Sunday, December 23, 2007

Climate injustice in Canada and the U.S.

New Orleans

It is well known that the Bush Administration refused to pay for repairs to the New Orleans levies, resulting in mass death and homelessness when Hurrican Katrina struck and then bungled the disaster relief effort. Less well known is that the hurricane's intensity was a result of global warming (although Gore alluded to this in An Inconvenient Truth):

"Global warming accounted for around half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, while natural cycles were only a minor factor, according to a new analysis by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The global warming influence provides a new background level that increases the risk of future enhancements in hurricane activity. The study appears 27 June in Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union. global warming related disaster

Since the disaster, hundreds of billions of dollars have been slated for the war in Iraq but almost nothing for public housing in New Orleans. Tenants who tried to get into a City Council meeting to stop the demolition of existing housing were met with tasers.



"What’s at stake is the bulldozing of 5000 homes, or what politicians and reporters euphemistically call “units”, of public housing. These units, some moderately damaged, some unimpacted by Katrina, have been neglected by government for decades, but nonetheless were homes for some of New Orleans neediest and most disenfranchised people before the storm. Since the storm, rent prices are up by 50% and the homeless population is far larger than pre-storm levels.

"After nearly 2 and half years of all types of neglect and abuse toward survivors of a global warming related disaster this has become a hugely symbolic battle against the ethnic cleansing of New Orleans. And it has been the last straw for many of New Orleans’s most oppressed people." - from It's Getting Hot in Here.

Further commentary:

When Katrina hit on August 29, 2005, there were 5200 families living in apartments administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). There were an additional 2000 low-income public housing apartments that were temporarily vacant at the time of Katrina because they were scheduled for renovation. HUD took control over the Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO) years before Katrina. HANO is under HUD Administrative Receivership.

Since HUD’s takeover, HANO has had a one person board that makes all decisions. The one person HANO board is a HUD employee. That person selects all personnel and approves all contracts. HANO’s annual budget has been about $125 million annually.

The current 4605 low-income public housing apartments will be the replaced by 744 low-income public housing apartments. That results in a loss of 3,861 low-income public housing units – or 82%. Even including the market rate and mixed income apartments – there is a total loss of 2,764 apartments to New Orleans. The $762 million spread over the 1841 apartments comes to well over $400,000 per apartment. So, HUD’s plan is to spend three-quarters of a billion dollars to reduce public housing in New Orleans by 82%.

See Justice for New Orleans,

SACC commentary: This is surely a taste to come of the climate injustice that the most wealthy Americans have planned for the poor. Already, three years ago the Pentagon came out with a report on climate change, which tellingly advised Washington to build up its security against boatloads of refugees, but did not advise that Washing mitigate the actual causes of climate change (which of course include the military!).

_________________________

Canada aboriginal communities oppose open-pit mining

Meanwhile, things are not much better in Canada; climate injustice and racism are occuring every day among land claims slated for development. The tar sands fight and Sharbot lake uranium mine are two key examples.





Tar sands and First Nations

Many First Nations communities are adversely affaected by the tar sands. Among them, the Dene, Cree and Metis.

Grand Chief Herb Norwegian of the Dehcho First Nations, called on Canada and Alberta to support a moratorium on further development of the massive oil producing Athabasca Tar Sands “until some sanity can be brought into this situation.” Source.

The Woodlands Cree First Nations takes legal action agains the Alberta government over tar sands development.

_______________________________

Uranium Minining in northeastern Ontario

For an introduction to the issue see Algonquin Resist Uranium Mine Also see Raging grannies video of their visit to Donna Dillman at the beginning of her hunger strike; and fascinating amateur protest video on Youtube by uranium mine protesters. Here is a NIMBY site against the uranium mine: No Uranium Mine with lots of info.

Two First Nations communitiesare countersuing the mining corporation and government: "Two First Nations communities have launched a $1-billion lawsuit against the province and a $10-million countersuit against a mining exploration company that is suing them for blocking access to a potential uranium mining site in eastern Ontario. The Ardoch and Shabot Obaadjiwan Algonquin First Nations allege that Ontario breached their aboriginal rights and failed to consult them before granting a company mining rights to land they say belongs to them. The land is located near Sharbot Lake, about 60 kilometres north of Kingston. The countersuit against Frontenac Ventures is intended to send a message to the company that launched its own $77-million lawsuit against the two communities in July, said Doreen Davis, chief of the Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation."

The Declaration of the Indigenous World Uranium Summit (2006) says "Past, present and future generations of Indigenous people have been disproportionately affected by the international nuclear weapon and fuel industry. The Nuclear fuel chain poisons our people, land, air and waters. It threatens our very existence and our future generations." Source: site of the Sharbot Lake Algonquin First Nation.

Also see First Nations Drum report on uranium mining.

_________________________

The Arctic and the Inuit

The Innuit of Canada's far north, are witnesses to the most dramatic changes in Canada: the loss of Arctic ecosystems due to climate change at a rate twice as fast as the rest of the world. The Arctic's temperature is expected to increase 4 t 7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures this century.

The negative impacts on their health and culture have prompted one community to launch a human rights campaign:

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the chairwoman of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which represents all 155,000 of her people inside the Arctic circle, said: "We want to show that we are not powerless victims. These are drastic times for our people and require drastic measures."

As a result of global warming many species will become extinct under the stresses. The loss of some species (such as seals) is an example; the entire Innuit way of life is based on hunting of certain species - as these dissapear, Innuit culture dissapears. "Human heath and food security" are also at risk from changing conditions.

Species at risk include the walrus, ice-living seals, polar bears, snowy owl, many species of lichens and mosses, lemmings, voles, arcitc fox, marine birds.



Northern fisheries (Arctic char, Arctic broad whitefish, Arcic cisco) are declining.

Ozone depletion and ultraviolet radiation (a 30% increase in one generation) also have an impact - UV rays cause skin cancer, immune disorders and cataracts in human beings and disrupt photosynthesis. This is one of many expected health stresses.

A massive release of GHGs from the soil and vegetation ("positive feeback") and loss of reflecting ice and snow (decrease of "the albido effect") increase warming.

Insects and fires will increase, old growth forests will be lost.

The Innuit's history with European culture provides ample evidence of the negative impact of new development and loss of culture. This is expected to increase as ice melts and seaways open up, paving the way for oil extraction industries.

As thawing ground (permafrost degredation) threatens existing infrastructures (roads, buildings), and more natural resource extraction occurs more industrial development will occur, further threatening existing habitats.

Also, storms are expected to increase in frequency and severity.

The combined effect of the multiple stresses will amplify them. Source: ACIA report.

Loss of sea-ice could harm walrus

_____________________________

Conclusion

Truly, our collective response to climate change must take into account the needs of every member of society, not be used as an excuse to build more walls and weapons.

The climate crisis is an opportunity to create a just society or a totalitarian society; that choice lies in the hands of everyone who is capable of free thought and action. The fight for democracy, peace and the Earth go together.

Coral reefs dead; against shallow environmentalism; animal rights; war and climate change

-"It's time to buy a mask and snorkel, and see coral while it is still there." - The Economist, 2000

According to Prof. Danny Harvey (Geography Dept. University of Toronto) it is probably too late to save the world's coral reefs. They are very sensitivie to temperature; the world's temperature will continue to increase to a degree that is fatal to the corals, and consequently to the millions of species that rely on them.

"Since the phenomenon of coral bleaching was first noted over twenty years ago, coral reef bleaching events have increased in frequency and intensity on a global scale (Wellington et al. 2001)."

And the cause?

"Most agree that elevated ocean surface temperatures are the main cause of this coral/algal dissociation on a global scale, with increased solar irradiance, specifically ultra violet radiation, also contributing significantly (Brown 1996)." Source.

Harvey notes that ". . . the argument can be made that a two-degree global average warming is too much, as it threatens the widespread devastation of coral reef ecosystems and risks triggering the irreversible melting of Greenland and the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet — with a collateral rise in sea level of more than 10metres.

"According to a recent assess - ment by 19 ecologists based in Europe, North and South America, Africa,and Australia,a global mean warming of two degrees by 2050 will bring about the extinction of from one-sixth to one-third of terrestrial animal species. This is a staggering impact!" Source: Cutting the fossil fuel umbilical cord.

Now it appears that the world is moving beyond a 2 degree threshold: the IPCC suggests 2.4% Celsius as a goal. There is understandable skepticism that even that can be acheived, given the continuing hegemony of the fossil fuel industry.

Harvey adds that although the corals cannot be saved, there is much yet that can be saved, and that we have to move towards energy conservation measures and renewable energy immediately. See this short documentary. In this video he says that we need politicians who care, who have guts and who are willing to act.



Dead reef



Live reef



Map of distribution of coral reefs worldwide. Source. See slideshow on how Australians are measuring coral reef death rates.
____________________________________________________



Worth repeating ...

Shallow Environmentalism: Nature is more than just a “resource”

By Ben Cole

E.F. Schumacher’s 20th-Century book Small is Beautiful first introduced the term “natural resources” to a mass audience as part of his criticism of the assumption that the environment exists solely for economic benefit. Schumacher portrayed natural resources as finite capital, refuting the common belief that they were a form of dispensable income that held no value unless consumed.

Today, Schumacher's message seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Although in the last half-century governments and private citizens around the world have stepped up efforts to curb pollution and species extinction, the rhetoric of non-radical environmentalism still focuses solely on how to ensure continued exploitation of the environment while taking absurdly high levels of energy consumption for granted.



Central to this problem is our the tendency to equate the environment with its sum of “natural resources,” which implies that nature only has an instrumental value gauged by these “resources' ” usefulness in production. As a result, in order for a conservation policy to be politically salient, it must include some utilitarian calculation that proves human economies to be its ultimate beneficiaries. A policy that explicitly seeks to curb growth in order to protect the environment becomes a magnet for ridicule from pro-development economists and property-rightists alike.

Pro-business extremists, such as Robert Bidinotto, a senior adviser for the Libertarian Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise are the main source of anti-environment mudslinging. Bidinotto declares that most common Americans who identify themselves as environmentalists merely “[see] the earth and its bounty as resources… for intelligent human use, development, and enjoyment.” He demonizes real environmentalists for their position that “nature exists for its own sake” and charges them with taking advantage of their co-citizens’ “innocent” views in order to further a radical agenda.

Although some may charge that Bidinotto’s stance is radical in its own right, his assessment of conservationism’s place in modern politics is quite accurate. When the environment is pitted against any form of economic growth, no matter how insignificant that growth may be, anybody who sides with the environment is a misanthropic loony. If it is not a natural resource, it is not worth protecting.



Take, for example, the case of the [U.S.] Endangered Species Act, revered by environmentalists and increasingly attacked by “advocates of economic progress.” In 2002 a political battle emerged in New Mexico over the fate of the native silvery minnow protected under the act. When severe drought wracked northern areas of the state, efforts to divert water from local reservoirs to the endangered fish’s habitat were met with fierce opposition by business interests and homeowners. The ESA was blamed for caring more about fish than people, and even for creating the water shortage itself. Meanwhile, the absurd percentage of water that went to irrigating lawns, street medians, and golf courses went almost unnoticed.

Unfortunately, conservation groups seem to be aware of mainstream Americans’ preference for unimportant conveniences over endangered species and continue ceding philosophical ground rather than attempting to fight materialism head-on. “Green innovation”, the idea that companies respond positively to government regulation by competing over the logistical discoveries that meet regulations in the most cost-effective way, is an argument increasingly used by environmentalists to convince businesses that their interests are aligned. [NB - The Canadian Green Party platform is a key example]

In a foreword to the widely-circulated essay The Death of Environmentalism, Peter Teague grumbled that “the conventional wisdom among environmentalists is that we mustn’t frighten the public but rather must focus…on technological solutions, like hybrid cars and fluorescent light bulbs.”



Ironically enough, the environmental movement that started off by revealing the ecological damages of unquestioned growth and development is now paralyzed by a fear of scaring people. At a time when the political discourse of our nation has such a conservative, pro-business tint, it may be difficult to convince people to abandon such a convenient way of life by immediately cutting carbon emissions by 70 percent. But the environmental movement isn’t even trying. It is attempting to paint itself as a friendly, pseudo-capitalist institution that wants to make the planet a little bit better and save American citizens some money on gas and electricity. Meanwhile, the dominant view of the planet as an all-you-can-eat buffet of natural resources continues.

Environmentalists must be willing to go on the offensive. They must argue that nature has intrinsic value that far outweighs many of the conveniences we enjoy as a result of its destruction; that the Brazilian rainforest is far more precious than the beef of fast food cows that graze on its ashes and that a couple years’ worth of fossil fuels is not worth the permanent destruction of pristine Arctic wilderness. Furthermore, they must answer the ridiculous charges of anti-environmentalists that saying such things constitutes misanthropy. It is our choice whether we wish to live in the natural world or in spite of it.

Source


Good analogy: Right now, we are going full steam ahead into the iceberg of climate change.

________________________________________________________________

Do animals have rights? Below: two of the most charismatic of mega-fauna ...





The Future of Life

Considered by many to be the father of the modern environmental movement, Harvard professor Edward O. Wilson has made enormous contributions to the field of conservation. In this new presentation, he draws on the ideas of his best-selling book, The Future of Life, to make a passionate and eloquent plea for a new approach to the management and protection of our eco-system. Marshalling arguments from science, economics, and ethics, he demonstrates that proper stewardship of the earth's bio-diversity is not an option -- it is a necessity, and a choice we must make if life is going to continue to thrive on the only home we have.

Source Edward O. Wilson asks Is humanity suicidal?



_________________________________________________________________

The war with Iraq versus investment in renewable energy



Something close to two trillion dollars has been been spent on the war in Iraq, compared to $1.5 billion in spending on environmental technologies. The climate crisis could have been solved with 2 trillion dollars. As it is the war, makes climate change worse: See why the Iraq war means inaction on climate change.

Cutting to the chase:

Paul Gipe estimates that 60% of the U.S. energy needs could be met with windpower if the money spent on the Iraq war was spent on windpower. If the U.S. reduced its energy needs by 40% (which it could do easily) the U.S. could get by with 100% wind power!

Additional readings: how far could 68 billion go toward securing energy independence? Pretty damn far And the original article by Gipe: Beating swords into wind turbines. Gipe, who asks, "What could we have accomplished toward building a renewable future here in North America instead of launching a war in the oil-rich heart of the Persian Gulf?"



Paul Gipe, solar energy expert

Friday, December 21, 2007

Failure of U.S. government to control vehicle emissions matched by Canada at all levels of government



The Environmenal Protection Agency in the U.S. just ruled against vehicle emissions controls: as recorded in this news article.

In Canada we are also dissapointed with all levels of government when it comes to controlling vehilce emissions:

The Federal failure to regulate vehicle emissions

The biggest failure is at the federal level. By expanding the tar sands, the government is supplying oil to millions of American vehicles, not to mention generating massive GHGs on the tar sands site (the size of Florida). The Harper government's Clean Air Act or Bill C-30 was slammed by environmentalists and even moderates Al Gore and David Suzuki as a "fraud." As a result Harper allowed it to be modified by the opposition parties, but then failed to endorse it. Here the Sierra Club addresses the fact that it provides no accountability on vehicle emissions standards:

The Sierra Club slammed the vehicle emissions plan as too little too late. "The proposed federal regulations presented today by the Harper government line up with the outdated and weak standards of the Bush Administration, not the stringent standards of the state of California," the group said in a news release. "No targets means no accountability," said John Bennett of the Sierra Club. "This announcement is nothing more than a recipe for delay. Adopting the Bush administrations standards will not lower emissions from vehicles." On the sensitive issue of targets for large industrial emitters, the government is moving cautiously, with a three-phase consultation process in coming years. Source: Nativemaps.org



The province failure

The province is doing better in many areas, but is weak on vehicle emissions: Provincial government (Ontario) fails to follow California's lead on emissions. McGuinty gave $6 billion to the auto makers to make hybrids, but is that really the answer? The car culture is reinforced by this, included unsustainable urban sprawl, energy wasted on vehilce production and money that could be better spent on renewables. See these critiques of car culture: Car Criticism; Suzuki's critique of car culture; and ecoSanity's car culture march with Streets Are for People.



Caption: close-up of Streets Are For People petition car at Queen's Park

The municipal failure

The municipal government (Toronto) fails to impose road tolls to reduce traffic, despite relatively ambitious move towards "adaptation" to climate change through its Clean Air and Climate Change Act. Mayor Miller says provincial and federal investment in public transporation needed: "The [City's] report also talks about bringing in road tolls to increase transit usage, but there was no vote on specific toll proposals." Source: To. Star They also ingnored a well thought out proposal to reduce traffic by 25% in the City of Toronto as well as the Take the Tooker platform.





Chernobyl, Ontario



Renewable is doable

The Ontario provincial government is planning to spend $46 billion on nuclear energy over the next twenty years, even though it has been shown that all of Ontario's energy needs can be met without coal and without nuclear power: see Renewable is Doable.

"Saying we need nuclear plants to meet base load demand in Ontario is like saying you need a mainframe computer to access the internet, It may have been the case in the past, but countries around the world are showing that the next generation energy system is more diverse, greener and a lot more flexible." - from Renewable is Doable report.



Caption: charts which illustrates that the green energy plan, proposed by WWF and Pembina, is less costly and pollutes less than the coal-phase and nuclear plan advocated by the province. Click on charts to enlarge or go to source site.



Caption: Three different scenarios in the Renewable is Doable plan - Ontario Power Authority (OPA) plan, which keeps coal until 2014 and introduces nuclear energy, and "soft green" and "deep green" alternatives, both of which supply Ontario's energy needs at less cost than the OPA plan and with fewer emissions.

Another Chernobyl?

Advocates of nuclear energy say that another Chernobyl won't happen. But there is a risk that it could. The Darlington and Bruce power plants are a CANDU design. In 1993Greenpeace issued a report Nuclear design flaw could lead to CANDU core meltdown. For additional articles which cast substantial doubt on the safety and viability of Ontario's nuclear energy industry see Energy Probe on nuclear power.

Here is the critical question: if there is a risk that the CANDU reactors could become unstable, is it not better to decommission them (shut them down)?

A further problem is that the nuclear waste lasts for 25,000 years! These advocates will not be able ensure that the waste does not contaminate future generations or be used for nuclear weapons. Canada cannot even limit the use of CANDU reactors for nefarious purposes right now! Do the benefits of nuclear energy justify the risks? See the photos below and ask yourself it is possible to put a cost on this suffering.

To see the effects of radioactive contamination, see this video: Slideshow of photos from Chernobyl and these photos: Pictures from Chernobyl

Students Against Climate Change is sending all of these photos to every Member of Provincial Parliament, along with the Greenpeace report and an essay by Prof. Larry Schmidt on the ethics of nuclear energy and the WWF report showing that 100% renewable energy is possible in Ontario and that it can supply the "base load" for this province's energy needs. If the MPPs are people of integrity they will oppose nuclear energy as irrepsonsible.

Why, you ask, did Ontario endorse nuclear energy? Their consultants all come from the nuclear energy sector.



Caption: BELARUS. Minsk. Children’s Home No 1. This hospital receives many of the most deformed babies soon after birth. Nurse Alla Komarova hugs 3-year-old Yulya, whose brain is in a membrane in the back of his head. Paul Fusco / Magnum Photos

To help contact: Canadian Aid for Chernobyl

And to prevent this in Ontario contact your MPP.


William Lawless, whistleblower extraordinnaire - effectively shut down the radioactive waste containment industry in the U.S. when he revealed that the waste was leaking. To this day, the nuclear industry has still not developed a safe method of storing nuclear waste (and probably never will because the half-life of the waste exceed the capacity of any material to store it). Acts of personal courage against the evils of the military-industrial complex, should be honoured.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Climate Day of Action photos





Students at Global Climate Day of Action, in front of Sidney Smith U of T - feeder march organized by a coalition of groups and individuals, including Students Against Climate Change, UTSU, CFS, OPIRG. Special mention goes to Pieter Basedow, Brett Rhyno, Rita Bjons, Susanna Lim, Sharon Howarth, Doug & Paul, and Daniel Tseng, without whom it would not have been possible.



U of T students meet up with Ryerson students at Ryerson U, Dec. 8. CFS and CESAR and Jordan Matchett (Ryerson enviro. collective) helped get students together. U of T and Ryerson students then joined forces and marched to Dundas Square.



Global Climate Day of Action march to Queen's Park. The banner says "Green Energy. Binding Emissions Targets." It was painted by SACC. It shows greenhouse gases trapped in Earth's atmosphere.



12 year old Misha Hamu speaks at the Dec. 8 rally in Toronto on species extinction. About 2,500 people attened the rally, the largest environmental rally in Canada this year.



Eco-fair at Hart House. About 300 people showed up for this. Hot Yam made free vegan food. There were about 20 community groups represented. There was music and speeches. All in all the biggest eco-fair set up volunteers in Toronto this year.



D8 in Germany



D8 in Greece



D8 in China



D8 in Africa



Commentary on Canada's role in obstructing progress at climate talks in Bali. Click on this image to enlarge.



Climate talks have been happening since 1992 (Rio Earth Summit) but little has been accomplished due to obstruction by the U.S. delegations, and now Canada.

Argument for reduction of Canadian emissions despite China's contribution to the problem



Caption: Chart showing substantial difference in per captia emissions by nation. Using this standard, Canadians cannot used the excuse that their country contibutes 2% of the worlds GHGs. Rather, the per capita standard ought to be used as a measure of responsibility. Note: this chart is now outdated - Canada is now matching U.S. emissions levels per capita.

The most commonly used excuse for inaction by Bush and Harper is China's rising emissions. Here is a valid response to that argument, in addition to the moral argument that we Canadians produce a per capita emission:

Chinese emissions are caused in large part by production of goods for the North American market. See critique of overconsumption of natural resources" by World Wildlife Federation.

If we consume less Chinese emissions will necessarily go down. Proof? WalMart is the biggest retailer in the world and a majority of its goods (84%) come from China.

In other words, Chinese emissions don't happen in a vaccuum: they are a direct result of over-consumption in Canada and the U.S. for good we don't need with money we don't have (i.e. credit cards). We can lower our emissions and China's at the same time buy buying less crap.

Further viewing: check out this video: Buy Nothing Day

Further reading: a report on the ecological damage caused by Wal-Mart due to illegal logging:
How Wal-Mart causes illegal logging and threatens endangered species"



Caption: Poster from documentary "WalMart: the high price of low costs"



Caption: Coal fields in China. Edward Burtynksy photo of Bao Steel #10, Tanggu Port, Tianjin, China, 2005. Chinese coal and steel industries are the fastest growing in the world.

Why can't we go in the direction that Germany is going in?

In early 2007 Dr. Hermann Scheer, the German parliamentarian who wrote energy efficiency legislation which Germany put into force in 2000 AD, spoke at Queen's Park. He strongly advocated our transition to renewables and conservation. Since that time, little has been done. There is a real disparity between speech and action at all levels of government. The McGuinty "green plan" is woefully inadequate and appears to be designed more or PR value than to effect real change.

Meanwhile, since 2000 Germany has made major strides towards a sustainable culture and recently announced plans to acheive a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030, based on 1990 CO2 levels. This, so far, is the most ambitious plan by a G8 nation for emissions reductions, although as this article illustates coal plants are still being built in Germany, and Germany's direction is not without difficulties. Despite this, Canada ought to follow Germany's lead on a number of initiatives. See what Germany is doing to conserve energy in detail. It seems that the main thing they have there that we do not have here is political will to change. Germany wants to be a world leader on energy efficiency and this desire is spurring much of the change. See this article as well.



Caption: photo of Dr. Scheer

Solar Pioneer in Germany: Hermann Scheer, the man behind this revolution in Germany, is a veteran of the Bundestag, the German parliament. After 20 years of selling the concept to the German public, his revolutionary ideas were legislated in 2001 when the Renewable Energy Sources Act was passed. Scheer attributes the success of the program to what he calls an "irresistable combination of freedom and autonomy" - freedom for individuals to generate their own power and do good for the environment at the same time, two values that often conflict. Source: CBC artile on solar power.

Eco-friendly Christmas ideas



Caption: collage of Amazon animals endangered by climate change. Scientists estimate that the Amazon will be gone by 2100 A.D. as a result of global warming.

Tips to reduce your ecological impact (send by activist group Prevent Cancer Now).

· If you buy a tree, get it from a grower who does not use pesticides.

· Avoid receiving gifts you don’t want or need by arranging to exchange “Gift Exemption Vouchers” with friends or loved ones.

· Don’t buy gifts that are over-packaged!

· Consider making a donation to a good cause in your friend’s or loved one’s name, or give a membership to an organization you support.

· Give a certificate for a service you can provide – free snow shoveling, gardening, or babysitting are all welcome to over-worked, stressed out friends.

· Don’t be afraid to give second-hand – pass along a book you loved or a funky tea cup you found at a garage sale.

· Support local organic agriculture – give a gift certificate for fresh local produce to a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture)Farm or local Food Box Program

· Buy locally produced goods, artwork, and crafts.

· Tickets to a play or concert can help make happy memories.

· Re-use wrapping paper and gift bags, or use a pillow case tied with a ribbon for sweaters or bigger items

· Use LED lights for your decorating

· Thread popcorn and cranberries as decorations that the birds can enjoy after the holidays.

OR [my note] you can just BUY NOTHING! See Buy Nothing Day

Correspondence with Donna Dillman after her hunger strike to protest uranium mining



Photo of Donna Dillman and march to Queen's Park, Dec. 13, 2007.

For videos of the event see ecoSanity.org (warning: lound sounds on this site, so turn down your speaker first)

Donna Dillman ended her two month long hunger strike to stop uranium mining after several environmental NGOs (notably Greenpeace) said they would hold a public inquiry into the matter. SACC will participate in that inquiry and we welcome you to take part as well, when it is scheduled.

Look for updates on this site, or write to for notice of when the inquiry will occur. The following is part of an exchange with Donna in chronological order. See the CCAMU site for more information as well: CCAMU

Or go to their petition: CCAMU petition

In November, Students Against Climate Change hosted a talk with noted expert Dr. Gordon Edwards on nuclear waste and tritium leakage, at Hart House. See the following site for more information: Nuclear waste It has information from the group that Dr. Edwards founded with Dr. GoldinRosenberg and others scientists: Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. Also see this exposee on uranium mining by Dr. Edwards.



Letter to Ontario premier Dalton McGunity in support of CCAMU from Students Against Climate Change, copied to D. Dillman:

Dear Mr. McGuinty,

The University of Toronto campus club Students Against Climate Changes supports Donna Dillman's call for a moratorium on uranium mining in Ontario.

Ms. Dillman and the organiation she represents, CCAMU, have put forward many sound reccommendations that your government ought to abide by, and which are consistent with the reports issued by Dr. Keith Stewart, Dr. Dorothy Goldin-Rosenber and Dr. Gordon Edwards. Clearly, we do not need nuclear energy in Ontario for many reasons. Here are a few:

* You and your ministers seem to know little or nothing about the environmental and health effects of tritium and radioactive waste. Your choice to embrace nuclear technology in Ontario is based on the advice of a few consultants who come from the "revolving door" of the nuclear industry and who are predisposed to committing public funds to their industry. This is not based on a sound committment to the public good, either in terms of how their funds are to be spent, or in terms of their health. It is like Haliburton advising the Bush Administration on how to proceed in the Middle East; there is a serious conflict of interest which by itself should be enough to put an end to nuclear energy and uranium mining in Ontario.

* 85% of the uranium is exported, and there is absolutely no guarantee that it will not be used for nuclear weapons in the future. Dr. Edwards says that paper agreements are meaningless for future generations, and any reasonable person would concur: how can we provide guarantees that weapons won't be built from Ontario uranium 1,000 years from now, or even 100 years from now? We cannot. This waste will be here long after Canada is gone, and will continue to poison human beings and animals, and be incorrectly used.



* You will be allowing uranium mining operations to poison ecosystems with toxic mine tailings and radioactive waste (which enters into our drinking water in the form of tritium) in order to enrich the uranium mining and nuclear industry in Ontario, at a great expense to taxpayers, the public, the environment and future generations. And there are serious environmental concerns around mining (including
destruction of boreal forests and water contamination) which your government has not addressed. This is a morally, economically and environmentally unsound direction to take.



Caption: open-pit uranium mine

* The 15% which is used for reactors in Ontario is unecessary since we now know it is possible to supply 100% of Ontario's energy needs (including the base load) through wind power (see http://www.renewableisdoable.com/) The biggest argument, by far, is that public funds spent on nuclear, take away from funds that could be
better spent on renewables and conservation. Additionally, uranium is a non-renewable resource and not a sustainable solution in terms of meeting long-term energy needs. The direction taken by Germany, California and Denmark provide far better solutions. It is hypocritical of your government to claim that it is fighting to mitigate climate change and at the same time invest $46 billion in nuclear energy and allow uranium mining in Ontario, when neither is a viable solution.

* There are outstanding aboriginal land claims issues (relating to Sharbot Lake) with the Algonquin first nation which your government has not addressed. This is a question of social justice which Ontario must look into before precipitously moving ahead with new development projects.



Caption: No swimming sign near Bruce nuclear facility, due to water contamination

History will view Donna Dillman as a courageous individual willing to risk her life for future generations and for social and environmental justice. You, on the other hand, will be viewed as a schill for big business and that unique group of opportunistic climate criminals, the nuclear industry. That is, unless you decide to stop uranium mining, put an end to the investment in nuclear energy, and do what any sane responsible leader ought to do: commit to renewable energy, conservation, environnmental preservation, and consultation with relevant stakeholders such as environmental and community groups such as CCAMU.

_____________________



Caption: Photo of radiation poisoning. In the early 1950's, approximately 100,000 immigrant children received X-ray radiation treatment for ringworm upon their arrival in Israel. It was later discovered that these treatments caused high rates of infertility, cancer and death. See film The Ringworm Children.



Caption: photo from Chernobyl. Four year old Sasha has no lymph nodes.



Caption: Twins Michael and Vladimir, aged 16, near Chernobyl. One has hydrocephalus, the other is deaf. According to Prof. G. V. Brukhinat at the medical facility at Chelyabinks, Russia, "most of the congenital diseases are caused by debilitating circumstances in the unborn child's environment." According to Prof. Dorothy GoldinRosenberg at U of T allowable tritium levels in Ontario are 100 times higher than in Europe. Tritium in the water, can cause damage to unborn children. The danger of building nuclear reactors, according to Prof. Larry Schmidt at St. Michael's College, is that we cannot predict how that technology will be used or disposed of beyond three generations. Problems like those at Chernobyl are a real possibility for future generations, for hundreds of years in the future.



Caption: Abandoned kindergarten. Some areas around Chernobly are so contaminated they will have to be closed off for 900 years.



Caption: Bayan, now 16, was 5 when diagnosed with a brain tumour. She now has a second brain tumour. For more information see Chernobyl Info.; Focus Chernobyl

______________________

Mr. Guinty, you claim to be a Christian, but to allow this to happen is decidedly contrary to Jesus' ethical teachings to love our neighbours. Those neighbours include people at risk from tritium poisoning and future generations at risk from nuclear waste. Like Robert Oppenheimer, you are unleashing a dread force on the world, and like him you are personally and morally responsible. And like him you
can reverse yourself and try to make amends. It is not too late. Confession of sins and redemption is an integral part of the Christian experience that you may wish to explore more fully. In this case it will necessarily entail reversing yourself on nuclear energy, destruction of Ontario's boreal forests, and aboriginal land claims.

Sincerely, Paul York, on behalf of
Students Against Climate Change
University of Toronto campus club
email:
tel: 416-922-0035

-------------



Photo of Donna Dillman

Letter from D. Dillman to P. York:

You may have heard that some very stellar environment organizations Greenpeace, Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Club, Students Against Climate Change, etc, etc.) came to the rescue and will be coming together with Citizens Coalition Against Mining Uranium (CCAMU) to call a Citizen's Hearing on the issue, so that I was able to end my protest and eat (baby food, baby quanitities, until my stomach adjusts to receiving food again). Please be in touch with the folks at UofT. They'd love to
hear from you. You can also check out CCAMU's website for more info and for my daily blogs, letters to the Premier and more perspective: www.ccamu.ca. You can also sign up to the Uranium News to keep up to date.

Thanks again Paul, it was fabulous to have met so many keen and caring people in the big city. Please stay in touch as we move toward organizing the Inquiry.

Donna

-------------

Letter from P. York to D. Dillman:

Dear Ms. Dillman,

Thank you for this thorough update. I look forward to the Inquiry as well and will be happy to lobby for it and promote it if it is scheduled. Please keep me updated on that. It was a great pleasure to meet you and be involved in this cause. We will never meet the future generations, far in the future, adversely affected by nuclear waste, but we have established a permanent bond with them, in support of their well-being, for the sake of social justice. This adds great value and meaning to our lives, far more than if we focused only serving ourselves. I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to be part of that your actions and example. You have my deep admiration and thanks.

Sincerely, Paul York

-------------

Letter from D. Dillman to P. York:

I'll put your name with the list of folks coming forward to be apart of the inquiry. Hopefully, the government of the day will sit up and take notice
at some point. I refuse to believe that, as a society, we are destined to
let big business/industry/lobbyists destroy my grandchildren's (your
children's) futures.

Take a look at my husbands site: www.SustainWellBeing.net. He has been at
this work (the bigger picture) for over 35 years and the hope lies in your
generation.

blessings
Donna



Photo from CCAMU site showing protest in Ottawa with native group, against uranium mining