|
Idle No More (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| hardcore trancer |
Funny how the media isn't really talking about this report and instead they are trying to discredit this entire movement over mismanagement...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story...lution-pah.html
Alberta lakes show chemical effects of oilsands, study finds
| quote: | A new study released today suggests chemicals from 50 years of oilsands production are showing up in increasing amounts in lakes in northern Alberta. And the effects are being felt much farther away than previously thought.
The joint study between scientists at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., and Environment Canada looked at core samples from five lakes close to the oilsands mining and upgrading operations in Fort McMurray, Alta. They also studied samples from Namur Lake, 90 kilometres northwest.
The authors focused on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs. These are cancer-causing chemicals that are released when things are burned. They can occur naturally — from forest fires, volcanic activity and geological deposits — but burning petroleum in the production of the oilsands leaves a particular fingerprint, so the scientists were able to trace where the PAHs in the core samples came from.
The study found that the levels of PAHs in all six lakes had increased anywhere from 2½ times to 23 times background levels in the early 1960s, before the start of oilsands mining in the region. The PAHs fall into the water from air pollution and are deposited in the mud over time.
One of the study's authors, biologist John Smol from Queen's University, says these formerly pristine northern lakes now have the same chemical composition as lakes near urban areas.
"This is an early warning indicator of what is happening, he said. "These lakes are not pollution pits by any means, but these wilderness lakes are similar to your typical urban lake."
In response to the study, Federal Environment Minister Peter Kent said that the industry has been making an effort to reduce its pollution but he also says that the new federal-provincial monitoring system that was announced last year will play a big part in keeping an eye on contaminants coming from the oilsands.
"Certainly oilsands operators in the last 22 years, since 1990, have reduced their [greenhouse gases] for example and their other contaminants by close to 40 per cent. But this report reminds us of the need of continuing cumulative monitoring to be sure we don't get into situations where cumulative levels do get past acceptable levels."
Smol says scientists were surprised to see that even Namur Lake, the farthest away, was being affected.
"The footprint of the tarsands is much further," he said. "Here we have effects 90 kilometres away."
The study warns the chemical deposits will increase as oilsands production in northern Alberta triples in size in the next 25 years.
Other studies have warned of problems
The effect of the oilsands on the environment is highly controversial. There was little monitoring of the air and water in the region before the production started and there is a polarized debate about what is considered "natural" occurrence of petroleum deposits in lakes and rivers.
But other studies have suggested problems. A study in 2010 by University of Alberta scientist David Schindler discovered deformed fish in Lake Athabasca downstream from the oilsands. It caused a huge public outcry and eventually led to a federal-provincial environmental monitoring plan for the Alberta oilsands announced last February.
Monday's study concludes there is "little doubt of the unprecedented increases of PAHs" in northeastern Alberta's lakes, and warns of "striking contaminant increases consistent with the prevailing winds blowing across local upgrading facilities and surface-mining areas."
The scientists also took a look at how the chemicals from the oilsands are affecting zooplankton, which are sort of the canary in the coal mine in freshwater research. Zooplankton are tiny little organisms the size of a dot that float around in water and are eaten by fish.
So far, the study shows the zooplankton are doing fine, with numbers at an increasing level. Scientists think warmer temperatures caused by climate change are actually helping them to survive the effects of the chemicals. But that may only be short-term good news.
The study warns of the "unknown" long-term ecological effects of the PAHs, as increasing amounts of the chemicals occur in freshwater lakes and are absorbed by fish, birds and up the food chain to humans. |
|
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
She has every right to be upset/angry about this because the Governor General SHOULD be there representing the Queen. This may be unusual circumstances, but the First Nation land agreements signed by the King of England hold more power, than something Harper's crew could write up and be of the same worth, so the Governor not attending and represents the Queen is kind of having a Ball and forgetting to invite the Queen, It shows both his ignorance and/or his disrespect for the First Nations People.
Treaty rights are not a matter of 'public policy issues.' We are sovereign under the Queen. He needs to attend and do his job. |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
She has every right to be upset/angry about this because the Governor General SHOULD be there representing the Queen. This may be unusual circumstances, but the First Nation land agreements signed by the King of England hold more power, than something Harper's crew could write up and be of the same worth, so the Governor not attending and represents the Queen is kind of having a Ball and forgetting to invite the Queen, It shows both his ignorance and/or his disrespect for the First Nations People.
Treaty rights are not a matter of 'public policy issues.' We are sovereign under the Queen. He needs to attend and do his job. |
The GG does whatever PM tells him to do. Most Canadians don't want it any other way. If GG does take active affairs in politics, there's going to be a bit of constitutional crisis. |
|
|
| failsafe |
I kinda get the feeling that I'm the only one posting on this thread that has actually been to Attawaspikat or any of the other air access only reserves in Ontario. Without having been there, it's really easy to put on the rose coloured glasses and white-guilt yourself into thinking that the natives aren't the problem here.
The moment you spend any kind of times in these places you immediately realize just about everything you read in the papers is absolute bull . I can't count the number of times I flew charter flights up to the reserves costing THOUSANDS of dollars each, just to fly fried chicken up to the natives. Now that's your tax dollars at work. The Friday flights to pick up the chiefs and their drinking buddies were great too. The reserves were "dry" so they had to have the tax payers foot the multi thousand dollar bill every weekend so they could leave the "dry" reserves and drink elsewhere. That's just the tiniest tip of the horrible abuse of the billions of dollars pumped into a parasite culture with no accountability. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
She has every right to be upset/angry about this because the Governor General SHOULD be there representing the Queen. |
I have to disagree, there is no reason the GG should be there. In order for anything to be done (any tangible results anyway) there will need to be an act of parliament introduced, passed, and then given Royal Assent. Neither the GG nor the Regent themself has the ability to introduce a bill to parliament; subsequently, they hold absolutely no sway over the discussions. Since our constitutional conventions dictate that the GG MUST give Royal Assent to any bill passed by parliament there is no need for the GG to be there even in an observer capacity gathering information for a decision he may need to make later, as there is no decision making process to be undertaken.
| quote: | | This may be unusual circumstances, but the First Nation land agreements signed by the King of England hold more power, than something Harper's crew could write up and be of the same worth, |
Any agreement entered into by the government of the day would need to be signed by the GG in order to be binding (and as addressed earlier the GG has little choice but to sign); subsequently, any agreement with "Harper's crew" would ultimately be an agreement signed by the Regent. Your argument holds no weight and just like the demand for the GG to be present illustrates a significant misunderstanding of the constitution and our legislative process.
| quote: | | Treaty rights are not a matter of 'public policy issues.' We are sovereign under the Queen. He needs to attend and do his job. |
What is in question is not treaty rights; rather, it is the administration of those rights, which is undertaken through the administration of the Indian Act (primarily), which is an act of parliament; subsequently, it is absolutely a public policy issue and entirely within the perview of the federal government, not the crown. Let's be honest here... the chief wants the GG to be there because she has a mistaken belief that she is the leader of an autonomous state and as such the Head of State should be in attendance... essentially stating that she is the Regent's equal and the government of the day is beneith her. This is terribly flawed in a number of ways; a) while it is debatable whether or not she is indeed the leader of a nation she is most certainly not the leader of an autonomous state, b) the Regent takes direction from the government of the day thus it is quite normal to have the government of the day engage in the practical discussions with other states reserving the head of state for cerimonial events only... you'll note that it is always the government of the day that engages in international discussions; so even if she were the head of an autonomous state it would be the government of the day that would engage in this sort of discussion with her, c) given the financial dependency of most "first nations" (including hers) on the Dominion of Canada, even if we were to accept that they are states they would be vassel states (much as Guam is to the USA) thus the leaders of same would not be equal to the Regent.
Ultimately, Cheif Spence is displaying a great deal of ignorance (be it willful or otherwise) regarding the constitution, legislative process, the Indian Act, diplomacy, and a deluded vision of her station, role, and importance. |
|
|
|
|
