1

1

A 2008-2010 Water/Energy Connections Project Quarterly Newsletter published by:The NCWC Education Fund & The National Council of Women of Canada with funding from:

The Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation

THE CONSERVER

H2O

June/July/August 2009 SUMMER EDITION

Dear National Council of Women of Canada and NCWC Education Fund Members and Supporters,It’s just past the half way mark in our Water/Energy Connections Project, and we have certainly made many very disturbing “connections” between water and energy. A most startling and worrisome one for all Canadians, particularly westerners in Alberta and Saskatchewan, was revealed by our guest speaker Andrew Nikiforuk at our June 6th AGM in Prince Albert Saskatchewan. A well known environmental advocate and author and winner of the 2009 City of Calgary W.O. Mitchell award for his book Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of the Continent, Mr. Nikiforuk drew a crowd of NCWC members and several en-vironmental activists from around this northern Saskatchewan district - and a standing ovation- for his stirring description of the havoc the tar sands are wreaking on the waterways, boreal forests, wildlife and the health, safety, and way of life of affected communities. We’ve posted Andrew Nikiforuk’s AGM power point remarks on our web site, along with our NCWC brief to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development regard-ing the Oil (Tar) Sands’ impact on water. The latter highlighted our NCWC Emerging issues Resolution which asked the Government of Canada to “cease supporting the irresponsible production of oil from the tar sands of Canada...”. In the months ahead we

will keep you informed of further developments in this very troublesome story.This edition of the CONSERVER features another urgent water issue-that of the many threats to our Canadian waterways. These are vividly described by our featured writers, Great Lakes expert John Jackson, in his editorial “The (1909) Boundary Waters Treaty: can it adequately address environ-mental needs”? and NCWCEF researcher Dr. John Bacher, in his review of Margaret Wooster’s new book “Living Waters” and his personal account of an 8 day walk to help stop a planned dump on top of the Alliston aquifer, which is considered the source of the “purest water in the world.”On a more, practical note, I am asking members to continue to broaden our circulation of the Water/Energy Connections survey. I have over 200 sur-veys in hand, but would like to bring that number to 300. Please endeavor to hand out surveys at your early Fall meetings and urge your Local and Pro-vincial Council of Women affiliates to take a bundle to distribute to (and collect from - for mail back to me) their members. Your answers to our questions and your comments will form the heart of our rec-ommendations to the Government next Spring. You can also fill out the survey on line at www.ncwc.caEnjoy this issue, which is also on our NCWC web site, and circulate to others. Comments are most welcome at gracia.janes@bellnet.caGracia Janes, Project Co-Ordinator

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

H2O

Dec. 2009/Jan./Feb. 2010 WINTER EDITION

LETTER FROM THE EDITORDear National Council of Women of Canada and NCWC Education Fund Members and Supporters,This ‘Winter’ edition of the CONSERVER moves on from the “soft water path” of our Fall edition to the “soft energy path”. While the Water/Energy Conservation Survey responses show that Canadians still think we have lots of water and don’t need to take what many consider extreme measures to conserve e.g. a third of the survey respondents to date are not giving water a second use, significant progress has been made since our 1992-94 Green Partners survey, regarding fuel saving and energy conservation. For example, over two thirds of the respondents planned ahead to combine running errands and making visits into one trip, and also turned lights, TVs and computers off when not in use. And so far, only 10 respondents would “buy the vehicle they like regardless of fuel efficiency”. However there is still much room for improvement in willingness to sign up to alternative energy providers and systems, which from the comments is hindered by cost and availability.

Since the use of the old non renewable energy sources as oil, coal and nuclear have such a heavy impact on our water resources and environment in general, it’s important to understand why these non renewables have predominated our energy use for so many years and where we are heading now.

To this end, the “Quotables” section features an article by David B. Brooks, retired director of Research, Friends of Earth Canada and Lenore Newman, which gives us the history up to 2003, with its missed opportunities and barriers to change. Then the Renewable Energy brochure, along with a book review of David Goldstein’s Saving Energy: Growing Jobs, by NCWC Education Fund Researcher Dr. John Bacher, show the opportunities now emerging that can lead us down a more sustainable energy path. I’m convinced that If barriers are overcome and opportunities realized, ten years from now a new NCWCEF survey will show the

overwhelming majority of Canadians have bought into the new “soft energy path” in a big way, and Canada will have become a world-wide leader.

Gracia Janes, Project Co-ordinator

HOW TO HELP THE NCWC EDUCATION FUND

Thanks to donations from our loyal supporters, the NCWC Education Fund, in partnership with the National Council of Women of Canada, has been able to enhance our Water/Energy Project 2008-2010 work e.g. the web site survey. If you wish to donate to NCWEF, receipts will be issued for tax purposes. Send cheques made payable to NCWC Education Fund to the National Council of Women of Canada, 506-251 Bank St., Ottawa Ontario K2P 0L4.

For those who prefer internet giving, we are listed on the CanadaHelps.org web site (just type in the box, NCWC Education Fund) CanadaHelps will pass the donation on to us (less 3% for administration) and give you a receipt for tax purposes Any help that we receive goes towards the vital joint work of NCWC Education Fund and the National Council of Women of Canada.

InsIde ThIs IssueQuotables ........................................... 2

From The Pen Of ................................ 4

Across The Country ............................ 5

2

(With permission from Alternatives Journal and David B. Brooks)

REDISCOVERING THE SOFT ENERGY PATH IN CANADA Alternatives Journal Vol.30 Issue 1April 2004. David B. Brooks and Lenore Newman

This article presents a brief history of an analytical approach called the “soft” energy path, and of lessons that can be learned from its successes and failures in Canada.

PART ONE: LOOKING BACKWARD

1900 - 1970: Growing Into InefficiencyCanada is an energy-rich nation. On completion of the Niagara Falls hydro project in 1905, a journalist enthused that “a source of energy as vast as the entire soft coal deposits of Pennsylvania had by some miraculous process been transferred to Canadian soil and by another miracle made not only clean but inexhaustible.” 1.H.Nelles.Politics of Development (Toronto.Mac Millan Co. 1974.) Pg.217

Plentiful hydro-power in the East and newly discovered oil in the West supported rapid economic expansion in Canada, particularly after World War II, which in turn further increased the demand for energy. This cycle allowed energy use to rise without large increases in price. Not only was there little incentive to conserve energy, but energy use and wealth seemed to be linked.

1965 - 1975: Efficiency Becomes an IssueUnchecked expansion of energy consumption began to be questioned in the late 1960s. The wide range of adverse impacts associated with energy projects drew the attention of the rejuvenated environmental movement. At about the same time, Canadian nationalists worried about growing exports; First Nations worried about their land; and many people worried about nuclear power.

Sharply higher oil prices after the first shock in 1973, along with social and environmental concerns, created the political space to question the assumption of fixed ratios between energy use and a healthy economy. Happily, it was an era of activism in the federal government, which, among other things, created an

Office of Energy Conservation, mandated energy-efficiency labels on appliances and fleet efficiency standards for automobiles, and subsidized energy-saving home renovations.

Though some officials continued to see conservation as but a stopgap until new supplies could come on line, the need for energy efficiency was widely accepted by the public. People began designing for a more energy efficient future. Most such designs were only marginally different from the past, but some, such as the soft energy path, went further.

1975 - 1985: Beyond EfficiencyAnalyst Amory Lovins coined the term “soft energy path” in his 1976 essay, “Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?” Amory B. Lovins. Foreign Affairs, 55.1 (Autumn 1976) Lovins drew two opposing pictures of energy policy: a “hard path” relying on centralised, large-scale, capital-intensive technologies to meet rising demand; and a “soft path” emphasizing conservation through efficiency, smaller scale but diverse sources of supply, and simpler systems. Lovins also brought thermodynamics into public policy by emphasizing that energy is measured as much by its quality as by its quantity. Efficiency depends critically on delivering energy in a quality appropriate to the end-use need. As a practical illustration, this means that electricity should be used only for those (relatively few) uses, such as lighting and communications, that truly need this expensive form of energy, while low-temperature (and low-cost) heat is used to keep our buildings warm and to heat our water.

Hard and soft energy paths diverge in ways that go well beyond physics and economics. Options that adopt soft path approaches tend to create more jobs and to provide greater scope for local management. For the most part, they are less environmentally disruptive and significantly less vulnerable to system failure. Broadly, compared, the “soft path” creates a better quality of life than the “hard path” for equivalent levels of per capita income.

Stimulated by Lovins’ concepts, Canadians began to investigate soft energy paths. From the start, their studies were innovative: First, in recognition of regional differences, Canadian energy use was built up from province-by-province studies. Second, in recognition of its diverse roles in society, energy use

QUOTABLES

3

was linked to “input-output” models that show the structure of the economy.

Initial results were published in this journal in 1979 and 1980, followed by a much more extensive study in 1983. The 12-volume report was delivered by Friends of the Earth Canada to the Department of Energy, Mines & Resources in 1983, and then later that year brought out a more accessible version in book form. The studies demonstrated conclusively that Canada could grow much larger with no increase in energy use (the technical fix model), and that, with modest adjustments in values, energy use could actually decline (the consumer saturation model). Neither model was utopian. Both, for example, brought in conservation and renewable technologies only as they became cost-effective, and both maintained full employment.

1985 – 1995: Win Some / Lose SomeCanada’s use of energy did change. In 1958 it took 15 megajoules to produce a dollar of GNP; in 1997, it took only 12.4 megajoules. As a result, Canada’s energy use today is very close to the technical fix scenario in the soft path study, whereas the government’s scenario produced at about the same time is about 40% too high. Despite these gains, total and per capita energy use has continued to climb, and nonrenewable fossil fuels continue to dominate the supply side. Canada is not yet on a soft energy path.

PART TWO: LOOKING FORWARD

Why This Far and No Further?If lack of adoption of soft paths in Canada is not a result of lower than expected energy prices, neither is it a result of lack of technology. Our economy is still very energy inefficient. Sweden and Switzerland each have per capita GNP similar to that in Canada, yet use 60 percent less energy. “Factor Four” analysis offers example after example where cost-effective technologies cut energy use by 75 to 90 percent. True, some renewable technologies, such as solar electric panels, are still expensive, but greater demand would quickly bring down their costs.

Barriers to the Soft PathFour inter-related problems seem to explain the lack of wider adoption of soft technologies and soft path concepts: lack of diffusion, lack of government

interest, active opposition, and institutional barriers. We seem to be better at developing than diffusing new technologies. Even in the presence of a receptive public, new ideas can spread very slowly. Few inventors and innovators are good at bringing their innovations to the attention of those who can make the most of them. One must have diffusion agents and agencies with specific expertise. And they must recognize those niche markets where an innovation can get its start and from which demand for the innovation can be built. Moreover, diffusion cannot generally proceed until supporting infrastructure is built. It took 20 years for ethanol “flavoured” gasoline to become widely available, and hydrogen-powered cars would require a whole new infrastructure.

Government policies at all levels play a great role. Public money can subsidize technologies that are not yet economically competitive, as Canada did (albeit futilely) for the CANDU nuclear program and Denmark did (apparently successfully) for wind power. Regulations can stimulate private innovation. Automobile fuel efficiency improved rapidly after fleet efficiency standards were established, and then stopped improving when government failed to tighten the standards. With the trend in the 1990s to less government, forceful initiatives to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy simply disappeared.

Direct opposition to soft energy paths by certain industries, mainly those linked to the hard path, has also slowed adoption. Problems are compounded by advertising that promotes consumption while implying that saving energy means “hotter in the summer and cooler in the winter.” Conservation is made equal to deprivation. But in most cases the situation is just the reverse. Soft path techniques not only cut energy use but also provide a better service. Well insulated houses are simply more comfortable than poorly insulated ones, and factories designed to be energy-efficient work better in other ways as well. Ultimately, what the public wants is not a barrel of oil or joule of electricity, but the services energy provides – which is what the soft path does, and indeed does better than the hard path.

Finally, all economies, Canada’s among them, are full of institutional barriers that block or delay needed changes. They range widely but include lack of

4

information, inappropriate incentive structures, poorly designed or out-of-date regulations, and failure to consider whole systems or integrated design.

Beyond the BarriersCanada’s progress towards a soft energy path is mixed. Some sectors have made big gains; others only small ones. Passenger transportation stands out among the latter. Renewable fuel options are still few, and not yet supported by infrastructure. Despite available technology, gains in vehicle fuel efficiency stopped improving after mandated levels were reached. Indeed, with the shift to larger vehicles, the earlier gains were partially reversed. Moreover, there has been little attention to the true soft path energy savings, which can only be found through planning processes that discourage driving and encourage walking, bicycling and mass transit................................”

Face to Face with OpportunitiesThough Canada has not pursued as soft an energy path as many European countries, neither have we experienced the unconstrained growth in energy use envisioned in the late seventies. Canadians have followed a middle path in which hard path and soft path technologies (and socio-economic characteristics) co-exist, something that was possible because our abundance of hydro-power and natural gas have permitted smooth transition options.

The opportunity remains to move to a soft energy path in Canada. If anything, that opportunity is even greater today with our need to find ways not just to meet the immediate Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emissions but in the longer term to go well beyond them. The big question is whether we can go beyond thinking about technologies and bring soft energy path values into planning bodies, into policies, and into public awareness.” (Editor’s note: Today, 6 years later, growing concern with climate change has added considerable weight to the authors’ challenge. The book review Saving Energy: Growing Jobs, on pages 4 and 5 fills in some of the 67 year gap, and the Renewable Energy pamphlet on pages 6, 7 and 8 shows some of the ways forward.)

*references for article on request to gracia.janes@bellnet.ca

Saving Energy: Growing JobsBy David Goldstein. Bay Tree Publishing, Richmond , California, 2007

-Review by Dr. John Bacher

Saving Energy:Growing Jobs brings an important message to the public in this day of scarce non renewable resources and the move to an energy “soft path”: that is, “Environmental Protection Promotes Economic Growth, Profitability, Innovation and Competition.” Its author, David Goldstein brings a wealth of experience and a practical view having been a driving force behind California’s trend- setting energy efficiency regulations, and in designing the New York City headquarters of the Natural Resources Defence Council as a model of lighting comfort and efficiency. His excellent information comes from an important part of production that I had never heard of before- the process engineer, responsible for determining the processes that are used in factories to manufacture products

In reading “Saving Energy: Growing Jobs”, what is so stunning is to see how the OPEC oil hike of 1973 was a significant turning point in achieving greater energy efficiency and reducing waste. Given this perspective, it is indeed frightening to imagine how much more severe global warming would be, had not an oil cartel of nations unexpectedly been able to secure massive, if short lived, increases in oil prices.

For many appliances, energy efficiency had been steadily going downwards from the end of the Second World War until the OPEC price hike of 1973. For instance regarding refrigerators, Goldstein points out that,“During the 1950s, engineers developed better thermal-insulation materials to allow motors to run hotter (that is less efficiently), without self-destructing. By testing and developing features that allowed manufacturers to use less of relatively expensive materials like copper (for the motor), manufacturers reduced refrigerator costs, but at the expense of reduced energy efficiency.”

FROM THE PEN OF

5

Goldstein is careful to document how the greater energy efficiencies achieved after 1973 were not simply a result of higher energy prices. Rather, they were the product of carefully designed targets for energy efficiency that were set by California, and then copied throughout the United States, which were designed to reduce the terrible human health impacts of air pollution.

Developing better efficiency standards for appliances in California, Goldstein explains, has been a wonderful win-win situation for consumers and manufacturers. Improved energy efficiencies have led to other product improvements. Regarding washing machines, Goldstein shows how, “Since 1992 the new generation of efficient clothes washers has been marketed primarily on the washers’ stain-removal ability or size and capacity options. Energy-efficient washers don’t require an agitator and there-fore can accommodate more and bulkier garments. In addition, they produce water savings that often reduce consumer expenses even more than the energy savings. And because they use less water, they need less detergent, so detergent savings may be larger still. Finally, the gentler cycle of washers without an agitator allows not only longer life for all our clothing, but also permits home washing of some garments that previously required dry cleaning...Energy-efficient dishwashers are marketed on how quietly they operate. They also require less water and less detergent.”

One of the most astonishing stories in “Saving Energy: Growing Jobs”, concerns a successful campaign by environmentalists that resulted in greatly reducing Dow Chemical’s toxic emissions from one of its American plants. Although Dow was chosen partly because of its “reputation as one of the best-managed industrial companies in terms of its use of up-to-date technologies to improve efficiency”, Goldstein persuaded the company to undertake a waste minimization study by outside consultants and implement their recommendations. Eventually, “After several years the environmental coalition and Dow agreed to accept the results of the consultant’s study. The consultant actually found numerous opportunities to cut waste. The final project led to a 43 percent reduction in toxics and a return on investment of 180 per cent for the company.” Unfortunately, Dow refused to apply the efficiency approach to its other plants, claiming the gains were not “worth the trouble

to replicate.” Having more such success stories would require, Goldstein laments, “an army of environmental advocates to knock on the doors of every industrial plant in the country and to continue to work with its managers until they finally agreed to implement such projects.”

Goldstein finds the root of the problem to be in the underdevelopment in America of process engineering. In response to OPEC, Goldstein notes that Japan required “all industries over a particular size to hire and maintain on staff an energy manager whose job was to look for energy-efficiency opportunities. By all measures, Japan’s industrial energy efficiency improved and was at a world-class level within a decade.” In America in contrast, “Most companies look at energy efficiency or other environmental improvements as something that must be only done once and under outside pressure.” There are very few consulting firms with much process engineering expertise in America.

One of the most important contributions of Goldstein to the debate about public policy is how he shows that companies which are committed to environmental goals, are more profitable, better places to work in from a health and safety standpoint and have fewer strikes and labour conflicts.

When Goldstein visited a manufacturer that makes energy efficient clothes washers, he found that the differences “between plants was dramatic: the former plant’s premises were cleaner, better organized, better lit, and the workers were evidently happy and had stronger company loyalty....At the latter plant, workers’ moods clearly reflected some underlying levels of rebellion against the company, and the assembly process clearly involved more discomfort and noticeable higher potential for repetitive-stress injury to the workers.”

All which shows, how increasingly it is being revealed, that “Without vision, the people perish.”

6

From: Renewable Power: the Intelligent Choice www.rpic.ca (2010)

“The majority of scientific models and predictions to date have under-estimated the scale and pace of global warming we are already seeing.”

-Tim Weis, Pembina Institute, Canada

Switching from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy sources is vital to protect our atmosphere and climate.

- David Suzuki Foundation, Canada

“It’s now beyond talking about climate change … We’re in deep trouble. Green energy is one of the only things we have left.” - B.C. Entrepreneur Randyn Seibold, whose Renewable Recruits agency matches employers with recent graduates in everything from wind & solar en-ergy to smart-grid technology. (National Post June 23, 2009)

“We have been given two paths: one is well-worn but scorched and the other is green.”

- Native American activist, environmentalist and author Winona LaDuke

“You skate to where the puck is going, not to where it’s been.”

- Hockey Legend Wayne Gretzky, when asked the secret of his success

Renewable Energy Enormous Potential!“We have the opportunity to have a vibrant and robust green economy. There is huge public demand for it, and it is the best plan of action for a clean profitable future for Saskatchewan.”

- David Anderson, Solar Outpost, Saskatoon

A Global Renaissance Clean, efficient renewable energy technologies are ready to compete head to head with oil, gas, coal and nuclear.

- Pembina Institute, Canada

Renewable energy has become a huge industry worldwide, with wind and solar being the fastest growing sources of energy, and the costs keep declining. Renewables have already surpassed nuclear capacity in the world. (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007) These low-polluting industries are creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in countries as diverse as Germany and China. Renewable energy technology is changing so rapidly that what was considered state-of-the-art even five years ago has been improved upon. There is a high public demand for clean energy. Many graduating engineers and designers today are drawn to the rapidly growing new renewable technologies. Raum Energy of Saskatoon, for example, employs 17 people full-time. Its new wind turbine systems were designed by engineers who are U of S graduates.

What Others are Doing President Barack Obama has pledged to double renewable energy in three years in the United States, where wind energy alone already provides 85,000 jobs.

Germany, with similar electricity demands as Canada, already supplies 15% of its electricity through renewable energy, a figure projected to reach 30% by 2020 and 50% by 2030. “An orderly exit from nuclear power generation will be accomplished by 2022.” (German Environment Ministry, April 2009)

The new solar energy system at the Vatican will save the equivalent of 80 tons of oil yearly.

Switchgrass pellets are used to heat buildings in Quebec. Austria, Germany and Sweden heat homes with pellet boiler systems. By 2020, 30% of Denmark’s energy supply will come from renewable sources. (Globe & Mail, Oct. 8/09).

“Renewable is doable now. This is an option that needs to be considered as seriously as any of the other options.”

- Tim Weis, Pembina Institute, Canada

(Pembina’s analysis: By adopting renewables, Saskatchewan could create nearly 50,000 net new jobs

ACROSS THE COUNTRY

7

Wind power generation represents an exciting opportunity for us to harness the power of prairie winds, providing electricity without generating greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity from wind power is clean, renewable and inexhaustible.

-SaskPower website SOLAR POWER

Solar energy can generate clean, reliable power with little maintenance and free fuel. It can provide 20-90% of residential and commercial hot water heating at a cost below the price of heating water with electricity.

Global solar photovoltaic production grew by 90% in 2008, and prices are decreasing. Like other electricity sources, solar and wind energy have down times, so the preference is to have a mix of renewable energy sources and spread them through a region or province.

BIOMASS

Organic matter such as agricultural residue (straw, manure) or forestry products (sawdust, bark) is burned to generate power and heating.

It can be easily stored and used when needed, can provide a constant, non-fluctuating supply of electricity and heating, and can provide new income for farmers.

LOW-IMPACT HYDRO

Small-scale hydroelectric development requires comparatively little physical space and causes less ecosystem damage than large hydro generation facilities.

Think About It

Non-renewable resources will become more expensive and will run out. Canada is one of the top 10 countries

while meeting the government-set emission reduction target.)

IT’S A START

• SaskPower plans to double the amount of electricity it gets from wind over the next four years. SaskPower & Sask. Research Council offer a 35% grant on renewable energy projects. The Federal government offers solar energy rebates.

• A facility is being built in Hudson Bay, SK to manufacturer fuel pellets from wood and agricultural waste as a biomass fuel.

• Alberta has announced transmission upgrades to accommodate up to 3,000 MW of wind power.

• Manitoba Hydro has become a Canadian leader in geothermal heat pumps.

• Ontario has a new Green Energy Act and plans to eliminate its use of coal by 2014. New nuclear projects are on hold due to costs.

• Nova Scotia is aiming for 25% renewable power by 2015.

• A new industrial wind turbine at the top of the Olympic Express chairlift at Grouse Mountain is expected to meet 20% of the ski resort’s power needs.

• Wind farms have revived a dying mining community in central Gaspé, Que. A Gaspé community college now trains wind-turbine technicians.

• St. Lawrence College in Kingston, Ont. launched a nationally-acclaimed solar energy program four years ago. Graduates quickly find jobs from Halifax to Vancouver. Canada’s largest solar farm (near Napanee) is expected to power 1,000 households.

WIND POWER Clean & Reliable

Wind-generated electricity is emission-free, consumes no water, produces no waste and is 100% renewable. Wind turbine noise has been dramatically reduced. Wind turbines cause some bird fatalities, but far more birds are killed every year by windows, high-tension lines, or cats.

8

A potential doubling of energy rates may well do more to encourage energy conservation than every government-sponsored program since the beginning of time.

- Regina Leader-Post, October 8, 2009

* Conservation and efficiency measures can be as simple as improving standards for new buildings so they use less energy for heating and cooling, or lowering the thermostat before leaving home. In 2006, Efficiency Vermont saved Vermont taxpayers $1.70 for every $1 it spent. The benefit-cost ratio for efficiency investments now exceeds 2 to 1. The investments by Efficiency Vermont in 2008 were $31.4 million . The net lifetime economic value to Vermont from these 2008 investments is estimated at $66.5 million (Efficiency Vermont 2008 Annual Report).

8

monic Orchestra. Kregal is “the principal visionary of the Scajaquada Pathway ”, a two mile path that links Buffalo’s largest park with the Niagara River-walk. On a walk with Kregal, Wooster documented carefully a number of inspiring signs of the Creek’s recovery from a former abandoned industrial waste-land. They observed giant Snapping Turtles sunning themselves on rocks, red wing black birds trilling, beaver-cut trees and “grown men fishing all along the Scajaquada.” The most spectacular sight was that of a “Great blue heron following the creek like a map upstream.”

Wooster shows that nothing about how to protect the environment in the Great Lakes is dull, but is however, terribly under- reported. She describes the drama of the debates concerning the status of the American eel as an endangered species, where she was expelled from one study session for not being properly invited. She gives a glimpse of the debate over whether there is a migratory ocean-ic population of Atlantic Salmon in the upper St. Lawrence River, and of the Onondaga’s plan to restore it to the lake in whose waters their ancient Iroquois Confederacy was founded. She also in-forms us that Americans are planning to launch a NAFTA challenge to Ontario’s coal burning emis-sions at the Nanticoke Generating Plant, one of the major sources of acid rain emissions contaminat-ing the lakes of the Adirondacks.

In a quite moving fashion Wooster shows the dedi-cation of the many environmental champions who work to restore Great Lakes ecosystems, without the appreciation they deserve. One astonishing fig-ure from Buffalo, Stan Spisak, is shown on the Buf-falo River with the then New York State Senator Robert Kennedy. Spisak was also able at this time to meet with US President Lyndon Johnson, show him samples of contaminated sludge, and persuade him to issue an Executive Order to prohibit the dumping of dredged materials into Lake Erie. Another is the Mohawk artist Ray Fadden, founder of the Six Na-tions Museum in Onchiota. Aware of the problem of the continuing disruption of the Adirondacks with acid rain and mercury, he has taken the unusual step

of “feeding the wildlife, including eleven bears, to help them survive the loss of natural food sources and valuable habitat.”

Throughout “Living Waters”, Wooster explains how easy healing the earth would be if we simply used the “good mind” to work with nature rather than making war upon it. As with many of her best examples, this is shown most vividly in her home city of Buffalo. It is committed to the most costly way of handling its garbage, incineration. As a re-sult it has “a garbage recycling rate of only 6.5 per cent compared to a national average for cit-ies of about 30 percent, with cities like Guelph recycling well over 50 percent of their munici-pal waste.” Another, technically at least, painless path for ecological restoration, is to dissuade the New York State Thruway Authority from annually pouring multi-millions of dollars into what now has become the purely recreational Erie Canal, “in light of its continuing potential as an invasive spe-cies vector and its impacts on the Oswego River, Montezuma Swamp, and other wetland ecosystems across the state.”

One of the reasons that “Living Waters” is such good reading is that it will help the environmental-ists who are blessed by reading it, feel better about what they do. You will certainly see yourself as the dedicated orchestra timpanist, rather than the grumpy short sighted curmudgeon .

H2O

NCWC Education fund506-251 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1X3

Phone 613 232-5025 ▪ ncwc@magma.ca

Gracia JanesBox 1590, Niagara-on-the-Lake ON L0S 1J0phone 905 468-2841 ▪ gracia.janes@bellnet.ca

for per-capita carbon emissions, and Saskatche-wan has some of the highest greenhouse gas and C02 emissions in Canada.

Wind energy can provide high quality long-term jobs. Farmers can rely on wind power as another crop to be harvested and there is potential for wind cooperatives. Saskatchewan is also well positioned geographically for export possibilities.

Energy Efficiency & Conservation

It is significantly cheaper to invest in energy efficiency than to build or even maintain polluting sources of electricity supply (David Suzuki Foundation).

Energy efficiency is the “single most promising resource” in pursuing energy affordability and security (2009 U.S. report by McKinsey & Co.). California’s energy-efficiency standards for appliances and buildings have helped save more than $15.8 billion in electricity and natural gas costs (David Suzuki Foundation).

The Jaccard study (Pembina Institute & David Suzuki Foundation) shows Canada can succeed economically while meeting targets to reduce global warming pollution.