by Rick Morrell THE SASQUATCH Posted on February 11, 2010]]>

by Rick Morrell
THE SASQUATCH
Posted on February 11, 2010

Of the greenhouse gas contributions urban people make directly, about half are related to transportation. The Regina Car Share Co-operative, an initiative formed in 2007, wants to help change that. After a shaky start, the co-operative is now up and running and aiming to cut Regina’s CO2 emissions and improve the city’s transport sustainability.

Regina Car Share starts its engines (slowly)

The decision to start a Regina car share co-op emerged in 2007 when co-founders Malin Hansen and Shawn Fraser were discussing how neither owned nor wanted to own a car, but occasionally needed to use one.

They obtained an ecoAction grant from the federal government that supplied funding for office space and a staff person, but not for a car. In 2009, with the administrative funds dwindling, the organization chose to give up the office and not replace the staff person.

After looking high and low for suitable sponsors or grants, the co-operative still lacked funds to buy a vehicle. “We had no momentum, we were almost out of money, and we were just really demoralized,” said Jennipher Karst, one of the co-operative’s five volunteer board members.

Building momentum

Then, the board’s president, John Klein, eager to have access to a vehicle and determined to see the co-operative take off, decided to purchase a car himself and lease it to the co-operative. With a car in place, the co-op began to garner interest from the community.

Sage, a property development planned for Harbour Landing, offered to buy another car for Regina Car Share with the provision that all residents of their new condo development would be members of the car share via a Sage corporate membership.

Next, a local club offered to buy a minivan with a wheel chair lift so the co-operative could provide another, more independent transport option for people who use wheelchairs.

Then, the federal government’s Co-operative Development Initiative provided a $16,250 grant for marketing and education. Regina Car Share plans to use this funding to promote the co-operative and increase their membership to make the project financially viable in the long term.

“Finally,” said Klein, “it feels like things are lining up for us.”

Sharing takes off

Regina joins around 1, 000 cities worldwide that have car share programs, with the first one on record starting in 1948 in Zurich, Switzerland. The development of car shares increased in the 1970s, with the concept taking off in the 1990s.

The co-op members co-own and operate a fleet of cars that are often more efficient vehicles than they could otherwise afford. In a study of other car shares, 30 per cent of households who joined gave up a personal car, and many members showed increased use of public transit, bicycles and walking.

Application fee: $25

Refundable membership share: $500

Per hour: $3

Per kilometre: 15 cents (for frequent user) to 45 cents

Approximate cost to own and operate your own car: 68 cents per kilometre or $8,000 per year (actual figures of a 2008 Cobalt LT driving 12,000 kilometres per year)

For more information on Regina Car Share, call John Klein at 306-757-4139 or visit them online

A new decade brings fresh perspectives and renewed intentions to keep independent media alive and thriving. You’re an important piece of the puzzle so get involved by sharing our stories with your friends, and your stories or opinions with us.

And join us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest.

To subscribe or order a copy of this issue, call 1-866-431-5777 or visit our secure online shop.

by Carle Steel THE SASQUATCH February 2010 (Vol II No. 1) Political reform is a little like that game from the 1970s...]]>

by Carle Steel
THE SASQUATCH
February 2010
(Vol II No. 1)

So, a bunch of us were moping about in the weeks after the last local elections, where no one voted, again, and nothing changed, again. The people who “won” succeeded on promises that they would not change a thing, because everything’s just great. Again.

What the hell? And more importantly, what to do about all these stupid elections where voters don’t vote? Or worse, they do vote, but everything is stacked against any kind of change?

In a political system as old and complex as ours, fiddle with one thing, and another thing won’t work. It’s a little like that game from the 1970s where you pull out the sticks and hope the marbles don’t fall.

Elected Senate? The same type of people we now elect to the House, only now they want more power and attention? I’m happier to know Pamela Wallin’s got my back, thanks. Abolish the institution of the Governor General? Imagine if Stephen Harper could prorogue parliament all by himself, rather than go crawling to someone else to suspend democracy, even if she is just a figurehead. It’s worth every penny. Fixed election dates? Harper’s recent dalliance with fixed election dates has shown they don’t really work with minority governments.

It’s no surprise the part of our system that bugs me most – the way we elect our representatives – does not bug the average politician. It’s natural for people to be less bothered by the things they control, than by the things that control them – which is why established governing parties are more concerned with our poor dysfunctional Senate and the Governor General than fighting for proportional representation, which would only benefit people who don’t like them anyway.

But how do you change things without making everything else go KerPlunk? How do you get to the basic problem of lack of engagement in elections?

There’s always the Australian model of mandatory voting, which sounds good until you think it through. It is a wee bit heavy-handed and undemocratic, and it keeps the onus on the voter to engage with the political system, rather than the other way around. Plus, our current election model is punishment enough. No one I’ve voted for has won a seat in the last 10 or so years. That’s starting to really hurt.

If we’re going to punish voters for not voting, I say let’s really do it: deny representation to ridings that don’t get a minimum number of people voting.

No votes? No MP. It would mean political parties could no longer rely on apathy, vote splitting and empty promises in exchange for those few votes (and that easy $1.75 in party funding per vote) to get a seat in the house. As it stands, politicians in some ridings know they’ll get a seat no matter how little effort they spend reaching out to voters, or actually governing once the deed is done. In a way, it would show voters that their vote – or lack of it – really does matter.

The silence emanating from those empty seats in ridings where enough voters felt they had nothing to gain by participating in elections would be far louder than today’s backbenchers and opposition members in the House of Commons who have to literally howl and whoop for any attention at all. That can’t be a good use of anyone’s time. (Though, on the other hand, the yelling and catcalling might be more productive than those stupid mail campaigns: I do enjoy Randy Horback’s flyers, especially about all the ways the Conservatives are making Via Rail better for us all. Hey, Randy! Have you visited Regina’s train station lately? Way to represent!)

Another possibility is to run a party to actually represent people who don’t vote, say the Non-Voting Public Party. Guaranteed to get a majority every time, whether people actually vote for it or not. Hire a few unelected spokespeople to speak to the media, and we’ve got a viable opposition party for the rest of us.

Until the non-voting public votes itself out of existence, we have to rely on politicians to keep doing the fiddling, and let the marbles fall where they may.

Sasquatch columnist Carle Steel is a Regina writer and journalist.

Subscribe to THE SASQUATCH

Resume browsing

by Brett Dolter THE SASQUATCH February 2010 (Vol II No. 1) What environmentalists can learn from astronauts]]>

by Brett Dolter
THE SASQUATCH
February 2010
(Vol II No. 1)

“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.”

-Former United States president John F. Kennedy, May 25, 1961

“Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 per cent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.”

-Former United Stated vice-president Al Gore, July 17, 2008

When U.S. president John F. Kennedy called upon the United States to land a man on the moon, he sparked a marathon of scientific discovery and engineering ingenuity that was called the Apollo project. Kennedy’s vision was realized on July 20, 1969 when U.S. astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon and returned home safely soon after.

Former vice-president Al Gore is calling for a new Apollo project, challenging the United States to meet 100 per cent of its energy needs using renewable energy by 2018. Similar to Kennedy’s vision of putting a man on the moon, a renewable-powered United States will not be achieved easily nor without considerable costs.

Gore’s vision is a change of strategy for the environmental movement. It’s become clear that doomsday predictions aren’t spurring the majority to action. And no one wants to give up automobiles, warm homes and avocados. Gore hopes that a renewable Apollo project might work better to inspire action on climate change because it presents a vision of human achievement and ingenuity.

Such a vision may also play well with those opposed to tough action on climate change. Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, visited Canada in early December 2009 to debate George Monbiot, author of the environmental solutions-oriented book Heat, on the issue of climate change. Lomborg argued that the world should be wary of introducing a carbon price on greenhouse gas emissions before alternatives like solar energy have become affordable. In effect, Lomborg argued that a renewable energy Apollo project must come before a carbon price.

Here in Saskatchewan, we are debating our electricity future. We know that we cannot stay the course and continue burning dirty coal to meet our electricity needs. But what alternatives do we have? And are the alternatives affordable?

The Standing Committee on Crown and Central Agencies set out to answer that question. Chaired by Sask Party MLA Tim McMillan, the Standing Committee is rounded out by four other Sask Party MLAs and two MLAs from the NDP. Ideas on how to meet Saskatchewan’s electricity needs were presented to the Standing Committee on Crown and Central Agencies in October. The Committee will meet again in January.

Judging by the responses, Saskatchewan has a real opportunity to play a role in a renewable energy Apollo project.

Saskatchewan-based solar company SHEC Energy presented its “solar-concentrating” technology, which uses a mirrored dish to concentrate the sun’s heat into a central point. Temperatures are high enough to easily boil water into steam, which can then be used to run a generator. This method of creating solar energy would cost as low as nine cents per kilowatt hour.

Saskatchewan can also make real gains in wind power electricity generation. In 2008, wind turbines supplied 2.8 per cent of Saskatchewan’s electricity. According to a study by SaskPower, wind power could potentially be doubled. Yet, Mark Bigland-Pritchard of Low-Energy Designs presented to the Standing Committee and noted that in Denmark wind accounted for almost 20 per cent of the country’s electricity supply.

SaskPower has expressed fears that wind turbines stop working when the temperature drops below minus 30 degrees. If this is true, then there is real opportunity for Saskatchewan to pioneer cold-weather wind turbine technology. We already boast wind-turbine manufacturer RAUM energy in Saskatoon.

Wind power is best suited for use in conjunction with a back-up power source such as hydroelectricity, which can be turned on and off quickly when the wind is not blowing.

Saskatchewan may have opportunities to pioneer wind and hydro systems. The Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation presented to the Standing Committee to express interest in adding to Saskatchewan’s hydroelectricity supply with a 200 Megawatt project.

There are other options as well. Geologist Brian Brunskill told the Standing Committee that Saskatchewan has the potential to make electricity using geothermal technology that uses heat and steam from deep beneath the earth’s surface. And the Meadow Lake Tribal Council expressed interest in using waste wood from its sawmill to produce biomass electricity.

It is no wonder that Tim Weiss of the Pembina Institute concluded that Saskatchewan can create a “green grid” powered by renewable energy.

Saskatchewan must make a choice. The world is calling for action on climate change. Our province needs to lower its electricity greenhouse gas emissions to contribute to this global effort. Nuclear energy has been proposed and rejected by citizens concerned about its cost and the health risks of radiation.

Saskatchewan has alternatives. Pursuing those alternatives may require an investment in research and development. It is for this reason that several presenters to the Standing Committee called for the creation of a Renewable Energy Centre of Expertise in Saskatchewan.

We can have a province powered 100 per cent by renewable energy. There will be challenges, but President Kennedy did not give up his dream of a man walking on the moon when he learned there were technical barriers to getting there and back; he rallied a nation to transform his vision into reality. Premier Wall could do the same.

Sasquatch columnist Brett Dolter is an ecological economist and musician. He teaches economics at the University of Regina and is principal consultant for BD Green Solutions.

Subscribe to THE SASQUATCH

Resume browsing

by Erin Laing and Nikko Snyder THE SASQUATCH February 2010 (Vol II No. 1) Local eating starts early]]>

by Erin Laing and Nikko Snyder
THE SASQUATCH
February 2010
(Vol II No. 1)

What better time to foster a close and knowledgeable relationship with our food system than while bringing a brand new, wriggling life into the world? Eating locally grown, organic whole foods before, during and after pregnancy is one of the very best ways to get both mama and baby off on a healthy footing.

While mainstream wisdom preaches ad nauseam about the very real negative effects of tobacco and alcohol during pregnancy, there’s little cultural encouragement for pregnant women to eat well. In fact, the idea that pregnant women are at the whims of their hormones and should eat whatever they damn well please is a celebrated part of pregnancy – and the more random the cravings, the more endearing it becomes! Pickles and ice cream, anyone?

In reality, there are many good reasons to eat well during pregnancy, not least of which is a link between good nutrition and a reduced risk of perinatal depression, which can occur during pregnancy and in the year following birth. A review of existing research published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association by University of Calgary researchers showed that nutrient deficiencies before and during pregnancy increase the risk of perinatal depression and that North American diets are typically nutrient deficient. Childbirth guru Ina May Gaskin puts it well: “Eat well. This means eat food. Avoid eating anything that isn’t food, such as preservatives, chemical additives, and anything that nature didn’t produce. Read labels. The same goes for what you drink. If you are addicted to carbonated sweet beverages, swear them off during pregnancy and breastfeeding and drink water.”

Once the tiny human is born, mothers have – through their breast milk – the wonderful opportunity to provide the exact nourishment their infants need through all stages of their early development. Unfortunately, corporations work hard to confuse mothers about the natural human ability to nourish our young, undermining this last best bastion of truly independent food production.

Though it provides token acknowledgement that “breast is best,” the baby food industry is massive and growing. It markets hard to sell us the perception that industrially produced formulas are better than breastfeeding, citing convenience, nutrition and food safety as reasons for women to stay covered up. Corporations undermine women’s ability to breastfeed by doling out free formula samples to complicit hospitals, which hand them out to brand new moms when they’re at their most vulnerable and before they’ve mastered breastfeeding, which can take a good six to eight weeks.

The formula-making industry also mimics breast milk’s naturally evolving nutritional makeup by marketing different formulas for every stage of babyhood. (E.g., “Similac Advance enriched with Omega-3 and Omega-6, the first and only formula with IMMUNOTIDE blend, is designed to support the normal development of your baby’s brain, eyes and immune system.”) But why switch up your formula every few months when breast milk changes daily throughout lactation to adjust for what babies actually need to grow? And despite reports of environmental contaminants in breast milk in some areas of the world, research has shown that the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the risks, with breastfed infants showing fewer effects of contaminants than formula-fed infants exposed to similar environments.

Once learned, putting baby to breast anywhere and anytime is arguably much more convenient than taking the time to heat up a bottle of formula. Add to that the recent scares about melamine contamination in formula and the links between formula use and higher rates of diabetes and allergy in children, and breast milk starts to sound tastier and tastier.

Of course, you can’t breastfeed forever. Though the length of time babies are breastfed is mostly cultural, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends breastfeeding exclusively for six months before introducing appropriate complementary foods and continuing to breastfeed for up to two years or beyond.

When the little tyke is ready to start eating some solids, it’s just as important to make sure he or she is getting the best possible food for development. The foods we eat in early life have been shown to affect later rates of allergy and diabetes. Some large-scale studies have shown a 30 per cent or more increase in pediatric type 1 diabetes in children who had short durations of breastfeeding or early introduction of supplemental formula. Other studies have shown that breastfeeding exclusively for longer than five months significantly reduces rates of childhood obesity, as well as asthma and allergy development.

WHO recommends adding additional foods at around six months to increase a child’s nutritional intake, but not to fully replace breast milk. Complementary foods should be wholesome and varied enough to begin to replace the vital elements in breast milk and get the child’s system off to a good start in supporting its own development.

This is also the time when infants develop a taste for new foods. It can take a while for the “strange” taste of broccoli or parsnip to become palatable. Most parents probably understand all too well the challenges of managing picky young eaters, but there are many elements of pickiness that we don’t necessarily understand. For one thing, what tastes good to us is different than what tastes good to a baby, so being knowledgeable about what’s appropriate for young’uns is important. Introducing new foods slowly and one at a time can help identify allergies and provide valuable information about how a baby is responding to new things.

The easiest thing to do is make baby food while preparing the rest of the family’s meals. If you’re cooking carrots, mash some up for the wee one. Or if you’re going to the trouble of prepping carrots for baby, steam some for the rest of the family while you’re at it, increasing everyone’s veg count for the day. What we eat ourselves should be as nutritious as what we feed our kids, so if parental hypocrisy is setting in and you’re demanding that your kids eat spinach while you turn your nose up at it, take a good look at your own pickiness.

Though we tend to assume kids are just picky, their own natural wisdom might have more to teach us than we think. One local friend was amazed that her six-year-old son, who refused to eat any and all store-bought vegetables, happily started eating everything once their family subscribed to a local farmer’s organic food box. It’s not surprising. A study published in the February 2009 Journal of HortScience points to a decline in the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables over the last 50 to 100 years, the same time frame during which our food system moved from locally based subsistence farming to industrial commercial farming. Looks like baby might actually know best!

Recipes & Resources:

Homemade ice cream

1 1/2 cups heavy cream
1 cup whole milk
1/2 cup honey
3 large eggs

Bring everything but the eggs to boil. Add to whisked eggs, stirring constantly. Return to heat and stir until it coats the back of a spoon. DO NOT BOIL.

Cool. Put in ice cream maker and stir until thickened. Or place in deep freeze (or your veranda in the dead of winter) and stir every hour or so to break up ice crystals. You can put it in the blender if you’d like. Near the end, add your favourite fruits or other confections.

Pair with homemade pickles, baked potato or other healthy cravings!

Placenta

Women have eaten their placentas after childbirth for thousands of years. Like breastfeeding, it doesn’t get more local than this. Not only is the placenta chock-full of nutrients needed by both mama and young’un, it’s also been associated with a lower risk of postpartum depression.

There are many ways to prepare placenta: some cook it the same way they would their favourite steak (it is very tender), while others substitute it in recipes that call for liver. You can also dehydrate a placenta and add it to other foods like smoothies and salads or take it in capsules like a vitamin. The Internet has hundreds of preparations for you to choose from!

Breast milk

Breastfeeding is one of the very best things we can do for a baby’s physical, psychological and emotional health and well-being. Unfortunately, it can be challenging to learn, which can add to the temptation to turn to industrially produced, chemical-laden formula. But don’t despair. Here are some excellent resources:

La Leche League has help available in person and over the phone. Look here for local resources.

Lactation consultants are available through your local health region.

Dr. Jack Newman is a breastfeeding guru who will even respond to personal emails. Check out his very helpful page.

Baby food

Start babies off with simple porridge or pabulums made from whole grains such as oats or rice and then introduce veggies and fruits cooked and puréed until smooth. Most typical baby foods are low in acidity and would require a pressure canner to can, so unless you have access to and are comfortable using that technology, making fresh or frozen homemade baby foods is probably the most accessible option. WHO recommends feeding infants simple, single-ingredient foods that are present in the family’s staple foods so that they are eased into eating with their families. No more than one food should be introduced every four days.

A great resource is Complementary Feeding: Family foods for breastfed children, available for free from the World Health Organization

Subscribe to THE SASQUATCH

Resume browsing

by Brett Dolter THE SASQUATCH February 2010 (Vol II No. 1) Proposed nuclear research reactor awaits federal government's decision]]>

by Brett Dolter
THE SASQUATCH
February 2010
(Vol II No. 1)

The provincial government announced Dec. 17 that it would not go ahead with a large-scale nuclear reactor in the province due to uncertainty about costs. But, in the same announcement, Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd expressed continued support for other uranium projects in the province including mining and exploration, finding a repository site for nuclear waste, and development of a nuclear research reactor proposed to produce medical isotopes at the University of Saskatchewan.

Research reactor proposed

In May 2009 the National Research Universal (NRU) nuclear reactor in Chalk River, Ontario, was shut down due to a heavy water leak. This shutdown contributed to a global shortage of medical isotopes – the radioactive elements used to diagnose and treat cancer. Prior to the shutdown, the Chalk River reactor produced about 30 per cent of the world’s medical isotope supply.

To help solve the shortage, the federal government issued a call for proposals for projects to produce medical isotopes. The province of Saskatchewan answered the call and submitted a proposal to build a research reactor at the University of Saskatchewan that would produce medical isotopes and be used for nuclear research. The facility, called the Canadian Neutron Source, would cost $500-750 million to build and $45-70 million per year to operate.

To advise the federal government on the most viable options for securing a steady supply of medical isotopes, the Expert Review Panel on Medical Isotope Production was established in June 2009. The panel assessed several different technologies – both nuclear and non-nuclear – used in the production of medical isotopes. In a report released Dec. 3, 2009, the panel recommended that the federal government work quickly and aggressively to develop a new multi-purpose nuclear research reactor to replace the Chalk River reactor. The proposal submitted by the University of Saskatchewan is one of a handful of proposals that may be considered if the government follows the panel’s recommendation. At the time of writing, Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt has yet to comment on the report.

Alternatives to fission

Critics of Saskatchewan’s proposal point out that medical isotopes can be produced without nuclear fission. According to provincial Green Party leader Larissa Shasko, the nuclear reactor technology is “too expensive, too dangerous, and is not needed.”

“There are safer alternatives,” she says, cautioning against the health and environmental risks involved with developing nuclear power.

Indeed, the University of Winnipeg has submitted a proposal to produce medical isotopes without the use of a nuclear reactor within three years, at a fraction of the cost projected in the proposed University of Saskatchewan research reactor. At a cost of $35 million, the University of Winnipeg proposes to produce medical isotopes using an existing particle accelerator.

A particle accelerator uses electricity to make electrons travel at incredibly high speeds. The beams created by these high-speed electrons can be used to produce medical isotopes. Some medical isotopes produced with a particle accelerator must be used in conjunction with a special type of scanner called a PET (positron emission tomography) scanner – a tube-shaped machine that senses the radiation from isotopes within a patient’s body and uses the information to create three-dimensional images. According to Dr. Dale Dewar, executive director of Physicians for Global Survival, “PET scanning produces better images than conventional radioisotope use.”

But the isotopes used by PET scanners decay relatively quickly. This requires particle accelerators to be located close to the medical facilities that will use the isotopes they produce.

The Expert Review Panel on Medical Isotope Production supports exploring options for a particular type of particle accelerator, called a cyclotron, as a viable source of medical isotopes. But the Panel cautions that “the cyclotron option would necessarily have to co-exist with and rely upon other supply options… to satisfy demand in smaller, more remote locations.”

The short half-life of cyclotron-produced isotopes make this technology “suitable only for large centres and surrounding hospitals,” says the report.

But this wouldn’t be different than the current situation. Dewar points out that “rural communities don’t have access to medical procedures using isotopes at present.”

Existing technology

The University of Saskatchewan already has a cyclotron. It fires electrons into another machine called a synchrotron, which uses radiation to study surfaces and materials. The university uses the synchotron for research in archeology, earth sciences and biomedical research.

According to Iain Harry of Crown Investments Corporation, who helped write Saskatchewan’s research reactor proposal, “the scientists could just refocus the synchrotron and it could make medical isotopes.”

So why didn’t Saskatchewan propose to produce medical isotopes using technology that already exists at the university? According to Harry, “Saskatchewan’s primary interest is not in the commercial production of medical isotopes; our interest is in working with the University of Saskatchewan to build a world-class nuclear research and development facility in Saskatchewan.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated that while it may run intermittently for the next few years, the Chalk River reactor will be shut down permanently by 2016. When that happens, Canada will lose an important tool for nuclear research and development activities, says Harry. “So there’s an opportunity there,” he adds.

Jumping the gun

The opportunity to fill the research and development shoes of the Chalk River reactor led the University of Saskatchewan and the provincial government to submit their research reactor proposal in July 2009. This raised the ire of citizens involved in the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) consultation process who felt the government was jumping the gun by proposing a reactor before the consultations had finished. Building a research reactor was one of the recommendations made in the UDP report, and one of the topics still being discussed at the province-wide consultations.

In his final report, released to the public in September, UDP consultation chair Dan Perrins found that, of those submissions that expressed support for producing medical isotopes, “nearly three-quarters supported medical isotopes created without [nuclear] fission.” Some of the submissions that did not support nuclear isotopes cited “health and safety concerns around uranium, concerns about the suitability and reliability of the technology currently used to create medical isotopes, and a mix of other concerns,” Perrins writes.

However, Harry contends, “those consultations are not a reflection of public opinion. And in fact public opinion appears to be strongly in favour of considering nuclear power as an option, and certainly very strongly in favour of research and development.”

“I don’t think that the fact that people are concerned about things like waste and public safety means that the government shouldn’t consider pursuing a research reactor as a good project for Saskatchewan,” he adds.

Who will foot the bill?

Some faculty at the University of Saskatchewan are skeptical of the proposed research reactor. “This is going to be taxpayers’ money and in the end the uses of this research reactor will be for private industry,” says anthropologist Dr. Alexander Ervin. Ervin is concerned that uranium mining companies like Saskatoon-based Cameco and France-based Areva, and nuclear power company Bruce Power will receive the benefits of the proposed research reactor, while the costs will fall on students. “The university will be required to manage some portion of that operating cost… I could see a future scenario where these cutbacks are downloaded to students,” he says.

“Already this year they’ve been cutting back on sessional appointments… and access to labs and languages. That which was delivered to students is consistently being reduced while their fees are going up,” Ervin continues.

Ervin points to the university’s increasingly autocratic administration as a main factor in the decision to propose a nuclear reactor at the school. “There is a small, closed group of people that make these decisions – top-down planning,” he says. The University of Saskatchewan’s vice-president of finance, Dr. Richard Florizone, is also chair of the Uranium Development Partnership.

Opening the door to nuclear waste

From Dec. 7-9, 2009 the Nuclear Waste Management Organization held open houses in Regina, Prince Albert and Saskatoon. The federal government has tasked the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which is funded by the nuclear industry, with finding a home for Canada’s used nuclear fuel. The organization is looking for a willing community to host an underground storage facility for the highly radioactive waste in one of what they dub the four “nuclear provinces:” Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan. The three eastern provinces are potential sites for the waste repository because they are home to nuclear power plants. Saskatchewan was included because of uranium mining operations in the province.

Professor Ervin worries that building a research reactor at the University of Saskatchewan may open the door to the nuclear waste being stored in Saskatchewan: “If we start creating the nuclear waste it’s going to be very difficult to… claim that ‘no we can’t have it our backyard.’”

According to officials from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, 90 per cent of Canada’s used nuclear fuel is produced in Ontario and stored on-site at reactors in that province. Ervin does not see the logic in having “all these trucks coming in from Ontario with the nuclear waste.” But the Uranium Development Partnership recommended that the Saskatchewan government support any community willing to accept the repository.

Next steps

According to Harry, the University of Saskatchewan’s proposal was one of about 20 proposals submitted to the federal government. “A few of them were large, major proposals that suggested the generation of medical isotopes using research reactors, but the vast majority were non-nuclear isotope generation proposals,” he says.

If the federal government follows the recommendations of the expert panel on medical isotopes, which prioritizes the development of a nuclear research reactor, Saskatchewan’s is one of a handful of proposals they may consider.

Harry says the federal government’s decision on whether to build a research reactor at the University of Saskatchewan is “part of a larger decision that they’ll have to make around the future of Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. [the federal Crown corporation that owns and operates the reactor at Chalk River], and… Canada’s role in nuclear research and development.”

There has been some speculation that the federal government will privatize the Crown corporation, which has been a black-hole for federal subsidies for decades. If the federal government wants to get out of nuclear research, they will be more likely to support proposals that use the cheaper, non-nuclear cyclotrons to produce medical isotopes.

Subscribe to THE SASQUATCH

Resume browsing

by Nikko Snyder THE SASQUATCH February 2010 (Vol II No. 1) Voter apathy in civic elections: why do so few of us participate?]]>

by Nikko Snyder
THE SASQUATCH
February 2010
(Vol II No. 1)

Only one in four eligible voters showed up to vote in Regina on October 28, 2009. This put the capital city dead last for voter participation in the province-wide municipal elections, with Saskatoon just ahead with a turnout of 27 per cent. Turnout in most other Saskatchewan cities was similarly weak, hovering between 30 and 40 per cent. Nikko Snyder investigates this alarming trend.

Like the vast majority of my neighbours, participating in municipal politics has been low on my list of priorities. In fact, until I voted in Regina in 2009, I can’t say I remember ever having voted in a municipal election before. And it’s not that I don’t take my participation in the democratic process seriously – I’ve never skipped out on my responsibility to vote in a provincial or federal election, even when I’ve been out of the country. But somehow municipal politics seem less relevant.

“There’s a general disengagement from politics,” says John F. Conway, a University of Regina professor and writer who narrowly lost to incumbent councilor Fred Clipsham in Regina’s Ward 3. “It’s an endemic problem, and it’s always been worse in civic elections.”

As infuriating as they sometimes can be, provincial and national politics tend to be sexier and are definitely more visible. They receive far more media coverage, have much bigger advertising budgets, and offer much greater exposure through debates broadcast on TV and radio. There’s a sense that our participation matters, and that it’s in the best interest of the candidates for us, their constituents, to be part of the process.

Local politics, on the other hand, are virtually invisible, despite the fact that our municipal governments are responsible for important issues that affect us every day, such as schools, water and waste. Not only that, but our neighbours are the ones making the decisions, in a building that’s literally just up the road from where we live and work. Politics can’t get more relevant.

So why do so few of us bother to participate?

Democracy for sale

On a brisk, sunny morning in October, I and five other demonstrators (plus a few members of the media) gathered outside the Conexus Arts Centre to protest the lack of a free, public mayoral debate in Regina. Not a terrible turnout, considering the early hour and the fact that the event was thrown together only the day before. We sipped our coffee and shared pastries while the $45-per-person breakfast took place inside. Organized by the Regina Chamber of Commerce, the pricey event was the only opportunity for Reginans to hear all three of their mayoral candidates debate the issues. The only open forum, planned by the Cathedral Area Community Association, was cancelled because Mayor Pat Fiacco was not available to participate.

Our idea was simple: eat breakfast, chat with the media and exercise our Charter right to peaceful assembly by standing outside the event on publicly owned property. A few of us who had pre-registered for the event intended to pay to go inside and hear what the would-be mayors had to say for themselves.

Despite our small numbers, our demonstration asking for access to the democratic process must have been extremely threatening. What else could explain why Conexus Centre staff asked us to leave the premises, citing their policy prohibiting protest as justification?

When pressed, the Centre’s client services manager Lynn Severt later confirmed that there is in fact no such policy: “The Conexus Arts Centre sits on land owned and controlled by Wascana Centre Authority,” she wrote. “The Centre has no authority or ownership of any part of the outside of the Centre. We also have no policy regarding peaceful assembly unless our entrances are being obstructed in which case we will ask the parties to move to allow all patrons of the Centre full access.”

Unfortunately, the citation of a non-existent policy was enough to make us leave.

Fake policy ploy notwithstanding, our breakfast protest was by no means a grand activist success. It was a last minute response to an event the Chamber of Commerce had planned well in advance. And kudos to them for organizing such a beneficial event for their membership. But the experience of having our relatively minor dissent so quickly squashed only made the question more urgent: don’t all citizens have the right to participate in democracy?

Whose responsibility is democracy, anyway?

City Hall “can certainly play a more active role than they did,” said Conway, whose ward was the only one in Regina to hold all-candidates debates. He suggested that the City could help citizen engagement by making the election more of an event, with funds set aside for public debates and fora. “Of course that would engage people. The local media totally ignored it,” he said. “Up to the last week, the most common response I got from people was, ‘What election?’”

In a personal phone call to one concerned citizen prior to the election, Mayor Fiacco noted that he had not received enough notice of the Cathedral Area Community Association debate to fit it into his schedule. He pointed to his record of attending several debates and events in 2006 and participating in informal events in 2009 as evidence that he is accessible to his constituents.

Conway believes all candidates should make participation in public debates a priority. “Door knocking is something you do when you have time. You don’t do it when there’s an organized event,” he said, going on to express concern that our community associations, which could become much more active in nurturing citizen engagement, are discouraged from getting involved with political issues because they are afraid of losing their funding.

The Mayor, who did not respond to my request for an interview, also noted his disappointment that the University of Regina had not organized a debate in 2009. In 2006, a handful of political science students organized a mayoral debate with the support of their sessional professor. But Political Science department head Jeremy Rayner confirmed that the debate was entirely dependent on there being an individual professor with an interest in municipal politics, something that was lacking in 2009.

It would seem that encouraging citizen engagement is a responsibility that falls on no one, so it should be no surprise that we aren’t engaged. It’s certainly no skin off the Regina mayor’s nose if no one turns up to vote. He was happy to claim a landslide victory of 84 per cent, despite the fact that low voter turnout meant he actually received the endorsement of only one in five eligible voters.

The question of who votes is as important as how many. “Marginal people don’t vote,” points out Conway, and the numbers prove it. The CBC reported that in Regina’s Ward 6, which includes most of North Central (the city’s poorest neighbourhood), a distressing 14 per cent of people voted. Marginalized people are certainly even less likely to vote if the only access they have to their candidates is through a $45 meal.

From Rider Pride to civic pride

The Regina mayor’s website states: “Mayor Fiacco credits three little words as the catalyst to the positive change that Regina has seen in the last few years—those words being ‘I Love Regina.’ This positive mantra is not just a slogan but a symbol of the pride Reginans share in their community and a desire for their city to be the best it can be.”

Unfortunately, Reginans’ pride is not translating into citizen engagement. Doesn’t loving something necessarily mean that you also want to be involved in fostering its wellbeing? If voter turnout is any indication, it would seem that in Regina and across Saskatchewan we are failing to make this basic connection.

Despite our indifference when it comes to our towns and cities, Saskatchewanians aren’t apathetic about everything. We are, for example, unanimously engaged when it comes to our boys in green and white. In Regina this was reflected in Ward 10, which boasted the city’s highest voter turnout (31.5 per cent) and where Roughrider Chris Szarka beat out incumbent Jerry Flegel.

If the antidote to our apathy does in fact lie in Rider Pride, I say Go Riders.

Unfortunately, building healthy communities requires that we care about more than just our football players. Only time will tell whether Szarka’s celebrity will translate into positive change for the community. Challenges Conway: “How successful he is will depend on whether he begins to take courageous stands on behalf of regular people.”

Subscribe to THE SASQUATCH

Resume browsing

by Barb Woolsey THE SASQUATCH February 2010 (Vol II No. 1) Carbon capture and storage could drastically reduce CO2 emissions, but at what cost?]]>

by Barb Woolsey
THE SASQUATCH
February 2010
(Vol II No. 1)

Wildly unpredictable weather, rising sea levels, tropical storms and drought – the effects of climate change are diverse and increasingly ubiquitous. Whether it was the flooding in the Philippines last fall or snowstorms presumed improbable in Eastern Canada, global warming is in the headlines and on everybody’s lips, no matter where in the world you are living. According to the UN’s weather agency this decade is on track to be the hottest since record-keeping began in 1850; 2009 has been the fifth-warmest year ever recorded.

But the collective global response necessary to avert disaster is being compromised through slow political processes, legislative red tape and the reluctance of governments – particularly Canada’s – to collaborate.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s hesitation to attend negotiations at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen and the country’s embarrassing environmental record have been met with disapproval at home and abroad. The issue has tainted Canada’s image on the international stage and continues to spark debate throughout the provinces.

Carbon capture and storage

In Saskatchewan, much of the debate about how to respond to climate change centres on a fairly new technology, carbon capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage is a way to diminish fossil fuel emissions by keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide is captured, separated from other gases and transported away from the source through a pipe. It is then stored underground or pumped into oil and gas reservoirs that are nearing depletion to enhance oil recovery, drastically reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Concerns

There are still a lot of unanswered questions about carbon capture and storage technology. The underground carbon could affect groundwater chemistry, for example. And there’s the danger of leakage – highly concentrated carbon may pose a risk to human, animal and plant health in the surrounding area if a leak did occur. And besides, if the technology is used for enhanced oil recovery, it may not actually serve to reduce greenhouse gases.

According to Dr. Malcolm Wilson, director of the International Test Centre for carbon dioxide capture at the University of Regina, many concerns come from misunderstandings about carbon capture and storage, like that the carbon dioxide released into the air during capture is dangerous to human health. “All the emissions that take place from the capturing are pretty well non-toxic,” he said in a telephone interview from Copenhagen, where he was attending the UN climate change conference.

The huge price tag on carbon capture and storage is another source of debate. According to an article in Earth Magazine, “constructing a state-of-the-art coal-fired power plant designed to efficiently capture carbon dioxide costs at least a billion dollars. Retrofitting existing plants with carbon capture technology is less expensive initially, but it significantly reduces the plant’s efficiency, making the equipment prohibitively expensive to operate in the long run.”

But choices need to be made. “It’s a manageable expense… one we have to bear,” Wilson said. “It’s all a matter of scale and perception,” he continued, pointing out the much larger environmental return on investment from carbon capture and storage (removing thousands of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere) to that from a hybrid car (a much smaller investment for a minuscule reduction in comparison).

Government on board

The Saskatchewan government has supported the technology from the beginning. The first commercial carbon capture and storage project in the world was stationed in Weyburn in 2007 and was co-founded by Wilson. This project is currently the world’s largest carbon capture and storage project, garnering international attention, and it continues to squeeze more use out of the oil field it was built on. About 28,000 barrels of oil are pumped out per day – 18,000 barrels more than would be produced without using carbon dioxide.

Excited by success in Weyburn, the federal government has earmarked $650 million for carbon capture and storage projects. The Saskatchewan government hopes to secure $100 million of this for a joint project between the province and Montana. This project would see carbon dioxide from a coal-fired power plant in southern Saskatchewan piped to Montana and stored underground. Right now, Montana is trying to obtain funding from the Obama administration to uphold its end of the bargain.

While this massive project is put on hold, the issue of carbon capture and storage remains hot in the province. In September 2009, 150 scientists from 18 different countries attended a workshop in Regina to discuss the future of the technology. Around the same time, Brad Wall welcomed three U.S. officials, including the ambassador to Canada, to view Saskatchewan’s carbon sequestration technologies – being dubbed “Canada’s Carbon Diplomat” by some media.

There is clear government support on both the provincial and federal levels for carbon capture and storage as a means to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. However, many climate change experts are skeptical of the technology’s long-term value.

Putting a price on carbon

Dr. Jeremy Rayner, head of the political science department at the University of Regina, described carbon capture and storage as “putting a lot of eggs into a basket which may not turn out to do the job we hope it would.”

While he does not see the technology as an effective solution to climate change, he says it may buy researchers the time to develop other, more sustainable sources of energy. This may be particularly beneficial in Saskatchewan, which according to the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, has the second-highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita of any jurisdiction in the world.

Climate change specialist for the David Suzuki Foundation, Ian Bruce, cautions against adopting carbon capture and storage unless it is coupled with strong legislation to limit emissions.

“Putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions has been shown to be one of the most effective means of spurring clean energy solutions,” he said.

Indeed, a study published by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute in October 2009 shows that “a significant price on greenhouse gas emissions applied across the entire economy, combined with strong complementary regulations and public investments, will enable Canada to reduce its net emissions to 25 per cent below the 1990 level by 2020.” The report lists carbon capture and storage as one of five key emission reduction opportunities, but emphasizes the need for the federal government to “implement far stronger policies than it has proposed to date.”

The study concludes that greenhouse gas emissions can be significantly reduced while maintaining national economic growth. But since Alberta and Saskatchewan’s economies depend heavily on the coal-fired electricity and petroleum sectors, which emit enormous amounts of carbon dioxide, putting a price on emissions would hinder economic growth in those provinces.

This worries Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall. “If we end up in North America with levies that go to government as a tax, then I have a big issue with that,” he told the National Post in December.

“That’s a transfer of wealth. All that money should be poured back into finding answers. If cap and trade goes to anything other than renewables or technology research then it is not environmental policy but a tax,” he continued.

On the other hand, carbon capture and storage could present a “win-win” situation, Saskatchewan energy minister Bill Boyd told the Canadian Press – “a win for the environment, a win in terms of the economics of it and certainly a win in terms of the enhanced oil recovery, which in turn again fuels the economics of it.”

But according to Bruce, the eagerness of politicians to support carbon capture and storage without simultaneously implementing a capping system or carbon tax hinders the movement to find a logical, sustainable means to reduce carbon emissions.

Rayner agrees. “The system won’t change unless we put a value, in this case a negative value, on greenhouse gas emissions. If we don’t, we will go on as usual for as long as possible,” he said.

In the meantime, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow; the nation ranks first among the G8 for increasing emissions.

Subscribe to THE SASQUATCH

Resume browsing