It took three days longer than we expected, but GallonDaily has just published its 500th article.

In recognition of this milestone we are offering our readers in Canada, the United State, and the United Kingdom the chance to win a package of 500 grams of fair trade organic chocolate.

All you have to do is to send an email to editor@gallonletter.ca with chocolate in the subject line and the answer to the following question in the body of the email:

Which is said to be Canada’s most threatened river in terms of environmental flows?

You will find the answer in a recent GallonDaily article. Correct spelling of the name of the river is required!

Also include your name, address (for mailing purposes), and telephone number so we can send you your prize if you are the lucky winner.

The fine print:

A draw will be made among all entries received by 9.00am Eastern Daylight Saving Time (EST) on Thursday 4th July 2013. The randomly selected entrant will receive 500 grams of fair trade organic chocolate by mail. Your contact information will be used only to send you the prize if you are the lucky winner and will not be used for any other purpose. Odds of winning depend on number of entries received. Contest limited to residents of Canada, USA, and UK. Persons associated with GallonDaily or Gallon Environment Letter are not eligible. The name and home town of the winner, but no other contact details, will be published in GallonDaily on Friday 5th July 2013. Decisions of GallonDaily and its publisher regarding the draw are final.

Good luck!

A respected and peer-reviewed journal, Science of the Total Environment, has published a new article by Michael Dittmar, a lecturer at the Institute of Particle Physics at ETH Zurich, a leading technology and natural sciences university, presenting evidence that global supplies of uranium are peaking within the next two years and that availability of uranium will become tight, and insufficient to fuel existing and already planned nuclear power plants, during the next 10–20 years.

Dittmar’s previous papers predicting “peak uranium”, akin to the concept of peak oil, have been controversial within the industry. However, his latest paper presents updated data and arguments. Certainly he continues to present his arguments and reaches the conclusion that “it will be difficult to avoid supply shortages even under a slow 1%/year worldwide nuclear energy phase-out scenario up to 2025”.

Dittmar argues for a somewhat more rapid worldwide nuclear energy phase-out and states that “If such a slow global phase-out is not voluntarily effected, the end of the present cheap uranium supply situation will be unavoidable. The result will be that some countries will simply be unable to afford sufficient uranium fuel at that point, which implies involuntary and perhaps chaotic nuclear phase-outs in those countries involving brownouts, blackouts, and worse.”

GallonDaily suggests that the result of a tightening uranium supply may well be increased pressure for reprocessing of used fuel and unused nuclear weapons. Locating new facilities for such activities could well be one of the most heated battlegrounds of the next decade.

An abstract (free) of Dittmar’s paper, The End of Cheap Uranium, and a link to the full article (fee) is available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713004579

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has announced that it is effectively scrapping many of the regulations that cover labeling of efficacy of domestic and agricultural fertilizers. Brandowners of fertilizer products, especially household products, will be aware of the hassle that has in the past been associated with registering a fertilizer for household use, particularly if the fertilizer has fallen into the category of innovative or green fertilizer product such as chicken feather meal. The move by CFIA should mean that many more innovative fertilizer products are likely to come on to the Canadian retail market. It will also mean that users of fertilizers need to become more informed about fertilizer efficacy because less information may be on the label of the various products on store shelves.

Despite the welcome move by CFIA, brandowners should exercise a little caution:

• make sure that the change in regulations does cover your product.
• ensure that your product meets the product safety aspects of the fertilizer regulations which are still being enforced.
• ensure that your product is properly labeled because both CFIA and the Competition Bureau may still monitor products for improper or misleading labeling.

Details of the recent amendments to the Fertilizer Regulations can be found at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/fertilizers/program-overview/industry-notice-20130508/eng/1368038061279/1368038098924

An insurance industry association, the Geneva Association, which describes itself as “the leading international think tank of the insurance industry” has published a report on ocean warming and its implications for the insurance industry.

The report finds that there is robust evidence that the global oceans have been warming over recent decades. Whilst many think of the atmosphere when thinking of the effects of climate change it is the oceans that are the key driver of global extreme events.

The report identifies three main drivers of change in loss potentials:

• Greater volumes of water, greater risks. Not only do rising sea-levels increase the risk of flooding or the potential impact of storm surges, but they also decrease the protective lifespan of coastal infrastructure.
• Drier dry and wetter wet. A warmer ocean also means more water in the atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere contains more water and therefore more energy. This has the potential to increase the intensity of extreme events and associated precipitation.
• Effects on large-scale climate phenomena are likely but currently unknown. Due to the long timescales of ocean dynamics and the relatively short length of observational data, the effects of changes on catastrophic risk are currently unclear.

In addition to more comprehensive means of assessing risk, the report urges governments and the private sector to increase the resilience of communities by managing risks through a series of means, in particular building resilient infrastructure.

The 22 page report as well as a fact sheet and a press release are available at https://www.genevaassociation.org/research/topics-sub-pages/climate-risk-subpage/ocean-warming

A 2009 report from WWF Canada, formerly the World Wildlife Fund Canada, identifies the South Saskatchewan River as Canada’s most threatened:

Heavy exploitation and an arid climate have made the South Saskatchewan River Canada’s most threatened river in terms of environmental flows. In some areas, more water is allocated for use than is available and the river almost runs dry.

Yet this is the river, and particularly its upper reaches, the Bow River and the Elbow River, that has recently cause such devastating floods in Calgary and in other Alberta and Saskatchewan communities. The report, Canada’s Rivers at Risk: Environmental Flows and Canada’s Freshwater Future points out that

Flow regulation and fragmentation by dams, locks, and weirs have altered flows and water levels, and species are suffering;

Water withdrawals and diversions for cities and agriculture are drawing down rivers, some to dangerous levels;

Climate change is altering the entire context of water management, as glaciers melt, precipitation patterns shift, and droughts and floods become more frequent and intense.

The picture painted by the report is one of significant poor management of our river resources, though governments do seem to be taking a little more notice now than in the past. The report concludes that Canada, unlike many countries, still has the opportunity to avert a national water crisis by keeping rivers flowing, for nature and for people – but only if we take immediate action:

• Take aggressive action on climate change. Be part of the global solution to stopping climate change by helping to create and implement a fair, effective, and science-based global agreement, while reducing Canadian emissions and protecting rivers here at home as the climate changes.
• Keep water use within nature’s limits. Maintain water withdrawals within each watershed’s sustainable limits and prohibit interbasin transfers that move water from one watershed to another.
• Change the flow. Design and operate dams and other instream infrastructure to better balance nature’s needs (the flow regimes required to sustain healthy rivers) with human needs for hydropower, navigation, flood control, and water storage.

WWF states that acting on these three key steps will require changes to how we manage fresh water in Canada. We will need to focus on whole watersheds, applying the principles of Integrated River Basin Management to ensure coordination of the conservation, management, and development of fresh water. Federal and provincial governments must lead the way, collaborating with a broad range of stakeholders, to protect and restore environmental flows and river health as a foundation of a secure freshwater future for Canada.

The 28 page report, and a larger technical summary, can be found at http://www.wwf.ca/newsroom/reports/forests_freshwater/. A brief press summary is at http://www.wwf.ca/conservation/freshwater/riversatrisk/

In every other G8 country homeowners can purchase insurance against the effects of ‘overland flood’ but not in Canada. Canadian home insurance policies generally include coverage for sewer backup and perhaps for burst water pipes, but when your home is flooded by overflowing rivers, storm surges, or torrential rains you are out of luck, reliant only on government disaster relief. Apparently most Canadians do not know this.

In 2010 the Ontario-based and insurance industry funded, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, with help from the global re-insurer Swiss Re, published a discussion paper Making Flood Insurable for Canadian Homeowners. This was followed up by a presentation from ICLR Managing Director Glenn McGillivray.

The reason that Canadians cannot buy flood insurance for their homes seems somewhat cloudy but factors may include that flood mapping is not sufficient in Canada for insurers to properly evaluate risks and that governments like to be seen to be dispensing largesse in times of disaster.

In GallonDaily’s opinion neither is a satisfactory rationale. As the ICLR report points out, one good reason for allowing homeowners to purchase flood insurance is that it brings them face to face with the flood risk faced by their chosen home. Canadian municipalities and provinces need to face the reality that building on flood plains is just plain stupid. Allowing home buyers to face the reality of paying for flood insurance will help bring that message home to voters. Sustainable development means minimizing risks, not putting homes in the path of natural disaster.

The 61 page report Making Flood Insurable for Canadian Homeowners is available at http://www.iclr.org/images/Making_Flood_Insurable_for_Canada.pdf

Glenn McGillivray provides an excellent summary at http://www.iclr.org/images/Flood_insurance_speech_Nov_2011.pdf

GallonDaily’s 500th article will be published on GallonDaily.com this week. In celebration we are giving 500 grams of organic fair trade chocolate to one lucky reader.

All you have to do to win is visit GallonDaily.com on the day that the 500th column is published. Full details on how to win – very simple – will be published on that day but we are not announcing in advance which day it will be. You have to enter on that day, from 12.01am to 11.59pm Eastern Daylight Time. There will be no obligation and no purchase required – the only requirement is that you visit GallonDaily.com on the day of the 500th column. Note that in defining our 500th column we are excluding purely administrative notices such as this which appear occasionally on GallonDaily.com.

So watch out for our 500th anniversary column and be prepared to answer a very simple skill testing question. Draw open only to residents of Canada, the United States, and the UK. Persons associated with GallonDaily or Gallon Environment Letter not eligible!

Following big disasters governments frequently set up commissions or inquiries to study what happened, why it happened, and what should be done to ensure that it never happens again.

In the case of the Calgary flood, that’s already been done. Following the 2005 Calgary area floods, much less severe than the 2013 floods in the same area, the government established a Flood Mitigation Committee led by G. Groeneveld, MLA for Highwood, and consisting of representatives from Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation, Alberta Environment and Alberta Municipal Affairs.

The Committee completed its work in 2006 but it took until 2012 for the government to release the report. The key elements of the strategy are:

• making resources available to make informed decisions about flood risks,
• providing support to municipalities through guidelines, regulations and programs to limit future developments in flood prone areas, and
• continuing to provide technical expertise to municipalities for river and lake related flooding.

The resources required for implementing the all recommendations were estimated at $306 million, a pittance compared to the costs of this year’s floods.

For reasons that we plan to explore in a future issue of Gallon Environment Letter, governments, and, to some extent, voters most frequently choose to ignore potential risks, at least until they happen again!

In this particular case, the costs to the government are only part of the consequences that would lead a government to ignore the recommendations. Publishing flood risk maps would highlight how many properties already exist in flood prone areas. Voters would likely not want to have their properties thus identified. People love to live on the banks of oceans, lakes and rivers, so restricting development in such areas would offend many voters and the developers who are holding waterside properties for future development. We will explore some of these issues in future columns.

Meanwhile, we commend to your attention the Alberta Provincial Flood Mitigation Report available at http://www.aema.alberta.ca/images/News/Provincial_Flood_Mitigation_Report.pdf

The actual flood mitigation strategy, sensible for any area of potential flooding, is in Appendix C of the report. AEMA is the Alberta Emergency Management Agency.

At long last, the world’s largest wind turbine company is taking on some, hopefully all, of the false information about wind turbines being spread by the technology’s critics. Hopefully some of the other wind turbine manufacturers and operators will join the cause.

The world’s wind industry is being hammered by groups that are arguing that wind power is harmful to public health, the environment, endangered species, farm animals, and many more issues. Their evidence is at best anecdotal and usually highly suspect. However, no one from government or from the industry has been willing to take on these claims and opposition to wind energy has grown very rapidly.

Now Vestas Wind Systems A/S, based in Denmark, has launched an “Act on Facts campaign”, saying “Don’t let myths dictate our future”. The campaign is starting in Australia, which the Company says is a hot-bed of anti-wind activity. The launch event earlier this month at the University of Melbourne featured a panel discussion about the tactics used by anti-wind energy activist groups and what the wind industry can do to counter the wild claims and convert the quiet majority of wind energy supporters into active campaigners.

Vestas Group Senior Vice President Morten Albæk is quoted as stating “It is important to distinguish between genuine local concerns and the increasingly professional anti-wind activists whose strategy seems designed to confuse and inflame the debate. “Act on Facts” is a bold stroke to counter that strategy. Veering off the well-trodden public relations path entails risks. But playing it safe is even riskier.”

GallonDaily is concerned that the Vestas campaign may be too little too late but it is still better to do something than to do nothing if the global potential for renewable energy is to be realized. Hopefully other wind energy companies will quickly realize that their future viability depends on winning over public opinion in areas where wind energy resources exist.

Vestas has 36% of the wind turbine market in Canada, according to the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

The Vestas announcement of the campaign is at http://www.vestas.com/en/media/news/news-display.aspx?action=3&NewsID=3294

A 13 minute interview with  Morten Albæk  is available on World News Network at http://article.wn.com/view/2013/06/18/Vestas_launches_Act_on_Facts_campaign_in_battle_against_anti/#/video

The Act on Facts campaign web site is at http://www.actonfacts.org

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a Washington DC based non-governmental organization that challenges the concept that bigger is better, has published an excellent report which demonstrates that composting and compost use can have numerous benefits in addition to green job creation and reducing the amount of waste destined for landfill. The report, Pay Dirt, is based an a state of Maryland, population 5.9 million, case study but clearly has continental, if not global, application.

The study illustrates that composting and compost use:

• reduce waste
• improve soil
• reduce stormwater runoff & soil erosion
• protect climate
• create jobs & supports local economies

While all sections of this report are likely to be of interest to municipalities and private sector compost operators and advocates, GallonDaily’s attention was particularly drawn to the section on jobs and economic growth.  That section points out that

• composting can be small-scale and local
• jobs are local
• composting is linked to urban farm production
• composting can diversify farm products and increase farm income
• compost products tend to be used locally
• use of compost products sustains additional businesses and green jobs

Other related findings that are likely to be of broad relevance:

• On a per-ton basis, composting in Maryland sustains twice the number of jobs as landfills and four times the number of jobs as incinerators.
• Composting systems – even the high-tech ones – do not require the same level of capital investment as landfills or incinerators.

The report, which is packed with data, an Executive Summary, and supporting documents can be found at http://www.ilsr.org/paydirt/