Article in the Feb 13 Toronto Star - Mining threatens northern forests, activists say
The price for many metals has been going up for a few years, which has increased exploration in Canada for mineral properties. Now, some groups are concerned about the impact of this exploration on forests.
The inside joke in forestry has always been that if you are a forest company, you are held to very high standards in regards to your impact on the environment, and that all logged areas must be reforested. But with mining, you can build roads and explore and not be held to the same standards. I don't know how true this is, but that is the thought out there.
From what I've read, environmental groups seem to be focusing less on forest companies these days, and more on oil and metals exploration and production. In a way this makes sense. If you were in one of these groups, would you chase the company who cuts down a forest and makes sure it's stocked with trees again through planting and natural regeneration, or the company that digs a big hole in the ground?
Highlights of the article include:
The group ForestEthics said it's concerned that the opening in a few weeks of the province's first diamond mine, De Beers Canada's Victor mine, will open the floodgates to overdevelopment in the north and threaten the environment.
An average of almost 400 mining claims have been staked in each of the last four months in the northern boreal forest, and Gillian McEachern of ForestEthics said she's concerned it's just the start of a growing trend of prospectors running rampant in search of precious metals and minerals.
Michael Gravelle, the minister of northern development and mines, said so many claims are being staked across the province because the mineral sector is currently booming. He said it represents a great opportunity for the province, but added the government is ensuring environmental and community interests are addressed. Gravelle said the claim-staking process has a very small effect on the environment and only grants companies temporary use of Crown land.
Link to article:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/303351
Showing posts with label ontario. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ontario. Show all posts
Monday, February 18, 2008
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Forest Fires already?
We're not even into June, and already there have been large forest fires in Ontario and Quebec.
In Quebec, 1,000 people have been evacuated from their homes, and there are 28 forest fires, with 5 out of control. Some of the fires in Ontario and Quebec are dozens of hectares in size, and the largest in Ontario is over 800 hectares.
BC has sent over 200 fire fighters to help out. It is probably only a matter of time before things heat up in our province too. The forecast for the next few weeks is warm weather, and we have thousands of hectares of dry, beetle killed pine that is very susceptible.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/27/quebec-fires.html
In Quebec, 1,000 people have been evacuated from their homes, and there are 28 forest fires, with 5 out of control. Some of the fires in Ontario and Quebec are dozens of hectares in size, and the largest in Ontario is over 800 hectares.
BC has sent over 200 fire fighters to help out. It is probably only a matter of time before things heat up in our province too. The forecast for the next few weeks is warm weather, and we have thousands of hectares of dry, beetle killed pine that is very susceptible.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/27/quebec-fires.html
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Ontario's boreal forest and global warming
A report released last week by Vancouver-based ForestEthics said continued logging of the intact boreal forest is contributing to increased carbon dioxide levels and accelerating climate change. It also suggests Ontario has to change its logging practices if it's serious about cutting harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
Ontario Natural Resources minister David Ramsay countered that only two per cent of trees in northern Ontario are logged each year. Ramsay did clarify that the province does recognize the role the boreal forest can play in halting climate change, but he said the province doesn't have to change its logging practices.
Canada's boreal forest stretches across the northern part of Canada, covers millions of hectares, and contains spruce, fir, pine, and larch trees.
A few things I would consider in this debate include:
- Forestry is a renewable resource. All the areas harvested by companies must be restocked with new trees that will continue to benefit the fight against global warming. True, it takes time for the small seedlings to grow and reach the level of CO2 uptake from the previous forest. But consider that every year previously harvested areas are coming online with older forest, there is likely minimal net loss over the entire managed area.
- Wood and fibre create necessary products and jobs. This shouldn't be an overriding factor, but if there is less supply of wood to produce lumber, for example, where will companies turn to get their building materials? Steel? Cement? Plastic? Or some other chemical based product? Personally, I am more comfortable knowing that the wood I use for my own projects is coming from an area that is being managed to produce a new forest. Wood is also more easily recycled than other building materials. As for jobs and the economy, how can we fight global warming if we have a poor economy, especially due to job losses in a renewable sector?
- Harvesting below a sustainable rate leaves more forest available to insect attack and forest fire. We already know the mountain pine beetle is in Alberta, and threatening to enter the boreal forest. Spruce and fir have their own bark beetles too. Is it better to leave more aging forest standing than necessary? Older forests generally contain more fuels and are more susceptible to insect attack - while newly harvested and planted areas have a reduced fire hazard and less fuel to burn. If harvest levels are reduced, I think it could lead to more forest fires and more dead timber from insect attacks. And when wildfire and insects have passed through areas, who will restock them? Nature can take a long time to reforest areas on her own. The environmental groups? The government? It will take a lot of resources and money to reforest large areas where there has been no economic gain, and where there is standing and fallen dead timber to work around. How much CO2 is lost from forest fires and dead forest? With harvested areas, the company uses some of the revenue from the timber to manage and restock the area.
We have already seen what can happen with aging pine forests in BC in terms of insects and fire, and we will probably see more of it in summer 2007. Provincial and National Park boundaries mean nothing to fire and pests.
At this time, when global warming, insect attacks and wildfire are interacting and their effects on forests becoming more common, I would seriously consider what benefit is gained from preserving more susceptible forest in the hope that it will be there for decades to help fight global warming.
Ontario Natural Resources minister David Ramsay countered that only two per cent of trees in northern Ontario are logged each year. Ramsay did clarify that the province does recognize the role the boreal forest can play in halting climate change, but he said the province doesn't have to change its logging practices.
Canada's boreal forest stretches across the northern part of Canada, covers millions of hectares, and contains spruce, fir, pine, and larch trees.
A few things I would consider in this debate include:
- Forestry is a renewable resource. All the areas harvested by companies must be restocked with new trees that will continue to benefit the fight against global warming. True, it takes time for the small seedlings to grow and reach the level of CO2 uptake from the previous forest. But consider that every year previously harvested areas are coming online with older forest, there is likely minimal net loss over the entire managed area.
- Wood and fibre create necessary products and jobs. This shouldn't be an overriding factor, but if there is less supply of wood to produce lumber, for example, where will companies turn to get their building materials? Steel? Cement? Plastic? Or some other chemical based product? Personally, I am more comfortable knowing that the wood I use for my own projects is coming from an area that is being managed to produce a new forest. Wood is also more easily recycled than other building materials. As for jobs and the economy, how can we fight global warming if we have a poor economy, especially due to job losses in a renewable sector?
- Harvesting below a sustainable rate leaves more forest available to insect attack and forest fire. We already know the mountain pine beetle is in Alberta, and threatening to enter the boreal forest. Spruce and fir have their own bark beetles too. Is it better to leave more aging forest standing than necessary? Older forests generally contain more fuels and are more susceptible to insect attack - while newly harvested and planted areas have a reduced fire hazard and less fuel to burn. If harvest levels are reduced, I think it could lead to more forest fires and more dead timber from insect attacks. And when wildfire and insects have passed through areas, who will restock them? Nature can take a long time to reforest areas on her own. The environmental groups? The government? It will take a lot of resources and money to reforest large areas where there has been no economic gain, and where there is standing and fallen dead timber to work around. How much CO2 is lost from forest fires and dead forest? With harvested areas, the company uses some of the revenue from the timber to manage and restock the area.
We have already seen what can happen with aging pine forests in BC in terms of insects and fire, and we will probably see more of it in summer 2007. Provincial and National Park boundaries mean nothing to fire and pests.
At this time, when global warming, insect attacks and wildfire are interacting and their effects on forests becoming more common, I would seriously consider what benefit is gained from preserving more susceptible forest in the hope that it will be there for decades to help fight global warming.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)