Tag: canadian

RVs TRAVELING WITH THE SUN

  • Bruce Banninger's RV replete with solar panels in California. (Photo courtesy of Bruce and Yvonne Banninger)

With the return of summer comes the return of Recreational Vehicles, or RVs, from their winter homes in the South. Nicknamed “road whales,” most of those homes on wheels have a bad reputation as gas guzzlers, but some of them are saving energy once they’re parked.
Solar systems mean the RVs don’t plug in to use electricity. Instead, they get some of their power from the sun. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Cari Noga reports:

Transcript

With the return of summer comes the return of recreational
vehicles – RVs – from their winter homes in the South. Nicknamed
“road whales,” most of those homes on wheels have a bad reputation as
gas guzzlers. But some of them are saving energy once they’re parked.
Solar systems mean the RVs don’t plug in to use electricity. Instead,
they get some of their power from the sun. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Cari Noga reports:


Michigan RV owners, Bruce and Yvonne Banninger, take all the comforts of home along when they hit the road. Their big RV has a flat screen TV, surround sound, and even an electric bread maker. But they don’t have to hook up to power at an RV park, or start up a portable generator. To run all those appliances from the remote places they like to park, the Banningers rely on three solar panels mounted on the roof of their RV. Bruce Banninger says he wouldn’t want to motor home without the panels.


“We do a lot of boondocking, they call it, or not being plugged in. We like to just park out along a stream or a lot of places like that and you need power, and I don’t like running the generator all the time. And so the solar panels pretty much take care of it. On a sunny day.”


The Banningers have had solar since they got their first RV in 1992. Bruce Banninger says the fairly low cost, lack of maintenance, and the environmental benefit are the biggest reasons why RV owners like solar.


“I figure that for every panel that we have – solar panel – we can save running the generator one hour a day. And so when you figure out long term, that’s quite a savings. And you’re not burning a non-replaceable fuel. The sun, hopefully, will shine a long time yet.”


The Banningers have relied on their solar panels everywhere from California to the Everglades and on up into Canada. They found most U.S. National Parks don’t have electrical hookups, making solar pretty handy there.


“There’s something neat about being able to park out anywhere, and have all the power you need. It’s a good feeling; you’re self-sufficient.”


There’s not a lot of data on how many RVs use solar panels. But solar suppliers and RV manufacturers agree that it’s an option more RV-ers are choosing these days. The independent Michigan supplier who sold Banninger his panels has seen it. John Heis says most of his work is on homes, but people in his line of work in the South can earn a living just off the RV market.


“There’s a quite a market there to be done with RV people, certain parts of the United States where RV-ers live year-round, there are people that do make a living doing just that.”


Besides small dealers like Heis, large companies are finding a niche in RV solar too. Randy Bourne works at ICP Solar, a Canadian company that makes mobile solar products, like panels for RVs and boats. He says RVs are the company’s biggest market.


“Business has at least doubled over the past three to four years.”


Bourne says both consumers and manufacturers are demanding solar. One Oregon manufacturer, Monaco Coach, now offers a solar panel standard on its top-of-the-line model. Solar panels are optional on other Monaco models. They all come pre-wired so solar can be added later.


On RVs, solar panels charge the batteries that support the typical electrical systems. As RVs get bigger and more elaborate, new kinds of appliances and alarm and safety systems require power even when not in use. Randy Bourne says solar’s perfect for that.


“Solar and batteries go hand in hand. What the solar panels are doing now is putting in a small trickle charge to keep that battery well-maintained for a longer period of time.”


Cost depends on the extent of the system. Banninger estimated it cost him two thousand dollars for the panels and controller he installed five years ago. Today, Bourne says basic one-hundred watt panels cost between seven-hundred and nine-hundred dollars installed. That’s a relatively inexpensive option to add to high-end RVs, which can carry a price tag well into six figures.


RVs still use a tremendous amount of fuel going down the highway, but more and more, RVs are using the sun’s energy once parked, and some owners think in the long run, the solar-powered RV ends up using a lot less than driving from hotel to hotel. And the Banningers say that once they’re boondocked in the desert, with their solar panels catching the sun’s free rays, life is good.


For the GLRC, I’m Cari Noga.

Related Links

Roadblocks to Closing Toxic Waste Loophole

  • Trash and toxic waste cross the U.S.-Canada border every day, and untreated toxic waste often ends up at the Clean Harbors facility. Some are trying to restrict this practice and purge the idea that waste is a commodity.

There’s only one place in North America that still dumps
toxic waste straight into the ground without any kind of pre-treatment. A legislator from Ontario, Canada wants this landfill to clean up its act. But trade in toxic waste is big business. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann Colihan follows some trucks to learn more:

Transcript

There’s only one place in North America that still dumps toxic waste straight into the ground without any kind of pre-treatment. A legislator from Ontario, Canada wants this landfill to clean up its act. But trade in toxic waste is a big business. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann Colihan follows some trucks to learn more:


(Sound of trucks)


6,000 trucks cross the Blue Water Bridge every day between Canada and the United States. Just under the bridge, Lake Huron funnels into the skinny St. Clair River on its way to south to Lake Erie. The Blue Water Bridge connects Port Huron, Michigan with Sarnia, Ontario. This is the second busiest truck crossing between the United States and Canada. With post 9/11 security, the border can get backed up for miles in both directions. A lot of these trucks are carrying garbage back and forth across the border. Canadian trash and toxic waste is going to the U.S. and American toxic waste is going to Canada.


During her first month in office, Ontario Member of Parliament for Sarnia-Lambton, Caroline Di Cocco, found out just how much toxic waste was coming into her district.


“In 1999 that year, it was over 450,000 tons. To put it in perspective, the Love Canal was 12,000 tons.”


Di Cocco went on a five year crusade to change the Ontario laws that govern the trade in toxic waste. She adopted the U.N. resolution known as the Basel Agreement, as her model.


“The notion from that Basel Agreement is that everybody should look after their own waste and it is not a commodity.”


Di Cocco is not alone in her fight to slow or stop the flow of garbage and toxic waste from crossing the border. Mike Bradley is the mayor of Sarnia, Ontario. He can see the backup on the Blue Water Bridge every day from his home.


“One of the ironies on this is that while Michigan is very much upset, and rightly so, with the importation of Toronto trash, there are tens of thousands of tons of untreated toxic waste coming in from Michigan crossing the Blue Water Bridge into the Clean Harbors site.”


The Clean Harbors facility is the only place in North America that does not pre-treat hazardous waste before it dumps it into its landfill. Frank Hickling is Director of Lambton County Operations for Clean Harbors. He says imports from nearby states in the U.S. accounts for about forty percent of its volume.


“It’s from the Great Lakes area. We do reach down and take waste that our facility is best able to handle. We’re right on the border.”


Rarely do lawmakers on both sides of the border agree on an environmental issue. But pre-treatment of hazardous waste is the law in all fifty states, Mexico and every other Canadian province and territory except Ontario. Pre-treatment reduces the amount of toxic waste or transforms it into a less hazardous substance. But Hickling says disposing hazardous waste in Clean Harbors is a better economic bet.


“Obviously, if you don’t have to pre-treat it, it is cheaper there’s no doubt about that. But what isn’t obvious is the security of the site. Pre-treating waste doesn’t help immobilize the material forever.”


Clean Harbors’ company officials say their landfill won’t leak for 10,000 years. They say that the U.S. pre-treats hazardous waste because they expect their landfills to leak in hundreds of years or less. Hickling says the blue clay of Lambton County that lines Clean Harbors landfill gives them a competitive edge as a toxic dump.


“The facility is in a 140-foot clay plain and we go down about 60 feet. So there’s 80 feet below.”


But Clean Harbors has had big environmental problems. When volume was at its peak in 1999 the Clean Harbors landfill leaked methane gas and contaminated water. Remedial pumping of the landfill is ongoing.


Caroline Di Cocco found other ways to deal with toxic waste rather than simply dumping it in her district.


“First of all, there has to be a reduction of the amount of generation of this hazardous material. The more expensive you make it for industry to dispose of it, the more they are going to find creative ways to reduce it. Then there are what they call on-site treatments and closed-loop systems. You see technology is there but it’s expensive and again we go to the cost of doing business. And so a lot of the hazardous waste can be treated on site in a very safe way. And then what can’t be, well then you have to have facilities to dispose of it. But I believe that the days of the mega dumps have to end.”


Meanwhile, Clean Harbors looks at what the new Ontario regulations for pre-treatment will cost them.


“Certainly when you’re making the investment in pre-treatment and you’re adding all that cost for no additional environmental benefit we’re going to have to be getting larger volumes to ensure its profitability.”


Until we see a reduction in the loads of toxic waste that need to be dumped in Clean Harbors, it’s likely the trucks will roll on down the highway.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Ann Colihan.

Related Links

Province Seeks to Recycle E-Waste

  • Ontario has proposed a new recycling plan for electronic waste in an effort to conserve materials and reduce pollution. (Photo by Eylem Culculoglu)

Old computers, televisions and stereos may soon be
found in recycling bins across Ontario. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

Transcript

Old computers, televisions and stereos might soon be found in recycling
bins across Ontario. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:


Last year, 157 thousand tonnes of electronic waste ended up in Canadian
landfills.


The Ontario government plans to send that waste to recycling plants instead.
It will require electronics manufacturers to devise a recycling plan for their
own products – things like CD players, microwaves and even power tools – and then
help pay for it. John Steele is a spokesman for the Ontario environment ministry.


“Our goal is to reduce the amount of electronic waste that enters a landfill site.
Once something enters a landfill site, for all intents and purposes, it can not be
recycled or reused. It’s a waste of a resource as far as the Ministry of the Environment
is concerned.”


It’s also a source of pollution. Many electronics contain toxins like lead and mercury.
Steele says the plan will be modelled after recycling agreements the province already has
with newspaper, soft drink and pizza box manufacturers.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

New Insulating Material Could Save Energy

  • From lighter, thinner ski boots and other cold-weather clothing... (Photo by Adam Fowler)

A new insulating material could cut down on home heating
costs and save on materials in construction. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Katherine Glover tells us about Aerogels:

Transcript

A new insulating material could cut down on home heating costs and save
on construction materials. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Katherine Glover
tells us about Aerogels:


Aerogels look like frozen smoke, and feel like styrofoam. Up to ninety-nine
percent of an aerogel is empty space. This makes it an excellent insulator. Last
year, the first aerogel jacket hit the market. And aerogel footwear inserts are used
by the U.S. military and the Canadian National Ski
Team. Ed Hogan is the marketing manager of Aspen Aerogels.


“Everybody knows how much cold feet can spoil an outing, right? And this stuff
is so thin, you can put it in a shoe or put it in a boot, and you hardly notice it.”


Because they’re new, aerogels are still expensive relative to other materials. The
company says once they gain in popularity and the price goes down, they could be used
as insulation in walls and the clear form could be used in windows. This could cut down
dramatically on heating costs. And, because aerogels are so thin, the company says
houses could be built with less lumber. That’s because less lumber would be needed
to make room for aerogel insulation.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Katherine Glover.

Related Links

Counterpoint: Agreements Will Invite More Diversions

  • The proposed Annex 2001 agreement is the subject of lively debate as to whether it will help or hinder the conservation of the Great Lakes (Photo by Jeremy Lounds)

Officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have proposed two agreements that would regulate the use of Great Lakes water. They’re known as the Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements. Response to the proposed agreements has generally been positive. But for some in the region, they’re seen as a slippery slope. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston is worried that the proposed agreements will lead to unlimited diversions in the future:

Transcript

Officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have proposed two agreements
that would regulate the use of Great Lakes water. They’re known as the Annex 2001 Implementing
Agreements. Response to the proposed agreements has generally been positive. But for some in
the region, they’re seen as a slippery slope. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne
Elston is worried that the proposed agreements will lead to unlimited diversions in the future:


In theory, the proposed Agreements are supposed to provide a framework for using the water of the
Great Lakes. In reality, they’re about as leaky as a sunken lake freighter. The framework’s
there, but they fail to impose an overall limit on the volume of water that can be diverted,
or who can take it.


Not only that, but proposals to take less than a million gallons per day out of the basin won’t
require a region-wide review, several of these smaller withdrawals could eventually add up to a
whole lot of water. And whether it’s one large pipe or a lot of tiny ones, the end result is the
same.


Given that the Great Lakes basin contains 20% of all the fresh water on the planet, diverting
some of it shouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, only 1% of that water is renewed each year.
It would be a good idea to first figure out how much water can be taken without disrupting the
ecological balance of the Lakes. Only once that’s been done should we be looking at allowing
large-scale withdrawals.


And then there’s the threat of trade challenges. Each state or province that approves a water
taking permit won’t be paid directly for the water. Instead they’ll recieve a funding to upgrade
sewage treatment plants or to improve local habitats for example. Recently, a Canadian non-profit
asked for legal opinion about the Agreements. The response was that linking the approval process
to funding for public works basically means that the water is being sold, and under the terms of
NAFTA, once you’ve identified something as a commodity, you can’t restrict its sale.


Canadians should be particularly concerned about these Agreements. The Council of Great Lakes
Governors drafted them. And although the premiers of Ontario and Quebec have signed off on them,
in the end, neither province has the right to veto the decisions made by the Council. In my book,
that’s a lot like being invited to dinner and then being asked to leave before the main course.
And the reverse is true too. If Ontario or Quebec approves a withdrawal, states in the U.S.
wouldn’t have the ability to veto the decision. We share these lakes. If we are all called on
to protect the Great Lakes, then we all need to have an equal voice. That’s why our federal
representatives in Washington D.C. and Ottawa need to draw up a binding international agreement
on water withdrawals.


If nothing else, the proposed Agreements have made it clear that the Great Lakes must be
protected. And with 40 million users already relying on this irreplaceable resource, we clearly
need something better than these Agreements currently have to offer.


Host Tag: Suzanne Elston is a syndicated columnist living in Courtice, Ontario.

Related Links

Canada Falling Short on Kyoto Enforcement?

  • Smog hovers over Toronto as some at the Sierra Club of Canada worry about the government's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (Photo by John Hornak)

Russia recently signed the Kyoto Protocol, jumpstarting the agreement in countries around the world. But in Canada, environmental groups fear their government isn’t doing enough to enforce the protocol. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly has more:

Transcript

Russia recently signed the Kyoto Protocol, jumpstarting the agreement in countries around the world. But in Canada, environmental groups fear their government isn’t doing enough to enforce the protocol. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:


The Canadian government has agreed to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by about 20 percent over the next eight years. And the government reiterated that commitment in the recent Speech from the Throne. It’s the Canadian equivalent of a State of the Union.


But John Bennett of the Sierra Club of Canada is concerned that there are still no laws that would force industry to reduce its emissions.


“Either we have the most naive politicians in the world, or they’re not very smart because they talk about cooperation, but industry does not want to go ahead and do this.”


So far, the Liberal government has tried to rely on voluntary agreements to reduce emissions. Officials have promised that no one industry or region of the country would bear a greater burden than others.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Ijc Report: Mixed Prognosis for Great Lakes

The latest report on the overall health of the Great Lakes shows mixed progress in cleaning up the lakes. The International Joint Commission says there have been some improvements, but there are still many areas that need to be worked on. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:

Transcript

The latest report on the overall health of the Great Lakes shows
mixed progress in cleaning up the lakes. The International Joint
Commission says there have been some improvements, but there are
still many areas that need to be worked on. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:


The IJC is an agency made up of Canadian and U.S. officials who
monitor the overall health of the Great Lakes. Every two years, the
agency issues a report.


This year’s report says the two governments have made progress in
cutting releases of many toxic chemicals. And scientists are closer to
understanding how global climate change is likely to affect the Great
Lakes.


But the report says other issues require urgent attention. It calls for
government action to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants. Mercury can cause nerve and developmental damage
when it’s eaten in fish.


And U.S. Co-Chair Dennis Schornack says the governments should
do more to stop invasive alien species from getting into the Great
Lakes.


“We still don’t have measures in place that would stop ballast water
mediated transfers of species from abroad; we’ve still got a threat
with the Asian carp coming up the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal
and incomplete funding for the barrier to stop that invasion there.”


The report also urges scientists to figure out why Lake Erie’s water
quality is degrading again, after years of improvement.


And there are always new challenges, according to Canadian Co-Chair Herb Gray.


“There are new families of chemicals getting into the water. The fire
retardants, which are great for your furniture, but not great in drinking
water.”


This was the 12th biennial report on Great Lakes water quality. The
report says it’s now time for a comprehensive review of the
agreement between the U.S. and Canada to clean up and protect the
Great Lakes.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Related Links

Glassing Bottled Water’s Image

  • While your bottle of water may depict this... (Photo by Ian Britton)

Over the past ten years, sales of bottled water have tripled. There’s a huge thirst for water that’s pure, clean and conveniently packaged. As part of the ongoing series, “Your Choice, Your Planet,” the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Victoria Fenner takes a look at why we’re turning to bottled water and whether it’s worth the price:

Transcript

Over the past ten years, sales of bottled water have tripled. There’s
a huge thirst for water that’s pure, clean and conveniently packaged.
As part of the ongoing series, “Your Choice, Your Planet,” the Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Victoria Fenner takes a look at why we’re
turning to bottled water and whether it’s worth the price:


On a warm sunny day, it’s easy to believe that sales of bottled water
are skyrocketing. People everywhere in this waterfront park in
Toronto are carrying plastic water bottles labeled with pictures of
glaciers and mountains. With a price tag of anywhere from fifty
cents to over a dollar a bottle, that’s a lot of profit flowing to
the companies that sell it.


But Catherine Crockett and Colin Hinz are packing water the old-
fashioned way. They don’t buy bottled water. Instead, they fill up
their own bottle before they leave home and refill it at the drinking
fountain.


Crockett: “Well, it’s cheaper and as an environmentalist, I’d rather
refill a container than waste a lot of money on pre-filled stuff that
isn’t necessarily any better than Toronto tap water. What’s the
point in paying a dollar for a disposable bottle full of what’s
probably filtered tap water anyway?”


Hinz: “Personally I think a lot of what’s behind bottled water is
marketing and I don’t really buy into that very well.”


Colin Hinz’s suspicions are shared by Paul Muldoon, the Executive
Director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. His
organization has done a lot of research on water issues. He says the
reality often doesn’t live up to the image that companies have tried
to cultivate.


“There’s no doubt in my mind that when a person buys bottled water at
the cost they pay for it, they’re expecting some sort of pristine 200
year-old water that’s from some mountain range that’s never
been touched or explored by humans, and that the sip of water they’re
getting is water that is so pure that it’s never seen the infringement
of modern society. In reality, pollution’s everywhere and there are
very few sources of water that has been untouched by human intervention
in some way, shape or form.”


Environmentalists say it’s not always clear what you’re getting when
you look at the label on an average bottle of water. First of all,
it’s hard to tell by looking at the label what the source of the
water is. In many cases, it comes from rural areas just outside of
major cities. It can even be ordinary tap water which has been
refiltered. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does set maximum
levels of contaminants, and some labeling requirements as well. But
they don’t regulate water which is bottled and sold in the same
state. That’s one of the reasons critics of the bottled water
industry say the standards for tap water are at least as stringent,
and often even higher than for packaged water.


Lynda Lukasic is Executive Director with Environment Hamilton, an
environmental advocacy group in Ontario. She still has confidence in
tap water, despite the fact that the water supply in a neighborhood
in Hamilton was recently shut down because of the threat of
contamination.


“I think we’d all be better to focus on ‘what is the water
supply like in the place that we’re in?’ and ensuring that we’re
offering people who live in communities safe, affordable sources of
drinking water. And going the route of bottled water does a few
things. It creates problems in exporting bottled water out of
certain watersheds when maybe that’s not what we want to see
happening. But there’s also a price tag attached to bottled water.”


Paul Muldoon of the Canadian Environmental Law Association says there
are other costs associated with bottled water that can’t be measured
in dollars.


“Some of the costs of bottled water include the transportation of water
itself, and certainly there’s local impacts. There are many residents
who are now neighbors to water facilities with truck traffic and all
that kind of stuff. There’s also the issue of bottling itself. You’ve
now got containers, hundreds of thousands… millions of them probably.
So there is the whole notion of cost, which have to be dealt with and
put into the equation.”


There are many things to take into account when you pick up a bottle
of water. You can think about the cost and whether or not there are
better ways of spending your dollar. You might think about
convenience. And whether the added convenience is worth the price. Ask
yourself what you’re really getting. Read the label to find out
where the water comes from and consider whether it’s any better than
what comes out of your tap.


The bottom line is, be an informed consumer. And keep in mind that
the choices aren’t as crystal clear as the kind of water you want to
drink.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Victoria Fenner.

Related Links

Preserving World-Class Walleye Fishery

  • Walleye (image courtesy of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission)

Conservation officials say there need to be new restrictions on walleye fishing. Lake Erie is a world-class destination for walleye fishing. But officials say without better conservation, it won’t be in the future. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Aileo Weinmann reports:

Transcript

Conservation officials say there need to be new restrictions on walleye
fishing. Lake Erie is a world-class destination for walleye fishing. But
officials say without better conservation, it won’t be in the future. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Aileo Weinmann reports:


The Canadian province of Ontario and the states around Lake Erie plan to cut
this year’s walleye harvest by 30 percent. Conservation officials say
lowering the catch of the popular sport fish is necessary because the
walleye population is down.


Jim Barta runs charter fishing trips for walleye. He says rough weather in
recent years has damaged a lot of the fish nests of the walleye.


“Cold weather, storms in the Spring, about the time the walleye
are depositing their eggs on the sandbars and in the various reefs where
they spawn — you lose a lot of these nests, a good many of these nests.”


Even with the reduction in the number of walleye fished from the lakes,
conservation officials say the walleye population will still go down during
the next two years. They hope the plan begins to help walleye bounce
back after that.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Aileo Weinmann.

Related Links

Nuclear Reactors in Harm’s Way?

Canadian environmentalists are concerned that nuclear power plants located on the Great Lakes are vulnerable to a potential terrorist attack. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly has the story: