Look Before You Leap: Quebec Government to Study Environmental Impact of Shale Gas Drilling

Good news! The Québec government will be restricting the controversial shale gas drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking", after a report strongly recommended that environmental and health risk assessments be carried out.

This is a refreshing change from the norm; I've gotten used to hearing about research reports that issue very clear warnings only to have politicians disparage or ignore them. These findings were released by the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE), an independent agency that reports to the Québec Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment, and Parks. The BAPE provides information, conducts inquiries, and consults the public on projects related to the quality of the environment. In other words, they do good work that results in advisory reports for the QC government to consider.

Back to the issue at hand: natural gas is sometimes found in underground deposits that are so challenging to reach that the "best" solution seems to be hydraulic fracturing. A very deep hole is drilled in order to pump a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into the gas formation. The liquids are propelled at such a high pressure that the rock fractures, allowing the oil and gas to flow to the production well. The fracturing fluids are pumped back out and into surface pits. If we momentarily ignore the fact that natural gas is a non-renewable resource and emits pollutants when burned for energy, then this seems like a pretty straightforward procedure to get at a useful resource.

But the real picture isn't so neat and tidy. Consider the vast amount of clean water irreversibly soiled with chemicals. Think about how toxic (and in some cases carcinogenic) these substances are: diesel fuel and its associated volatile organic compounds, methanol, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, and sodium hydroxide, to name a few. Ask yourself whether every last drop of fracturing fluid is extracted after use, or whether some stays behind to leach into groundwater? Reflect on the surface pits that hold used fluid: if they're lined, how likely is it that the lining will tear, causing further drinking water contamination? What if the pits aren't even lined at all?

In the US, people living in the vicinity of shall gas drilling sites have become sick after drinking their well water. Gasland, the documentary Josh Fox filmed to investigate the issues around hydraulic fracturing, shows scenes of tap water catching fire due to the high level of contaminants it contains. That's right: drinking water on fire. Scary.

In light of all of this, I'm giving the QC government a round of applause for exercising caution. Hopefully this sets a good example, and others will follow suit.

For more information on the report and the QC government's decision, read this article. If you'd like to learn more about the hydraulic fracturing procedure, check out this website.


Photo credits: drilling tower; burning tap water.

Levi's New Jeans Line Misses the Point

Apparently Levi's has developed a new line of jeans that uses 28% less water during its manufacturing. Specifically, the amount of washing needed to soften the denim has been reduced, and while I'm happy that 16 million litres of water will be saved, I'm left wondering just how much we should be congratulating the company.

I know, I know, I'm an idealist, and it gets in the way of my optimism such that every step in the right direction only serves to highlight everything else that isn't being done. It's hard for me to sit idly by while the general public applauds small efforts like this but remains ignorant of other issues that remain unaddressed. What can I say, calling this new line of jeans Water<Less reminds me of greenwashing. Growing cotton, producing denim, and manufacturing jeans is hugely water-intensive even if you don't bother to stone-wash the pants! Hiding this fact by tricking consumers into believing the jeans were made using waterless manufacturing techniques is... well, I guess it's the norm these days.

So what's all the fuss about?

• Growing cotton involves a great deal of water, fertilizer, and pesticides:  just ask the people living around the Aral Sea how the cotton industry, using unsustainable agricultural practices, has caused an environmental, economic, and human health disaster that is not going away any time soon.

• Processing cotton to make denim requires more water, but also paraffin and synthetic indigo, which present a double whammy of environmental degradation because (1) they are petroleum products and (2) they're probably dumped directly into surface water adjacent to the plant.

• Weathering the denim to give it that worn look (I've never understood this), while often still called stone-washing, is more likely to make use of water and toxic chemicals than good, old-fashioned rocks. It's funny how the energy that goes into stone-washing, fabric softening, and sandblasting the jeans actually serves to shorten their lifespan and increase consumer demand. No, wait... that's not funny.

See what I mean, about how slightly reducing the amount of water used to soften the jeans is only great if you remain ignorant of the rest of the steps involved from field to closet? Well, I'm still trying to be a more optimistic person, so I'll work on feeling grateful that Levi's has taken a step in the right direction. Meanwhile, I'll buy my next pair in a thrift shop, donate them or find an alternate use for them once I'm done with them, and keep you apprised of any other environmentally friendly solutions that Levi's and their competitors come up with!

How about you? What's your closet filled with? Have you discovered brands or local artisans that are trying to do good by the environment when they make clothing?

Photo credits: close-up of jeans; cotton field.

In the News Today

Two water-related stories for you today:

Researchers have found that estrogen levels in drinking water can be traced back mainly to industrial agriculture rather than oral contraceptives. The pill has been blamed for the feminization of fish and other aquatic animals, suggesting human health may be affected in ways we don't yet know. What this study points out - and I can't believe I didn't realize this earlier - is that livestock produce 13 times more solid waste than humans and consume great amounts of synthetic hormones in factory farm operations, providing a source of estrogen far greater than what humans alone can contribute. Additionally, agricultural pesticide runoff can mimic estrogen! Thankfully, water treatment plants can remove most of it, but wild animals continue to drink from or swim in the water we have polluted for them.

Read the full article here.

Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail has written about abnormalities found on fish in rivers near the Alberta tar sands. I'm not surprised that these poor creatures have deformities, lesions, and tumours if that's the kind of habitat they live in, but it's a little shocking that the people in charge of monitoring this issue (the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program, RAMP) are led primarily by petroleum industry representatives. No wonder some scientists have criticized RAMP for being "secretive". In past annual reports, some species have been excluded from the statistics, and averages have been cited while the raw numbers remain private. You don't have to be a scientist to know that this type of monitoring is not credible.

Read the full article here.

Photo credits: oral contraceptive pills and tar sands.

Enviropig™ ... More Than Just a Cute Pig.

Cuter than Spiderpig, but scarier: wait till you hear about what they are and why they exist.

Courtesy of The Simpsons™

Researchers at the University of Guelph have created a genetically modified pig that excretes less phosphorous and, thanks to Environment Canada, have been allowed to reproduce and export it since February of this year. Now it's up to Health Canada to approve Enviropig™ for human consumption in this country - a scary thought.

Why is phosphorous bad?

Actually, phosphorous isn't bad. In fact, the phosphorous cycle is critical to plant growth and therefore, our survival. The problem is that excess phosphorous contaminates water: rivers and lakes with high phosphorous levels become overgrown with algae while other plants die off with too little sunlight and fish choke on too little oxygen. And if that weren't enough, it's also really unhealthy for animals (that includes us!) to drink.

How is all of this excess phosphorous ending up in the waterways?

This is a direct consequence of industrial hog production, otherwise known as the factory farming of pigs. It's exactly what the name implies: a big factory containing a large number of pigs, and often nothing else on the farm. Now, Mother Nature, left to her own devices, is one clever lady: she created pigs that excrete phosphorous so that their manure can be broken down by bacteria to release phosphorous back into the soil for plants to consume for growth. The cycle is complete. (By the way, if you're wondering why I'm not citing any sources, it's because I'm the source. Yesterday I wrote the first midterm for a course on sustainable development I'm taking this fall, so I've got cred!)

Enter human greed: the desire to make more money by cramming way too many pigs in way too small a space with way too little soil and plants in the surrounding area (not that there isn't land surrounding the farm, just that there couldn't possibly be enough of it compared to the size of the factory). Take Mother Nature's cycle, but add too much phosphorous, using the equation "too many pigs = too much manure = too much phosphorous", and what do you get? Factory farm run-off of pollutants into waterways.

Enviropig™ solves the problem of too much phosphorous - isn't that good enough?

No! I don't want the story of genetic modification to turn into the story of cigarettes, where we find out it's horribly bad decades after it's introduced to the market. How can we even determine the long-term health effects of GMOs when the companies who create GM seeds prohibit independent research on them? In other words, the reports we hear about are the ones funded by Big Agri-Business, and any proof that GMOs are harmful never sees the light of day. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but shouldn't we be "better safe than sorry" when it comes to our health?

What if genetic modification were absolutely safe?

Enviropig™ would still be wrong, simply because factory farming is wrong, and the associated problems can be solved in much easier and cheaper ways!

• raise fewer pigs in one place, or raise fewer pigs, period: we produce much more than we consume (yet hunger remains a big issue across the country) so could easily tolerate smaller livestock operations while simultaneously supporting family farms rather than their corporate counterparts
• feed pigs what they were meant to eat: a little bit of everything rather than a small variety of grains (typically corn and soybeans), which they can't fully digest and directly causes excess phosphorous in their manure
• spread the manure over much larger areas on the surrounding farmland (which is often used to grow the grain fed to pigs), rather than storing it in pits; this also reduces the amount of synthetic fertilizer used on crops, further reducing the likelihood of pollution run-off into waterways

When I claim these methods would cost less than raising Enviropig™, I'm including potential fees charged per pig, which is what Big Agri-Business does with its GM seed, the instability of foreign markets which have previously closed due to swine flu (most of the pork Canada produces leaves the country, by the way, in a desperate attempt to keep the industry afloat), and the big unknown - whether those markets are even interested in Enviropig™ at all.

For more information, check out the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

If, like me, you're feeling a little powerless about all of this (after all, when has writing to the Minister of Health ever influenced legislation?) and want to take proactive steps, I encourage you to talk to your butcher, ask where your meat comes from, and refuse it if it comes from a factory farm. Vote with your wallet!