| Advertisement |
|
Local Guides
|
|
|
MAKE EVERYDAY EARTH DAY
|
by
View
April 20 - 26, 2006 |
|
The 1970s world that hatched Earth Day is strikingly similar to
our 2006 global village. Pollution, scarcity of oil and air quality all
dominated the public sphere. In terms of the environment, the
’70s were a progressive decade: leaded gas was phased out,
environmental legislation brought in and intergovernmental
groups such as the UN began examining these issues on a global
scale. Caught up in the momentum of widespread social activism,
even automakers were thinking green: GM President Edward Cole
promised “pollution free” cars by 1980. No doubt he wasn’t
thinking about SUV’s.
Since the first Earth Day 36 years ago, there’s been a marked
increase in concern for the environment and today 141 countries
celebrate the event. But in our fast–paced, too–much–information
society, it’s easy to lose sight of what Earth Day is about. As the
globe is continually besieged by climate change, pollution and
limited resources, it’s important to assess how far we’ve come in
terms of the environment. The answer may surprise you.
We may have eliminated the clunky cars of the ’70s, but in
terms of what makes them run, we’re expending just as much.
Despite knowing that we need to reduce our dependency on dirty
energy, the demand for oil hasn’t lessened—world–wide
consumption is predicted to rise another two to three per cent
this year alone. Oil’s a resource that’s both finite and deadly. It’s
estimated that every gallon of fuel burned produces 20 pounds of
carbon dioxide, contributing to smog and other air quality issues,
which have been linked to respiratory ailments, pulmonary
disease and cancer. The good news is that sales of SUV’s, which
emit 47 per cent more pollution than a regular automobile, have
been on the decline since peaking in 2001. Meanwhile, hybrid and
high fuel–efficiency vehicles have hit the market, giving
consumers a more environmentally friendly choice if they must
drive.
Minimizing our use of fossil fuels is a tough task as
populations rise and societies industrialize. In fact, world energy
demands have been steadily increasing since the mid–’80s. While
the Kyoto Accord outlines Canada’s commitment to these issues,
our system of voluntary energy reduction isn’t working.
Collectively, our CO2 emissions are up 24 per cent since Kyoto’s
implementation. As summer approaches and brown–out days
loom, looking to alternative energy sources is a necessary option
sorely neglected by the federal government.
Andrew Male is the communication coordinator for
Greenpeace Canada. He says that Canada, for all its progressive
talk, lags behind other countries when it comes to implementing
clean energy. “There’s no reason on earth why Canada, the
second largest country in the world, couldn’t be getting large
amounts of its energy from renewable energy, from solar, from
co–generation plants, or from wind turbines.” He notes that
countries such as Denmark and Germany already generate a
substantial portion of their energy from wind sources. “It just
takes leadership,” he explains.
The Ontario government has recognized our need to phase
out old technologies, such as coal, and promises to shut down
most of these plants by 2007. To his credit, part of McGuinty’s
energy solution involves harnessing landfill gas and building
more wind farms. However, they’re also considering a rehab of
Ontario’s aging nuclear power plants to deal with resulting power
shortages. While nuclear energy is touted as clean energy for its
lack of visible pollution, it is unclear how the planet will deal with
radioactive waste that can take 250,000 years to break down.
This “clean” by–product poisons water sources and surrounding
habitats; radioactive contamination has been found in fish, animal
and plant life in areas where the waste is buried. This not only
hurts biodiversity, but also influences global warming, as waste
kills off aquatic life, blue–green algae thrive, releasing a
disproportionate amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
It’s this greenhouse gas overload that’s a major culprit of
climate change. Essential to controlling CO2 are carbon sinks,
vast green and water spaces, that absorb and store these excess
gasses. While some have contended there are enough carbon
sinks to handle the impacts of industry, new research has
suggested that’s just not true. In the case of the US, one of the
biggest proponents of this idea, scientists estimate that they emit
two to four times the amount of carbon able to be absorbed by
green areas. Adding to this dilemma is the disappearance of our
forests, which act as a filter for the earth’s air, water and soil. For
all our green thinking, we’re surprisingly still on a browning
binge.
It is estimated that 80 per cent of the world’s old–growth
forests have been completely decimated, mostly in the past
century due to more efficient harvesting methods. The Amazon,
which generates more than 20 per cent of the world’s oxygen, is
cut down at a rate of 20,000 square miles a year. The United
Nations says the majority of this land is cleared for large–scale
cattle production or permanent agriculture. Closer to home,
Greenpeace estimates that 185,000 hectares of Ontario’s Boreal
forest disappear every year. Most of that wood fills demand for
consumable paper products such as tissue, office stock and
books. For a forest which is said to contain some of the world’s
largest fresh water stocks, you’d think we’d do a better job
keeping those areas protected, but we don’t. Nearly half of
Ontario’s ancient forests are in the hands of logging companies,
some of which still utilize harmful forestry practices such as
clear–cutting. In other words, we’re trading clean air for cheap
burgers and toilet paper.
However, the face of logging is changing, and the push is on
for more sustainable harvesting. Many companies now subscribe
to FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certification, a positive step
forward, which strives to respect indigenous people’s rights,
preserve biodiversity and minimize the environmental impact of
large–scale forestry. The FSC estimates that, “Over the past ten
years, 50 million hectares in more than 60 countries have been
certified according to FSC standards.” For environmentalists, it’s a
small, but important step in the right direction.
So 36 years later, where are we at? As stewards of the
planet, we’ve only done a so–so job. Clean energy isn’t as
prevalent as it could be, we’re destroying areas crucial to
sustainable living, and we can’t seem to get our off–road vehicles
off the road. Maybe the problem isn’t a lack of awareness, it’s
how we look at Earth Day. Planets are big, abstract things.
Perhaps we should take a cue from the pessimists: saving the
planet isn’t about preserving the planet, it’s about preserving
ourselves.
And isn’t that really where it starts? You know, act locally.
The federal government may be falling behind when it
comes to setting the pace, but local initiatives can address some
of these issues. Today, we have things like high–occupancy
vehicle lanes, lakeside wind turbines and municipal blue bin
programs, all of which would have been unheard of back in 1970.
But it’s still up to us to go further and make the connection
between our actions and their effects—no matter how subtle.
Male agrees, “We need to get our heads around the fact that just
because we can’t see the damage being done doesn’t mean that
we can’t take a part in making sure that it doesn’t happen.”
Thanks to actions like Earth Day, we’re definitely more
conscious of the world we live in. However, when it comes to real
sustainability, there’s still a lot of work ahead. But we can have a
lasting difference and every step we take now initiates that
change. V
[SARAH VEALE]
|
Share on
 |
No comments yet... be the first! |
|
