/climatology research scientist at University of Exeter, U.K.

- - - "The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand." -- Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C., comments on Gore's belief that the mountain pine beetle is an "invasive exotic species" that has become a plague due to fewer days of frost.

Ran with fact box "Sea Level Falling, Polar Bears Stable, Ice Caps Thickening ..." which has been appended to the story.

© National Post

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In early July I'm heading off for a four-day weekend paddling in sea kayaks with my stepbrother, my oldest son and my nephew. from Washington. We're putting in at Killarney and heading into the islands off the north shore of Georgian Bay. I noticed when I visited the website of White Squall -- a store and rental outfit where we're collecting an extra two-person kayak, a banner ad for a company called Bullfrog Power. I clicked through to the website and read the interesting information that I've cut and pasted below. Bullfrog Power is a power reseller that sells eletricity generated from environmentally sustainable sources. If, like me, you'd like to invest in green power but are reluctant to take dramatic steps like installing solar panels on your roof or setting up a wind turbine, this is an easy and relatively affordable way to get started -- something you can do to combat global warming without making a big lifestyle change.

Also, I thought I'd mention that my wife and I have turned off the central air conditioning in our house. (Or, more accurately, we haven't turned it on.) So far we've not suffered at all, even during a recent heat wave. I was tempted on one hot afternoon to turn it on, but then I thought about the fact that I'd be using the power at the same time as everyone else -- the very worst peak demand time to use it. I made a note to myself to buy a couple of energy-efficient electric fans that we'll use from time to time during future heat waves, just to move the air through the house. The only sacrifice we've made so far is having to think about which windows to open and close from time to time to get good air circulation in the house. Not much of a sacrifice! We have a basement guest room that's always cool, so we can sleep there during a heat wave. A really nice benefit that I didn't expect is that because our windows are always slightly ajar, we're not insulated anymore from the sounds of summer, including the beautiful birdsong in the morning. I learned on the radio on Saturday that Canada has about two billion birds (yes, that's billion with a "b") and this number doubles during the breeding season.

As an aside, the next item on my list is to go buy a shopping cart-ful of energy efficient bulbs and cut down on our incandescents. (If every Canadian home did this, our national greenhouse gas emissions would be cut by 5 per cent from this alone!)

So, I suggest all of you turn off the central air conditioning, and throw open your windows instead. And use some of the money you save (which will be a lot!) to switch to Bullfrog Power for the rest of your needs.

http://www.bullfrogpower.com/index.cfm

Welcome to Bullfrog Power!

Bullfrog Power is the first 100% green electricity retailer in Ontario. Clean power is here. It's reliable. And making the switch is simple!

Bullfrog Power is the only electricity retailer in Ontario that buys power exclusively from wind and low-impact hydro generators who meet or exceed the federal government's Environmental Choice Program EcoLogo standard for renewable electricity.

Why go green?

Choosing green power is an easy way to do your part to create a healthier environment for future generations.

Electricity production is the largest industrial source of air pollution in our province – pollution that poses significant health risks to Ontarians. When you sign up for Bullfrog Power, your electricity dollars will go to clean, renewable electricity producers who are displacing polluting and CO2-emitting electricity production on the grid.

How does Bullfrog Power work?

When you switch to Bullfrog Power, you continue to draw your power from Ontario's electricity grid in the same way that you always have. You don't need any special equipment. And there is no change to the reliability of your electricity supply. It's easy!

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 7:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I've been away from blogging for a while due to quite a bit of last-minute deadline craziness last week, preparing for you what I feel is an excellent June/July edition, with a feature cover story on the cement kiln alternative for waste residue disposal, and an article about Molok's "deep collection" system based on my recent trip to Finland.

I just wanted to give everyone a heads up that this week three interesting things are happening (for me, anyway).

On Tuesday Ontario's Environment Minister Laurel Broten is making a noonday announcement about environmental assessment reform at Queen's Park. The annoucement is rumored to contain important information for the waste management busines, which has long complained that the EAA needs fixing. I'll post a news item on Headline News just as soon as I learn the details. I might be able to attend in person, but failing that I'll have one of our contributors or industry contacts give me all the info.

On Thursday I'm touring a new aluminum metal recycling plant in Brampton, which I'll report on in detail in the August/September magazine edition. Since I'll be on the outskirts of Toronto that day, I plan to head into the downtown core and catch the new documentary An Inconvenient Truth featuring former president-in-waiting Al Gore. Can you believe that in the entire Province of Ontario this important film is being shown on just ONE screen? (The Cumberland in downtown Toronto.) I mean, I don't expect every intellectual doc to be shown up in Collingwood where I live, but this is just silly, showing such a heavily promoted movie in only one theatre!

Anyway, I'll go watch it and report about it here. My June/July editorial, by the way, is about global warming "tipping points" and how the issue might impact the waste management and recycling industry.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 9:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)