Error
  • Error loading feed data.
Items filtered by date: March 2011
Paul Tukey of Safelawns is working with the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment to proclaim May 6th 2011, which is the 20th anniversary of Hudson Quebec’s cosmetic pesticide bylaw, as Dr. June Irwin Lawn Pesticide Awareness Day. The wording of the proclamation is below.

"We, the undersigned members of the North American health, environmental, landscape and farming communities, hereby proclaim Friday, May 6, 2011 as Dr. June Irwin Lawn Pesticide Awareness Day in honor of the pioneering doctor's leading role in passage of North America's lawn first pesticide ban in Hudson, Quebec, on May 6, 1991."

Signatories as of noon Tuesday, April 26
Advocate Precautionary Principle, Sarasota, Fla.
Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Anchorage, Alaska
BC Pathways, Victoria, BC
Beyond Pesticides, Washington, D.C.
Canadian Cancer Society, Vancouver, Ca.
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Toronto, Ont.
Citizens for a Green Camden, Camden, Maine
The Coalition of Organic Land Care Professionals, Seattle
EcoJustice, Toronto, Ca.
The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Paonia, Co.
Environmental Health Fund, Jamaica Plain, Boston
Friends of Casco Bay, Portland, Maine
Farmworker Association of Florida, Apopka, Fla.
Galveston Baykeeper, Seabrook, Texas
Groundswell Stratford, Stratford, Ontario
Institute of the Environment, Ottawa, Ont.
Lawn Reform Coalition, Washington, D.C.
Leah Collective, Concord, N.H.
Maine Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association, Unity, Maine
Manitoba Eco-Network, Winnipeg
Natural Resources Defense Council, New York
Ontario College of Family Physicians, Toronto
People’s Action for Threatened Habitats, Vancouver
Pesticide Action Network North America, San Francisco
Pesticide Free Zone, Kentfield, California
Pesticide Watch, Sacramento, California
Protect All Children’s Environment, Marion, N.C.
Rainfrog Amphibian Sanctuary, Roberts Creek, BC
Rachel Carson Council, Washington, D.C.
Safer Pest Control Project, Chicago, Ill.
The Sierra Club, Washington,D.C.

The SafeLawns Foundation, Newport, R.I.
Saskatchewan Environmental Society, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Stop Targeting Overuse of Pesticides, Victoria, BC
Toxics Action Center, Boston
Toxics Information Project, Providence, RI
Wildsight, Kimberley, BC

Paul J. Tukey, www.PaulTukey.com
Executive Producer, A Chemical Reaction, www.chemicalreactionmovie.com
National Spokesperson, www.safelawns.org
Associate Editor, MovieMaker magazine
Published in Action Alerts
Tuesday, 26 April 2011 13:49

Energy Future

The provincial Energy Commission just released its proposed energy policy for New Brunswick and the government now wants to hear from you!

There are many great recommendations, most notably with relation to energy efficiency. But the Energy Commission just does not seem to understand the urgency of climate change and developing renewable energy now. They are recommending that we abandon our renewable energy and climate change targets.

We are at a historic fork in the road. The end of cheap oil and climate change impacts, from floods to rising food prices, are forcing us to rethink and redesign how we get and use energy.

Like us, you’re probably tired of aggressive and risky ways of producing energy and I think the Earth is as well. We’re actually pumping tens of millions liters of chemical-laced water underground for shale gas that has a carbon footprint greater than oil. We’re smashing atoms together simply to boil water while producing radioactive waste for future generations. All of this is leaving us asking: when will it be enough? What do you think?

Our team at CCNB thinks there’s a better way. Like we showed you in our Action Flick “Our Energy Future”, efficiency and renewables CAN meet our needs. Prince Edward Island made $3million last year from its publicly owned wind farms and Halifax is installing hundreds of solar domestic hot water systems.

That’s why we are asking you to write to the Energy Minister Craig Leonard. We’re going to write to him as well but we really need you to tell him “Enough is enough, it’s time to make the right choice for our energy future”. His e-mail is Craig.Leonard@gnb.ca and his mail address is P.O. Box 6000; Fredericton, NB; E3B 5H1.

Tell him it’s time to:
1. Increase our targets for producing electricity from new renewable sources to 25%, not gut them.
2. Strengthen our 2020 target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, not abandon it.

To learn more about CCNB Action's Roadmap for our Energy Future, click here.

thank you,

Raphael Shay
Climate & Energy Coordinator
Published in Action Alerts
Wednesday, 20 April 2011 08:56

Action Alert - Elmtree Property Gold Mine


Action Alert Deadline: Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

The Elmtree Property Gold Mine is a proposed open-pit gold mine in an environmentally sensitive area near Beresford, NB. The mine, which plans to operate for 1.5 to 2 years, carries the potential for significant negative environmental impacts including destroying the headwaters of an Atlantic salmon stream and impacting the river downstream. The mine carries the potential for acid mine drainage and could affect the water supply for the town of Petit Rocher and the water quality and quantity for nearby residents on wells. Mining could also harm wetland habitats including uncommon white cedar swamp and culturally important black ash stands which host several rare plant species.

CCNB Action, Mining Watch Canada, the Belledune Citizens' Committee, Bathurst Sustainable Development, Sierra Club of Canada-Atlantic, Grand Lake Watershed Guardians have requested that the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Elmtree Property Gold Mine be bumped up to a Joint Panel Review, which would mean greater public participation at both the federal and provincial levels.

What can you do?

1. Request that the Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Elmtree Property Gold Mine be given Joint Panel Review status. This request must be sent to the federal and provincial Environment Ministers and copied to the project manager at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Sample Letter

Given the limited economic benefits and potential for significant impacts to sensitive environmental features including salmon streams, municipal and private water supplies, and important wetland communities I support the request by CCNB Action, Mining Watch Canada, the Belledune Citizens' Committee, Bathurst Sustainable Development, Sierra Club of Canada-Atlantic, Grand Lake Watershed Guardians to have the project undergo a joint panel review.

Send to:

Hon. Peter Kent
Minister of the Environment
401 Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6
Tel: 613 992-0253
Email: kentp@parl.gc.ca

Hon. Margaret-Ann Blaney
NB Minister of Environment
Marysville Place
P. O. Box 6000
Fredericton, NB
E3B 5H1
Tel: 506 444-5136
Email: margaret-ann.blaney@gnb.ca

Hon. Gail Shea
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings, Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0A6
Email: Min@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Vanessa Rodrigues, Project Manager
Elmtree Property Gold Mine project
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
1801 Hollis Street, Suite 200
Halifax NS B3J 3N4
Tel.: 902 426-0564
Email: ElmtreeGoldMine@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

2. Make comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines found here: http://www.acee-ceaa.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=48759

Deadline for comments: Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

Concerns with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement:

1. Sustainable development. Contribution to sustainable development is highly dubious considering the potential for serious environmental
impacts for a project that will involve only 1.5 to 2 years of employment and potential economic benefits.

2. Alternative Closure Options. In the section regarding alternative means of carrying out the project (Sec. 4.4.6), the list of requirements
should include alternatives for mine closure and decommissioning.

3. Uncertainty of Success of Mitigation Measures. Realistic estimates of the likelihood and frequency of malfunctions should be given (Sec.
4.6.1). Factors which contribute to the uncertainty of detecting and mitigating impacts associated with accidents and malfunctions should be
assessed. An assessment of the degree of uncertainty associated with proposed mitigation measures (Sec. 4.7) for routine operations and
habitat compensation should be provided.

4. Cumulative Effects. Existing and potential future effects of broader environmental changes (e.g. climate change) and regional population
trends to important species such as Atlantic Salmon and Black Ash must be considered.

5. Follow Up and Monitoring. Costs of short-term monitoring should be estimated as should any requirements and costs for post-closure
monitoring (Sec. 4.10). The responsibility for long-term monitoring and if necessary mitigation should be clearly identified.

6. Air Quality. While the guidelines indicate that ore processing is part of the scope of the project, air emissions from ore processing also
need to be considered within the EIS (Sec. 4.13).

7. Water Quality. In describing the potential impacts of acid rock drainage and metal leaching on ground and surface water (Sec. 4.14.3,
4.14.4 and 4.14.5) the proponent should be required to describe variability of the results from tests and modelling conducted, and a
review of the relative success of predicting acid rock drainage and metal leaching from similar ore bodies.

8. Species at Risk and of Conservation Concern. Evaluation of potential effects on any of the categories of species described in Section 4.15.4 should consider the relative importance of the Elmtree River for regional populations and population dynamics, and the diversity of those populations.

9. Mine Closure. We are concerned by the reference to a “conceptual reclamation and closure plan” in Section 4.15.1. Given the demands
throughout the guidelines to evaluate potential effects and mitigation measures during and after closure, a conceptual plan is clearly insufficient. While detailed engineering could be left to a later stage of permitting, regulators and the public need to know about the closure
plans to a sufficient level of detail to properly review the proposal. The guidelines should include a higher degree of precision and be
consistent in the requirements for information about closure, namely: detailed description of activities and timing for mine closure;
rationale for the selection of preferred closure option compared with other alternatives; cost estimates for closure activities; analysis of
uncertainty associated with closure options including variability in modelling of key parameters, technological failures etc. and an
explanation of long-term responsibility and stewardship of the site.
Published in Action Alerts

Speak up for wildlife now!

 Please write, phone or e-mail your MLA to tell them you don't want our habitat protection zones clearcut, instead they should be expanded to help restore our populations of native plants and animals to healthy levels.

 Members of the Legislative Assembly contact information: http://app.infoaa.7700.gnb.ca/gnb/pub/ListMLA1.asp

Published in Action Alerts
Tuesday, 12 April 2011 10:21

Elmtree Property Gold Mine

Action Alert - Elmtree Property Gold Mine

Action Alert Deadline: Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

The Elmtree Property Gold Mine is a proposed open-pit gold mine in an
environmentally sensitive area near Beresford, NB. The mine, which plans
to operate for 1.5 to 2 years, carries the potential for significant
negative environmental impacts including destroying the headwaters of an
Atlantic salmon stream and impacting the river downstream. The mine
carries the potential for acid mine drainage and could affect the water
supply for the town of Petit Rocher and the water quality and quantity
for nearby residents on wells. Mining could also harm wetland habitats
including uncommon white cedar swamp and culturally important black ash
stands which host several rare plant species.

CCNB Action, Mining Watch Canada, the Belledune Citizens' Committee,
Bathurst Sustainable Development, Sierra Club of Canada-Atlantic, Grand
Lake Watershed Guardians have requested that the Environmental Impact
Assessment for the Elmtree Property Gold Mine be bumped up to a Joint
Panel Review, which would mean greater public participation at both the
federal and provincial levels.

What can you do?

1. Request that the Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed
Elmtree Property Gold Mine be given Joint Panel Review status. This
request must be sent to the federal and provincial Environment Ministers
and copied to the project manager at the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency.

Sample Letter

Given the limited economic benefits and potential for significant
impacts to sensitive environmental features including salmon streams,
municipal and private water supplies, and important wetland communities
I support the request by CCNB Action, Mining Watch Canada, the Belledune
Citizens' Committee, Bathurst Sustainable Development, Sierra Club of
Canada-Atlantic, Grand Lake Watershed Guardians to have the project
undergo a joint panel review.

Send to:

Hon. Peter Kent
Minister of the Environment
401 Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6
Tel: 613 992-0253
Email: kentp@parl.gc.ca

Hon. Margaret-Ann Blaney
NB Minister of Environment
Marysville Place
P. O. Box 6000
Fredericton, NB
E3B 5H1
Tel: 506 444-5136
Email: margaret-ann.blaney@gnb.ca

Hon. Gail Shea
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings, Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0A6
Email: Min@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Vanessa Rodrigues, Project Manager
Elmtree Property Gold Mine project
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
1801 Hollis Street, Suite 200
Halifax NS B3J 3N4
Tel.: 902 426-0564
Email: ElmtreeGoldMine@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

2. Make comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Guidelines found here:
http://www.acee-ceaa.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=48759

Deadline for comments: Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

Concerns with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement:

1. Sustainable development. Contribution to sustainable development is
highly dubious considering the potential for serious environmental
impacts for a project that will involve only 1.5 to 2 years of
employment and potential economic benefits.

2. Alternative Closure Options. In the section regarding alternative
means of carrying out the project (Sec. 4.4.6), the list of requirements
should include alternatives for mine closure and decommissioning.

3. Uncertainty of Success of Mitigation Measures. Realistic estimates of
the likelihood and frequency of malfunctions should be given (Sec.
4.6.1). Factors which contribute to the uncertainty of detecting and
mitigating impacts associated with accidents and malfunctions should be
assessed. An assessment of the degree of uncertainty associated with
proposed mitigation measures (Sec. 4.7) for routine operations and
habitat compensation should be provided.

4. Cumulative Effects. Existing and potential future effects of broader
environmental changes (e.g. climate change) and regional population
trends to important species such as Atlantic Salmon and Black Ash must
be considered.

5. Follow Up and Monitoring. Costs of short-term monitoring should be
estimated as should any requirements and costs for post-closure
monitoring (Sec. 4.10). The responsibility for long-term monitoring and
if necessary mitigation should be clearly identified.

6. Air Quality. While the guidelines indicate that ore processing is
part of the scope of the project, air emissions from ore processing also
need to be considered within the EIS (Sec. 4.13).

7. Water Quality. In describing the potential impacts of acid rock
drainage and metal leaching on ground and surface water (Sec. 4.14.3,
4.14.4 and 4.14.5) the proponent should be required to describe
variability of the results from tests and modelling conducted, and a
review of the relative success of predicting acid rock drainage and
metal leaching from similar ore bodies.

8. Species at Risk and of Conservation Concern. Evaluation of potential
effects on any of the categories of species described in Section 4.15.4
should consider the relative importance of the Elmtree River for
regional populations and population dynamics, and the diversity of those
populations.

9. Mine Closure. We are concerned by the reference to a “conceptual
reclamation and closure plan” in Section 4.15.1. Given the demands
throughout the guidelines to evaluate potential effects and mitigation
measures during and after closure, a conceptual plan is clearly
insufficient. While detailed engineering could be left to a later stage
of permitting, regulators and the public need to know about the closure
plans to a sufficient level of detail to properly review the proposal.
The guidelines should include a higher degree of precision and be
consistent in the requirements for information about closure, namely:
detailed description of activities and timing for mine closure;
rationale for the selection of preferred closure option compared with
other alternatives; cost estimates for closure activities; analysis of
uncertainty associated with closure options including variability in
modelling of key parameters, technological failures etc. and an
explanation of long-term responsibility and stewardship of the site.
Published in Action Alerts