The Clean Bin Project is a feature documentary film about a regular couple and their quest to answer the question “is it possible to live completely waste free?” Partners Jen and Grant go head to head in a battle to see who can swear off consumerism and produce the least landfill garbage in an entire year. Their light-hearted competition to refuse, reduce and recycle their way to the smallest garbage bin is set against a darker examination of the large-scale environmental impacts of our “throw-away society”

“We had watched a lot of environmental films that were really informative, but we always felt so overwhelmed and deflated at the end of them,” explains Grant, who directed and edited the film, “we wanted to make a movie that showed how choosing to do just one thing, like reducing your trash, can be not only manageable, but really empowering and fun.”

The pair has already been garnering accolades for their project and were recently awarded the 2010 MOBI award for journalism and media from the Recycling Council of British Columbia.”We just started as a personal challenge, but it turns out that people are really intrigued by how we managed to produce so little garbage,” says Jenny. “The response has been great; people say they have been really inspired to make changes in their own lives.”

The Clean Bin Project cycle tour will be at the de Seve Cinema at Concordia University at 7pm on Monday, August 23rd. Admission is by donation. Learn more and watch the trailer
For more information contact:
Jenny Rustemeyer
cleanbinmovie@gmail.com

Synopsis

The Clean Bin Project is a feature documentary film about a regular couple and their quest to answer the question “is it possible to live completely waste free?”.

Partners Jen and Grant go head to head in a competition to see who can swear off consumerism and produce the least landfill garbage in an entire year. Their light-hearted competition is set against a darker examination of the sobering problem waste in North American society.  Even as Grant and Jen start to garner public interest in their project, they struggle to find meaning in their seemingly minuscule influence on the large-scale environmental impacts of a “throw-away society”.  Featuring interviews with renowned artist, Chris Jordan and marine pollution expert, Captain Charles Moore, The Clean Bin Project presents the serious topic of waste reduction with optimism, humour, and inspiration for individual action.

What People Have been Saying

“That was inspiring! Super awesome. . . beautiful.”

“You guys are hilarious and inspiring! The soundtrack was amazing. What a great film”

“More than any TV news piece or article in a newspaper, more than any other single example of informative and educational reporting, Jenny Rustemeyer and Grant Baldwin’s Clean Bin Project  social media presence, blog and film demonstrate the power of new media and its ability to reach a completely different demographic  of concerned citizens who are engaged, seeking community and ready to take action.”

-Recycling Council of British Columbia, delivering The Clean Bin Project a MOBI award for excellence in journalism and media

The Canadian Environmental Network’s (RCEN) 2010 Conference will take place at the Grand Plaza Hotel in downtown Montreal, from September 17-19.

For over 30 years, environmental NGOs have attended this annual event to meet their colleagues, share stories and strategize around the most pressing environmental issues. As long-time RCEN member Martha Kostuch used to say, “this is where environmentalists come to recharge their batteries!”

This year, environmentalists from across Canada – including youth, Indigenous people, government and industry representatives – are invited to participate in our 2010 Conference. Come and learn about the work of both big and small environmental NGOs and particpate in a discussion on the values of biodiversity.

Conserving Biodiversity Pays: The Values of Ecosystem Services

We all depend on biodiversity to live happy, healthy lives. In fact, biodiversity supports all life on Earth through a multitude of free ecological goods and services, such as food, water, medicines, air purification, pollination of crops, and more. To celebrate the International Year of Biodiversity, this year’s conference will focus on the different values our society attaches to biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides. Read more about the theme

Policy on Eco-Responsibility

Our objective for the 2010 Conference is to reduce as much as possible, within the available budget, the environmental footprint of the event. Prior to, and during the conference, the RCEN will:

• Promote the role that participants can play in the greening of the event
• Ensure that the hotel does what it can to reduce the environmental impact of the conference
• Encourage the use of low carbon transportation options for participants
• Keep the use of paper to a minimum while providing alternatives

Thank you for helping us make this an eco-friendly event. Read more about the Policy

The pointer telegraph Source: Siemens

Siemens has begun a massive urban sustainability campaign in Canada starting with the release of the Sustainable Cities Challenge in Canada report in May 18 this year. Established in 1847 in Berlin, Siemens is now one of the largest engineering conglomerates in the world operating in 190 countries and employing approximately 420,800 people. Initially focused on telecommunications by improving the pointer telegraph, the company installed in 1848 the first long-distance telegraph line in Europe (500km route from Berlin to Frankfurt) and a little over two decades later it became a renowned international company when, in 1870, installed the Indo-European Telegraph line (11,000km) making it possible to transmit a message from London to Calcutta in 28 minutes as opposed to 30 days. Since its early beginnings the company has invested significantly in R&D staying at the cutting edge of technological innovation. Today Siemens operates in a variety of fields from energy, transportation, healthcare and telecommunications.

A surprising discovery was the fact that Montreal was the place where Siemens Canada first established in 1912. Since then the company has mainly operated in the energy sector as well as health. It has been involved with Hydro Quebec since at least 1968 when it supplied the ‘largest German-built transformers to date’. Although the two companies have collaborated in R&D and other energy sector technology transfer, competitiveness has also kept them at a certain distance. The thorny issue comes in the field of wind energy. In 2005 Siemens proposed the government a 3000MW wind project in the James Bay area, which was turned down and not made public at the time because the Rupert diversion was in EIA phase and the wind project could have raised even more doubts about the need to dam more rivers.  The proposal was leaked by Fondation Rivieres in 2007 but it did not stop Hydro Quebec to go ahead with the Rupert project and more recently with the Romaine diversion. According to Réal Reed, a former Hydro Quebec test engineer in wind energy, Quebec missed a great opportunity to become a strong leader in the wind industry. In addition to assuming the costs and creating a windmill blade manufacturing facility in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean that would have employed 450 people, Siemens had proposed a partnership to develop a low-temperature wind turbine capable of performing in Arctic weather, technology which could have had a global potential.

Roland Aurich, CEO Siemens Canada. Source: Siemens

Despite of these setbacks, Siemens remains a company dedicated to technology innovation and according to Siemens Canada CEO, Mr. Roland Aurich, “Although Hydro Quebec has been more limited in the past in making progress Siemens has an interest in being a more active partner with Hydro Quebec and go forward.” Their partnership with Voith Hydro received the contract, valued at over $140 million, to design, build and equip the turbine-generator units for the Eastmain 1-A powerhouse (Rupert project). “The energy dominance that Hydro Quebec plays in Quebec isn’t an obstacle. They are powering a lot of new renewable utilities in the electrical system. That also relates to the transmission lines, to increase the capacity in the existing networks, also increase the quality and by that having a more efficient usage of the electric grid and that is exactly the right way to enhance the grid in order to accommodate new renewables.” We asked Mr. Aurich why he thinks North America in general is reluctant to embark more proactively in energy alternatives especially since he was Siemens’ CEO in Sweden, a country that is now fossil-free and where 62% of its heating is derived from biomass. “It is really the development of sustainable solutions and environmental friendly technologies have taken a lot more leverage in EU than in North America. The reason behind that is that energy prices are a lot higher [in EU] and that kind of fosters energy efficiency usage. There are a lot of cheap and available energy resources here in North America and people enjoy that.”

Its recent commissioned report aims to shed light on urban sustainability challenges by “striking a balance between competitiveness, quality of life and protection of the environment.” Sponsored by Siemens Canada in conjunction with the David Suzuki Foundation the report focuses on five key infrastructure areas: transportation, energy, water and waste water, healthcare and, safety and security. It also features a specific section on governance. Indeed the report and much of the discussions surrounding it are making an explicit link between sustainable technology implementation and the political will to see it realised. This is because “the infrastructure that drives sustainability in cities is really under the governmental or politicians’ control. So that underlies the decision process. It is about the politics to take the right decision now to sustain their cities” said Mr. Aurich. Although technology innovation and implementation are a crucial component to sustainable city infrastructure “it’s really about the power to decide, the willingness and the guts to decide, to take those long lasting decisions now. When we discuss about sustainable infrastructure, it costs a lot of money, it needs to be a decision process that focuses on a long-term plan. But technology, for sure, is the visible part of that decision process.” According to him, Siemens’ role is “to engage with the technology and tell them to a great extent this can be done today. What we expect from the decision makers is that they are making their part and show innovation, show leadership in taking decisions now. We can assist, we can provide technology, we can provide suited solutions for each city depending on the challenges they have.”

Source: Siemens

Although the report was primarily geared for decision makers “it also targets all of the stakeholders around environmental organizations. We did the report in conjunction with the David Suzuki Foundation so that is a strong message that it has also other stakeholders we use in our research. And I think that is one of its strengths because it has a board sweep of the population. We love to have the facts on the table when we do decisions within Siemens, and this is report is a kind of example of fact-based research; a fact which feeds talking about convincing other people to share that knowledge and perhaps drive the questions and focuses in a certain direction. It also gives a way for the Montreal public to also make known, in a democratic way, their opinion and give a direction.”

Tomography system. Source: Siemens

As for Montreal, “we view with interest what is going on with the transportation sector. We do also see a need for Montreal to enhance the infrastructure system, the water system and the water treatment. We are also involved in the health care with imaging technology, making sure we have efficient processes, at the very least making the waiting time for patent shorter.” The healthcare technologies are a field that Siemens has engaged with First Nations in Canada. “We have an approach that we apply to combine our knowledge in healthcare with establishing hospital-like institutions that could come closer to those First Nations areas. We have some examples in Ontario and Quebec where we are actually addressing those issues. Siemens, as a turn-key supplier, can erect and install a facility for First Nations.”

The challenge remains in engaging the civil society as well as good governance for a sustainable urban future. For Mr. Aurich “is really about talking to people in a qualitative way: its’ nice to be in the city which is clean, which attracts business, which attracts knowledgeable people, giving that momentum really creates a good and high quality of life.  We showed in this report some differences across the Canadian cities where we see that expectations on how the quality of life will impact people into the future. We do see that there is a parallel between those cities that have a good approach to sustainability infrastructure solutions and they also enjoy higher quality of life.  We think that this kind of balance between the competitiveness, attacking people and the quality of life and having those as the basis for the environment. It is really a kind of a virtual circle that needs to be in balance. And if these pieces work together we would probably have a good place to be where people enjoy living and makes the economy turn.”

To foster this kind of dialog a series of Thought Leadership Roundtables in Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax, Calgary, and Toronto were held. The website contains an impressive amount of information from reports to video clips. People are invited to comment and get informed on how they get involved.

In an interview with the Globe and Mail, John Bennett of the Sierra Club stated that “the government had every opportunity to make these arguments in the public and in the proper forum and instead they have just turned their back on the public and the Parliament and said we are going to change this in a way that there will be no discussion.” In the Speech from the throne Harper maintained that the move guarantees a more efficient process: “To support responsible development of Canada’s energy and mineral resources, our Government will untangle the daunting maze of regulations that needlessly complicates project approvals, replacing it with simpler, clearer processes that offer improved environmental protection and greater certainty to industry.” Nevertheless the Budget (p.104) offers very little detail on the implementation simply stating that “The Government is taking steps in Budget 2010 to further improve the regulatory review process for large energy projects. Responsibility for conducting environmental assessments for energy projects will be delegated from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for projects falling under their respective areas of expertise. Participant funding programs will be established by each agency to ensure the timely and meaningful engagement of the public, stakeholders and Aboriginal peoples in the review of major energy projects.”

The implications of such a move cannot even be anticipated as many are not familiar with the two institutions’ assessment process. In what concerns the NEB its jurisdiction covers construction and operation of interprovincial and international pipelines and power lines; traffic, tolls and tariffs; export and import of energy; frontier oil and gas; and assists the Northern Pipeline Agency and conducts studies or research into energy matters. Given that the NEB jurisdiction is limited to pipelines and power lines it is not clear whether a hydroelectric dam would also fall under “its area of expertise” or whether a project that has no interprovincial aspect would be assessed by the organization. Since the Budget states that “major energy projects” are to be assessed by the NEB it follows that dams and other projects aside from transmission infrastructure are like to now fall within its jurisdiction. Although it is too early to envisage the implications one troubling aspect remains: public participation. The NEB is governed by the NEB Act but makes provisions to harmonize its process with the EIA Act, therefore only certain aspect of the EIA Act are followed. In respect to public participation section 24.1 of the NEB Act states: “Hearings before the Board with respect to the issuance, revocation or suspension of certificates or of licences for the exportation of gas or electricity or the importation of gas or for leave to abandon the operation of a pipeline shall be public.” Subsection 3 states: “The Board may hold a public hearing in respect of any other matter if it considers it advisable to do so.” If “major energy projects” are relegated to the NEB, public participation will be drastically limited unless changes to the NEB Act are made.

In an article by Sierra Club, some implications include allowing ministers to make ‘arbitrary decisions’ on how projects are divided. Already a known practice employed by proponents is to split one major project into smaller ones so that they fall within the exclusionary list of the EIA Act and therefore not go though the more rigorous assessment process, such as a joint panel. Such discretion would allow easing the “approval of projects such as large mines, dams and tar sands developments.” Moreover Bill C-9: An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (LS-432E) passed in 2003 “exempts projects receiving funding from any of the federal programs listed from EAs. Such programs include the Building Canada Plan, Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Act, Recreational Infrastructure, Border Infrastructure” among others.

In a position paper by Gary Schneider of the Canadian Environmental Network it was revealed that “NEB shows a membership with strong ties to the oil and gas industry” and “is not a body with which citizens will find common cause. Regardless of its mandate to determine what is in the public interest, NEB hearings into Emera’s proposal to blast a high pressure natural gas export line through the heart of Saint John have revealed the process to be biased towards corporate participants and hostile to ordinary citizens. Anyone with a day job can forget being involved. First, the quasi-judicial nature of the hearings is a lawyer’s game. Those who can afford lawyers – energy companies hire the best – sail through with nary a hitch. Those who cannot are forced to deal with unfamiliar, arcane rules where one inadvertent slip-up could disqualify an intervenor, their evidence, or both…”

Even the CEAA report on the substitution process of the same project stressed that “overall, the principal expectations of the parties to the pilot substituted process were realized, although some insufficiencies were noted, particularly with respect to informal opportunities for public participation. As well, the lack of direct involvement of the Minister of the Environment in the selection of panel members and in the establishment of the panel’s terms of reference created among some participants a perception of bias toward energy development and trade.” Aboriginal people should seriously consider the implications of these changes as the CEAA is clearly concerned that “the National Energy Board does not engage in separate Aboriginal consultation during the hearing process, nor can the NEB be deemed to represent the Crown with respect to the duty to consult Aboriginal groups.”  Their future participation in decision making on projects that affect their rights and territories is jeopardized.

As Sierra Club rightly argues “this year’s budget finished the job of dismantling our environmental safeguards.” Unfortunately the Harper government clearly regards environmental protection as “red tape” and less regulation leading to “improved environmental protection”.

This controversy is not so far from the energy debate as it might seem. In September 2008, the N.L. government and the N.L. Innu signed the New Dawn Agreement which provides compensation for the damages the Innu incurred from the upper Churchill hydroelectric development in the 1960s, or $2 million a year upon execution of the final agreement until 2041. The deal also includes benefit-sharing measures for the proposed lower Churchill project, or 5% of net project revenue. Moreover, a new land regime, similar to the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement, has been negotiated as follows: 5,000 square miles under direct Innu jurisdiction (category I), 9,000 square miles on which the Innu have special harvesting and resource benefit sharing rights (category II) and 13,000 square miles where Innu can continue traditional harvesting rights without provincial permits (category III). The Agreement in Principle (AIP) has been signed at the beginning of February, 2010.

At the end of February, a Quebec Innu hunting party, between 100 and 150 people (including children and women), have crossed into L.N. and set camp south of Happy Valley-Goose Bay in an area closed to hunting because of the Joir River caribou herd. Made up of Red Wine caribou, the herd is protected under the Endangered Species Act and is believed to number approximately 108 individuals. The action constitutes, according to the Innu Strategic Alliance, an organization representing Innu in Quebec, an official protest to the New Dawn Deal. The Alliance maintains that the AIP infringes on the Quebec Innu constitutional rights who consider lands straddling the border between the two provinces as their ancestral territory. Real McKenzie, chief of the Matimekush-Lac John community, told CBC “Our ancestral land, which ignores all boundaries imposed by non-aboriginal governments, is largely located in Labrador where we have always hunted caribou and we will continue to do so[…] It [the deal]leaves us with no other options but to assert those rights on the ground, in the trenches, by asserting our aboriginal right to hunt in Labrador and by using all legal recourse we might have.”

Instead of focusing on the issue of territorial rights, most commentary from N.L. centered on the risk posed to the protected herd, making no mention of the AIP. As of yet there has been no comment from Quebec government officials, but it is expected that with the Romaine project currently under construction there will be more attention drawn to the border disputes between the two provinces. Some commentators from N.L. are accusing the Quebec government of turning a blind eye and even inciting the Innu to civil disobedience for the sole purpose of delaying the construction of the lower Churchill project.

Some Innu also question the available scientific data on the Red Wine caribou, arguing that there are between 2,000 and 2,500 caribou instead of the 108 that the Department of Natural Resources census has claimed to have found. The Innu leaders from the communities of Uashat Mak Mani Utenam, Ekuanitshit, and Matimekush-Lac John have largely supported the hunt. Jean-Charles Piétacho, Chief of Ekuanitshit, stated “It is not the caribou herd that is on the verge of extinction, but rather the Innu Nation that must fight against assimilation and extinction policies. For us, exercising our rights is a matter of survival.”

For their part the Labrador Innu are not supporting their counterparts from Quebec: “Their issue is they’re very upset with Tshash Petapen (The New Dawn Agreement) being concluded with the province and ourselves. They feel they should have been included, and, of course, we don’t agree” said Peter Penashue, the Deputy Grand Chief of the Labrador Innu. The split between the two Innu groups happened 25 years ago when they were trying to negotiate, as one nation, a joint land claim with Ottawa. At that time, the Quebec Innu claimed that their Labrador cousins were “unsophisticated, that we wouldn’t advance their cause in any way.” Trying to get benefits from the New Dawn is “irresponsible and very disappointing from our point of view” stated Penashue, especially since Innu communities on the North Shore have signed various individual compensation deals with Hydro-Quebec and the provincial government for the La Romaine project.

Following a pointed threat launched by Chief Real McKenzie, Premier Danny Williams said in a press release that “Real McKenzie, chief of the Matimekush-Lac-John Quebec Innu community, stated that ‘This is a war that begins as of now’. These words, which conjure up images of violent behaviour, are completely unacceptable to me personally and to our government. Furthermore, threats to economic development activity, such as the Lower Churchill and mining projects, will not be taken lightly by our government.”

As of now the Quebec government has not made any statements. It remains to be seen, given the existing disagreements over energy rates, how the Charest government will choose to respond.

Real McKenzie, Matimekush-Lac John, Uashat Mak Mani Utenam,Ekuanitshit,Jean-Charles Piétacho,Peter Penashue, la romaine, hydro-quebec, hydroelectricity, Premier Danny Williams

Equiterre and ETS (Ecole de technologie supérieure) are proud to present the fourth edition of Ecologez, a competition of integrated design for a green building. With a design ‘charrette’, the competition offers the opportunity to students coming from the fields of architecture, engineering, design, environment, and urbanism to put their knowledge in practice for designing an ecological building. This designing will be carried out in an integrated fashion, an approach that is gaining ground in the professional world as the preferred approach to achieve environmental and social objectives in buildings.

The competition will be held on March 6 and 7, 2010, at ETS (an engineering school named Ecole de technologie superieure) located in downtown Montreal. Students registered in a Bachelor or Graduate University Program related to building design and its impact are welcome to participate. The design problem will be presented at the beginning of the competition, on the morning of March 6. The multidisciplinary design teams will also be defined at that moment. We invite you to register as soon as possible. Twelve teams will be formed with the first 72 registered participants. The deadline for registration is March 5. In addition to offering a rich experience to the participants, this competition will also offer 5000$ in prizes to the teams that will rank in first and second.

By concern of having a balance between the disciplines represented within the teams, the organizers reserve the right to refuse inscriptions if a number necessary of participants of the same discipline were already registered.

Register here

To know more about the competition, take a look at the previous year’s competitions

Read comments and quotes from past participants

To learn more about the fundamental notions of integrated design

With this new competition where collaboration and the environment matter, Equiterre and ETS wish that students will be able to learn and experience the fundamental notions of integrated design, an approach that is becoming essential in a professional practice that must respond to the current requirements of sustainable development.

Co-organizers

While the rights to participation of local communities in environmental assessment of megaprojects are guaranteed by legislation in Quebec and Canada, Latin American communities have little say in how development takes place on their territory. Forced displacement, assassinations and intimidation by paramilitary forces are the ways in which development is imposed on the majority of local communities from Mexico to Chile. Intensive natural resource development began in 2000 under the auspices of regional integration plans promoted and financed by the Inter-American Development Bank. Two major regional integration plans, the Plan Pueblo Panama (Central America) and the Initiative for the Integration of South American Infrastructure (South America), foresee some 500 development projects totaling approximately $60 billion. Faced with significant human rights abuses and excluded from benefiting from large dam projects many local and aboriginal communities have created opposition groups such as the Movement of Dam Affected People (MAB), the Red Latinoamericana contra represas y por los ríos, sus comunidades y el agua (Latin American Network against Dams and for the Protection of Rivers, Communities and Water -REDLAR) and Movimiento Mexicano de Afectados por las Presas y en Defensa de los Rios (Mexican Movement of People Affected by Dams and in Defense of Rivers – MAPDER). Similar to aboriginal peoples in Quebec and Canada these groups are not opposed to development but demand that such projects take into consideration their human, social and economic rights as international conventions such as the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the International Dam Commission require.

“As we enter the era of energy efficiency, the Committee for Human Rights in Latin America is to highlight the impact on human rights that this energy called “clean” causes for the affected communities and ask what their rights are respected. Furthermore, we wish to end the climate of violence that usually accompanies the introduction of such projects, often involving acts of repression, harassment and violence by security forces.”  The Solidarity Caravan will travel across Quebec from the 8th to the 27th of March in the company of a delegation of Latin American women representing impacted communities in the South. They will be visiting local schools, CEGEPS, community centers and universities in various towns and cities such as Ottawa, Gatineau, Québec, Wendake, Betsiamites and Sept-îles. The objective is to create support network and a dialog concerning the impact of large development plans such as the Plan Nord launched by the Quebec government last year.

The trip will close with a two-day conference in Montreal on the 26 and 27 of March organized by CDHAL in collaboration with the Coalition on socio-environmental impacts of transnationals in Latin America, Development and Peace, the Canada Research Chair on Environmental Education, the Montreal Institute of International Studies (IEIM) of UQAM, and the Research and Knowledge Network Relating to Aboriginal People DIALOG.

For more information contact Julie at caravane@cdhal.org or 514.387.5550

While the uranium project is only in the exploration phase, the government has issued road construction permits to Terra Ventures, a Vancouver based mining company. For the doctors this means that the exploitation is not far behind and the health impacts of such a project outweigh its benefits. Used primarily for nuclear power and nuclear weapons, uranium is toxic and radioactive. Its radioactivity needs to be managed for thousands of years. The dangers it poses for human health are multiple and present throughout its life cycle, from extraction to processing and its ultimate disposal.  Cancers, especially pulmonary cancer, birth defects and organ failures are just a few. Although, currently there are no uranium mines in Quebec, Canada is the largest exporter of uranium ore in the world. In the 1980s the Medical Association of British Columbia released a study that led to a moratorium on uranium mining in the province.

Uranium protest Sept-Iles (source: Le Soleil)

The town of Sept-Iles had, in January this year, adopted a resolution to impose a moratorium on uranium mining in Quebec. On October 30th, in the middle of local election, the people took part in a second demonstration against the project. This week, the case has made its way to the National Assembly where accusations flew from both sides. The PQ deputy for Duplessis, Mrs. Richard had demanded a response from the PM regarding the resignation of the town’s 20 doctors. The Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Bolduc called the resignation “premature” since the project is only in exploration phase and “does not pose any health dangers”. As the debate got heated the Minister of Natural Resources, Mrs. Normandeau accused the citizens of the region of turning down the economic benefits presented to them and wondered whether the region should continue to benefit of the incentives offered by the government. This incited a rebuke from the PQ parliamentary leader, Mr. Bedard, who accused Mr. Normandeau of blackmail and putting the public at risk in exchange of economic development.

The case of Sept-Iles is exemplary of the larger debate surrounding the environmental and social impacts of mining and other large resource development projects. The legislative role of the government and its duty to protect the public from such impacts has always been a point of contention. Following the many mining opposition campaigns throughout Quebec, the government has submitted a new legislative bill regarding decommissioning. Moreover faced with $300 million bill for restoration of old mining sites, the government is planning to increase the guarantees of decommissioning from mining companies from 70% to 100%. It has also reduced the reimbursement form 15 years to 5 years following the closure of the mine, with a 10% penalty for failure to comply. The government also plans to introduce a new bill in the spring of 2010 that would increase the royalties paid to the government.

Rivers Foundation was in Sept-Iles last week to meet and support the local coalition against uranium mining, Sept-Iles Sans Unranium. You can watch the video here

The controversy over the health effects of Teflon, the widely used non-stick coating in cookware, has been raging in the United States since the early 2000. Teflon was invented in the 1930s and marketed by DuPont the only company that still manufactures it in the US. Today it is widely used in clothing, apparel, carpeting and other products. Though Teflon is a brand name, its manufacturing requires the use of a chemical called perfluorooctanioc acid – PFOA or C8 -  that has been found to cause birth defects and cancer in humans. Indeed in 2005, an independent panel reporting to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared PFOA a likely human carcinogen.

While the battle against DuPont and the phasing out of PFOA is still ongoing in the US, a group of McGill management students are planning an anti-Teflon campaign in the Montreal area. They got involved in this issue as part of a “social context of business” class at university. “Through all of the research that we have done on this issue, we have grown to feel very strongly about it. The public needs to be aware of the health and environmental risks that this substance poses” says Anna Roumiantseva, the campaign organizer. “The main points of our campaign are to get the public aware of the health and environmental effects of using Teflon, and to reduce their exposure to it. Therefore, our number one goal is to get as much media exposure as possible. Also, we feel that when consumers dine out, they should have the option of choosing restaurants that do not use Teflon cookware: an option that is currently unavailable since there is no way of knowing what kind of cookware is being used. As such, our number two goal is to get an official “Teflon-free” label approved, which restaurants can display signaling that they are a health-conscious and environmentally-friendly zone. We are hoping to start on the municipal level, and then expand the campaign nationally in the future.”

Similar to other fluorochemicals, PFOA, is widely used and found almost everywhere. It never breaks down in the environment and is toxic to humans when exposed. The specific health concern related to its use in cookware is that at temperatures staring at around 202.2°C (396°F) PFOA is released as a gas. This outgassing can cause “polymer fume flu,” also known as “Teflon flu,” in humans. The symptoms are similar to regular flu, such as chills, headache, fever and nausea. Because of this similarity most people mistake it for the regular flu. Nevertheless, exposure to PFOA can cause birth defects in humans. EPA studies confirmed that 90% of Americans have PFOA in their bloodstream.

Apart from PFOA, Teflon off-gassing studies show that at the temperatures of conventional kitchen appliances, Teflon chemicals break apart to form the following particulates and gases:

• Two chemicals linked to cancer or tumors in laboratory studies (PFOA and TFE)
• Two chemicals that are potent global warming gases (PFB and CF4)
• Two chemical warfare agents (PFIB and MFA)
• A chemical analog of WWII nerve gas phosgene (COF2)
• At least two chemicals that have widely contaminated the world (PFOA and TFA), one currently undergoing a rigorous safety review at the EPA
• Four gaseous chemicals and some components of the particulate matter that are highly persistent environmental pollutants, that likely never break down in the environment (TFA, PFOA, CF4, PFB, and the perfluorinated particulate alkanes)
• Four chemicals that are considered highly toxic relative to most other industrial chemicals (PFIB, MFA, COF2, HF).

The first class action lawsuit on behalf of 50,000 residents was in West Virginia. It alleged that the Ohio River had been polluted by the chemical used at the DuPont plant, causing birth defects and other health hazards. In 2004 DuPont settled out of court paying $16.5 million in damages but admitted no liability. A larger lawsuit that is still ongoing was filed in 2006 by two New Jersey residents on behalf of the residents near the Chambers Works plant in Salem County for “intentional, knowing, reckless, and negligent acts and omissions of DuPont in connection with the contamination of human drinking water supplies.” This suit follows a petition filed in 2003 with the EPA by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) that alleges DuPont covered up a 1980s study that was never published and which found tumors in lab rats linked to PFOA. The suit claims that DuPont had a duty to warn consumers of the dangers of Teflon but failed to do so. The allegations were already being investigated by EPA in 2005 and since 2004 various cases have been brought to the courts. They have been consolidated by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation and transferred to Iowa. Although a specific financial value has not been specified it is estimated that, if successful, the suit could cost DuPont some $5 billion in damages for approximately 10 million people.

DuPont continues to argue against the allegations stating on its website: “Based on an evaluation of human health and toxicology studies, DuPont concludes that PFOA exposure does not pose a cancer risk or any health risk to the general public. There is no significant potential for exposure to PFOA from using products made with DuPont materials, hence, there is no risk to consumers.” Indeed, in June this year, the federal court in Des Moines dismissed 22 consolidated suits stating that “individual issues differing among the plaintiffs would each require their own inquiry, making the suits improper”.

While over 70% of cookware contains a non-stick coating, Roumiantseva points out that there are many substitutes already used and preferred by many chefs such as copper, cast iron and stainless steel cookware that pose no health problems. Using Teflon-free labeling can also be argued to give businesses a “competitive advantage when it comes to the environmentally and health conscious consumers. We also hope to target grocery and department stores in the future and urge them to carry more alternatives to Teflon, if not boycott Teflon altogether. If the public is more aware of the dangers of Teflon, there will be a bigger push for its regulation from the authorities.”