DYLAN JERVIS: An increase in the seal and sea lion population on the West coast has reduced the number of salmon who have been able to spawn this spring.

The Globe and Mail reports statistics from a study by Peter Olesiuk, of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which concludes that a 10-fold increase in the seal population over the last three decades, coupled with a sea-lion population that is the highest since the 1990′s, has drastically affected the salmon run.

It isn’t quantitatively known just how many fewer salmon have been able to spawn. However, there have been many reports from fishermen, commercial and native alike, as to the dire situation.

This has put pressure on the government to allow easier access to permits for those who wish to cull the ballooning populations of seals and sea lions. Studies done in Scotland have shown that removing seals from rivers can have an immediate affect on the number of salmon able to spawn – anywhere from 1 to 33 percent. This is corroborated by evidence from 12 years ago on the Puntledge river in B.C. when the Salmon population fluourished after a temporary seal cull was allowed.

Mr. Olesiuk’s report urges a cautious approach, however, encouraging site-specific study before any cull is authorized. [ index ]

NAOMI JEHLICKA: There’s something fishy going on Broughton Archipelago, BC. After decades of government inaction, two native bands have launched a class action lawsuit against the federal and provincial governments, who allegedly damaged wild salmon stocks by allowing commercial fish farming in the area. According to the arguments presented by the Aboriginals to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, salmon plays a significant role in their traditional cultural ceremonies, but the environmental side effects of nearby fish farms have made it increasingly difficult to catch wild salmon. As a result, they have had to import salmon from other, more abundant areas, which significantly increased the costs associated with putting on celebrations.

According to Dr. Fred Whoriskey, a professor at Dalhousie University and vice president of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, the decline of wild salmon corresponds with the proliferation of commercial fish farms. He grounds this claim on a growing trend of academic research that links sea lice with the decline of the wild salmon stock. The most shocking report to date was published in the December 2007 edition of Science magazine, where Martin Krkosek and colleagues projected a 99% collapse in pink salmon population in four to ten years if the parasitic sea lice infestation caused by salmon farms continues. In addition to the sea lice, the toxins and antibiotics that are being pumped into the nearby rivers and lakes in shockingly large quantities are also a concern, which allegedly have negative effects on not just the wild salmon population, but other underwater biodiversity as well. These dramatic statistics, coupled with the Aboriginal experience, lends credence to the scare that the wild salmon stock in British Columbia is nearing extinction.

Lawyers representing the federal and provincial levels of government have yet to make a statement about these allegations, though they have already questioned the credibility of the evidence put forth by the First Nations, saying that Dr. Whoriskey’s research is not relevant to the situation at hand since he studies Atlantic Salmon, and not Pacific Salmon. Furthermore, the Department of Fisheries has also suggested that the natives put forth a weak case because research connecting low returns of wild salmon with fish farms often yields contradictory results.

Lawsuits against the government are long and tedious. They’re expensive and require good arguments backed by solid evidence in order to proceed through the complicated institution that is the Canadian court system. Should the Supreme Court of BC deem this a case worthy of its attention, any rulings rendered would have an impact on fish farms across the province and potentially even across the country. [ index ]

DYLAN JERVIS: City Hall is considering building European-style bicycle lanes on University Avenue between Richmond and Wellesley St. There will be both a northbound and southbound lane, separated from motorized traffic by a meter-wide buffer and solid dividing posts.

This is to be only a three-month pilot project, but if successful, could be expanded to cover new routes on Jarvis St. and Dundas St. W. Protected bicycle lanes would be a first for Toronto, following such notable metropolitan forerunners as Copenhagen and Montreal.

Councillor Glenn De Baermaeker was quoted in the Toronto Star, saying “People aren’t willing to risk their lives to ride their bike to work. If we can create separate bike lanes where the cyclists feel safe and the motorists feel comfortable we could get thousands of people out of their vehicles and onto their bikes”.

Mayoral candidate Rocco Rossi made a statement denouncing the plan, blustering that – quote: “This is a recipe for traffic gridlock and a democratic insult to the people of Toronto”.

In order for the bike lanes to become reality, the proposal must first get approval from the Public work and infrastructure committee – which De Baermaeker predicts it will – then be brought before the city council for a vote next month. [ index ]

NAOMI JEHLICKA: It’s out with the old and in with the new in Prince Edward County, Ontario, where one of Canada’s largest renewable energy developers has halted the construction of a solar farm in this area. Citing economic factors and concerns about having a wind farm so close to a military base, SkyPower Limited cancelled their plans to construct a 43-turbine wind farm, which would have been to date one of the largest projects instigated under the Ontario Green Energy and Economy Act.

A company’s loss is another’s gain. This past Friday, after SkyPower’s cancellation announcement, the government announced a 24 000 kilowatt wind project to be built in this area, along with five similar projects (though of a smaller scale) as a means of introducing more sustainable energy into the grid. Related to these initiatives is the Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park, which is to be built on the south shore of Prince Edward County and will occupy 324 hectares of Crown Land.

Leona Dombrowsky, the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, stated that a total of 184 contracts have been awarded to these projects, which will create upwards of a thousand new jobs in this area.

It has become somewhat of a custom for the government to attach the speculated number of job opportunities to any expansive infrastructure program, and it should be noted that the cited numbers are preliminary estimates only. The costs of a major renewable energy program can sometimes be too extravagant or daunting for a Canadian company especially in this recovering economic climate, where banks are still hesitant to fund projects that carry a high degree of risk.

While Skypower did not go into too much detail about the economic factors that influenced their decision to scrap the Prince Edward County project, it is concerning that cost was a major reason why this project shut down, since they are one of the largest renewable energy companies to date. It raises the question whether other companies will be able to handle the financial strain, and increases the chances of other companies pulling out for similar reasons. Only time will tell, but it is very likely that the larger contracts will go to non-Canadian companies with greater experience and income, at the expense of smaller Canadian firms, and this might reduce the total number of jobs for Canadians. [ index ]

DYLAN JERVIS: Two environmental environment groups have launched a complaint against the Harper government over its failure to adequately monitor water pollution from oilsands operations.

The complaint, prepared by Matt Price of Environmental Defence Canada, alleges that the government is not enforcing provisions in the federal Fisheries Act that prohibit activity that contaminates bodies of water with harmful substances.

In a news conference, Mr. Price contends that the government has been passive on the issue, that they, quote: “are waiting for phone calls to come from Alberta to tell them to swing into action on prosecutions. the phone has not rung from Alberta and we doubt that it ever will.”

The likelihood that immediate action would result from this claim is minimal since it was submitted to a NAFTA Commision for Environmental Cooperation and would therefore be contingent on officials from Mexico and the U.S. showing interest.

However, it did prompt Environment minister Jim Prentice to respond, stating that his department has found no evidence of harmful pollutants entering the Athabasca river, saying: “I’ve indicated to the department that this is a serious issue of real concern and I expect them to step up the monitoring efforts to ensure that that continues to be the case” – a vague statement that can mean only one of two things: that increased monitoring will ensure that water pollutants remains a serious issue inside the department – besides the point, really – or that increased monitoring will cause that oilsands pollutants to remain unseen – a non-causal statement that’s quite outside Minister Prentice’s expertise.

Noticeably absent from the Minister’s statement was a course of action.

– proving part of Mr. Price’s point: that if you don’t look carefully, the effects of oilsands operations will remain invisible, yet still cause river damage. [ index ]

NAOMI JEHLICKA: While geographic location has rendered Prince Edward Island as the most expensive province to live in, at least in term s of electricity costs, it may soon be surpassed by Ontario. By the end of 2011, Ontarians will be paying around $300 more per year for energy, which will further increase to $360 by the end of 2012.

Energy consultants have attributed the increase in price to the approval of 185 wind, solar and biomass projects that will collectively generate around 2500 megawatts of energy. While this is the most significant climate change initiative in all of North America and puts Ontario ahead in the renewable energy game, the public reception has not been too friendly, especially since one of the main reasons why the Green Energy and Economy Act enjoyed such widespread public support was the notion that the returns of the projects would offset their cost.

Attributing the rising costs of energy solely to renewable energy projects, however, is doesn’t hold much water. Though it can be partially attributed to the government attempting to lure green-energy investors with the promise of generous long-term contracts that include guaranteed revenue, the harmonized sales tax is also a reason for the price increase. Starting this July, an additional 8 per cent will be added to everyone’s hydro bill, which will accumulate to over $100 of the projected $300 hike. Furthermore, the introduction of time-of-use billing, which alters the energy charge depending on the time of day, has also contributed to the higher hydro bill.

Environmental activists have voiced a defence on the higher costs associated with green energy. Keith Stewart, director of WWF-Canada’s climate change program, pointed out that all new electricity plants result in an increase in energy costs. “When you look back 100 years, the naysayers were saying, ‘don’t build Niagara Falls, it’s too expensive.’ But that’s what powered our economy for the first half of the 20th century.” In other words, be it renewable energy or coal, new infrastructure programs generally bring a cost burden onto the consumer. In this case, though, the overall goal of the project – the reduction of greenhouse gases – is priceless. [ index ]

DYLAN JERVIS: A new study by researchers from Simon Fraser University says that oil from the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill is still being ingested by Alaskan wildlife.

The article, to be published in the April issue of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, reports results obtained by scientists who measured residual oil levels in harlequin ducks.

Lead researcher Daniel Esler says that the ducks, which reside in shallow waters and eat invertebrates that are not able to metabolize oil, showed a long-term exposure to oil. Mr. Esler concludes that the evidence suggest that the consequences of oil spills are measured in decades rather than years.

This report comes just days after a coal-carrying ship ran aground on the great barrier reef in Australia, leaking oil. [ index ]

BRYANT BOULIANNE: A fuel tanker that ran aground in the Great Barrier Reef last week has been successfully removed and towed to a nearby island. The Sheng Neng 1, owned by the Shenzen Energy Group, struck the reef last week and became stuck. Crews were able to pump enough fuel out of the tanker to allow it to float off of the reef. Though the hull of the ship was breached, it only leaked about 3 to 4 tonnes of the 950 tonnes of oil that it was carrying. Most of the leaked oil was dispersed, though some of it has been washing ashore on a nearby island that contains a wildlife sanctuary. The most significant damage done by the grounding appears to be a nearly 3-kilometre gash that the ship tore into the reef. The gouge destroyed a large swath of coral habitat and has left toxic paint on the sea floor that may inhibit recovery. The chief scientist of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park said that biological recovery could take up to 20 years.

The tanker grounded 12km outside of the designated shipping lane in the area, and has sparked speculation that the ship was trying to take an illegal shortcut through the Great Barrier Reef. Two crew members of the ship have been arrested and could face up to three years in jail for their role in the incident. This comes as the crew of another vessel, the MV Mimosa, were arrested this week for trespassing into the reef. In response to these events, the Australian government is taking a hard stance, vowing to tighten conservation laws and severely punish offenders. Australian transport minister Anthony Albanese responded to the incident by saying: “The Australian government will ensure that the full force of the law is brought to bear on those responsible… And we will also ensure… compensation is paid with regard to the cost of cleaning up.” [ index ]

BRYANT BOULIANNE: A group of scientists from the US and South Korea have shown that whale meat illegally sold in a Los Angeles sushi restaurant in 2009 came from a whale caught by a scientific Japanese whaling hunt. Last October, a pair of environmentalists went undercover and purchased raw whale meat from ‘The Hump’ sushi restaurant in Santa Monica, California. DNA testing showed that the meat came from the endangered sei whale, whose commercial sale is illegal. The restaurant was closed and its owners face criminal charges. Now, in a study published this week, the scientists show that this whale meat, as well as whale meat from restaurants in South Korea, came from whales caught by a Japanese whaling fleet. Although Japan does not recognize the agreements that ban the trade of endangered whales, the US and South Korea do. This study has exposed illegal trade in whale meat to countries that are signatories to the CITES agreement which bans the commercial trade of endangered whales. In their article, the authors state: “The illegal trade of products from protected species of whales, presumably taken under a national permit for scientific research, is a timely reminder of the need for independent, transparent and robust monitoring of any future whaling.” [ index ]

BRYANT BOULIANNE: The United States is hoping to broker a new deal that would eventually phase out commercial whaling. Although most countries have abided by a 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling, Japan, Norway, and Iceland have either refused to recognize the moratorium or continue to conduct whaling under the guise of scientific research. Now, the US is hoping to put into place an agreement by which these 3 whaling nations would be allowed to continue whaling for 10 years. In return, the nations would agree to reduce the numbers of whales that are caught and implement stricter monitoring to ensure they stick to quotas. In addition, the deal would allow no new nations to begin whaling. It is hoped that the deal would be the beginning of a gradual phasing-out of commercial whaling. Given the sheer amount of disagreement between pro- and anti-whaling nations in the past, however, it still remains to be seen whether or not such a deal can be worked out. The negotiations are taking place currently in Washington, D.C. [ index ]