Environment

The Numerical Truth About Ice Caps, Global Warming, And The Empty Threat Of Floods

Mulder

I am starting to get quite upset at the fear factor card being played by environmentalistas and their ilk who think that the polar caps melting will cause flooding and devastation across the globe. So I am going to take a second and tell you a story my dad told me as a kid.

In the Greek city of Syracuse, a couple of thousand years ago, the king was having a problem with goldsmiths pilfering his gold by substituting lead in with the gold when it was melted down. Once it was reformed, it was difficult for the king to know if he was getting ripped by the goldsmiths.

So he asked his chief scientist, Archimides to figure out a way to catch them if they did substitute something in. Archimides was befuddled with the idea until one day, while dipping himself in the tub for a bath, he noted the displacement of the water. In this bathtub the concept of density was born. Archimidis, in his excitement at solving the problem for the king, jumped out of the tub, and streaked down the streets of Syracuse screaming “Evreka!, Evreka!!” or “I’ve found it!!, I’ve found it!!”

Density is how much mass something has with respect to the volume it takes up. Regular tap water has a density of 1000 kg/m3 . (A nice round number that happens to be that way because of the beauty of the metric system). But other substances, such as gold are much higher, whereas, oil is quite a bit lower explaining is why it floats.

Let’s apply Archimides discovery of density to icebergs. (Because after all, the north polar cap is just a giant iceberg)

First let me explain to you what happens when liquid water is cooled enough to form ice. The temperature drops and as water begins to freeze, it expands. This is because the density of ice is about 920 kg/m3, and that of sea water is 1025 kg/m3.

So what does this mean? It means the ice is less dense than it used to be as water. With this density decrease, the ice begins to float, because in a way, it is lighter than sea water. The ratio of ice that is “pushed” above water is about 10% of the mass of ice. This concept is best understood if you do not think in terms of ice floating, but instead, think in terms of the ice below sealevel being lighter than the surrounding water enough to lift about 10% of it’s mass above water. The mass in this case is the top of the iceberg but could be anything, such as ohhhhh, an expedition heading to the north pole or a harp seal waiting to become a nice jacket.

If you were to put a weight equivalent to this 10% on top of an iceberg, the iceberg would sink until it’s top point was just covered by water. In this case, that density decrease WOULD displace more water and raise the sea level. But in reality there is no weight to push icebergs underwater. There is only Archimides and the math behind density. And density says that they can freeze or melt all they want. If they do it while floating in the oceans they will not affect sea level.

That’s the Officially Screwed math lesson for the day. Now if you want to amaze your friends, take a clear glass jug, fill it about 2/3rds full of cold water, and toss in as much ice as you like so long as none touches the bottom of the jug. Then mark the waterlevel and wait for the ice to melt. The ice that floats up above the waterline will have no effect on where the water level is when it melts. You should note that the water level is exactly where you marked it.

Go and amaze your lefty friends with what they will consider a parlour trick, but you can rest assured is simple science that is over 2000 years old.

First A Beatle, Then The Walrus, And Now Just A Whipped Dork

Mulder

You know….sometimes it just doesn’t befit someone to call them an idiot or a fool or unmanly or under the sexual thumb of his wife, or boyish in the brain and not the looks but these days all those would be fitting. I much prefer to just call Paul a dork. It’s simple to the point and effective.

Knowing Apple records history for lawsuits I will probably get sued for this post but I’m sick of stars coming in and using their clout to start a protest against something they know little about. The McCartney’s are getting up in the face of East Coast Canadian seal hunters who started the annual seal hunt today. They released a new video calling for the boycott of Canadian seafood. (We all know how the boycott is just so huge, don’t we?). Little do they know the seal population has tripled in the last 25 or so years. How many fish do you think seals eat? You can’t just jump in and cut off the cycle of hunting or the battle for fish will affect the populations of numerous other species when the seals eat up all the stock.
A note to Miss McCartney, (yes by Miss I mean Paul), why don’t you pull up your skirt, grow a pair and go out and down one of them seals yourself. Aren’t you the Walrus?? Would you deny yourself the pleasure of your dinner?  Did you know that Walrus’ eat seals?

I am the eggman…I am the eggman….I am the Walrus….coo coo coochoo!!

HSUS Claims Size Does Matter…But Is It All Just Bravado?

Mulder

Tonight on Duffy a member (David Martosko), from Consumer Freedom alluded to a study they did of the restaurants that the Humane Society says have joined their boycott of Canadian seafood. They revealed some pretty interesting results.

They called the 200 + restaurants listed as boycotters and of the 87 they got a hold of, over 78% claimed they were either selling Canadian Seafood or never did to begin with.

The representative went on to say that no longer would organizations like the Humane Society be able to toss out numbers like they do without having an audit performed to confirm or deny their claims.

This is exactly the kind of checking the Canadian seal hunt needed. Nice job Consumer Freedom!!

Ottawa City Council Prepare Carp Mountain Motion

Mulder

The City Of Ottawa is putting up a front regarding the Carp Mountain expansion plans that Waste Management has proposed.

I received the following email from Mayor Bob Chiarelli’s office. This came unsolicited as I had already received a reply to my original email, but I assume they are sending this out to everyone who complained about the dump expansion in an effort to look good before the pending municipal elections.

As you may or may not be aware, the City has said this is a Provincial matter, and the Province has said that it is a municipal matter. Talk about getting officially screwed twice on one subject!! I am making the assumption that this motion is supposed to be a token effort by our politicians to let everyone know they don’t want the dump. But it really just tells Waste Management to look at all options regarding the disposal of waste.

In case you were not aware, Waste Management can look all it wants but the bottom line is that they own the land, and can pretty much do what they want with it. If the City of Ottawa wanted to put some teeth into this, they would have made a motion simple. Something like “The City of Ottawa hereby agrees to take legal recourse should Waste Management expand the Carp Rd. landfill.” Period. Nothing more. Why they would sue, who they will include in the suit, what the basis of the suit is should be determined after a few dozen lawyers get together. Not after our City Council meets. If Waste Management knows they will have a lawsuit on their hands, albeit one they may win, they would still think twice about the expansion.The uproar over this site expansion is just starting. 1100 people packed a gym when the info session was held March 1st. To be honest, I think the residents should just email WM and tell they they will boycott using the Carp facility if they expand it. This may make WM turn to the alternatives like Plasma Gasification.

Ok, enough ranting. On to the email and motion the City has plans to put forward later this month.

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the proposed expansion of the Carp Landfill by Waste Management.

Mayor Chiarelli has called a special City Council meeting for late March for a discussion and a vote on the attached motion dealing with the Carp landfill.

The motion speaks to the concerns raised by our communities and also about the environmental challenges and solutions the City of Ottawa and its residents face in reducing, recycling and reusing our waste. This motion was drafted by Councillors Stavinga, El Chantiry, Feltmate, the Mayor, and the City’s Legal department.

While final approval for any expansion rests with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the City of Ottawa is an important stakeholder and will be involved at every stage of the proposal.

Mayor Chiarelli applauds your efforts in expressing concerns about an issue which is extremely important to all residents in our city.

Thank you,

Jacques Larouche
Assistant to Policy Unit
Adjoint à l’unité des politiques
Mayor’s Office/Cabinet du Maire
City of Ottawa/Ville d’Ottawa

(613) 580-2496
email/courriel: Jacques.Larouche@ottawa.ca

City Council and Standing Committee

Motion

Conseil et comités permanents

Motion

Moved by/ Motion de

Councillor Stavinga

Seconded by/ Appuyée par

Councillor El-Chantiry

RE: Carp Road Landfill

WHEREAS in mid-January, Waste Management of Canada Corp. (WM) announced its proposal to expand its Ottawa waste management facility (WMF), currently located near the intersection of Carp Road and Highway 417 to meet growing recycling, composting and landfill capacity needs;

AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa, through its Integrated Waste Management Master Plan, is taking steps to achieve a 60% waste diversion target; to monitor, test, evaluate and implement alternative technologies and other environmental initiatives for waste management; and to continue to reserve landfill disposal capacity within Ottawa for locally-generated solid waste;

AND WHEREAS WM has access to provincial legislation to apply for an expansion under the Environmental Assessment Act;

AND WHEREAS the draft Terms of Reference (ToR) establishes the framework for the preparation and review of an Environmental Assessment (EA);

AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa, Federal and Provincial agencies and local residents are key stakeholders in the development of the draft ToR for the Environmental Assessment for the proposed expansion of the WMF;

AND WHEREAS the draft ToR appears to indicate that WM will conduct a full EA, but the ToR is so finely focused on the existing site and lands in the immediate vicinity that WM is actually proposing to conduct a very limited, or “scoped”, EA and is therefore not in keeping with the spirit of the EA Act nor is it in accordance with the expectations of the Ministry of the Environment as outlined in its “Guide To Preparing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments, Draft” and “Guideline on Consultation in the Environmental Assessment Process, Draft”;

AND WHEREAS the draft ToR proposed by WM provides an Environmental Assessment framework that is limited in scope, unclear, imprecise and deficient in adhering to EA planning principles, and does not examine many important issues;

AND WHEREAS in the description of the undertaking, it is clear that WM intends to accept non-hazardous waste “generated in the Province of Ontario” and expand the current service area to include the Outauoais region of Quebec;

AND WHEREAS WM has made a public commitment to not accepting waste from Toronto at the WMF at Carp Road;

AND WHEREAS City Council is seriously concerned about the proposed expansion of service areas to Quebec and other parts of Ontario;

AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa and affected residents must have effective and meaningful input during all phases of the Environmental Assessment process;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa request that WM conduct the broadest Environmental Assessment to ensure the examination of all major issues including but not limited to an examination of other lands/facilities owned by WM in Ontario and Quebec, lands/facilities owned by the City of Ottawa, alternatives including emerging technologies such as waste diversion, incineration, energy from waste, stabilized landfilling, and plasma gasification;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the community, social, economic and environmental issues including but not limited to the listing in Schedule “A” be also incorporated in the review;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that effective and meaningful consultation (as further defined in Schedule “B”) on all aspects of the draft ToR and the EA be included as part of that process;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that WM be requested to redraft the proposed draft ToR so that all of the above concerns are included and that an independent peer review of both the draft Terms of Reference and the full Environmental Assessment be included as part of the workplan; and that the revised draft ToR and the draft EA be brought forward to Planning and Environment Committee and City Council for review prior to being submitted to the Ministry of the Environment;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in an effort to reinforce the need for each municipality in Ontario to work towards a home-grown solution for their own waste management issues, both WM and Ontario’s Minister of the Environment confirm in writing that the Carp Road Landfill will not be permitted to receive waste from an expanded service area, including Toronto, the GTA and the Province of Quebec, and that should any additional landfill capacity be approved anywhere in Ottawa, that the City retain 90% reserved capacity for Ottawa waste;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the staff report that is being prepared on the issue include a detailed explanation of the City’s plan and timelines to meet Ottawa’s 60% waste diversion target.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that WM be asked to agree to a facilitated Environmental Assessment process involving a broad representation of interested parties, including citizens, community associations, environmental and public health organizations, the City, local conservation authorities and WM.


SCHEDULE A

PRELIMINARY LIST OF COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

FOR THE DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE

Issues include but are not limited to:

§ Social, economic and cultural impact assessment

§ Visual impact assessment

§ Groundwater/surface water impact assessment, including existing contamination issues

§ Impact on the development of the Ottawa/Carp Airport

§ Environmental health concerns, including odour, dust, noise, litter, migration of waste off site

§ Environmental and ecological impact assessment

§ Public health concerns

§ Height of the landfill

§ Leachate management

§ Traffic

§ Bird and pest control

§ Independent reporting/tracking of customer base, yearly tonnage and annual intake by source and origin, and waste mix

§ Alternative technologies/sites

§ Description of the geographic area


SCHEDULE B – PRINCIPLES OF MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION

Meaningful consultation should, at a minimum, involve representatives of affected constituent groups and the wider community in meaningful dialogue with the proponent throughout the EA decision-making process.

The consultation process for the entire EA should adhere to the following guiding principles:

· identifying before undertaking the consultation the group(s) and/or individuals to be consulted;

· build understanding (not just provision of information);

· provide timely and adequate information for the purpose of the consultation;

· seek best-balanced decisions for the undertaking, taking into account positive and negative impacts;

· actively seek views and engage in dialogue with a variety of interested, affected groups and/or individuals and key sources of information;

· respect opinions and input;

· communicate clearly to all contributors the results, including the decision reached, the action taken, and the rationale for the decision;

· include a means of assessing the effectiveness of the consultation, and to provide for follow-up;

· recognize that constituent groups may have their own constraints (e.g., neighbours may be at a disadvantage because they lack independent advice on the EA process and the scientific

· details of the EA impact assessment studies); and

· include consultative dialogue consisting of mutual listening and sharing of information and views by the consulting body and the group(s) or individual(s) being consulted (e.g. workshops on specific topics for specific themes or interest areas)

For this process, meaningful consultation should include but not be limited to the following:

· Establishing a stakeholder liaison committee consisting of representatives from the local community and the City of Ottawa to liaise with the proponent and its consultants and have dialogue with government reviewers, at all stages in the EA.

· Conducting consultations on the work plans for the specific impact assessment studies – early in the EA, before those studies commence.

· Establishing milestones for tabling a draft of the EA for public comment

· Establishing the means for a meaningful dialogue with the public, including many or all of the following:

Ø newsletters/newspaper supplements that would serve to provide interested stakeholders with more detail than they would receive in a standard EA newspaper notice, but less detail than in an EA report component

Ø identifying and reaching out to interested citizen organizations to provide presentations or EA updates

Ø central public information centre where people can arrange to visit the proponent’s operations to learn more about the EA, read reports, drop off comments, etc.

Ø workshops with neighbours to enable them to meaningfully provide detailed input against each of the milestones, or on EA impact assessment work plans.

Ø plan to resolving issues with stakeholders

Ø process identified for tracking – and sharing – issues and proponent responses to those issues so that all interested parties can participate in tracking how the proponent is addressing issues as the EA progresses

Ø provisions (or funding) for independent advice to be made available to stakeholders to help them understand the EA process

Ø provisions (or funding) for independent peer reviews of the EA criteria, impact assessment study work plans, or EA impact assessment reports

Ø reports to committees of Council and City Council

Ø provisions for reports/presentations/workshops for local environmental and community organizations that might normally be very interested in a EA of this nature (e.g. Ottawa Sierra Club, community associations)

Ø provisions for those immediately impacted by mitigation measures, impact management measures or possible compensation program(s) to be involved in consultation on the details of same

Monte Praises Licia Corbella, And Rightfully So

Mulder

Monte Solberg rightfully gives Licia Corbella an A+ in Math when the rest of us are working towards an F in Environmental Studies.

Licia Corbella has written a brilliant article in Reader’s Digest about Canada’s Kyoto commitments.

Basically Licia points out that if we decide to ban all planes, trains and automobiles in Canada and entirely abandon all manufacturing, stop all construction and shut every mine we would still fall short of our Kyoto target.

Combined those reductions would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 252.9 megatonnes, still leaving us 17.1 megatonnes short of our insane Kyoto target. Licia gathers all of her information from the Environment Canada website.

Sometimes you just have to wonder who was calculating our commitment. I took the One Tonne Challenge and my home already has so many efficiencies in it that the biggest improvement I could make would be to get rid of the two cars in our driveway. 70% of my calculated Green House Gas production comes from these cars.

If Licia’s calculations are right, I may as well give up now and be happy I am on the side of pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol. Our new home has high efficiency appliances. I replaced pretty much every light bulb with the new energy efficient fluorescent bulbs that use 1/4 the power of regular incandescent ones.

I guess all there is left to do is trade in my Honda truck for a Hybrid Honda Civic. And that isn’t happening soon.