Farmers still getting the short end of the stick

Between droughts and governmental lack of concern over agriculture, farmers are still getting the short end of the stick.

Consider this: As of 2011 over 81% of the American population is urban (meaning they live in cities or towns). Less than 19% of Americans still live on farms or in rural regions. In Canada it is also 81%.

So from a political standpoint who are you going to show favouritism to more? City-Slickers or Farmers? The answer is obviously cities.

Farming is one of the most difficult, and yet most important, careers available, but it is horribly underpaid and there is very little government support for it. Many farmers now work second jobs just to make ends meet because farming by itself doesn't bring in the necessary money to raise a family.

Often just to try and get ahead in life farmers borrow large sums for machinery and equipment, which means they are either borrowing from the government or banks, and if there is a drought or bad weather for several years in a row its pretty much guaranteed the farmers will lose their farms and their homes because of inability to pay back loans.

Let us take for example one piece of machinery commonly used by cattle farmers: Livestock scales are used to weight cattle before or during auction. It is an approx. $1,000 investment to get scales, but the idea is so you can fatten up your cattle to the right size, then send to auction to fetch a good price. Its basically a necessity if you're a cattle or pig farmer.

Now you might think, oh, but how could a drought effect cattle or pig farmers? Well, two ways:

1. Cattle can die from something called "Heat Stress". It is basically heat exhaustion. For pigs they also get Heat Stroke (and sunburns). Preventing Heat Stress means providing shade, improved ventilation and a sufficient quantity of water... which adds up to extra costs and equipment.

2. More droughts = Less food to feed the cattle. If the farm in question grows their own food for the cattle and they aren't growing enough due to a drought, they have to buy extra food for the cattle from other farmers. If there is a huge shortage due to the drought the food has to be shipped even further and will cost a lot more. The prices can end up bankrupting the farmers.

Next lets look at the case of Utah... which as of September 2012 has had all 29 counties declared "drought disaster areas". River beds and groundwater ditches have all dried up.

It is all one big dusty mess.

Since October 2011, only 17.2 inches of rain has fallen on northern Sanpete County in Utah, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That is just over half of the previous year's rainfall of 32.5 inches (which was also a poor year for rainfall in Utah).

While many farmers throughout Utah have fallen back on water storage and reservoirs, the farmers in the Sanpete Valley have little to no water storage available. They simply don't have facilities available to store water and then use it for their crops and livestock. The natural springs and runoff from the mountains in Utah that usually supply the region's rivers fell short this year after last winter's meagre snows and early spring snow melt.

Some farmers have multiple basins which they used to use to store water, basically ponds where their livestock could drink. But the ground of those ponds are now cracked and chalky, completely dried up.

It hurts all the farmers too. Utah's wheat production has dropped to 30% of what a normal season would yield. Hay is also down 50%. Many families will be short 50% to 70% of their yearly income because of the drought.

Cattle in the region sell for considerably less since they weigh between 100 and 150 pounds less on the livestock scales than they would have if the family could wait a month to sell them. But they can't wait. They need money for food, to pay the bills, to keep the banks off their backs. They could be making more off the sale if they just had the extra time, but times are tough and when the bank freezes your credit cards you have to sell what you can at dirt cheap prices just to get the banks to unfreeze your credit cards.

The end result is that farmers need machinery like tractors, combines and even livestock scales in order to make a living. And they can't get those things without getting a loan. Every penny counts.

And with global warming and more drought on the horizon farmers aren't getting any help from government buck-passers who blame other levels of government and refuse to help farmers when they're in bed with the banks.

Stem Rust threatens Global Wheat Production

HEALTH/TECHNOLOGY - A virulent form of fungus / stem rust known as Ug99 (it was first discovered in Uganda) is now threatening the world's wheat production. Wheat in Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Iran and South Africa are already infected.

Scientists fear the fungus will show up in India and Pakistan soon and eventually travel to North America, effecting wheat production in Canada and the United States.

The good news is that wheat farmers in North America at least have the option of buying stem rust resistant breeds of wheat, and scientists are working to genetically create new breeds of wheat which are even more resistant to stem rust. We also have access to fungicides to combat the stem rust.

But overseas such stem rust resistant wheat doesn't exist yet and the seeds are expensive, and the fungicide and the machinery needed to spray fungicide isn't really available. As it currently stands 80% of the world's wheat production is vulnerable to Ug99.

Ug99 is a strain of stem rust fungi that eats its way into the tissues of wheat and barley, eventually killing the plant by sucking nutrients and water from the plant. The plant shrivels, shrinks and then dies. The fungus spores germinate quickly and it only takes 10 to 14 days for a single spore to reproduce and make thousands of more spores.

Since its discovery and spreading chaos scientists are in “a race against time” to develop new strains that are resistant to the fungus because the spores easily spread due to wind patterns.

Scientists working at the Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat Project at Cornell University say it will likely take between 8 to 10 years to create a new line of genetically modified wheat and have it ready for farmers.

The real worry say scientists is the possibility of a wheat shortage, skyrocketing wheat prices and “geopolitical repercussions”.

The last time there was a stem rust outbreak it was 1916, during which wheat prices skyrocketed to $3 USD / bushel (approx. $60 USD today).

Grain prices are already pretty high due to the biodiesel industry, which has sparked food riots in North Africa and the Middle East.

Flooding in Pakistan a sign of climate change

By Ai Lung Nguyen - September 2010.

ENVIRONMENT - Pakistan is normally a relatively dry country.

Monsoon season effects Pakistan's neighbour India far more while Iran and Pakistan have very little rain in a normal year. The recent catastrophic flooding in Pakistan hasn't just moved millions of people and destroyed their homes, its been so severe its cut new rivers from the soil and rock. The intensity of the flooding is unheard of in the normally dry country.

This however could prove useful to Pakistan's economy in the future, as their climate shifts from being a more arid one to a country with a lot more water and agricultural capabilities. Adapting to this change in terms of agriculture will take time and effort



However in the meantime the flooding has contaminated Pakistan's wells, which means even traditional drinking water sources are now polluted and a source of disease. Millions of Pakistan's people rely on traditional dug wells and aquifiers and the increasing urbanization of Pakistan has put greater demand on a limited supply of clean water.

The history of flooding in Pakistan (or lack thereof) suggests that there will be less droughts in the country and more severe rain. In contrast China is seeing more mudslides and sandstorms, and Russia is seeing more hot, dry weather and forest/grass fires. The cost of these environmental changes will hurt the farming industries in these countries and should be noted that agriculture's effect on GDP is often unknown because a lot of food production goes on that isn't really tracked because its consumed locally and often traded using a barter system in rural cultures which often lack hard currency.

Thus the economic damages of droughts and flooding isn't just limited to the homes effected and the crops destroyed. The whole system is disrupted and money is worthless when you don't have food to eat and clean water to drink.

The technology and equipment to filter and clean large amounts of water is available, but the infrastructure to distribute it to millions of Pakistani flood refugees doesn't exist.

Parts of the landscape now look like lakes and people wonder if they will ever be able to return home.

Meanwhile in Agra, India, the Taj Mahal has been flooded.

A bad omen for the future? Maybe. Or perhaps its a sign of the times and proof that climate change is here to stay.

Interpret it as you will.

Russian economy imploding as heat wave continues

By Ai Lung Nguyen - August 2010.

ENVIRONMENT - If you didn't think climate change and global warming can hurt the economy think again. Trading on Moscow's stock exchange has dropped 25% in the past five days as bankers, bond traders, investors and Muscovites flee the record heat wave, drought, wildfires and acrid smog which has crippled the city.

The smog in Moscow is so thick you can't see more than 30 meters in front of you.

The heat wave in Russia has reached a record high temperature of 44 degrees C, hundreds of forest fires rage across the region, and there’s no end in sight for what is being called the worst heat wave to hit Russia since record-keeping began during the rule of Alexander II in 1880.

Corporate bonds have dropped to its lowest point since 2007, down 26% compared to 2009.

Bond trading for Moscow's big banks have dropped 58.2% compared to the same period last year. Bond trading was 1.12 trillion rubles during August 2009, but so far has only traded 156 billion rubles ($5.2 billion USD) worth. Bond trading in July was also down approx. 30% when the heat wave first began.

Micex and RTS exchanges are down 60% below normal levels.

Moscow's death rate has doubled, mostly due to heat stroke and smog inhalation, to 700+ people per day.

Sugar crops have dropped 13%, wheat prices have soared and Russia has declared a state of emergency in 28 crop producing regions which are being hit by droughts and wildfires. Food prices are up dramatically and the Russian government has now banned grain exports.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. and various banks are sending all non-essential staff home due to the extreme heat and breathing difficulties.

Thick clouds of toxic smog have choked downtown shopping centres, forcing shoppers to stay away and malls to close.

Even Russia's currency is falling in value due to the current environmental conditions in Moscow, dropping 0.5% despite recent upward trends.

Many Muscovites have fled the city by plane. On Aug. 7th 95,000 left the city by plane followed by another 104,400 people who fled on Aug. 8th

“I judge the smoke on how well I can read the small print,” jokes one investment banker.

Prior to the current heat wave/smog crisis Russia's economy was in recovery mode, bouncing back from the worst recession in 15 years. Economists were hoping Russia's economy would rebound 4% in 2010 but now they're expecting only 3% growth since the heat wave and drought have hurt the Russian economy. Conservative estimates are the Russian economy has been damaged to the tune of $14 billion USD so far.

The biggest damage is to Russia's government coffers which has seen a drop in taxes coming in, but also is planning 35 billion rubles in subsidies / loans pledged to the agriculture sector, plus another 6.5 billion rubles to rebuild damaged homes and untold billions more to help families of the dead.

“What’s happening with the planet’s climate right now needs to be a wake-up call to all of us to take a more energetic approach to countering the global changes to the climate,” says Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Meanwhile Pakistan and parts of China are dealing with the worst flooding in 80 years. Argentina, Peru, Brazil and Chile are experiencing record cold and snowfall.

And in other news 2010 is on track to surpass 1998 as the world’s hottest year on record.

American smog kills 2,700 Canadians / year

ENVIRONMENT - The quality of the air coming up from the United States leaves much to be desired. The pollutant-spewing coal power plants from what is commonly referred to as "Smog Alley" ends up in Ontario and is responsible for over 50% of the smog found in Canadian cities.

And that smog kills approx. 2,700 people in Ontario every year.

The good news is that American air quality regulators are finally doing something about it. They're shutting down dozens of coal power stations and ordering the remaining coal stations to adopt new, clean technology.

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is ordering hundreds of stations to cut sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions by 50% by 2015, the primary ingredients for making smog. Specifically the utilities will have to cut SO2 by 52% and NOx by 71% below 2005 levels. If they don't comply they will be shut down.

In addition to killing 2,700 people in Ontario, that smog also causes the hospitalization of 12,000 others each year and hurts Ontario's economy to the tune of $5.2 billion per year in lost economic potential and medical costs.

Meanwhile the Ontario government has achieved a 73% reduction in coal-fired electricity production since Dalton McGuinty became the Ontario premier. McGuinty hopes to eventually scrap all coal plants in Ontario.

And we are seeing the results this summer. We've had very few smog alerts this year, despite record heat.

If Ontario can do it, Smog Alley certainly can too.

While Americans are busy fussing about the stalled climate bill in Congress, the EPA is making some dramatic changes which will create a new era of air quality in both the USA and Canada.

Two decades ago EPA regulations targeting acid rain cost American taxpayers $3 billion USD, but the economic benefits since then have resulted in $122 billion USD. Proof that saving the environment, our agriculture, our food supply and our quality of life can be profitable.

High Canadian dollar hurting Canada's recovery

CANADA - Consumer confidence in the USA and Canada is up 3.8% in the first quarter of 2010, but the parity of the Canadian dollar is hurting exports.

The Canadian jobless rate remains at 8.2%, down from 8.7% during the Summer of 2009.

Part of the problem is the high cost of oil, which may be good for the Alberta oil industry, but causes the Canadian dollar to fluctuate upwards and hurt Canada's other economic sectors like manufacturing and agriculture.

Ideally if the price of oil dropped about 15% and the Canadian dollar was worth about 10 U.S. cents less and stay stable around those values we would see more manufacturing jobs, higher exports and significantly better economic growth.

Gulf oil spill triples in size

ENVIRONMENT - According to satellite imagery the surface area of a catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill has quickly tripled in size in a single day. Experts now fear that the slick could become vastly more devastating than originally predicted.

This spells disaster for fishermen and the shrimp industry as the ecological effects on the industry will last for decades and may never recover.

Meanwhile there is a growing scandal surrounding BP (British Petroleum) because of documents that show the oil company deliberately downplayed the possibility of any accidents on its offshore oil rigs.

It also suggests the ruptured oil rig is spilling far more oil than originally estimated. The United States Coast Guard has estimated that about 200,000 gallons of oil are spilling out every day, but even that estimate might be a low ball. BP had originally suggested it would only be approx. 5,000 gallons / day and this new higher estimate by the Coast Guard suggests that BP was either being overly optimistic or lying through its teeth.

If the Coast Guard's estimate is reasonable accurate it would mean 1.6 million gallons of oil have spilled since the April 20th.

A day ago the oil slick was 1,150 square miles (roughly the size of Rhode Island)... now its over three times that size: 3,850 square miles.

The thickness of the oil slick is anyone's guess.

One expert also cautioned that if the spill continues growing unchecked, sea currents could suck the sheen down past the Florida Keys and then up the Eastern Seaboard, which would devastate the fishery and lobster industries.

"This disaster is going to cost the U.S. economy billions in lost revenue," said one analyst.

The environmental effects are another key worry. 84% of the USA's coral reefs are in Florida and hundreds of marine species are at stake. Experts say if the oil slick reaches the coral reefs we could be on the verge of localized mass extinction as the local ecology collapses.

“If it gets into the Keys, that would be devastating,” says Duke University biologist Larry Crowder.

The oil slick is now more than 130 miles long and 70 miles wide and threatens hundreds of species of wildlife, including birds, dolphins, fish, shrimp, oysters and crabs that make the Gulf Coast America's most abundant source of food, even more than agriculture.

The explosion was caused by oil services contractor Halliburton Inc. improperly capping the well. CEO David J. Lesar denies his employees improperly capped the well. No doubt this will hurt former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney's stocks as there is already 24 lawsuits that have been filed in the wake of the oil rig explosion.

British Petroleum is being forced to pay for the cleanup costs, but the coming lawsuits will no doubt spread the burden to Halliburton.

The 1989 grounding of the Exxon Valdez off Alaska, for example, cost Exxon Mobil more than $4.3 billion (U.S.), including compensatory payments, cleanup costs, settlements and fines.

Since the Gulf Coast is more environmentally rich the clean costs this time could be in the range of $10 to $30 billion.

There is no word yet on how and when the oil leak will be capped properly.

California's Dustbowl

ENVIRONMENT - The photo on the right is a farm in California that has been put up for sale. Its just one of thousands of farms that are now facing desertification. California's drought is now in its 5th year and farmers are becoming desperate as California increasingly starts to look like a dustbowl from the 1930s.

Climate change will effect farmers most of all and in this case California farmers are getting an early taste of it as their climate becomes more like the Mojave Desert. In this case the desert is getting bigger every year and there's little farmers can do about it. There isn't any water. Wells have gone dry and its not worth it to truck fresh water in from Canada (the only place in North America with an abundance of fresh water usable for drinking/agriculture).

There are water pipes for bringing water in from northern California, but they're old, rusty, falling apart and can't deal with the sheer bulk demand that farmers are facing as the Mojave Desert spreads. There simply isn't enough water to do the job. Those farms that can afford to import water are suffering hugely because water now accounts for 30% of the operating costs and it gets worse every year.

California's Central Valley is already one of the poorest regions in the United States and if weather patterns don't change soon it will become a whole region of ghost towns as farmers leave to find work and the local economy collapses.

California's once snowpacked mountains are also feeling the heat. None of the ice caps remain. Long dry spells have been killing off the trees, causing the treeline to move an average of 213 feet up the mountain (according to a 2008 UC Irvine study).

Conservative Cowardice

By thwap

CANADA - This weekend I was checking out Canadian Cynic and blogging contributor "LuLu" had posted about Stephen Harper's government's saying "fuck you!" to accountability in Canada. According to the Globe & Mail:

OTTAWA — The Harper government has delayed for months the release of notes on
conference calls held at the height of last summer's deadly listeriosis outbreak
— a lag some experts say breaks Ottawa's own information laws. ... Privy Council
officials at first said they had records as requested, but needed four months
“to consult other government institutions” about them. Then Ann Wesch, the
access to information director for PCO, wrote a letter dated Feb. 10 stating
that in fact “the records retrieved do not fall under the scope of this request.
Therefore we have no records relevant to your request.” The explanation for the
flip-flop? Records retrieved were handwritten notes — not minutes or
transcripts, said the PCO analyst questioned about the response.This, despite
the fact that the word transcribe is in part defined in the Canadian Oxford
Dictionary as “make a copy of, esp. in writing .. . write out (shorthand, notes,
etc.) . . . .”

As Univeristy of Ottawa expert on federal information law put it:

“It is silly,” he said. “I would even say it's infantile to be making this sort
of distinction. “This goes against the spirit of the act and the letter of the
[Access to Information] act.”

As was stated earlier in the article, twenty people died because of this failure of oversight. We all remember at the time that Harper was lamely arguing that these deaths were the fault of the Liberals, as if his own sweeping changes to the regulatory regime never existed. (We also remember Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz making jokes about poisoned food and deaths during press conferences at the time.)

Now, despite the fact that Harper is blaming the Liberals he lacks the confidence to provide us with the information about what his government was doing in response to these deaths. We have a right to this information. This is OUR government. There is no "national security" issue at stake here (which Harper loves to use to hide information about his torture policies).

This contempt for democracy, this contempt for accountability, this callous disregard for human life, this craven toadying to corporate interests, this is all an excellent example of the sort of long-standing behaviour that should have written off this party of morons, losers, murderers and thieves long ago. This is the party that pompous idiot Charles Adler had the gall to describe as "mature." This is not maturity. This is a bunch of brazen vandals spitting in our faces, confident that there is nothing that can be done about it. And you know what? Thanks to the cowardly, useless AND COMPLICIT Liberal Party, combined with the ignorance and confusion of almost half the electorate (this includes the full-time stupid 30% of the population that will stick with "conservatism" through thick and thin), there really isn't anything we can do about this.

In the face of murderous negligence and subsequent callous contempt for the law, for the principles of open government, the decent portion of Canadian society is powerless. This has to change.

More greenhouses turn to coal for heat

ENVIRONMENT/CANADA - It will be a difficult winter for greenhouses. Growing vegetables in a glasshouse is much more expensive when the outdoor temperature slides below zero. Tomatoes, peppers and eggplants need heat to thrive, and the cost of supplying that energy will impose a heavy toll this winter on Ontario's world-class greenhouse sector.

"Our fuel is up probably 40 per cent versus last year," says Rob Mastronardi, who for four years has operated Cedar Beach Acres in Kingsville, Ont. For him, growing greenhouse vegetables goes back four generations. It's in his blood.

But the high cost of fuel, combined with the impact a volatile Canadian dollar is having on exports, has his blood boiling. "It's just a hellish economy out there right now. We're suffering just like the auto sector is suffering, but we're not getting any attention at all," he says.

Not that it's a lightweight sector. The province's greenhouse industry is the largest in North America for vegetable production.

Including floriculture, it employs 17,300 full- and part-time workers across 1,200 operations. Sales in 2007 reached about $1.25 billion, with a 40-60 split between vegetables and flowers respectively, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

"The Ontario greenhouse sector is a major contributor to the provincial economy and is worthy of support and promotion," according to a 2006 economic impact study commissioned by the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance.

But that support is lacking, says Mastronardi, who is glum about his industry's prospects. "In these market conditions, our days are definitely numbered."

Left to their own devices, he says, many operators are being forced into survival mode. For some, that means burning the cheapest and dirtiest fuel available: Coal.

Mastronardi says his greenhouse uses about 110,000 gigajoules of heat energy a year. Based on mid-summer fuel prices, he figures he would save between $500,000 to $700,000 annually in energy costs by switching from natural gas to coal. He began burning coal earlier this year but has so far resisted making it his primary fuel.

No. 6 "Bunker C" oil, a heavier fuel oil that's often used instead of natural gas, is also falling out of favour. The price of crude oil has been highly volatile and, though it has fallen over the past four months, is still well above its 10-year average. The International Energy Agency predicted last week that oil prices will average more than hundred dollars/barrel between now and 2015.

"It's just outrageously priced," Mastronardi says. "I probably won't burn Bunker C at all this winter."

Again, that leaves coal.

Dozens of other greenhouse operators in Ontario – clustered around the flower-dominant Niagara region and vegetable-dominant Essex County – have switched or are considering a transition to coal as a way to save on fuel costs.

The impact so far appears small, but the trend is gaining momentum. As it does, it could undermine the environmental benefits of an Ontario government plan to wean the province off coal-fired power generation by 2014.

"Coal is expanding in the province, despite a policy to phase out coal," says Roger Samson, executive director of REAP-Canada, an independent group that encourages sustainable farming practices. "The Ontario government has no plan on how to mitigate this."

How much coal, potentially, are we talking about? The energy demands of a typical greenhouse are enormous. Shalin Khosla, a greenhouse specialist with the agriculture ministry, says anywhere between 35 per cent to 50 per cent of the costs of operating a modern vegetable greenhouse goes toward energy consumption. The figure is closer to 20 per cent for flower growers.

It's estimated that greenhouses in Ontario cover 2,823 acres, and that the average greenhouse requires 9,500 gigajoules of energy per acre every year. This works out to 26.8 million gigajoules annually.

Convert that energy into electricity potential and it works out to 7.44 terawatt-hours a year – more than three times the 2004 electricity output of the Lakeview coal-fired generating station in Mississauga (which has since been closed down and demolished).

That's equivalent to more than one million tonnes of coal being burned annually.

It's a mathematical exercise that raises a serious public policy question: What's preventing the entire greenhouse industry from moving to coal, and in doing so, undermining the spirit of the McGuinty government's coal phase-out strategy?

Not much, it appears. Unlike power plants and other major industrial facilities, greenhouses can burn whatever fuel they want without much scrutiny.

Cement plants and fossil-fuel power stations require a certificate of approval from the environment ministry to burn coal.

But that's not so for greenhouses.

"Greenhouses are exempt because they're considered to be agricultural operations," says John Steele, a spokesman for Ontario's Ministry of the Environment. "Under the EPA (Environmental Protection Act), those operations are exempt from the certificate of approval process."

And because they have an exemption, he adds, "we don't know what they're doing."

Keith Stewart, an energy expert with WWF-Canada and author of a book on Ontario's electricity system, calls the situation "perverse" and a reflection of inconsistent government policy.

"Outdated energy policy is giving us coal-fired tomatoes," he says.

The issue has also caused concern in British Columbia's Fraser Valley Regional District, which has a greenhouse industry ranked second in Canada behind Ontario.

Barry Penner, B.C.'s environment minister, acknowledged the problem in a March 27 letter to district chair Clint Hames. But Penner said a new carbon tax in the 2008 B.C. budget "will send a signal that less greenhouse-gas-intense fuels should be considered."

No such tax exists or has been proposed in Ontario. If it did exist, it might help Don Nott, a switchgrass grower in Clinton, about 100 kilometres west of Kitchener.

Nott decided a few years ago to start growing fast-growing switchgrass on 300 acres of land. He figured he could make a better business out of harvesting the grasses, grinding them up, and packing them into carbon-neutral "biopellets" – a renewable fuel. Burning such pellets for fuel wouldn't be penalized by a carbon tax.

Back in 2006 about 14,000 tonnes of the pellets were burned for fuel, much of it in greenhouses that were experimenting with alternatives. "We had 30 different individuals burning our product at one time, of various sizes from small up to 30 acres," says Nott.

But when oil and natural gas prices began to rise, the greenhouses couldn't afford to experiment any longer. "It's gone down to nothing. There's just one guy left who's willing to burn it. Most of those guys have switched over to burning coal."

With 400 tonnes of switchgrass sitting in storage waiting for a market, Nott has pretty much folded the business.

"When they said they were going to burn coal, I said I'm out."

Most greenhouse operators that have turned to or are considering burning more coal aren't proud of it. They know it pollutes more, but escalating costs have left those in the industry with few choices.

"In my eyes the government is moving at an absolute snail's pace regarding this energy crisis in our industry," Mastronardi says.

"If they want us to survive, we're going to need help."

U.S. jobless claims hit 7-year high

United States - New applications for unemployment benefits rose slightly last week to a seven-year high due to a weakening economy and the impact of Hurricanes Ike and Gustav, the Labor Department said Thursday.

The department reported that initial claims for jobless benefits increased by 1,000 to a seasonally adjusted 497,000. That's significantly above analysts' estimate of 475,000. The total is the highest since just after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks seven years ago.

U.S. stock futures declined on the report. Dow Jones industrial average futures dropped 102 to the 10,785 level, pointing to a lower opening for shares.

The hurricanes, which hit Texas and Louisiana earlier this month, added about 45,000 claims from the two states for the week ending Sept. 27, the department said.

The hurricanes have led to higher claims for several weeks. As a result, the four-week average of claims, which smooths out fluctuations, jumped to 474,000, up 11,500 from the previous week.

In the week ending Sept. 20, Texas reported a 22,235 jump in claims, while Louisiana said claims rose by 9,671.

The number of people continuing to receive benefits increased to 3.59 million, up 48,000 and higher than analysts' estimates. That's the highest total in five years.

Jobless claims are at elevated levels even excluding the hurricanes. Weekly claims have now topped 400,000 for 11 straight weeks, a level economists consider a sign of recession. A year ago, claims stood at 324,000.

Economists expect a separate Labor Department report Friday on payrolls to reflect further weakness in the labor market. They predict the report will show that the nation's employers cut 100,000 jobs last month. That's on top of 605,000 jobs that were eliminated in the first eight months of this year.

The report is expected to show that the jobless rate remains at 6.1 percent. The rate jumped above 6 percent for the first time in five years in August.

American History

War of 1812
American Civil War
World War I
Great Depression
World War II
Cold War
Vietnam War
Watergate
Energy Crisis
Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan
Iran/Iraq War
Gulf War
Invasion of Panama
The Rise of Terrorism
Kosovo War
September 11th
War on Terrorism

American Economics

Agriculture & Food Prices
Asian Imports
Budget Deficit
Corporate Crime
American Health Care
Oil Prices
Interest Rates
Migration
Credit Crisis
Weak Dollar

To be creative is, in fact, Canadian

Mr. Harper is wrong: There's more to the arts than a bunch of rich people at galas whining about their grants

Quebec Artists Protest Against Arts Cuts

By Margaret Atwood

What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of country do we already live in? What do we like? Who are we?

At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector accounted for an “estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined).”

But we've just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group called “ordinary people” didn't care about something called “the arts.” His idea of “the arts” is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand: I'm one of them, and I'm no Warren Buffett. I don't whine about my grants because I don't get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not because they think they'll be millionaires.

Every single one of those people is an “ordinary person.” Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings, textiles, clothing and special cuisines. “Ordinary people” pack into the cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them live. The total attendance for “the arts” in Canada in fact exceeds that for sports events. “The arts” are not a “niche interest.” They are part of being human.

Moreover, “ordinary people” are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own graphic novels. “Ordinary people” have other outlets for their creativity, as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on ... Canadians, it seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are made.

They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country - volunteers set them up and provide the food, and “ordinary people” will drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia's Read by the Sea - in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them in contempt.

I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative activity, to be creative is “ordinary.” It is an age-long and normal human characteristic: All children are born creative. It's the lack of any appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities and interests of “ordinary people.” He's the “niche interest.” Not us.

It's been suggested that Mr. Harper's disdain for the arts is not merely a result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is “ideologically motivated.” Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What's the idea here? That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don't all live in one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario - $20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers' money going out, a dribble grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as not to appreciate his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.

Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space.

The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it that Mr. Harper's idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In communist countries, this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who - rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the rulers before himself. It's an impulse that's been repeated many times since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the common motto. Then build a big statue of yourself. Now that would be Art!

Thousands evacuated as huge propane explosion rocks Toronto

Toronto, Canada - A series of huge explosions rocked Toronto this morning as a propane plant (Sunrise Co.) blew up around 3:40 AM. Witnesses watched the series of explosions, two of which caused huge mushroom clouds, like a second sun dawning in the north west corner of Toronto near Keele Street and Wilson Avenue (Downsview Park).

An estimated 5000 local residents were evacuated as fears of even larger explosions and falling debris could have injured many bystanders. One firefighter has been killed in the blaze and one other person is now missing (believed to be the propane plant's truck dispatcher who may have been caught in one of the explosions). Nearby York University has been sheltering evacuees and providing food and water, with discussions of opening up the universities near empty dormitories for any people who have lost their homes.

18 other people are injured from flying debris and the force of the explosions shattered windows, overturned cars, set nearby residential buildings on fire, blew garage doors off their hinges, stripped roofs off of houses and tore trees asunder. The sheer force of the conflagration caused some bystanders to think it was a terrorist attack. Other people thought it was an earthquake or a 747 airliner crashing.

An emergency worker at Bombardier Aerospace’s Downsview operation said he saw propane tanks falling from the sky.

The area now looks like war zone.

A 10-kilometre stretch of Canada’s busiest highway, the 401, was shut down as was the southern end of Highway 400, which carries people to and from cottage country.

The Technical Standards and Safety Authority has sent two propane experts to the scene at the request of the Ontario Fire Marshal’s office, which is investigating the cause of the explosion.

Propane is stored and transported in a compressed liquid form, vapourizing only when pressure is released. The gas is an asphyxiant, meaning it can cause suffocation. Exposure to high levels of propane can cause health problems, including frostbite if it touches skin.

The Sunrise Company supplies nitrogen, propane, helium and argon to residential, industrial and agriculture clients. It also provides safety training for propane and dangerous goods certificates. Questions remain as to whether Sunrise employees or managers were following safety procedures.

---

Sometimes it can be hard to find a Toronto Dentist you can trust.

The future looks worse according to environmental study

Fed up with unpredictable winter storms cancelling air flights, closing highways and dumping enormous amounts of precipitation, like Saturday?

Too bad. 100 of Canada's top scientists say get used to it.

In a major forthcoming report on Canada's changing climate, scientists warn of everything from increased severe storm activity in Atlantic Canada to hotter summers and poorer air quality in urban Ontario.

British Columbia may face retreating glaciers and snow loss on its mountains, causing potential water shortages. The Prairie provinces will continue to struggle with drought, impacting agriculture rurally and potentially causing water rationing in urban areas.

The 500-page report is the work of 145 leading Canadian scientists. They've examined the current and future risks climate change presents coast to coast and what they have to say isn't comforting.

But it's not necessary to wait for the future to experience intense storms. A taste of that can be had this weekend as yet another major system moves in from the Gulf of Mexico.

This one will dump up to 50 centimetres of snow over Ontario and Quebec and bring winds of up to 70 kilometres an hour, as it churns over Central Canada through Saturday and into Sunday. The same system will drop 40 to 70 millimetres of precipitation along the Nova Scotia side of the Bay of Fundy and send rain and freezing rain into New Brunswick.

And, yes, as travellers head to the airports for March break, it's very likely some flights will be cancelled and traffic will be snarled once again.

Perhaps one of the people least surprised by the wicked weekend weather, is Norm Catto, a geographer at Memorial University in Newfoundland and one of the climate report's lead authors.

On Friday, he said the intensity of weather events is increasing.

When hurricane Juan swept through Atlantic Canada in 2003 the storm surge didn't coincide with high tide. But next time it could and the level of the water could be 40 to 50 centimetres higher.

"Are we ready for that?" Catto asked. "That's the sort of question we're trying to ask here and get people to consider."

Quentin Chiotti, a senior scientist with Pollution Probe in Toronto and another study author, echoed Catto's concern. In Ontario, for example, intense dumps of precipitation could lead to floods of the sort Toronto and Peterborough endured in 2005.

Chiotti said such floods illustrated that much of the region's critical infrastructure was based on standards developed following hurricane Hazel in 1954 and is in need of updating.

Like many of the scientists, Chiotti warned that the weather will become increasingly unpredictable. "When you put more heat into the atmosphere, you're going to start getting more wacky weather, and that's going to be more variable from season to season and year to year."

Catto said Northern Canada faces permafrost erosion, retreating coastlines and problems with maintaining the ice roads that provide vital transportation links in winter.

On the Prairies, drought could potentially affect the power supply. Problems with water reservoirs could leave utilities without sufficiently high levels of water to generate the amount of power required

"Each of the regions does have its own challenges," Catto said.

Suren Kulshreshtha, a professor in the University of Saskatchewan's bioresource policy department and another report author, agrees. "I think the only things these models are telling us is there will be a likely increase in the events of extremes."

People in Ontario and much of Quebec know all about "extremes" as they cope with the sixth major snow storm of the season Saturday.

The storm, which originated in the U.S. South and gathered power as it moved north, was expected to dump between 30 and 50 centimetres of snow on parts of each province.

As much as 30 cm of snow was expected in Toronto, up to 40 cm in Ottawa and maybe even more -mixed with ice pellets -was anticipated to cover the streets of Montreal.

A little more than 171 cm of snow already has been recorded this winter at Toronto's Pearson International Airport.

The highest recorded snowfall for a Toronto winter was the 207 cm, which fell in 1938. 220 cm are expected in Toronto this year, a new record.

The worst winter recorded in the nation's capital of Ottawa was that of 1970-71, when 444.1 cm of snow fell, only about 83 cm more than already has fallen so far this winter.

Environment Canada says usually at this time of the year, temperatures begin to rise to an average in the 1 C to 4 C range in Ontario, but the forecast for mid-March likely would be filled with temperatures in the -3 C range for many parts of the region.

In Montreal, the city was drifting depressingly close to matching or even breaking the record of 383 centimetres of snowfall set in 1971. So far this season, the city has recorded 316 centimetres as of Thursday.

Climate change warning issued

World must act now or face consequences.

OSLO, Norway – The world must deal with climate change now or pay a much higher price later, says the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

In two decades, unchecked environmental damage will leave half the world's population without adequate drinking water, the OECD's secretary general, Angel Gurria, said Wednesday.

An OECD report on the environmental outlook to 2030, part of a series of reports compiled every five years, concentrates on climate change, water shortages, energy needs, biodiversity loss, transportation, agriculture and fisheries.

"Without more ambitious policies, increasing pressures on the environment will cause irreversible damage within the next few decades," the report said. "The cost of inaction is high, while ambitious actions to protect the environment are affordable and can go hand in hand with economic growth.''

The report also stressed the need for a global response. Gurria urged the United States and developing countries with booming economies such as China and India to accept a binding international commitment to reduce global-warming gases.

"It involves that everyone participates. This is very important. We can't have anybody do a 'free ride,'" he said.

By 2030, the world's population – currently about 6.5 billion people – is expected to hit 8.2 billion, and the global economy could double in size, largely due to growth in countries such as Brazil, Russia, China and India, the report said.

Unchecked, growth in energy consumption in those countries could be 72 per cent by 2030, compared to 29 per cent for all 30 of the OECD's nations.

That would lead to a 38 per cent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. However, if Brazil, Russia, China and India take the same step in 2020, and are followed by the rest of the world in 2030, emissions could be held at 2000 levels, it said.

If no steps are taken, world gross domestic product will grow 99 per cent between 2005 and 2030, with severe environmental consequences, the report said. With measures, growth would be nearly the same, 97 per cent, but with a much healthier environment.

The report said governments must create such policies as "green taxes" to encourage sound technologies and practices, and that the rich world must help poor countries develop without spewing pollution by providing technology and expertise.

It also said ecological advances bring multiple benefits. For example, cutting motor vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions would improve air quality in cities or better insulated homes that cut power bills for consumers while reducing power plant emissions.

"OECD's report identifies critical environmental issues facing our country and countries around the world," Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), chairman of the House of Representatives' science and technology committee, said in a statement from Washington. "The OECD report provides a good roadmap for evaluating environmental challenges and the economic impacts we face if no action is taken.''

The OECD (www.oecd.org), made up of 30 nations, focuses on economic and social policies.

Meanwhile oil prices set a new record today of $106 US per barrel.

Biofuels are not green fuels...

"Biofuels worsens global warming because they are like setting fire to fields of crops in the long run."

Most crops grown in North America and Europe to make a "green" alternative transport fuel actually speed up global warming because of industrial farming methods, says a report by Dutch atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel prize in 1995 for his work on the hole in the Earth's ozone layer.

The findings could spell special worries for alternative fuels derived from rapeseed, used in Europe, which the study concluded could produce up to 70 per cent more planet-warming greenhouse gases than conventional diesel.

The report suggested scientists and farmers focus on crops needing little fertilizer and harvesting methods that were not energy intensive in order to produce benefits for the environment.

Biofuels are derived from plants that absorb the planet-warming greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as they grow, and so are meant as a climate-friendly substitute for fossil fuels.

But the new study shows that some biofuels actually release more greenhouse gases than they save, because of the fertilizer used in modern farming practices.

The problem greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide, is more famous as the dentists' anaesthetic "laughing gas," and is about 300 times more insulating than the most common man-made greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

"The nitrous oxide emission on its own can cancel out the overall benefit," co-author professor Keith Smith said in a telephone interview from Edinburgh in Scotland.

The study casts further doubts on the credibility of biofuels as a climate cure after the revelation of other unintended side effects, such as rain-forest clearance and higher food prices, from competing with forests and food for land. Brazil and the United States produce most of the world's bioethanol, as a substitute for gasoline, while the European Union is the main supplier of biodiesel.

Using biodiesel derived from rapeseed would produce between 1 and 1.7 times more greenhouse gas than using conventional diesel, the study estimated.

Biofuels derived from sugar cane, as in Brazil, fared better, producing between 0.5 and 0.9 times as much greenhouse gases as gasoline.

Corn, also known as maize, is the main biofuels feedstock used in North America, and produced between 0.9 and 1.5 times the global warming effect of conventional gasoline, it said.

"As it's used at the moment, bioethanol from maize seems to be a pretty futile exercise," Smith said.

The study did not account for the extra global warming effect of burning fossil fuels in biofuel manufacture, or for the planet-cooling effect of using biofuel by-products as a substitute for coal in electricity generation.

"Even if somebody decides that our numbers are too big ... if you add together the undoubted amount of nitrous oxide that is formed, plus the fossil-fuel usage, with most of the biofuels of today you are not going to get any benefit," Smith said.

The study did not condemn all biofuels, however, suggesting that scientists and farmers should focus on crops needing little fertilizer, and harvesting methods that were not energy intensive.

"In future, if you use low nitrogen demanding crops, and low impact agriculture, then we could get a benefit," Smith said.

The study singled out grasses and woody coppice species – such as willows and poplars – as crops with potentially more favourable impacts on the climate.

Nitrogen makes up a large portion of the atmosphere, and is a vital component for the growth of plants. Massive production of synthetic fertilizer in a 20th century "green revolution" has almost doubled the amount of nitrogen in the global system, adding nearly 100 million tonnes, Smith said.

"That has increased the production of nitrous oxide."

How Greens altered the Canadian political landscape

Carol Kidd may be a card-carrying Conservative, but last Wednesday she, who lives along the largely rural plains of Caledon, northwest of Toronto, voted Green.

It was a first for her. But along with thousands of others, she's offering a glimpse of an altered political landscape in rural Ontario, where the Green party is becoming a viable choice.

But why in the province's rural areas and not the cities, where the environmental movement is at its most intense? Not even Green party leader Frank de Jong, knows the answer. But there are hypotheses.

The Greens, who ran candidates in all 107 ridings, came in third or better in 18 of them in last week's election. In one, Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, Green candidate Shane Jolley came in second behind the incumbent, Tory Bill Murdoch. In the 2003 election, when they ran in 102 of 103 ridings, Greens placed third in just two ridings.

Although there were a handful of urban third-place finishes – such as Toronto constituencies Don Valley West and Davenport, where leader Frank de Jong ran, and Barrie – most of the success came in rural ridings, in the 519 area code.

"I think sometimes, and now particularly, people in the rural communities see the farmland being eaten up with development, and issues like Walkerton with the water and the Greenbelt," says Kidd, 64, executive director of the Caledon Meals On Wheels program. "I think we're more concerned about the land."

Experts say the spreading rural Green tide may have as much to do with history and demographics as environmental awareness.

The Green Party in Ontario began in the large cities, Toronto, Kingston and Ottawa, among the downtowners. "It was the usual-suspects kind of thing, we were treehuggers, myself included," says de Jong, who recounts how he was arrested for mischief in 1996 along with others protesting logging of old-growth forest at Owain Lake in Temagami in northern Ontario. (The charges were later dropped.)

Highly decentralized and grassroots, it started transforming into a more solid, traditional party with a clear structure and leader in the 1990s. Each election it would field more candidates. And its share of the popular vote would increase, tripling to 8 per cent last week.

But a trend emerged that no one expected. By the mid-1990s, the party was gaining traction in the rural, agricultural regions faster than in the cities from which it began.

The conundrum no one has quite figured out is exactly who in the rural areas is apt to vote Green.

The farmers are the prime example. There are those who might look at the Green Party and its desire to protect farmland from development and to make farms more viable for producing food for local markets, and find that attractive.

"We have fewer farmers every year, that's no surprise," says Geri Kamenz, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. "But if you look at my new members, a lot of them are third-career people who have taken early retirement, moved into rural Ontario and are farming to some degree ... Is profitability their number one goal? I'm not sure it is. Is reconnecting with their roots or getting closer to that which really sustains and feeds humanity part of their motivation? I think so.

"If you look at that, and you look at what the Green party offers in terms of environmental sustainability, (rural Ontario) would seem an obvious place to field candidates."

Organic farmers, too, were early supporters – and candidates – for the Green party, which champions organic and local foods.

Larger-scale commercial farmers, who raise crops like corn and soy beans to sell on international markets, might also look to the Green party, since the other parties, Kamenz says, rarely talked about agriculture during the campaign.

"A small part of the commercial farming community may exercise a protest vote, not to elect the Green party, but to yank the chains of the other parties to say, `You better pay attention to us.'"

On the other hand, many farmers oppose the province's Greenbelt, which protects a wide swath of land from further development. In some cases, it has erased their future ability to sell the land for development profit. It also creates hurdles to making any changes to the land.

The Green party, as it happens, would like to expand the Greenbelt in the interest of curbing sprawl.

Farmers have also historically viewed environmentalists as an "enemy rather than an ally" and see the Greens as closely connected to environmentalists, says Peter Andrée, a specialist in environmental politics at Carleton University.

"I don't think that's necessarily well thought through, but I see there's a gut reaction in that direction."

The Green party must be aware of the fact that even in these rural regions, farmers don't make up the majority of voters, Andrée notes. So their message has to work for a broader audience.

Some say the reason the Greens came in ahead of the NDP in many of these ridings is because the New Democrats, tied to the labour movement, have historically been weak in these areas, which tend to be Conservative bastions.

"The NDP isn't seen as the alternative in those rural ridings," Andrée says.

"In the 705, the 519, they're not connecting with the voters, whereas the Greens have come up on the radar as a new option that doesn't have the negative connotations yet like the NDP."

De Jong, a Toronto teacher, agrees with that assessment. When someone came to ecological consciousness in Toronto over last 20 years, they'd go to a multiplicity of environmental non-governmental organizations, like Friends of the Earth, or to the NDP, he explains. "But in Owen Sound there are no ecological groups, and the NDP is not a force. So you have to go to the Green party."

Some pundits predict that Green support will plateau as other parties adopt environmental agendas. And Andrée sees the danger of a "ceiling" of voters who turn out strictly on environmental issues.

Still, he expects the Greens to do even better next time. First, however, they'll have to convince people that they're not a one-issue party.

Voters in rural Ontario, it appears, are already starting to believe.

Pollution in Canada getting worse, statistics show

OTTAWA - Canada's air and water quality is getting worse, Statistics Canada reported Monday.

Reviewing key indicators from 1990 to 2005, the statistical agency found a 12 per cent increase in ground-level ozone, a major component of smog, over the 15-year period. The increases were particularly noteworthy in southern Ontario and southern Quebec.

Smog is created from ozone and fine particulate matter that come from transportation, electricity generation, wood burning and the use of some chemical products.

The Statistics Canada report also found that water quality was "poor" or "marginal" in 23 per cent of sites tested.

Overall, it concluded that Canada was falling short of accepted quality standards required for protecting fish, plants and other aquatic life. The main source of pollution appeared to be phosphorus from sewage, agriculture runoff and industrial waste, according to the report.

Meantime, the study confirmed other recent studies about Canada's greenhouse gas emissions that revealed that levels of heat-trapping gases were stable between 2004 and 2005, but more than 30 per cent above Canada's legally binding targets under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Canada's Emission Remain at Record High

OTTAWA -- Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have stayed at a record high for another year, according to federal statistics showing that even a warm winter and more nuclear power can't stop our up-and-up emissions trend.

The newest national summary shows our greenhouse gas production in 2005 stayed at the peak first reached in 2004, slightly above 2003, and significantly higher than all previous years.

Our emissions are now 32.7 per cent above the target in Canada's Kyoto Protocol commitment - which takes binding effect in three months.

While we at least managed not to increase our emissions in 2005, Environment Canada says that's partly because we got lucky with a warm winter. We also reduced emissions in some areas by bringing nuclear plants back online in Ontario, which allowed the province's power plants to burn less coal.

Environment Canada adds: "Long term growth, nevertheless, remains large. Between 1990 and 2005 significant increases in oil and gas production, much of which have been provided to the United States, have resulted in a significant increase in the emissions associated with the production and transportation of fuel for export."

The Kyoto Protocol obliges Canada to keep greenhouse gas emissions six percentage points below 1990 levels, on average, from the beginning of 2008 through 2012.

Yet the latest figures illustrate the gap between the public's stated goals - telling pollsters we demand cuts in emissions - and the nation's real demand for cars, heated homes and manufactured products.

The upward emissions trend doesn't surprise Jim Bruce, a former senior official of Environment Canada now in private practice.

That's "because we haven't made any really big, determined efforts," he said. "We've taken a number of baby steps but not really big concerted effort to reduce emissions."

We can't cut fuel unless we re-engineer existing buildings to conserve more heat, and make smaller cars and trucks, he said.

"The Europeans are doing this, especially Britain and Norway and Germany." Some of these countries also have substantial wind power, and this week Britain announced it will dam the Severn River estuary to run rising and falling tidewaters through turbines that produce electricity.

"California is doing things. There are a number of developed countries and regions that have taken the bit in the teeth and are moving to reductions.

"What the Swedes did is a really a key thing. They rejigged their whole tax structure to reduce significantly income takes and other taxes and increase energy taxes."

Canadian figures comparing 2005 to previous years show that:

- People still aren't conserving electricity. Demand actually increased from 2003 to 2005, but greenhouse emissions fell when Ontario refurbished nuclear plants that had been idle, and shut down coal-burning plans. There was also some increase nationally in hydroelectric power, which doesn't produce carbon dioxide.

- Since 1990, Canadians have increased their emissions from transportation by 33 per cent. (The Kyoto deal measures everything since 1990.)

But within that category, emissions from light trucks and SUVs are up by 109 per cent, reflecting how sales of these popular brands have risen sharply despite our national commitment to use less fuel.

Most of the rest of the increase from transportation came from heavy diesel trucks.

- The growth of factory farms for pigs, chickens and beef cattle boosted emissions in the agriculture sector. As well, the conversion of forest and natural grasslands to cropland is a continuing source of gas emissions.

- Alberta is the biggest greenhouse gas producer (more than 230 million tonnes in 2005, or about 30 per cent of Canada's total.) Ontario comes second (200 million tonnes), followed by Quebec (about 90 million), Saskatchewan (about 70 million, much of it from fertilizer), British Columbia (about 65 million) and the rest all less than 25 million.

- Leaks from natural gas pipelines continue to be a major source of greenhouse gases. Leakage grew by 54 per cent between 1990 and 2005.

- Exploitation of tarsands is expected to increase greenhouse gases from energy production.

2005 (also 2004) 747 million tonnes

2000 - 721 million tonnes

1995 - 646 million tonnes

1990 - 596 million tonnes