From Yahoo
Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:28 am EST
Toronto awarded Stanley Cup by overzealous airport employee
By Sean Leahy
We all misplace things everyday: Car keys, important papers, pants. But when the item you can't find is something as valuable as the Stanley Cup, the level of freak-out is exceedingly high.
That's the feeling the Hockey Hall of Fame and Cup keeper Mike Bolt almost reached when it was discovered that the greatest trophy in all of sports took a detour on its way to Vancouver for a charity event Sunday.
When Bolt arrived in Vancouver, he expected to pick up the Cup and be on his way ... but then he heard his name being paged in the Air Canada terminal. Bolt said he figured a back door was going to be used to get the Cup out of the airport and en route to the charity event in a hasty manner. Instead, it was a conversation that likely went like this:
AIR CANADA EMPLOYEE: "Good flight? BythewaytheStanleyCupdidntmakeit."
BOLT: "...what's that?"
It seems that an eager new employee at Newark Liberty International Airport saw the giant case and thought, "Hey! That's the Stanley Cup. What's it doing in Jersey?", missed the Vancouver designation on it and felt he/she was doing a solid by shipping the thing back to Toronto, home of the Hockey Hall of Fame.
(And you thought Devan Dubnyk's rookie season was going rough.)
According to CBC News, Air Canada calmed any fears Bolt might have been having when they informed him that they were in possession of the Cup the entire time because of its "oversized" classification -- so it wasn't "lost." Keep that in mind next time you fly Air Canada: If you don't want your checked baggage to get lost, pack it in a very, very, very large suitcase.
Unfortunately, due to the mix-up, the Cup didn't arrive in time for the charity event in Vancouver. Bolt recommended that a donation to the Vancouver Canucks Foundation by Air Canada would be a great way to ensure that the charity didn't lose out of any of the funds that were to be raised. Also, it would be penance for the fact that Canada's largest airline almost lost the Stanley Cup.
For more tales of the Stanley Cup being lost or stolen do check out Joe Pelletier's Greatest Hockey Legends. Thanks to Sportress of Blogitude for the tip.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
All-Maritime Smart Grid?
Could smart power grid unite Maritime market?
Published Monday January 18th, 2010
The Telegraph-Journal
A pilot project involving electrical utilities in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island could be the prelude to a regional renewable energy strategy. It will test a lynch-pin technology - the so-called "smart grid."
All three provinces depend on burning fossil fuels, and each is interested in wind power. But since the wind doesn't blow at constant force, other power plants need to be brought on line when the wind turbines aren't turning.
A "smart" electrical grid allows two-way communication about changes in electrical supply. The pilot project will test technology that could encourage consumers to adjust their power use to the amount of electricity available. This would reduce the cost of supplying additional power.
This trial run will see how well the technology works with 750 buildings in four Maritime communities. The project is being led by NB Power, with the participation of Saint John Energy, Nova Scotia Power and Maritime Electric, which serves customers on P.E.I. It may be the most extensive experiment in energy efficiency undertaken in this region.
What makes the project of particular interest is its place in the debate over regional energy policy. While some people define the issue in terms of Maritime partnership versus partnership with Quebec, the options aren't so limited.
Hydro-Québec is holding discussions with P.E.I. and has expressed interest in expanding New Brunswick's grid connection to Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia has given up on the idea of building an underwater cable to the United States, seemingly opening the door to serious discussions.
A regional smart grid could allow all three Maritime provinces to benefit from Quebec's surplus hydro power, while encouraging the development of domestic wind farms, tidal power and other renewables - the core of a new East Coast energy industry.
That's an energy alternative worth exploring.
Published Monday January 18th, 2010
The Telegraph-Journal
A pilot project involving electrical utilities in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island could be the prelude to a regional renewable energy strategy. It will test a lynch-pin technology - the so-called "smart grid."
All three provinces depend on burning fossil fuels, and each is interested in wind power. But since the wind doesn't blow at constant force, other power plants need to be brought on line when the wind turbines aren't turning.
A "smart" electrical grid allows two-way communication about changes in electrical supply. The pilot project will test technology that could encourage consumers to adjust their power use to the amount of electricity available. This would reduce the cost of supplying additional power.
This trial run will see how well the technology works with 750 buildings in four Maritime communities. The project is being led by NB Power, with the participation of Saint John Energy, Nova Scotia Power and Maritime Electric, which serves customers on P.E.I. It may be the most extensive experiment in energy efficiency undertaken in this region.
What makes the project of particular interest is its place in the debate over regional energy policy. While some people define the issue in terms of Maritime partnership versus partnership with Quebec, the options aren't so limited.
Hydro-Québec is holding discussions with P.E.I. and has expressed interest in expanding New Brunswick's grid connection to Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia has given up on the idea of building an underwater cable to the United States, seemingly opening the door to serious discussions.
A regional smart grid could allow all three Maritime provinces to benefit from Quebec's surplus hydro power, while encouraging the development of domestic wind farms, tidal power and other renewables - the core of a new East Coast energy industry.
That's an energy alternative worth exploring.
The Democratic Process
from the Telegraph Journal
A failure of democracy
Published Wednesday January 20th, 2010 The Telegraph-Journal
Apparently, the Liberals have learned nothing from their long history of rolling out controversial policy announcements. From the polytechnical fiasco in Saint John and the early French immersion disaster, to the recent gambit to sell NB Power, the pattern has been the same.
Lamrock speaks at a news conference during his days as minister of education. Columnist Janice Harvey takes issue with Lamrock’s contention that the process of arriving at a better power deal shows the political system is working: ‘If this is how Liberals understand the democratic process, then it explains why they have kept the New Brunswick public in such turmoil over the past three-and-a-half years.’ A few insiders, influenced by a handful of people who have privileged access to the premier's office or certain cabinet ministers, decide to make a radical policy change. The contested policy is based on a narrow and short-sighted interpretation of the problem, usually reflecting the agenda of powerful interests. Without warning, the government springs it on the public as a bold, decisive transformative change that has to happen if our province is to survive. It is presented as a fait accompli - the problem is the problem, the solution is the solution. Public relations firms are hired to craft the government's "messaging," which is rolled out strategically and predictably.
Such an approach is divisive and antagonistic, forcing people to take sides. There is no provision for intelligent, respectful dialogue and the processes provided by the parliamentary system of government are completely ignored. The only option people have to oppose it is to organize a counterforce to pressure the government to back off.
In the midst of the most rancorous political climate in a decade, remarkably, the Liberals are doing it all over again. Having abandoned Plan A, the outright sale of NB Power which the premier described as the best possible deal for New Brunswickers, they have now presented us with Plan B. The original artificial deadline for signing has not changed, nor has the approach to consultation.
In an effort to make a silk purse of the sow's ear, Kelly Lamrock, who outed the dissent within the Liberal caucus, has declared the democratic process a success. The MOU was put out to the public; the public responded; MLAs listened and reported to the premier; the premier changed the deal. If this is how Liberals understand the democratic process, then it explains why they have kept the New Brunswick public in such turmoil over the past three-and-a-half years.
The only democratic aspect in play is the protection of people's right to protest. After that, it looks a lot like what happens in authoritarian regimes where there are no legitimate participatory processes. Public consultation amounted to inviting people to post comments on a website set up by the spin doctors.
While others with privileged access got their message across by speaking quietly behind closed doors, ordinary citizens realized they would only be heard if they were very, very loud. So they resorted to demonstrations, public forums, Facebook petitions, letters and calls to MLAs threatening to withhold one's vote - the list of tactics goes on.
I am the first to defend all of these tactics as the public's only resort to influence the government, but the toll is very high. Democracy, ultimately, is the loser as people become discouraged and cynical, especially about politics and government. That people are forced into this kind of confrontational gauntlet politics is inexcusable.
The legislature, the cornerstone of our parliamentary system, is the proper vehicle for debate on public policy. In the NB Power case, the government should have struck an energy committee of the legislature to travel the province holding public hearings. There would be no special access - prince and pauper would be heard equally. Interventions of each would be part of the legislative record, not received in private or lost in the bowels of some PR website. The committee would write a report, also on the record, with recommendations to the government on how to proceed. The government, ultimately, would be accountable for how it responded to the report.
No, Mr. Lamrock, the system did not work. Having to browbeat MLAs until they realize their political goose is cooked unless changes are made is the stuff of schoolyard brawls. If that's what it takes to get this government's attention, the public will play that game - and quite effectively. But we don't like it and we resent being forced into that position. The whole business is tawdry and insulting.
The system will work when we have democratic and participatory processes for decision-making that are open and respectful, allow everyone to be heard, and are fully transparent and accountable.
In such a system, people would have a lot more respect for politicians and engagement with the process of government, and Hill and Knowlton would be out of business.
Janice Harvey is a freelance columnist, university lecturer, and president of the New Brunswick Green Party. She can be reached by email at waweig@xplornet.ca
A failure of democracy
Published Wednesday January 20th, 2010 The Telegraph-Journal
Apparently, the Liberals have learned nothing from their long history of rolling out controversial policy announcements. From the polytechnical fiasco in Saint John and the early French immersion disaster, to the recent gambit to sell NB Power, the pattern has been the same.
Lamrock speaks at a news conference during his days as minister of education. Columnist Janice Harvey takes issue with Lamrock’s contention that the process of arriving at a better power deal shows the political system is working: ‘If this is how Liberals understand the democratic process, then it explains why they have kept the New Brunswick public in such turmoil over the past three-and-a-half years.’ A few insiders, influenced by a handful of people who have privileged access to the premier's office or certain cabinet ministers, decide to make a radical policy change. The contested policy is based on a narrow and short-sighted interpretation of the problem, usually reflecting the agenda of powerful interests. Without warning, the government springs it on the public as a bold, decisive transformative change that has to happen if our province is to survive. It is presented as a fait accompli - the problem is the problem, the solution is the solution. Public relations firms are hired to craft the government's "messaging," which is rolled out strategically and predictably.
Such an approach is divisive and antagonistic, forcing people to take sides. There is no provision for intelligent, respectful dialogue and the processes provided by the parliamentary system of government are completely ignored. The only option people have to oppose it is to organize a counterforce to pressure the government to back off.
In the midst of the most rancorous political climate in a decade, remarkably, the Liberals are doing it all over again. Having abandoned Plan A, the outright sale of NB Power which the premier described as the best possible deal for New Brunswickers, they have now presented us with Plan B. The original artificial deadline for signing has not changed, nor has the approach to consultation.
In an effort to make a silk purse of the sow's ear, Kelly Lamrock, who outed the dissent within the Liberal caucus, has declared the democratic process a success. The MOU was put out to the public; the public responded; MLAs listened and reported to the premier; the premier changed the deal. If this is how Liberals understand the democratic process, then it explains why they have kept the New Brunswick public in such turmoil over the past three-and-a-half years.
The only democratic aspect in play is the protection of people's right to protest. After that, it looks a lot like what happens in authoritarian regimes where there are no legitimate participatory processes. Public consultation amounted to inviting people to post comments on a website set up by the spin doctors.
While others with privileged access got their message across by speaking quietly behind closed doors, ordinary citizens realized they would only be heard if they were very, very loud. So they resorted to demonstrations, public forums, Facebook petitions, letters and calls to MLAs threatening to withhold one's vote - the list of tactics goes on.
I am the first to defend all of these tactics as the public's only resort to influence the government, but the toll is very high. Democracy, ultimately, is the loser as people become discouraged and cynical, especially about politics and government. That people are forced into this kind of confrontational gauntlet politics is inexcusable.
The legislature, the cornerstone of our parliamentary system, is the proper vehicle for debate on public policy. In the NB Power case, the government should have struck an energy committee of the legislature to travel the province holding public hearings. There would be no special access - prince and pauper would be heard equally. Interventions of each would be part of the legislative record, not received in private or lost in the bowels of some PR website. The committee would write a report, also on the record, with recommendations to the government on how to proceed. The government, ultimately, would be accountable for how it responded to the report.
No, Mr. Lamrock, the system did not work. Having to browbeat MLAs until they realize their political goose is cooked unless changes are made is the stuff of schoolyard brawls. If that's what it takes to get this government's attention, the public will play that game - and quite effectively. But we don't like it and we resent being forced into that position. The whole business is tawdry and insulting.
The system will work when we have democratic and participatory processes for decision-making that are open and respectful, allow everyone to be heard, and are fully transparent and accountable.
In such a system, people would have a lot more respect for politicians and engagement with the process of government, and Hill and Knowlton would be out of business.
Janice Harvey is a freelance columnist, university lecturer, and president of the New Brunswick Green Party. She can be reached by email at waweig@xplornet.ca
Natural beauty, serenity, tranquility:they count
Editorial: Reconsider setbacks for wind turbines
Expand wind energy while respecting rural livability.
To drive through the Minnesota countryside is to drive through contradiction. Those vast rolling fields -- are they busy engines of production for the agriculture industry? Or are they places of natural beauty, serenity and tranquility?
It's harder nowadays to have it both ways. The rapid advance of wind farming, for example, has transformed the rural landscape. Hardly anyone denies the value of the clean energy produced by the giant wind turbines going up on sparsely populated land all across the country. At last count there were nearly 1,500 such turbines operating in Minnesota, making it the nation's fourth-largest wind power-producing state. Many more turbines are on the way, and that's a good thing.
But if badly located, the machines can harm not only the beauty and serenity that so many rural people value, but invite thoughtless and pernicious opposition to wind power generation. That, in turn, could impede the changeover to greener energy that's so badly needed. Minnesota must keep pace with its goal of producing 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources (mostly wind) by 2025. The current share from wind is about 5 percent.
As the Star Tribune's Tom Meersman reported last week, complaints about wind turbines are mounting, less on their merits than on their occasionally inappropriate locations. A family near Austin, for example, lives just across the road from a wind farm. One giant turbine, about 900 feet away, casts a flickering shadow over their 100-year-old farmhouse. There's little they can do. State law allows commercial turbines as close as 500 feet from dwellings, although decibel restrictions typically stretch the actual distance to 700 to 1,000 feet. That's still too close for a 400-foot turbine, especially if it's not on your property.
Machines have become considerably taller since the state passed minimum setback restrictions in the 1990s. It's time for the Legislature to increase the setbacks. Four counties already have done so, although Nicollet County's half-mile rule seems a bit extreme. Governments should strike a balance that shows consideration to neighbors yet continues to encourage wind power generation in appropriate settings. The siting of wind turbines is a complex matter of physics, logistics, economics and common courtesy.
What's most worrisome is the kind of rhetoric that has stymied attempts by the city of New Ulm, among others, to build turbines. It's hogwash to argue that agriculture is a better use of land or to spread fear and ignorance about government land grabs for wind projects. If anything, there's an oversupply of farmland and too little urgency about converting to green energy. As for noise, there's little credible evidence that low-frequency sound from wind turbines is any more harmful than the routine hum of traffic for any urban dweller.
Aesthetics? That seems to depend on individual taste. To some the turbines are graceful and artistic; to others they are monstrosities. Then again, fences, silos and grain elevators were once considered blemishes on the rural landscape, and the Eiffel Tower was vilified as an "odious black blot" on the skyline of Paris.
Expand wind energy while respecting rural livability.
To drive through the Minnesota countryside is to drive through contradiction. Those vast rolling fields -- are they busy engines of production for the agriculture industry? Or are they places of natural beauty, serenity and tranquility?
It's harder nowadays to have it both ways. The rapid advance of wind farming, for example, has transformed the rural landscape. Hardly anyone denies the value of the clean energy produced by the giant wind turbines going up on sparsely populated land all across the country. At last count there were nearly 1,500 such turbines operating in Minnesota, making it the nation's fourth-largest wind power-producing state. Many more turbines are on the way, and that's a good thing.
But if badly located, the machines can harm not only the beauty and serenity that so many rural people value, but invite thoughtless and pernicious opposition to wind power generation. That, in turn, could impede the changeover to greener energy that's so badly needed. Minnesota must keep pace with its goal of producing 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources (mostly wind) by 2025. The current share from wind is about 5 percent.
As the Star Tribune's Tom Meersman reported last week, complaints about wind turbines are mounting, less on their merits than on their occasionally inappropriate locations. A family near Austin, for example, lives just across the road from a wind farm. One giant turbine, about 900 feet away, casts a flickering shadow over their 100-year-old farmhouse. There's little they can do. State law allows commercial turbines as close as 500 feet from dwellings, although decibel restrictions typically stretch the actual distance to 700 to 1,000 feet. That's still too close for a 400-foot turbine, especially if it's not on your property.
Machines have become considerably taller since the state passed minimum setback restrictions in the 1990s. It's time for the Legislature to increase the setbacks. Four counties already have done so, although Nicollet County's half-mile rule seems a bit extreme. Governments should strike a balance that shows consideration to neighbors yet continues to encourage wind power generation in appropriate settings. The siting of wind turbines is a complex matter of physics, logistics, economics and common courtesy.
What's most worrisome is the kind of rhetoric that has stymied attempts by the city of New Ulm, among others, to build turbines. It's hogwash to argue that agriculture is a better use of land or to spread fear and ignorance about government land grabs for wind projects. If anything, there's an oversupply of farmland and too little urgency about converting to green energy. As for noise, there's little credible evidence that low-frequency sound from wind turbines is any more harmful than the routine hum of traffic for any urban dweller.
Aesthetics? That seems to depend on individual taste. To some the turbines are graceful and artistic; to others they are monstrosities. Then again, fences, silos and grain elevators were once considered blemishes on the rural landscape, and the Eiffel Tower was vilified as an "odious black blot" on the skyline of Paris.
A Short Quote from Monbiot and a Longer One
Thanks to Flora Doehler on Facebook: "We still act as if we have been granted dominion over it (animals). Those with an economic interest seem to regard any species which might compete or conflict with them as a threat not only to their income but also to their power. They still treat the natural world as disposable: nothing is too precious, too great a s...ource of wonder and delight to liquidate. There appears to be no point of regret beyond which we won’t venture, no lesson in ecological collapse we are prepared to learn..." Monbiot
Below from www.monbiot.com
Blogger's Note: this could refer to coyotes, other animal species such as _______
The War Against Nature Resumes
Posted January 18, 2010
As the new badger cull shows, we revert to irrational destruction as soon as our economic interests are threatened.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 19th January 2010
There’s a story which almost all of us believe: that beyond a certain state of development, we re-learn a respect for nature. It is true that some of the excesses of the early modern age – attempts by gamekeepers to kill all competing species, mass slaughter by white hunters in the colonies, the grubbing up of hedgerows and ancient woodlands – have lessened, though we still eat endangered fish and buy timber from clearcut rainforest. It is also true that we give more money to conservation projects and spend more time watching wildlife films than we have ever done before. But as soon as we perceive that our economic interests are threatened, our war against nature resumes.
2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. The Welsh Assembly Government is celebrating the occasion by launching a project to exterminate the badger. I won’t pretend that this story ranks alongside the catastrophe in Haiti or the meltdown in Afghanistan, but it casts an interesting light on humanity’s continuing impulse to conquer nature, and shows how, even when cloaked in the language of science, our relations with the natural world are still governed by irrationality and superstition.
Last week the Welsh rural affairs minister, Elin Jones, announced what her government calls “a pro-active non-selective badger cull” in west Wales(1). What this means is the elimination of the species, beginning when the cubs emerge from their burrows in May. Badgers carry the bacterium which causes bovine tuberculosis. The purpose of the experiment is to discover whether the number of cows with the disease is reduced when the badger is exterminated. If it works, the method might be applied elsewhere. But even before the experiment begins, I can tell you that it’s a waste of time and money.
In 2007, after nine years of research, the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB sent its final report to the UK government. It discovered that “badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain.”(2) Rather than suppressing the disease, killing badgers appears to spread it.
The researchers had killed badgers across 30 areas, each of 100 square kilometres. They found that when the badgers were culled in response to local outbreaks of TB, the slaughter “increased, rather than reduced” the incidence of the disease in cattle: the level of infection rose by some 20%. When badgers were killed pro-actively (culled annually, regardless of whether cattle were infected), the incidence of TB inside the killing zone was reduced by 23%, but the incidence outside it increased by 25%. The reason is that the killing changes the behaviour of the badgers: they travel more and mix more, either to escape the slaughter or to investigate the ecological space it opens up. The economic costs of pro-active culling, the study found, were 40 times greater than the benefits.
But the old reflex dies hard. As the scientific group pointed out, “agricultural and veterinary leaders continue to believe, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the main approach to cattle TB control must involve some form of badger population control.” It noted “considerable reluctance to accept and embrace scientific findings.”(3) The Welsh government shares this reluctance. In announcing her extermination policy last week, Elin Jones claimed that the cull would be conducted according to “the requirements outlined by the Independent Scientific Group”(4). But the ISG couldn’t have made itself clearer: badger culling of any kind won’t work. Instead, governments should do more to control the way that cattle are kept, tested and moved. This was a message that farmers and the Welsh government didn’t want to hear.
The policy Elin Jones announced last week is even worse than this suggests. Her culling experiment is actually testing two variables: exterminating badgers and better management of cattle. Yet there are no experimental controls (study areas in which one or both methods are not being tried)(5), so there is no means of telling which of the two measures is working, or whether changes in the incidence of the disease have anything to do with the experiment. There’s a scientific term for a study that simultaneously tests two variables while using no controls: worthless. The Welsh experiment has nothing to do with science and everything to do with appeasing farmers.
The Farmers’ Union of Wales has been furiously demanding that time and money should be wasted in this fashion. It has lobbied the assembly government for a scheme that will damage its members’ interests and alienate the people who buy their milk and butter and cheese. It appears to be impervious to evidence or reason: last week it announced that “badger culling works. Any talk about farming practices being a significant factor are unfounded.”(6)
But even if extermination did work, the effect could be sustained only by killing any badgers that re-entered the area: in other words, rendering the species extinct there. Were the same approach to be rolled out across a wider area (the policy the experiment is designed to test), the badger would have to become extinct not only across that zone, but also in all neighbouring zones. Because badgers will move into areas from which the species has been erased, the only logical outcome of this approach is to exterminate the badger throughout the United Kingdom. As this is politically unacceptable, the Welsh experiment is pointless as well as worthless.
This exercise in wilful stupidity betrays an approach to the natural world that has scarcely altered since the Dark Ages. We still act as if we have been granted dominion over it. Those with an economic interest seem to regard any species which might compete or conflict with them as a threat not only to their income but also to their power. They still treat the natural world as disposable: nothing is too precious, too great a source of wonder and delight to liquidate. There appears to be no point of regret beyond which we won’t venture, no lesson in ecological collapse we are prepared to learn. The Christian worldview, which places humankind at the apex of creation, is hard to shake, even in the most secular nation on earth.
All industries strive not only towards monopoly but also towards monoculture: domination of the natural or cultural landscape. This is what George Orwell meant when he remarked that “the logical end of mechanical progress is to reduce the human being to something resembling a brain in a bottle.”(7) Industry, if left unchecked, tolerates no deviance. It seeks to shrink both the range of human experience and the wonders of the natural world until they fit into the container it has made for them.
We could lose badgers and – except for those of us who spend summer evenings watching them as they shuffle out of their setts – suffer few tangible losses. But the urge to destroy them springs from the same pathological instinct for power which would deprive us of almost everything.
www.monbiot.com
Below from www.monbiot.com
Blogger's Note: this could refer to coyotes, other animal species such as _______
The War Against Nature Resumes
Posted January 18, 2010
As the new badger cull shows, we revert to irrational destruction as soon as our economic interests are threatened.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 19th January 2010
There’s a story which almost all of us believe: that beyond a certain state of development, we re-learn a respect for nature. It is true that some of the excesses of the early modern age – attempts by gamekeepers to kill all competing species, mass slaughter by white hunters in the colonies, the grubbing up of hedgerows and ancient woodlands – have lessened, though we still eat endangered fish and buy timber from clearcut rainforest. It is also true that we give more money to conservation projects and spend more time watching wildlife films than we have ever done before. But as soon as we perceive that our economic interests are threatened, our war against nature resumes.
2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. The Welsh Assembly Government is celebrating the occasion by launching a project to exterminate the badger. I won’t pretend that this story ranks alongside the catastrophe in Haiti or the meltdown in Afghanistan, but it casts an interesting light on humanity’s continuing impulse to conquer nature, and shows how, even when cloaked in the language of science, our relations with the natural world are still governed by irrationality and superstition.
Last week the Welsh rural affairs minister, Elin Jones, announced what her government calls “a pro-active non-selective badger cull” in west Wales(1). What this means is the elimination of the species, beginning when the cubs emerge from their burrows in May. Badgers carry the bacterium which causes bovine tuberculosis. The purpose of the experiment is to discover whether the number of cows with the disease is reduced when the badger is exterminated. If it works, the method might be applied elsewhere. But even before the experiment begins, I can tell you that it’s a waste of time and money.
In 2007, after nine years of research, the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB sent its final report to the UK government. It discovered that “badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain.”(2) Rather than suppressing the disease, killing badgers appears to spread it.
The researchers had killed badgers across 30 areas, each of 100 square kilometres. They found that when the badgers were culled in response to local outbreaks of TB, the slaughter “increased, rather than reduced” the incidence of the disease in cattle: the level of infection rose by some 20%. When badgers were killed pro-actively (culled annually, regardless of whether cattle were infected), the incidence of TB inside the killing zone was reduced by 23%, but the incidence outside it increased by 25%. The reason is that the killing changes the behaviour of the badgers: they travel more and mix more, either to escape the slaughter or to investigate the ecological space it opens up. The economic costs of pro-active culling, the study found, were 40 times greater than the benefits.
But the old reflex dies hard. As the scientific group pointed out, “agricultural and veterinary leaders continue to believe, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the main approach to cattle TB control must involve some form of badger population control.” It noted “considerable reluctance to accept and embrace scientific findings.”(3) The Welsh government shares this reluctance. In announcing her extermination policy last week, Elin Jones claimed that the cull would be conducted according to “the requirements outlined by the Independent Scientific Group”(4). But the ISG couldn’t have made itself clearer: badger culling of any kind won’t work. Instead, governments should do more to control the way that cattle are kept, tested and moved. This was a message that farmers and the Welsh government didn’t want to hear.
The policy Elin Jones announced last week is even worse than this suggests. Her culling experiment is actually testing two variables: exterminating badgers and better management of cattle. Yet there are no experimental controls (study areas in which one or both methods are not being tried)(5), so there is no means of telling which of the two measures is working, or whether changes in the incidence of the disease have anything to do with the experiment. There’s a scientific term for a study that simultaneously tests two variables while using no controls: worthless. The Welsh experiment has nothing to do with science and everything to do with appeasing farmers.
The Farmers’ Union of Wales has been furiously demanding that time and money should be wasted in this fashion. It has lobbied the assembly government for a scheme that will damage its members’ interests and alienate the people who buy their milk and butter and cheese. It appears to be impervious to evidence or reason: last week it announced that “badger culling works. Any talk about farming practices being a significant factor are unfounded.”(6)
But even if extermination did work, the effect could be sustained only by killing any badgers that re-entered the area: in other words, rendering the species extinct there. Were the same approach to be rolled out across a wider area (the policy the experiment is designed to test), the badger would have to become extinct not only across that zone, but also in all neighbouring zones. Because badgers will move into areas from which the species has been erased, the only logical outcome of this approach is to exterminate the badger throughout the United Kingdom. As this is politically unacceptable, the Welsh experiment is pointless as well as worthless.
This exercise in wilful stupidity betrays an approach to the natural world that has scarcely altered since the Dark Ages. We still act as if we have been granted dominion over it. Those with an economic interest seem to regard any species which might compete or conflict with them as a threat not only to their income but also to their power. They still treat the natural world as disposable: nothing is too precious, too great a source of wonder and delight to liquidate. There appears to be no point of regret beyond which we won’t venture, no lesson in ecological collapse we are prepared to learn. The Christian worldview, which places humankind at the apex of creation, is hard to shake, even in the most secular nation on earth.
All industries strive not only towards monopoly but also towards monoculture: domination of the natural or cultural landscape. This is what George Orwell meant when he remarked that “the logical end of mechanical progress is to reduce the human being to something resembling a brain in a bottle.”(7) Industry, if left unchecked, tolerates no deviance. It seeks to shrink both the range of human experience and the wonders of the natural world until they fit into the container it has made for them.
We could lose badgers and – except for those of us who spend summer evenings watching them as they shuffle out of their setts – suffer few tangible losses. But the urge to destroy them springs from the same pathological instinct for power which would deprive us of almost everything.
www.monbiot.com
Cycling Summit
NS Cycling Summit - May 1, 2010 Annapolis Royal
January 11th, 2010
Annapolis County Recreation Services is pleased to have the opportunity to host the 2010 NS Cycling Summit.The summit has been a great venue to allow networking opportunities among leaders in the cycling community and those that support initiatives that create and or raise the profile of cycling throughout Nova Scotia.
The annual cycling summit attracts folks from all over the province to share ideas /new projects and to make strategic directions for the future of cycling opportunities in the province. This will be the 5th such event that has been hosted in various locations throughout Nova Scotia.
One of the items on the agenda will be the progress being made to develop a province wide bikeway network .
Folks are encouraged to bring examples of new or existing cycling opportunities happening in your region, displays are welcome. There will be social opportunities added to this year’s event to allow for rides and other networking opportunities outside of the meeting exchange.
Cycling Summit Saturday May 1, 2010 9:30 a.m - 3:30 p.m. Annapolis
Royal
Legion Community Centre– Port Royal Branch 21
It is centrally located and in walking /cycling distance of all accommodations and eating establishments. (Located at 66 Victoria Street - driveway access next to the Annapolis Royal Post Office.)
Contact person Debra Ryan 902 532-3139 debryan@annapoliscounty.ns.ca
:
January 11th, 2010
Annapolis County Recreation Services is pleased to have the opportunity to host the 2010 NS Cycling Summit.The summit has been a great venue to allow networking opportunities among leaders in the cycling community and those that support initiatives that create and or raise the profile of cycling throughout Nova Scotia.
The annual cycling summit attracts folks from all over the province to share ideas /new projects and to make strategic directions for the future of cycling opportunities in the province. This will be the 5th such event that has been hosted in various locations throughout Nova Scotia.
One of the items on the agenda will be the progress being made to develop a province wide bikeway network .
Folks are encouraged to bring examples of new or existing cycling opportunities happening in your region, displays are welcome. There will be social opportunities added to this year’s event to allow for rides and other networking opportunities outside of the meeting exchange.
Cycling Summit Saturday May 1, 2010 9:30 a.m - 3:30 p.m. Annapolis
Royal
Legion Community Centre– Port Royal Branch 21
It is centrally located and in walking /cycling distance of all accommodations and eating establishments. (Located at 66 Victoria Street - driveway access next to the Annapolis Royal Post Office.)
Contact person Debra Ryan 902 532-3139 debryan@annapoliscounty.ns.ca
:
Labels:
cycling Nova Scotia biking
Digby Neck Not Suitable for Wind Turbines
Communities sacrificed
Ralph Surette is right to point out the
downsides to "big wind" development
in Nova Scotia ("There's trouble blow-
ing in the wind," Jan. 16 column).
Besides the cost of developing renew-
ables to Nova Scotia electricity con-
sumers, there are also the costs to !he
rural communities that will be hosting
"big wind."
1\s the Whites Point Quarry joint re-
view panel noted in their recommen-
dations in 2007, Digby Neck is not a
suitable site for large industrial devel-
opment. Now, Nova Scotia Power's par-
ent company, Emera, has purchased a
50 per cent interest in the Digby Wind
Power Project on Digby Neck, a migra-
tory bird route.
Seventeen large turbines have been
approved for the 2,7oo-acre site in and
around three small communities on
Digby Neck, but it's unlikely it will
stop there. The proponents will also be
building a lO-kilometre-plus transmis-
sion line to connect this narrow penin-
sula to the grid.
This special place was recognized by
the CEM Joint Review Panel just over
two years ago and now it appears our
small communities could be sacrificed
as a site for "big wind" development
with all the potential problems that
Ralph discussed so well in his column.
Nora T. Peach
and Judith Peach, Digby
Ralph Surette is right to point out the
downsides to "big wind" development
in Nova Scotia ("There's trouble blow-
ing in the wind," Jan. 16 column).
Besides the cost of developing renew-
ables to Nova Scotia electricity con-
sumers, there are also the costs to !he
rural communities that will be hosting
"big wind."
1\s the Whites Point Quarry joint re-
view panel noted in their recommen-
dations in 2007, Digby Neck is not a
suitable site for large industrial devel-
opment. Now, Nova Scotia Power's par-
ent company, Emera, has purchased a
50 per cent interest in the Digby Wind
Power Project on Digby Neck, a migra-
tory bird route.
Seventeen large turbines have been
approved for the 2,7oo-acre site in and
around three small communities on
Digby Neck, but it's unlikely it will
stop there. The proponents will also be
building a lO-kilometre-plus transmis-
sion line to connect this narrow penin-
sula to the grid.
This special place was recognized by
the CEM Joint Review Panel just over
two years ago and now it appears our
small communities could be sacrificed
as a site for "big wind" development
with all the potential problems that
Ralph discussed so well in his column.
Nora T. Peach
and Judith Peach, Digby
NB Power Deal
N.B. premier defends new deal
Graham: Revised power pact deals with concerns
By KEVIN BISSETT
The Canadian Press
FREDERICTON Shawn
Graham says a rewritten deal to
sell pieces of NB Power to Hydro-
Quebec addresses the concerns of
people who opposed the original
agreement, but a political scien-
tist says he doubts it will be
enough to quell discontent
among voters who are unhappy
with the New Brunswick pre-
mier's handling of the sale.
The revised deal came after a
public outcry and dissent within
Graham's own caucus, with some
members openly saying they
could not vote in favour of the
original plan.
On Tuesday, Graham said the
changes show members of his
cabinet are listening to their con-
stituents and relaying concerns.
"That's the valuable part of this
democratic process," Graham
said outside the legislature. "We
needed New Brunswickers to be
engaged. Not only have we lis-
tened, we have been able to meet
the benchmarks that we set out."
Graham said the revamped
deal still achieves the original ob-
jectives of lowering power rates,
and reducing debt and green-
house gas emissions while creat-
. ingjobs.
Under terms ofthe original ten-
tative agreement. Hydro-Quebec
would have assumed the major as-
sets ofthe New Brunswick utility
- including transmission lines,
hydroelectric dams and the Point
Lepreau nuclear power plant -
for $4.75 billion. That equals NB
Power's debt.
1\ government document ob-
tained by The Canadian Press
shows the agreement is worth
$3.2 billion and would include the
sale of NB Power's hydroelectric
facilities and Point Lepreau.
It says NB Power would retain
transmission and distribution
systems, and continue to operate
as a New Brunswick-owned and
operated Crown corporation, em-
ploying more than 60 per cent of
the utility's current workforce.
The New Brunswick govern-
ment was scheduled to release de-
tails of the revised deal today.
Don Desserud of the University
of New Brunswick said the new
proposal is just the latest in a se-
ries of major announcements
that Graham's Liberal govern-
ment has been forced to back-
track on.
"The problem is not just the
proposals that they've made, but
the fact that they seem to have
been rash and not thought
through sufficiently," he said in
an interview. "That speaks to the
government's ability to be credi-
ble and for people to have confi-
dence in their ability to make
judgments."
Desserud said no matter how
good the new NB Power deal may
be, it won't be enough to guaran-
tee the Liberals return to power
in an election set for Sept. 27.
"The stars will have to line up
perfectly for the Liberals and
they have to line up absolutely di-
sastrously for the Conservatives
before the Liberals are going to be
. able to rescue this," he said.
Graham also faced criticism
outside the province for the NB
Power deal, particularly from
Premier Danny Williams of
Newfoundland and Labrador,
who opposed the sale of New
Brunswick's transmission lines
fearing that would have given
Quebec a stranglehold on power
exports into the lucrative north-
eastern United States market.
Williams said the changes ap-
pear to be a step in the right direc-
tion. "From our point of view, our
major concern was access and
that access would slip into the
hands of Hydro-Quebec ... and I
was very concerned about that on
the basis of our relationship with
Hydro-Quebec," Williams told re-
porters in St. John's.
Graham: Revised power pact deals with concerns
By KEVIN BISSETT
The Canadian Press
FREDERICTON Shawn
Graham says a rewritten deal to
sell pieces of NB Power to Hydro-
Quebec addresses the concerns of
people who opposed the original
agreement, but a political scien-
tist says he doubts it will be
enough to quell discontent
among voters who are unhappy
with the New Brunswick pre-
mier's handling of the sale.
The revised deal came after a
public outcry and dissent within
Graham's own caucus, with some
members openly saying they
could not vote in favour of the
original plan.
On Tuesday, Graham said the
changes show members of his
cabinet are listening to their con-
stituents and relaying concerns.
"That's the valuable part of this
democratic process," Graham
said outside the legislature. "We
needed New Brunswickers to be
engaged. Not only have we lis-
tened, we have been able to meet
the benchmarks that we set out."
Graham said the revamped
deal still achieves the original ob-
jectives of lowering power rates,
and reducing debt and green-
house gas emissions while creat-
. ingjobs.
Under terms ofthe original ten-
tative agreement. Hydro-Quebec
would have assumed the major as-
sets ofthe New Brunswick utility
- including transmission lines,
hydroelectric dams and the Point
Lepreau nuclear power plant -
for $4.75 billion. That equals NB
Power's debt.
1\ government document ob-
tained by The Canadian Press
shows the agreement is worth
$3.2 billion and would include the
sale of NB Power's hydroelectric
facilities and Point Lepreau.
It says NB Power would retain
transmission and distribution
systems, and continue to operate
as a New Brunswick-owned and
operated Crown corporation, em-
ploying more than 60 per cent of
the utility's current workforce.
The New Brunswick govern-
ment was scheduled to release de-
tails of the revised deal today.
Don Desserud of the University
of New Brunswick said the new
proposal is just the latest in a se-
ries of major announcements
that Graham's Liberal govern-
ment has been forced to back-
track on.
"The problem is not just the
proposals that they've made, but
the fact that they seem to have
been rash and not thought
through sufficiently," he said in
an interview. "That speaks to the
government's ability to be credi-
ble and for people to have confi-
dence in their ability to make
judgments."
Desserud said no matter how
good the new NB Power deal may
be, it won't be enough to guaran-
tee the Liberals return to power
in an election set for Sept. 27.
"The stars will have to line up
perfectly for the Liberals and
they have to line up absolutely di-
sastrously for the Conservatives
before the Liberals are going to be
. able to rescue this," he said.
Graham also faced criticism
outside the province for the NB
Power deal, particularly from
Premier Danny Williams of
Newfoundland and Labrador,
who opposed the sale of New
Brunswick's transmission lines
fearing that would have given
Quebec a stranglehold on power
exports into the lucrative north-
eastern United States market.
Williams said the changes ap-
pear to be a step in the right direc-
tion. "From our point of view, our
major concern was access and
that access would slip into the
hands of Hydro-Quebec ... and I
was very concerned about that on
the basis of our relationship with
Hydro-Quebec," Williams told re-
porters in St. John's.
Labels:
NB Power Deal
Lobsters Wash Ashore
Storm-tossed lobsters not free for the taking, says DFO
Article online since January 19th 2010, 10:24
Storm-tossed lobsters not free for the taking, says DFO
By Eric McCarthy
FOR THE SOU’WESTER
Transcontinental Media/Journal Pioneer
There’s only one way to catch lobsters in Atlantic Canada, and that’s “from a lobster trap on a fishing vessel, and in open season,” according to Bobby McInnis, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ area chief of Conservation and Protection.
McInnis said earlier this month fisheries officers on patrol in the Kildare to Tignish, P.E.I. came upon an estimated 200 to 300 pounds of lobster which had washed ashore. Most of what the officers saw were dead and decomposing.
Several people seen gathering lobster were ordered to discard them, McInnis said.
McInnis wants to inform the public it is illegal to gather lobsters off the beaches, whether they are dead or alive.
“If they are dead, it becomes a health concern,” he said, adding, “I don’t eat a dead or decomposing lobster.”
McInnis said the lobsters likely washed ashore in the pounding surf. It’s not unusual for lobster to wash ashore there after heavy seas, he said, noting they usually wash ashore with kelp and seaweed.
Send this text to a friend Print this article
Article online since January 19th 2010, 10:24
Storm-tossed lobsters not free for the taking, says DFO
By Eric McCarthy
FOR THE SOU’WESTER
Transcontinental Media/Journal Pioneer
There’s only one way to catch lobsters in Atlantic Canada, and that’s “from a lobster trap on a fishing vessel, and in open season,” according to Bobby McInnis, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ area chief of Conservation and Protection.
McInnis said earlier this month fisheries officers on patrol in the Kildare to Tignish, P.E.I. came upon an estimated 200 to 300 pounds of lobster which had washed ashore. Most of what the officers saw were dead and decomposing.
Several people seen gathering lobster were ordered to discard them, McInnis said.
McInnis wants to inform the public it is illegal to gather lobsters off the beaches, whether they are dead or alive.
“If they are dead, it becomes a health concern,” he said, adding, “I don’t eat a dead or decomposing lobster.”
McInnis said the lobsters likely washed ashore in the pounding surf. It’s not unusual for lobster to wash ashore there after heavy seas, he said, noting they usually wash ashore with kelp and seaweed.
Send this text to a friend Print this article
Labels:
lobsters Nova Scotia
Sou'wester Newspaper/magazine
...to have a spot on novanewsnow.com
The Sou’Wester has come ashore on NovaNewsNow.com.
The Sou’Wester is Transcontinental Media’s monthly fisheries publication that covers the fisheries in Atlantic Canada.
It has been added as a section on NovaNewsNow.com to keep readers up to date on fisheries news making headings in the Atlantic provinces.
This section of the website will also afford readers of the Sou’Wester the opportunity to be kept up to date with fisheries news between printed editions as the fisheries are a driving force of the economy in the Atlantic region.
We welcome our regular readers of the Sou’Wester to this website, as well as our regular readers of NovaNewsNow.com.
The Sou’Wester is based in Yarmouth and edited by Tina Comeau, who has been working as a newspaper journalist for 17 years. Comeau is also the associate editor of the Yarmouth Vanguard.
The Sou’Wester has come ashore on NovaNewsNow.com.
The Sou’Wester is Transcontinental Media’s monthly fisheries publication that covers the fisheries in Atlantic Canada.
It has been added as a section on NovaNewsNow.com to keep readers up to date on fisheries news making headings in the Atlantic provinces.
This section of the website will also afford readers of the Sou’Wester the opportunity to be kept up to date with fisheries news between printed editions as the fisheries are a driving force of the economy in the Atlantic region.
We welcome our regular readers of the Sou’Wester to this website, as well as our regular readers of NovaNewsNow.com.
The Sou’Wester is based in Yarmouth and edited by Tina Comeau, who has been working as a newspaper journalist for 17 years. Comeau is also the associate editor of the Yarmouth Vanguard.
Comments to Blog
Comments to blog must be accompanied by the full name of the author. I have just received one with only a first name. If this is an error of the blog site, please resubmit your post to goingtodigby@gmail.com with your full name and location. Thanks, blogger Kathleen Gidney in Digby County
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
