Picturesque Edinburgh, itself a UNESCO world heritage site. Photo Credit: Zoe Cormier

After centuries of English domination, the Scots are taking back their country, reclaiming national identity as the Edinburgh Parliament slowly wrests control from London, gaining new parcels of sovereignty bit by bit. The pride is evident: Blue flags are flying, Gallic lessons are filling up and designers are rebranding men in kilts as – oh yes – sexy.

At the same time, greater national sovereignty has led to a green revolution in Scotland: Old trees are taking root once again; an eco-erotic shop opened in Edinburgh; venison and wild boar adorn organic menus; majestic predatory birds are now nesting; and there’s even talk of bringing wolves back to stalk the hills. With new freedom to set many of its own laws, the Scottish government is taking bolder and more ambitious moves to set higher environmental credentials than almost any other country in the world.

A year ago, the government set for the independent-minded country a legally binding target to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by 42 per cent by 2020 over 1990 levels. Half the country’s energy will be supplied by renewable energy, mostly by wind. And thanks to the spectacularly strong swells where the North Sea meets the Atlantic, Scotland is leading the world with groundbreaking tidal- and wave- power projects. In March, the government picked 10 new projects – including the world’s first commercial wave and tidal plants, prompting First Minister Alex Salmond to dub Scotland the “Saudi Arabia of marine energy.” Up to a third of the United Kingdom’s energy needs may one day be served by the seas. First up for tidal power: the idyllic island of Islay, home to the world’s “peatiest” – meaning smokiest – whiskies, such as Laphroaig and Bowmore.

Rail lines are being electrified, including between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Forests are being replanted; rather than the postwar monocultures of evergreen trees for the timber trade, diverse forests of native broad-leafed deciduous trees now flourish. Bird species lost just a century or two ago are being reintroduced, such as eagles and ospreys, thanks to National Trust breeding programs.

And enterprising Scottish citizens are restoring their heritage too. On the Alladale Reserve in the farthest north of the country (home to the luxury Alladale lodge and spa) populations of elk, wild boar and otters are being nurtured. The owner of the private land hopes – controversially – to complete the restoration with the wolves, bears and lynx that used to roam the landscape. More than just nostalgic, such predators would restore the highland’s environment, keeping the country’s sapling-devouring deer population in check.

From predators to peaty whiskies to pleasure products, Scotland’s brave eco-stance beckons.

Wonder at the wayward piles of hexagons on the Isle of Staffa. Photo Credit: Zoe Cormier

A GEOLOGICAL WONDER

Austere and sensible the changes may be, but the Scottish landscape is anything but. Formed from a completely different landmass than England, it is the very definition of sublime: misty mountains, craggy valleys and surprisingly spectacular islands. Take the unrivalled Isle of Staffa. A small, uninhabited rock 10 kilometres from the nearest port, it has been home to a solitary family in the 18th century and, even further back, one lone hermit. There are no trees, no bushes and no boulders (use the loo on shore before heading out), just a handful of nesting seabirds and the occasional seal pup. Not much else, save for a rain-drenched donation box for the National Trust of Scotland hewn into the rock. That’s it.

Except for the rocks – hexagonal basalt columns – and the multicoloured grass covering them. It’s just like the Giant’s Causeway in Ireland (Staffa is the geological tail end of it) except draped sideways. There, I finally understood why anyone would be interested in geology – and why the discipline was born in Scotland. The wayward piles of hexagons, like Play-Doh or cake icing squeezed through a template, look too sequenced to be natural. The soaring and tumbling bunches of basalt literally look painted onto the landscape. Most enchanting of all is Fingal’s Cave – fit to inspire the famous overture by Mendelssohn.

The nearest island is tiny green Iona, famed as the birthplace of Celtic Christianity. A stone’s throw from the cathedral’s ancient tombstones, gardens of leafy salads, potatoes and other vegetables are grown for the Argyll Hotel and the St Columba, certified organic in 2008. The St Columba hotel sources 90 per cent of its salads and 30 per cent of their root vegetables from the garden, heats water with solar energy and creates biodiesel from cooking oil. Both hotels have been recognized by Visit Scotland’s Green Business Tourism Scheme.

Bass Rock is home to the largest single colony of gannets and is the site of the ruins of a 16th-century prison which was the inspiration behind Robert Louis Stevenson's Catriona. Photo Credit: Zoe Cormier

THE ALCATRAZ OF THE NORTH

Off the coast about a half-hour from Edinburgh lies Bass Rock – described as one of the wildlife wonders of the world by Sir David Attenborough, home to the largest single colony of gannets and the site of the ruins of a 16th-century prison (dubbed the Alcatraz of the North) that was the inspiration behind Robert Louis Stevenson’s Catriona, the sequel to Kidnapped.

Catch a boat to Bass Rock from the Scottish Sea Bird Centre, home to puffins, seals and the gannets. The centre features a myriad of fun and subtly educational playthings for kids, including remote-controlled cameras that let them explore the islands and zoom in on seals, puffins and gannets from afar.

Or for a more involved experience, from August to April, you can help uproot and control the invasive tree mallow on the neighbouring islands of Craigleith and Fidra. The alien plant (probably introduced on the islands for makeshift toilet paper on account of its broad, soft leaves) grows up to three metres tall and has overrun the islands, blocking burrows and preventing puffins from nesting, causing their population to plummet from 28,000 pairs to just a few thousand. Since the effort began, puffin numbers have started to recover. “We really are seeing a huge difference now – we can see areas of the rock that we haven’t seen in over 10 years,” says Maggie Sheddan of the Craigleith Management Group, a guide on the centre’s boat trips.

There are new threats to the birds though, she says: Changing sea currents linked to climate change have led to declines in the populations of the fish on which the birds feed, meaning they need the help even more.

Special to The Globe and Mail

WHERE TO STAY

St Columba Hotel Isle of Iona, Argyll; 44 (0) 1681-700-304;www.stcolumba-hotel.co.uk. Sustainability awards: Silver – Green Business Tourism Award from Visit Scotland. Double room: $190.

Argyll Hotel Isle of Iona, Argyll; 44 (0) 1681-700-334;www.argyllhoteliona.co.uk. Sustainability award: Gold – Green Business Tourism Award from Visit Scotland. Double room: $144.

Loch Ossian Youth Hostel Corrour, by Fort William; 44 (0) 1397-732-207;www.syha.org.uk/hostels/highlands/loch_ossian.aspx. Sustainability award: Gold – Green Business Tourism Award from Visit Scotland. Cost: $25 a night. Grey-water recycling, solar and wind panels, compost toilets and a vegetable garden – but no showers or fridges.

Apex Waterloo Place Hotel 13-27 Waterloo Place, Edinburgh; 44 (0) 131-523-1819; www.apexhotels.co.uk. Green Business Tourism Scheme. From $134. An urban hotel with eco-friendly chemicals and green policies.

Radisson SAS Glasgow 301 Argyle St., Glasgow; 44 (0) 141-204-3333;www.radissonblu.co.uk/hotel-glasgow. Gold – Green Business Tourism Award. From $157.

WHERE TO EAT

Iglu 2b Jamaica St., Edinburgh; 44 (0) 131-476-5333; www.theiglu.com. Specializes in organic, wild and local fare at reasonable prices, including vegetarian haggis samosas, Shetland mussels, wild boar and, because you’re in Scotland, Aberdeen Angus rump steak.

Stravaigin 2 8 Ruthven Lane, Glasgow; 44 (0) 141-334-7165;www.stravaigin.com. Global, local, organic, fair trade – the works, with chic and sophisticated decor.

WHAT TO DO

Climb a mountain: After enjoying Arthur’s Seat, head to Cairngorm Mountain (www.cairngormmountain.com; Gold – Green Business Tourism Award from Visit Scotland). If your bones can’t take the hike, trains here generate energy that is sold back to the grid. Cairngorm now offers biodegradable “poo bags” to visitors (yes, human “deposits” were a problem).

Drink whisky: Peaty drams from Islay, such as Laphroaig, Lagavulin, Bowmore and Caol Ila, are renowned for their uniquely Scottish smoky flavour. Soon the entire island will be powered by tidal energy. On the mainland, in Speyside, sustainability award-winning Roseisle distillery (operated by Diageo, which owns Johnny Walker) will recycle its water and produce just 15 per cent of the carbon-dioxide emissions of a typical distillery. Cut down on packaging and pour it straight from the cask at boutique shop Demijohn in Glasgow or Edinburgh (www.demijohn.co.uk).

Shop for vintage in Glasgow: Best bet: Starry Starry Night, 19 Dowanside Lane, Glasgow; 44 (0) 141-337-1837. This is the oldest vintage shop here; it features dresses, top hats and opera costumes up to 200 years old.

Explore eco-erotica in Edinburgh: Organic Pleasures, 71 Broughton St., Edinburgh; 44 (0) 131-558-2777; www.organicpleasures.co.uk. Organic satin corsets for $315, blindfolds from $47.25, and more.

Go birding: The Harbour, North Berwick; 44 (0) 1620-890-202; www.sea bird.org. Gold – Green Business Tourism Award from Visit Scotland.

Why this issue? Back in 2000, 192 nations set eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to be achieved by 2015. These included reducing the world’s number of hungry people by half and providing primary schooling for all boys and girls. Reducing the number of women who die during pregnancy or childbirth by three quarters was one of these goals and so far, maternal health has made the least amount of progress of all the health-related MDGs.

“It is definitely going to be the most important issue on the G8 agenda,” says Jenilee Guebert, director of research with the G8 Research Group in the Global Health Diplomacy Program at the Monk School of Global Affairs in Toronto. “The reason they chose this issue is because we are so far behind on reaching this Millennium Development Goal.”

In order to meet the child and maternal health MDGs by 2015, its going to take an estimated $30 billion which will help fund the 2.5 million healthcare professionals and one million community healthcare workers needed.

Here’s why it’s important to reach the maternal health MDG:

1. Millions of mothers are dying

According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the global maternal death rate has remained “stagnant” over the past decade because maternal health is the least funded of all the Millennium Development goals, and is the one that the world is farthest behind in reaching. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has termed the continued prevalence of women suffering pregnancy-related deaths a “scandal.” While the number of child deaths fell from around 13 million in 1990 to less than 10 million in 2006, the number of maternal mortalities has remained virtually static.

“This is an unacceptable situation, and we are all responsible for it because it has never been funded correctly,” says Dr. Luc de Bernis, senior maternal health advisor for the UNFPA.

2. Death in childbirth can be prevented

Although the number of women who suffer pregnancy-related deaths in Canada is among the world’s lowest, it is a real risk for women in poor countries who do not have access to reproductive health care. Every minute a woman dies in childbirth somewhere around the world–more than half a million mothers are lost every year. Women in developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, are most at risk—one in seven women in Niger will die due to complications from pregnancy or childbirth.

The main reason for these shocking statistics: too many women are giving birth without a trained or skilled attendant who is capable of alleviating haemorrhaging (the leading cause of death) by providing the hormone oxytocin, preventing an obstructed labour by delivering by Caesarean, or providing basic post-partum shots for tetanus and other infectious diseases. With the proper care and supplies, these complications are highly treatable—Canadian women are also at risk for labour complications, but access to care saves more lives here.

3. Caring for women saves children

Improving the chances of survival and the overall health for mothers also means giving their children a greater chance at living.

“And we’re not just talking about their newborn babies—research shows that when mothers die, the other children in the family have a much greater likelihood of dying,” says Susan White, Executive Director of the Canadian Women’s Health Network. In fact, according to the UN, children whose mothers died in birth are ten times more likely to die prematurely. “The bottom line is that saving mothers’ lives also saves children’s lives,” she says.

4. Funding can help treat birth-related injuries

For every woman who dies in childbirth, another 20—about 10 million every year—will suffer from related injuries, infections and diseases that saddle them with a lifetime of pain, suffering and humiliation.

One of the most horrific injuries: fistula, which occurs when the pressure from an obstructed birth leaves a hole between the vagina and the bladder or rectum. These holes can be surgically repaired, but in poor countries women are often left untreated, and have to suffer the pain and humiliation of losing the ability to control the flow of excrement from their bodies for the rest of their lives.

“There is intense stigmatisation for these women, who are often totally abandoned by their partners and their families,” says de Bernis. “It is very common for us to visit remote communities and discover women who have leaked urine or feces for years and years; nobody ever informed them that treatment was possible. It is a terrible situation.”

5. Access to contraception saves lives

Women in parts of the developing world do not have access to contraception mainly because of a decline in funding for family planning in those countries. This funding has “dropped dramatically since the mid 1990s” according to the United Nations Population Fund. The Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health, estimates that in 2007, donor countries came up $2.5 million short in funding the cost of contraceptive care in developing countries.

According to the institute, providing modern family planning techniques to all women worldwide would reduce the number of unintended pregnancies by 53 million, reduce maternal mortality by a third, and ultimately prevent the deaths of almost 800,000 women and children every year.

6. Young women need sex education

In countries where access to contraception is limited, women tend to conceive at younger ages, when they are at even higher risk of complications from pregnancy. Girls aged 15 to 19 are twice as likely to die in childbirth as women in their 20s; teens younger than 15 are at even greater risk.

“We need to address the sexual education of adolescents,” says de Bernis. “If it is sensitive in our own countries, such as France and Canada, imagine how difficult it is to address in developing nations. It’s almost impossible. We need to face this.”

7. Women are dying from unsafe abortions

The Canadian government has stated that it will not fund programs that provide access to abortions in developing countries as part of its aid package.

However, many experts on maternal health say it’s an issue that needs to be addressed. “It is important to note that many of the countries that have the highest number of maternal deaths have limited access to abortion,” says White. More than 19 million unsafe abortions take place every year, and more than 70,000 women die annually as a result — and neither figure has changed significantly in a decade, according to the UNFPA.

“We are very anxious about these declarations from Canadian politicians,” says the UN’s de Bernis. “It is very important to understand that maternal mortality cannot be reduced without improving access to safe abortions, when legal. We cannot pretend to be interested in maternal health without addressing this issue.”

8. It will improve women’s lives

“This is also a gender issue—it is only women who deal with the real burden of reproduction, only women who face death and disability from childbearing,” says de Bernis. “This really is an issue of human rights.”

Ultimately, improving access to contraception, safe abortions, and the ability to choose when and how many children to have means improving education and social standing for women overall. “The fact remains that women’s needs are not as highly valued as they should be,” says White. “The bigger issue ultimately is empowerment of women.”

9. It will benefit the world economy

“Women who die from giving birth are in the prime of life—they are generally young and active, at a critical stage in life in terms of their role in the economy,” says White. “Loss of their lives is a blow to a nation’s productivity, especially in Africa where it is women who do most of the farming and feed their families.” Right now $15 billion in productivity is lost every year due to the deaths of mothers in developing countries, according to the UNFPA.

Investing in maternal health is a cost-effective way to save money in the future from the pressures of overpopulation: every dollar spent on family planning will save four dollars in future costs to the health care, housing, and other social infrastructures, according to the UNFPA.

10. Canada can change the world

As host of the summit, Canada is an important player on this issue. If we commit to the $1 billion or more in funding we have pledged for maternal health, Gubert says that other rich nations will feel pressure to step up to the plate. “Canadians are proud of their government’s past involvement in initiatives such as international peacekeeping; we think people in other parts of the world should have the same rights that we have in Canada,” says Guebert. “I really think this is an issue that Canadians really care about.”

The most significant point of the day was, perhaps, when the driver of a red Ferrari tried – and failed – to cross the picket line.

With giant red signs reading CLOSED, banners strung from the roof and very noisy drums, activists shut down a Shell petrol station in Islington, North London for a few hours on Saturday. The point? To protest the oil company’s ongoing expansion in the Canadian tar sands, as well as its never-ending destruction of the Niger Delta in Nigeria, and its attempts to build a pipeline despite community opposition in Ireland, days before its annual general meeting.

The Ferrari driver did not understand at first that he would not be able pump any gas – one of very few motorists to make such a mistake that afternoon. Halting with his shiny red car on the driveway, it took several minutes for him to realise that he would suffer the inconvenience of having to drive several minutes down the road to refuel.

This was the second time activist groups, including Rising Tide and UK Tar Sands Network, shut down a gas station in the British capital. They did it the same at a BP terminal in west London a month ago in the same fashion: loud samba, bright flags, and ‘CLIMATE CRIME SCENE’ yellow tape wrapped around the pumps.

Responsible for three to five times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil, the tar sands are the primary reason that Canada’s emissions rose 26 per cent from 1990 levels (and why the country is such an obstinate hurdle at international climate change negotiations). They are also the main reason that Canada claimed title as the largest supplier of foreign oil to the US in 2007.

Though it was thought that Alberta crude never flows to Europe, only south to the US and east to Asia (and China in particular), Greenpeace Canada recently disclosed that oil from the sands is in fact filling European engines as well.

The Shell demo coincided not only with the company’s AGM, but also with a tour by Alberta’s Environment Minister Rob Renner across Europe to promote the province’s ‘clean energy story’ (the significance of that last word, ‘story’ not being lost on the keen of eye).

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the tar sands are being promoted as a clean and safe alternative to offshore drilling – which many consider a laughable comparison, considering that tar sands extraction produces giant tailings ponds through their normal course of operations, rather than as a matter of accident.

Aerial view of Syncrude upgrader and tailings pond north of Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada. Photo Credit: Jiri Rezac, Courtesy of Greenpeace

Moreover, the Canadian government is quickly inking plans for the construction of an Enbridge pipeline to pump crude direct from the sands to the Pacific for Asian markets by 2015. Tankers twice the size of the Exxon Valdez are slated to ship oil through the narrow and rocky waters around the Charlotte Islands – routes that would be a nightmare for such large ships to navigate, say local communities. ‘We could suffer a disaster that would make the Valdez look like a walk in the park,’ said Chief Ha’eis Clare Hill, Eagle Clan Chief-in-waiting of the Gitga’at First Nation on British Columbia’s coast, visiting London last year to raise awareness about the proposed pipeline.

At a time when expansion of the sands looks more certain than ever, some feel the need to express dissent more necessary than ever.

Older people paused to congratulate the demonstrators for ‘putting their feet down’. Children joined in the dance, to the bemusement of their puzzled mothers, glancing over flyers. Even the most jaded would have found it impossible not to enjoy the rousing crescendo of noise raised for a passing wedding party – and the delight the new couple took in the cacophony of samba clanged just for them.

Nonetheless, the jaded would invariably question the purpose of such a protest and perhaps label it futile and insignificant. Granted, a tempting characterization to make given the economic and political power of the Alberta energy industry, the second largest reserve of oil in the world, responsible for one in nine jobs in the province, and increasingly host to energy and extraction interests from every corner of the globe.

Which brings us back to the age-old question: what’s the point in protesting anyways? What does a noisy rabble or a quiet sit-in accomplish in the face of power on such a scale? Was the action intended to stem the tide of Canadian tar flowing into British motors? To permanently damage the station? Or to make even the tiniest dent in Shell’s considerably sizable profits that day?

Of course not. Sometimes, the point is that the point needs to be made. Even if the momentum behind the tar sands seems unstoppable, the political power insurmountable, some will let it be known that they, at least, are neither ignorant nor wilfully complicit. And sometimes the goal is even more basic, and more immediate: to spread the word about a project that is both the largest in human history and yet so pervasively unknown.

Even if most Britons do not know about the sands, their financial contribution and the presence of its products in their engines, anyone passing by that day would have found it hard to avoid noticing the point a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens were trying to make.

Except for the man in the red Ferrari, incredulous that anything could prevent him from filling up his tank, oblivious to the world around him.

We’ve all held that long sheet of possible side effects that came with our medication and felt bewildered by the litany of conditions that could come, from swelling and weight gain to seizures and suicidal thoughts. It can be intimidating, to say the least.

“Often my patients come to me and haven’t taken their medication because they were so scared by the printouts,” says Dr. Rhonda Church, a family physician in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia and co-author of Take As Directed: Your Prescription for Safe Health Care In Canada. And even after taking their medication as prescribed, her patients frequently feel uncomfortable and nervous if they notice a new symptom.

Is it a side-effect?

“Whenever people experience anything unusual after taking a new medication often they assume that it is a side effect, when it may not necessarily be,” she says. For example, someone taking an antibiotic for pneumonia may feel light-headed and ascribe it to the antibiotic—when in fact the illness itself may be to blame. Other factors that may cause a person to feel unwell include an incorrect diagnosis, the wrong dose of the medication, or an allergic reaction to the medication.

But side effects do of course happen—a number of studies estimate that between 10 and 20 per cent of hospital admissions are due to side effects from medication, says Philip Emberley, Director of Pharmacy Innovation for the Canadian Pharmacists Association.

“It can be very difficult to predict what people will experience when they start a new medication,” he says. “The whole area of side effects is very individual, and we all react differently—some people will experience no side effects, while others may experience several.”

So how can you know if what you are experiencing is actually due to the medication you are taking? Is it simply “psychosomatic” because you may be worried about side effects? Or is it something you should be concerned about?

Here are some tips on the most common things you may experience:

Birth control pills

Don’t panic: Breast tenderness and weight gain are well-known, but some women don’t realise how common it is to spot and bleed in-between periods. “Some women stop taking their pills because they think they aren’t working, but then they come to me with different side effect altogether: pregnancy,” says Dr Church.

See a doctor: Chest pains, shortness of breath or a sudden swelling in the leg could be a sign of a blood clot in the leg or the lung.

Anti-depressants

Don’t panic: Drowsiness and headaches are common. “In most cases I’d say ride it out,” says Dr Church. If the medication is causing sleepiness, speak with your doctor about taking it at night. “Though most people don’t like to talk about it, sexual dysfunction can be a problem,” she says. “Don’t’ be afraid to mention it to your physician.”

See a doctor: Modern anti-depressants, called SSRIs (for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) come with fewer risks compared to the tricyclic medications used in the last century. But though rare, severe side effects can occur—such as feeling more depressed.

Over-the-counter pain killers

Don’t panic: An upset stomach, especially with non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory medications like ibuprofen, is extremely common, and taking medication with food or milk should do the trick.

See a doctor: Using OTC pain-killers on a long-term, regular basis however can cause severe side effects: used regularly, paracetamol (e.g. Tylenol) can cause liver damage, and Aspirin—though good for the heart—can lead to ulceration of the stomach if used excessively for many years. “Chronic use of any medication can be very harmful,” says Emberley.

Lipid-lowering drugs

Don’t panic: Head and stomach aches are common, and some people prescribed niacin (a type of B-vitamin) may experience intense but non-harmful facial flushing.

See a doctor: Though rare, rhabdomyolysis—a breakdown of muscle cells—can be lethal if certain complications occur. A sudden onset of muscle pain or weakness—especially if you are taking a statin lipid-lowering agent—should send you to the hospital immediately.

Antibiotics

Don’t panic: Upset stomachs are common—and, as many of us have experienced, yeast infections. Taking probiotics can help in some circumstances, says Dr Church, “But unfortunately there just is not a single antibiotic that we can guarantee won’t cause a yeast infection,” she says.

See a doctor: Some allergic reactions to penicillin can be lethal. “If you feel light headed, your heart racing or short of breath right after taking it, go to a hospital immediately,” says Emberley. And the same goes for all prescriptions.

Dealing with side effects

The bottom line, says Emberley, is that “most side effects are transient—give it a few weeks and they will probably go away.”

In general, says Dr Church, the most common side effects, spanning the whole spectrum of drugs, are upset stomachs, drowsiness, headaches, constipation, and dry mouth (easily relieved by sugar-less candy).

“I have a general principle—start low and go slow—if somebody finds the side effects a nuisance, one of the things I may consider is lowering the dose,” she says. “But I tell all my patients to be active, and knowledgeable, and to take their own health into their own hands: they should ask their physicians and pharmacists about common side effects—and what the red flags are.”

But this heavy-metal soup of arsenic, mercury and cadmium, mixed with carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic compounds, isn’t fully contained by the sandy bottom of the so-called “ponds”. Industry and government long contended that leaks were marginal and actively managed – but we now know that at least 11 million litres of toxins flow into the Athabasca River every day.

Communities all over the Athabasca rivershed are exposed to whatever flows downstream – and none more so than Fort Chipewyan. This isolated town is made up of just over 1,200 members of the Mikisew Cree, Métis and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations, who live on the shores of Lake Athabasca, the tail end of every leaky tailings pond.

A tailings pond created by a Syncrude upgrader upstream of Fort Chipewyan. Photo Credit: Jiri Rezac, Courtesy of Greenpeace.

For years, people worried. Fish were caught with tumours on their sides, or with deformities as extreme as two mouths. Duck meat didn’t taste quite right. Moose livers were covered in lesions. This would be disturbing to any community – but especially to one that still hunts, fishes and traps as regularly as the people in Fort Chipewyan. Moose meat and walleye fish aren’t occasional rustic treats for weekend cottagers. Many in Fort Chipewyan eat them every single day.

They noticed people growing sick – much sicker than they had been in the past. Immune diseases. Diabetes. Lupus. And cancer – not just in the old, but also the young. Rare cancers that should not be occurring in such high numbers in so small a community. Dr John O’Connor, the local doctor, was so worried that in 2006 he decided to go public with his concerns, unleashing a battle to get to the truth that is still continuing today.

Cancer cover-up

The federal government’s first response was to rush out a study which concluded that the community did not have higher than average cancer rates, and claimed that contaminants in the river were not at levels that should cause concern. Soon afterwards, to the deep consternation of the community, Dr O’Connor was placed under formal investigation.

Nobody in Fort Chipewyan believed the government’s findings. They commissioned their own study of the rivershed from Dr Kevin Timoney. Published in 2007, it found “worrisome” levels of many heavy metals and carcinogens in the water and wildlife – for example, some 90 per cent of male whitefish exceeded mercury levels that were safe for consumption.

Bowing to pressure, the government agreed to conduct a more thorough analysis. Towards the end of 2009 it published a study that concluded that the rate of cancers in Fort Chipewyan was 30 per cent higher than expected – but, to the community’s frustration, stopped short of concluding that the tar sands might be a factor.

“The argument over whether or not the cancers in Fort Chip are caused by the tar sands is ridiculous,” says Eriel Tchekwie Deranger, a young woman from the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation who has become a prominent anti-tar sands activist. “The increase in health problems has coincided with the increase in development of the sands.”

One of the leading voices calling for a comprehensive baseline study into local pollution and its health impacts since 2003 has been George Poitras, former chief of the Mikisew Cree. “It is like pulling teeth,” he reveals. “The government doesn’t want to resource anything that will act as an impediment to their ability to exploit the tar sands.”

Mikisew First Nation former chief George Poitras, outside Buckingham Palace on his first visit to London in September, 2009.

This lack of resources has meant paltry monitoring of the state of the downstream rivershed since extraction began in earnest. Another independent study, by Professor David Schindler of the University of Alberta, found “serious defects” in the government’s monitoring programme. The analysis, published in December 2009 in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that pollution in the river was up to five times higher than government figures had stated.

These findings just scratch the surface of how the community could be being affected. Little is yet known about how the different toxic metals and petrochemicals interact, or how their effects could be magnified given that the flow of contaminants into the rivershed during spring melt coincides with when fish fry are growing.

What Fort Chipewyan needs, argues George, is a comprehensive, baseline health study that would do a thorough analysis of the entire community, and then track changes in the future based on that. Unfortunately, the lack of good information from the past means that the baseline would have to consist of current data – 2010 at the earliest. He acknowledges that it wouldn’t be able to show changes to Fort Chipewyan over the past 15 years. “That is disappointing – but we can’t go backwards in time. The next best thing we can do is to determine people’s health now and monitor as we go along.”

Considering that the government has a 50-100 year plan for increasing output from the sands, there will be plenty of monitoring to do.

Licence to spill

Meanwhile, the government continues to grant new licences to any company looking to expand its operations in the region. “Our communities are given no part in the decision-making process when licences for exploration are granted,” says George, who until recently held the role of consultation co-ordinator with government and industry for the Mikisew Cree. “First Nations are kept totally out of the loop. We are only consulted at the application stage for specific projects.”

In many cases it is not the provincial government which consults but a third-party entity, and usually the consultation is no more than tokenistic. “Industry has its hand in the pot that pays these groups to make sure consultation is done,” claims Eriel – who works as a campaigner with the Rainforest Action Network, because “when I first saw the devastation of the boreal forest, I knew I had to devote my life to preserving my beautiful homeland”. She has experienced these sham “stakeholder engagements” first hand. “In many cases, they only consult when they already have the bulldozers lined up. They simply come in, give a presentation, and tick off the box saying they’ve consulted.”

Even more suspicious, she feels, is the groundwork that industry lays down in advance. “They will come in and sponsor things like ice rinks and playgrounds and computer labs – then come in a month later for their consultation process. They will dangle the carrot of a few jobs – it is clearly manipulative. These are communities with deplorable living standards and a severe housing crisis. These corporations know exactly what they are doing.”

Eriel Tchekwie Deranger, a Dene woman from the Athabasca community of Fort Chipewyan demonstrating outside the Royal Bank of Scotland's London headquarters in November 2009.

But in many cases it works. The oil industry has been active in Alberta for 40 years, and, says George, “it has given the impression to the local communities that this is the only industry people should rely on – so they’ve become very dependent on it. Young people see the sands as the be-all and end-all in terms of careers and vocations. It has become a blinding force.”

Yet, as with any economic boom zone, many social problems are now plaguing the industrial heartland of Fort McMurray and spilling over into communities like Fort Chipewyan all over the Athabasca region. “Drug addiction, crime, prostitution, domestic abuse…” lists George. “We are only now starting to deal with these problems head-on, because the cancers have forced us to – we’re just at the tip of the iceberg.”

Nevertheless, Eriel believes it’s easy to understand why some communities do deals with the oil industry. “The communities often feel as though the companies already have the permits. They could spend 10 years fighting them or just strike a deal. The leaders will do what is best for their communities when they need food and jobs, and they figure: “Well, they’re going to destroy our land anyways so we might as well get some money first.” I don’t blame them,’ she says. ‘This is all part of a subjugation tactic by the Canadian Government. If people no longer have the ability to rely on the land, their only choice for an economic base is industry offering them deals.”

Fight for treaty rights

However, as the social, environmental and health impacts of the tar sands bite, more and more indigenous communities are taking a position of opposition. In 2008, chiefs from across Alberta and the neighbouring provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia came together to call for a moratorium on all new tar sands developments, and threatened to back this up with legal action.

This poses a genuine threat to the long-term future of the project. All tar sands developments in Canada are taking place on the traditional territories of indigenous First Nations. Most of them signed treaties with the crown in the 19th century giving them certain legal rights, including the right to consultation on new projects that would infringe on their abilities to hunt, fish and trap in their traditional territories.

This is one topic, says Deranger, that the mainstream media in Canada has brushed over in its coverage of the tar sands. “The Government of Canada has recognized native treaty rights in the constitution, but actually going forward and recognizing what those rights mean hasn’t happened in this country yet. It would open a Pandora’s box of issues – this is just not something the Canadian public is prepared for.”

The concept of “free prior and informed consent” – in other words, the right of indigenous peoples to say “no” – to any new development on their lands was recently enshrined in international law through the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But its application has been conspicuously absent in Canada, which has refused to sign the Declaration. Many leaders of First Nations and experts in aboriginal law believe it may be the enforcement of these treaty rights through legal challenges that stands the best chance of stopping further expansion in the tar sands.

However, getting treaty rights taken seriously by the Alberta government is proving to be a challenge. George suspects there may be a racist component to the way Fort Chipewyan’s concerns have been treated. “It’s hard to prove racism, but I suspect they see us as a predominantly aboriginal community ’so to hell with them’.”

Charges of environmental racism are not new in Canada. All over the country, indigenous communities have been affected by industrial developments, from mega-dam projects flooding reserves in Quebec, to reckless uranium mining near Inuit communities in the Northwest Territories, to the construction of petrochemical refineries on land ceded from First Nations in Ontario. The resulting loss of land, health and traditional ways of living – from hunting and fishing to even swimming in lakes – can be summed up in two words, according to Eriel: “cultural genocide”.

Ada Lockridge, a member of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation in southern Ontario, overlooking the Suncor refinery sitting on land that once belonged to her community.

I will not be silenced

The sidelining of critical indigenous voices can have serious consequences for the individuals involved, as George found late last year when he was forced by the oil industry to step down from his position as consultation co-ordinator with the Mikisew Cree First Nation.

“The president of the longest-running company in the tar sands met with our leadership and in no uncertain terms said they did not like that I travel internationally [to raise concerns about the tar sands in Europe and the US] on Mikisew time to bring negative media attention to the tar sands industry,” he explains. “So, they said, either the Mikisew would have to terminate my employment or somehow silence me, or the Nation would lose contracts.”

This, he says, is standard practice. “In a nutshell: penalize the First Nation when they are showing a lack of support. We are simply identifying concerns related to tar sands development, but apparently we are not allowed to do that.”

George admits he found the experience shocking. “You would expect that kind of treatment of indigenous peoples by multibillion-dollar oil companies and corrupt Third World governments where indigenous peoples have no voice whatsoever. But this is Canada, a developed G8 nation! It is 2010 and we are still dealing with the same old issues.”

After fighting the tar sands for five years, and leaving his job as a result, has he had enough? “The thought of giving up did enter my mind, of living my life and having a garden at the back of my house,” he muses. “But only momentarily. Actually, it’s had the opposite effect. When Dr O’Connor was first charged, it lit a fire in me to show to the rest of the world what was going on. This has made that fire much stronger. And now I am able to speak up much more freely.”

His plans now? “This will be my full-time vocation,” he announces. “And as long as they have a 50-100 year plan, you can be sure we have our work cut out for us. I’ll die doing this.”

Activist shareholders lost their bid today to force oil giant BP to disclose detailed information about the risks associated with investing in the energy-intensive Canadian oil sands. Still, they chalked up a significant victory in the company’s response to their effort.

For the first time, BP disclosed information regarding the expectations of demand for tar sands oil and future regulations on carbon emissions that the company used when deciding on the viability of a planned $2.4 billion joint investment with Husky Energy in the Sunrise oil sands field in Alberta.

Special Resolution No. 25, presented to shareholders at BP’s annual meeting today in London, asked that BP go farther and commission reports reassessing its decision to proceed with the oil sands project, including looking at the projected price of carbon under potential international climate change treaties and other legislation and at fluctuations in the price of oil.

Supporters of the resolution — including the managers of the multibillion-dollar California state pension funds CalPERS and CalSTRS — worry that oil derived from the tar sands could become more costly with increasing regulation of greenhouse gases and tariffs placed on high-carbon fuels, such as those proposed in California.

“The oil sands are an expensive business — we are asking for relatively innocuous disclosure and transparency,” said Niall O’Shea, head of responsible investing at The Co-operative Asset Management group and a BP shareholder who filed the resolution.

“A company with such expertise and wealth should be innovating in the right direction [with investments in clean energy].”

Just over 6 percent of shareholders voted in favor of the resolution. An additional 9 percent abstained, taken as a sign by some of opposition to the Sunrise project but a reluctance to vote against management.

BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg still recognized the shareholders concerns, telling the meeting:

“This resolution raises perfectly legitimate concerns — I understand the concerns, but I disagree with the analysis.

“The decision to move into the sands is a strategic one — most analysts think it is a stretch to think we can meet future energy demands without fossil fuels, we will need at least 50 million barrels a day of new oil.”

The Problem with Bitumen

The oil sands deposits in northern Alberta are the second largest reserve of oil in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia, and the main reason that Canada is the largest supplier of foreign oil to the United States.

A low-grade mix of bitumen, sand and rock lying beneath northern boreal forest, the oil sands cover an area roughly the size of Florida. About 3 percent of this area has been developed, and this region is considered by many to be the largest industrial project in the world.

Large quantities of water — two to four barrels of water per barrel of oil — is required to isolate crude oil. This water, left with high levels of heavy metals such as mercury and cadmium as well as petrochemicals like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, is collected in large “tailings ponds” covering more than 50 square kilometers. A recent report from RiskMetrics Group warned that new Canadian laws that will require cleanup of those toxic ponds could put a serious dent in the corporate bottom line.

The carbon intensity of oil sands extraction has also brought the region under scrutiny for its impact on climate change. According to WWF, if fully exploited, it would generate enough carbon dioxide emissions to raise atmospheric levels by 12 parts per million.

“This would result in temperature rise of six degrees Celsius and lead the planet into catastrophic climate change,” Louise Rouse, director of investor engagement with FairPensions, told the board.

The oil sands projects are also having an impact on the traditions and resources used by the regions’ First Nations communities.

During the meeting, George Poitra of the Misikew Cree First Nation questioned BP’s executives about the impact their plan would have on the Cree and Metis communities, noting in particular the high cancer rates in downstream Fort Chipewyan and high levels of heavy metals in the Athabasca River, whose water is used for tar sands production.

“We have become environmental hostages on our own lands,” Poitra said.

Clayton Thomas-Muller, a Canadian aboriginal rights activist from the Indigenous Environmental Network, asked if BP would “respect the standing resolution by all 44 chiefs representing First Nations in the region for a moratorium on new projects.”

Protesting the Tar Sands

As the meeting was under way in London, Greenpeace members protested outside BP’s Alberta headquarters dressed in business suits with money flowing out of their pockets, “greenwashing” the corporate office with green paint.

UK Tar Sands Network protesters add their voices in the UK, where activists have been unique in the world (outside of Canada) in actively protesting the tar sands operations. They have demonstrated against the Canadian government, as well as British banks that invest in the tar sands and oil companies, including shutting down a BP gas station over the weekend in west London.

Campaigners in the UK have been strategically targeting BP because the company is not yet active in the sands, unlike Shell, which faces a shareholder resolution vote on the same concerns at its own annual meeting in May.

BP’s final decision to move into the Sunrise oil sands project has been delayed until later this year, the fourth time in three years that the verdict has been postponed. The company expect the Sunrise joint venture to produce 200,000 barrels a day by 2020. It would use in-situ techniques, rather than more environmentally damaging surface mining, but a recent Pembina Institute report finds that in-situ mining still results in more greenhouse gas emissions because of the highly energy-intensive process necessary to extract the oil and process it.

During the meeting, BP CEO Tony Hayward stressed that the oil company was still looking beyond petroleum, including investing $4 billion in alternative fuels since 2005.

“All forms of energy will play a role in our future, from oil sands to solar,” Hayward said.

Rouse disagreed with BP’s high continued reliance on fossil fuels.

“Their business strategy assumes that world energy demand will increase by 40 percent, 80 percent of which will be met by fossil fuels — but those assumptions are based on International Energy Agency’s reference scenarios of ‘business as usual’ without any action on climate change, any international regulation,” she said.

“Copenhagen did not achieve a lot, but it did determine that that scenario cannot be allowed to pass.”

As the old adage, “water water everywhere but ne’er a drop to drink” goes, fresh water on our planet may seem plentiful and abundant, but we are actually facing an imminent water shortage. Thanks to intensive irrigation for agriculture and industry, we move water around just as we do oil and gas, depleting underground aquifers and damming rivers. The former Soviet Union’s notorious Aral Sea – turned into a parched desert when its waters were drained for cotton production – could be a sign of things to come.

“On water we are four years behind where we are on climate change – it has not yet seeped down into the consciousness of the majority of people or our political leaders,” says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and Senior Advisor on Water to the 63rd President of the United Nations General Assembly. By 2025, more than two thirds of the world’s population will have to deal with chronic water shortages, according to the UN World Water Assessment Program.

Here’s what you can do with your diet to reduce your water footprint – and improve your health at the same time.

Eat less meat

Eating less meat is absolutely the easiest thing you can do if you’re on the carnivorous side of things, and your heart will thank you. Any kind of farmed animal meat will have a larger water footprint than any fruit or vegetable, due to all the water needed to grow their feed. A kilogram of potato flakes costs 900 litres of water to grow, but a kilo of pork slurped up 4,800 litres in its production. And some meats are even more water-wasteful than others: a kilo of beef requires a staggering 15,500 litres of water to create, compared to just 3,900 litres for a kilo of chicken.

Cut back on sugar

Sugar cane is one of the most water-thirsty crops, coming in with 1,500 litres of water per kilo of white sugar, compared to, say, cereals such as wheat (1,300 litres) or corn (900 litres). An estimated 200 litres of water are needed for the sugar in one can of cola, for example.

Eat local

Water is also required to produce other materials besides food–industrial facilities, whether they produce metals, plastics or fabrics, will need a lot of water. Anywhere from 70 to 170 litres of water are needed to produce a single tank of gasoline (so just imagine the water footprint of air-freighted food). Cutting back on the mileage from farm to your plate will save water, too. And you’ll benefit from fresher food, often much riper when picked and higher in vitamins by the time it reaches your plate.

Eat less processed food

Water is needed for every stage of food production, and that certainly includes any kind of refining, processing, or canning. So pick fresh meats and produce and cook things yourself, rather than buying pre-fab sauces and processed junk food. Eat fresher food, cut back on added sugar, preservatives and chemicals; hone your skills in the kitchen, make a healthier home and host more dazzling dinner parties. What have you got to lose?

Drink less coffee

Go gentle on the java – 140 litres of water are needed for just one cup of coffee. A cup of tea, on the other hand, rings up only 30 litres of water. Save the stains on your teeth, the strain on your tummy and the unpleasant jitters. Your bones, vulnerable to weakening from too much caffeine, will also thank you.

It takes as many as 70 litres of water to grow just one apple.

We use far more water than we realize – for example, a pair of jeans cost 11,000 litres of water to produce. This “hidden” or “virtual” water is invisible to most of us, which is why the Water Footprint Network in the Netherlands is researching the “water footprints” of the things we buy, “to try and make that link between production and consumption, and to help people understand how their choices impact global water supplies,” says Professor Arjen Hoesktra, creator of the water footprint concept. “There are lots of things that people can do, but in the end we are really talking about food,” he says. Around 86 percent of world water use goes to crop production, and what we eat accounts for about 70 percent of the average person’s water footprint.

Wondering how much water it takes to produce the food you eat every day? Here’s what goes into your daily bread…

Apple: 70 litres

It takes 70 litres for a “big mac,” almost entirely from the water soaked up by the trees in an orchard during the apple’s growth. Crop irrigation is also the main factor in an orange’s water footprint, which is 50 litres.

Red wine: 240 litres

It takes 240 litres of water to produce a 250 mL glass of red wine, almost entirely from vineyard irrigation. Beer interestingly comes in lower with 75 litres of water for the same sized glass.

Coffee: 140 litres

A single cup of black coffee takes 140 litres of water to produce. It requires 21,000 litres to grow a kilo of coffee beans, which translates to about 140 litres for the seven grams of java needed to make one cup of coffee. Add in another 20 litres of water for a splash of milk (20 mL), and another 13.5 litres if you take sugar (two teaspoons).

Hamburger: 2,400 litres

A burger costs 2,400 litres of water, almost entirely due to the 2,300 litres needed to create the 150 grams of meat. Beef is one of the most water-needy things you can eat because of how much time and energy is needed to raise cattle: A cow usually produces about 200 kg of boneless beef, taking about three years from birth to slaughter. And in its lifetime, a cow usually eats 1,300 kg of grains, along with 7,200 kg of hay and other roughage, consuming more than 3 million litres to grow the crops over those three years. On top of that, throw in the 24,000 litres of water the cow eats and the 7,000 litres of water for “servicing” (washing the animal and its waste away). And if you slap on a slice of cheese (say, an ounce) that brings the total up to 2,550 litres.

Eggs and toast: 480 litres

A slice of bread will chalk up 80 litres in water, thanks to the water needed to grow the wheat. And a single egg costs 200 litres in water to produce the grain needed to feed the chickens.

Chocolate: 2,400 litres

Are you ready? It takes 2,400 litres of water to produce just 100 grams of chocolate.

Of course, water footprints for the same product made in different parts of the world will vary. But just because a product from one region of the world has a higher water footprint than from another country doesn’t make it a more ecologically prudent choice. Wines from, say, rainy British Columbia will have soaked up more water in their growth than wines from more arid regions like California. But they represent a more water-wise choice than wines from somewhere like drought-stricken Australia, a continent that is suffering acutely from the ravages of poor water management.

Remember: It’s not just what you eat, it’s where it comes from that counts, too.

Give Your Vote, a new online campaign, pairs British voters with citizens in Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ghana – three countries particularly affected by Government policies in the UK. Bangladesh, a low-lying coastal nation, will be severely affected by climate change as sea levels rise – most of the small country could end up underwater. Already the shoreline is shifting and small islands are vanishing. In Ghana, heavily subsidized and thus unfairly priced British exports are forcing small-scale farmers out of business. And for Afghanistan British military policy is truly a matter of life and death.

In those countries the mirror campaign, Use A UK Vote, will also give people the chance to ask questions of British parliamentary candidates via constituents in the UK.

“It is a crazy idea – but that’s because the reality of democracy in a globalized world today demands it,” says May Abdalla, co-founder of the campaign.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has endorsed the campaign. “[This is] exciting, brave and emphasizes our common humanity,” his endorsement reads. “[In apartheid South Africa] we didn’t fight for hand-outs – we fought for an equal voice and for the power to make our own choices. And we are now facing a global apartheid in which the richest dominate global decision-making, often to the detriment of the poorest… We need to rethink our politics for today’s world.”

The recent climate negotiations in Copenhagen, says Abdalla, was a profound example of decisions of global importance being made “by people representing the countries that would be the least affected”.

Do they think the campaign will have any effect on the outcome of the British elections?

“Of course not,” says Abdalla. “But this is meant to shift people’s perceptions of democracy over the next six weeks.”

“This isn’t about who wins – it’s about who votes.”

Hard, clear and resistant to heat and impact, polycarbonate plastics made with bisphenol A “are excellent,” says Joe Schwarcz, director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, “and that’s exactly the problem for suppliers now that BPA has become a dirty word.”

So the race is on to make to make something just as good.

“If it was easy, somebody would have done it already,” says Geoff Coates, a chemist at Cornell University and co-founder of Novomer, a company now testing technology he devised that produces something biodegradable, non-toxic and largely made of carbon dioxide.

According to Prof. Coates, cost is an issue, just as it is for products that employ polylactic acid, which is made from corn and biodegradable but melts at much lower temperatures.

Donald J. Darensbourg at Texas A&M University is, like Prof. Coates, chasing a successor that uses carbon dioxide, but so far can’t offer a replacement for BPA. He points out that there are other hard, clear plastics on the market. One produced in Tennessee by Eastman Chemical Co. contains no BPA, but, again, it is more expensive and melts more readily. “These are totally fine for baby bottles and water bottles – I have one on my desk right now,” Prof. Darensbourg says.

Meanwhile, Kyu Yong Choi of the University of Maryland is taking a different approach. He published a theoretical model last year for producing polycarbonates that minimize their BPA residue, he says, “fairly simply by controlling the reaction conditions.” He has since done the lab work to prove that the process is chemically possible, and now is looking for about $500,000 (U.S.) to carry out a feasibility study.

The future is more promising for the other big source of BPA exposure, the plastic lining on tin cans.

Prof. Coates’s company is working with a Dutch firm on a carbon-dioxide-derived resin that Novomer chief executive officer Jim Mahoney says will be “very cost-competitive” – and should be on the market next year.

Climate activists in London's Trafalgar Square, which they occupied throughout the UN conference in Denmark.

There is no longer any reason to make films explaining the science behind climate change. An Inconvenient Truth has done its job.

What we need to know now is what can we do about it and, more importantly, what are we actually going to do about it?

This December saw what is fairly described as humanity’s best attempt at a solution: COP15, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. It was a gathering of tens of thousands of delegates, lobbyists, NGOs and activists from 192 nations — and filmmakers, who came to document the circus.

The high stakes meeting was just that: a circus — colourful and dramatic, but politically futile. And with delegates slashing their hands, demonstrators costumed as clowns, marches a hundred thousand strong, and activists beaten by police, fodder for good filmmaking.

The final accord is, in practical terms, meaningless. It is not legally binding; it sets no targets and is shady on the financial details. It simply acknowledges the need to limit the temperature rise to 2°C.

Though Copenhagen was full of sound and fury but accomplished nothing, it did at least signify something: the political process isn’t working, and local and individual efforts are not just important solutions but — for now — the only solutions.

This isn’t to say that the Un process is always inept. The Montréal protocol, signed in 1987 to ban chemicals that destroy the ozone layer, “proves that no matter how insurmountable the environmental crisis seems to be we can handle any challenge,” says Toronto filmmaker Mark Terry, director of the 2009 documentary Antarctica Challenge: A Global Warning.

Terry believes that his film “is one of the few climate change documentaries that is actually hopeful — most of them are a bit preachy and say ‘look at what you’ve done, we’re all going to die.’” Still optimistic, he feels that “if we all work together we can probably fix this.” His film presents new science from Antarctica. The ice caps are melting much faster than expected, and sea levels could rise much more quickly than was thought. Terry was one of the only filmmakers who presented inside the actual Un conference, as part of the Canadian delegation.

Antarctica Challenge, says Terry, influenced, “certain delegations to create resolutions for building flood defenses.” Though these resolutions were removed from the final draft, “it was encouraging to see a film take part in the process.” And though the deal was insufficient, “I think the accord was positive overall.”

Most political leaders share his view, and described the meeting as flawed but praiseworthy for acknowledging the need for action.

But many experts believe the UN talks are incapable of forging a real solution based both on science and on historical precedent.

The last accord, Kyoto, stipulated a six per cent cut in emissions. And atmospheric levels have risen steadily ever since. Canada increased its output by almost 30 per cent, and publicly stated that it would do so in breach of our legal commitment — confirming the impotence of the Accord.

Part of the problem is climate change is far more complex than ozone depletion, which was caused by a handful of chemicals. Climate change is impacted by and impacts upon every facet of our lives. What we eat, how we grow it, what we buy, how we make it, why we value it — all the threads of culture, society, politics and, above all, economics.

“Those who are opposed to addressing climate change have been very good at using that complexity as a way of sowing confusion and apathy,” says Sven Huseby, star and producer of A Sea Change, a 2009 doc directed by Barbara Ettinger about oceanic acidification due to climate change.

Huseby screened his film at the Klimaforum09 alternative conference — open to everyone. “I still feel the excitement and delight from the Q&A.” He also marched with 100,000 people on December 12. “It was diverse, creative, peaceful, a thrill beyond belief to be in a sea of people there to bear witness,” says the 66 year-old. “It was a real throwback to the 1960s and the anti-war effort.”

The march demonstrated, if anything, that climate change is ultimately a social justice issue, and not an abstract “environmental” concept. it is about the simple staples of our lives — food, water and energy — who gets it, who doesn’t get it, and why. People marched not just for polar bears but for human rights.

“But,” he adds, “there were so many people with so many different messages, ranging from ‘down with capitalism’ to ‘seal the deal.’ They didn’t have a central focus like a war.”

And when a march five days later turned ugly, with riot police beating demonstrators, that message became even harder for observers thousands of miles away to understand through the prism of their television sets or from the footage posted online from “citizen journalists.”

For me, the violence was not just disturbing to witness first-hand, but also worrying in terms of the effect on the message. It becomes easier to see cops beating activists rather than the points they were trying to make. An observer could think the demonstrators were mere idealistic youths venting knee-jerk anti-capitalist rage without valid arguments. On the one hand they see thousands of delegates with suits, science, and tomes of policy couched in the complex language of legalese and the magical mathematics of finance. And on the other hand, angry anarchists with loud chants and puppets.

But the fact is that the demonstrators did have valid and informed criticisms shared with many academics and experts, such as James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and perhaps the world’s most famous climate change scientist. They are not simply criticising the UN process for being slow and inefficient. They believe it could actually make the problem worse.

The main reason being that it is “a corporate strategy designed to be the least disruptive to economic growth and development,” says the narrator in Brenda Longfellow’s 2009 NFB co-production Weather Report. A key mechanism espoused by the UN is the “cap and trade” system, which allows permits to pollute to be bought and sold like a commodity. “This is wholly inadequate — it is a false hope,” says James Cameron, Vice President of Climate Change Capital, in the film, which goes on to explain why we should be distrustful of “the market to correct the excesses that the market has created in the first place.”

“The elephant in the room here is that they won’t talk about the model — globalisation, deregulation, privatisation, and unlimited economic growth,” Maude Barlow said to me at Klimaforum09. She is the former senior Adviser on Water to the 63rd President of the United Nations General Assembly — and the co-author of Blue Gold, which was made into a 2007 documentary. “This is never going to work.”

Economics aside, one scientific conclusion is clear. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already above risky levels, and therefore the Un process hasn’t worked. This may be due to the constraints of our economic system, or to an inescapable “tragedy of the commons” outcome. Either way, the process has not worked.

So was Voltaire right: is an enlightened dictator the only solution? I am tempted to think so.

In the meantime, in lieu of political leadership, what are we to do?

“Why do I have to wait for congress to do something?” asks Colin Beavan, a New York writer. Documented in the 2009 film No Impact Man, he and his wife (and toddler) cut down on every extraneous item, including meat, electricity, packaging and power, “to see if it is possible to have a good life without wasting so much,” he explains.

It isn’t easy: no food from beyond 250 miles (so no coffee or sugar), no packaging (so no take out), and no new unnecessary purchases. The day they run out of toilet paper is memorable.

But there are also unexpected gains. His wife learns to cook. He becomes fitter. They give up their television, spend more time outdoors, and “become better parents.” The experiment is more than an attention-grabbing gimmick. “A big question is whether one person can make a difference,” he comments. “But the thing about individual action is that it causes people to be engaged.”

The point is not trivial. The first step towards action is to engage with the issues, and to become aware that our acts of consumption contribute to climate change. That, in itself, is difficult. Comprehending how a cup of coffee with a plastic lid directly contributes to drought in Africa defies the imaginative capacities of the human mind.

But action can take more concrete forms. A Time Comes, nick Broomfield’s 2009 Greenpeace short available free online, documents the experience of six activists who scaled a 200-metre smoke-stack of a coal-fired plant in England. They shut down the furnace temporarily but far more significant was the legal precedent set. They argued in court that the damage they caused was justified because it prevented greater damage to private property worldwide. And they won.

“Throughout history people, have taken direct action and were lambasted but when you look back you realise they were right to do what they did,” says Ben Stewart, one of the six activists.

“But after a few years of activism you become exhausted,” says Mikael Rioux, a young man from Québec who sat suspended over the Trois-Pistoles River in protest of dams. He mellowed after the birth of his son and decided to search for real solutions. His story is documented in Sylvie Van Brabant’s NFB doc Earth Keepers, winner of the 2009 Planet in Focus environmental film festival and screened in Copenhagen.

His journey takes him to see India’s recycling programmes employing slum youths, to meet Wangari Maathai, the Kenyan Nobel prize winner who champions reforestation as economic development, and other progressive economists, and designers and thinkers.

The message is clear: the tools are there. We already have the right ideas and technology, and passionate and smart people ready to deploy them. And all it would take is two per cent of our global GDP.

America spends more than four per cent of its GDP on its military budget. We have the means but we lack the political will.

“We should empower people to have faith in their own means…citizens must reappropriate power,” concludes Rioux. “But people see that the problem is so big. How can we switch from fear to action?”

In this fight, “one moment is optimism, the next is apocalyptic despair,” says Jonathon Porritt of the Sustainable Development Commission in London, England, speaking in Earth Keepers. “We need to reach out to the young people who are both very passionate and very angry.”

But, Rioux wonders, “How can we remain optimistic and find the heart to keep on fighting?” Especially in Copenhagen in the midst of a bewilderingly complex meeting that came to almost nothing.

One evening in the Danish city I met an unusual Canadian filmmaker. Slater Jewell-Kemker is 17 years old and making An Inconvenient Youth about “the people who really are experiencing climate change and working towards solutions,” she said. “Our leaders are not going to be around for the effects of their decisions, and the youth movement has something they don’t: enormous positive energy and creativity that prevents us from becoming depressed.”

She’s not the only Canadian teenaged climate change documentarian. Colin Carter, the director of 2009’s Fight For The Planet is in grade 12.

“It is important for older activists like myself to pass the baton,” says Huseby. “We met a lot of terrific young people in Copenhagen who understood where to find the leverage points for change. The more I see of that, the better I feel for the sake of my grandchildren.”

Social struggles can succeed without violence. Gandhi was victorious in India and thanks to Martin Luther King, segregation came to an end in the Us. I am grateful to be a woman today rather than a century ago. As No Impact Man — without toilet paper, electricity or heating — puts it:

“The most radical political act is to be an optimist.”

The first Public Eye Award for Greenwash handed out in Davos last week was unprecedented. Not only was it the first such award handed out in the Swiss city for false environmental claims, but it was also the first ever Public Eye Award for the recipient: the United Nations.

The UN CEO Water Mandate, a public-private partnership meant to facilitate water conservation, was singled out for falsely claiming to address the global water crisis. The real aim, the Public Eye committee alleges, is not to conserve water but to “facilitate greater control over water sources by for-profit corporations.” For example Nestlé, is a signatory. One of the largest purveyors of bottled water, a product widely reviled by ecologists, it is in their best interests to obtain as large a volume of water as possible, rather than to ease its distribution in regions suffering from water scarcity.

This marks the tenth year for the Public Eye Awards, trophies meant to mirror the high-profile World Economic Forum meetings by fingering “the nastiest corporate players of the year,” such as Novartis in 2007 for blocking the distribution of cheap generic drugs to leukemia patients in India. Last week saw the first award for greenwash: attempts to increase profits masquerading as attempts to improve ecological performance, usually by co-opting the symbols of environmental groups. Classic example: British Petroleum re-branding itself as “Beyond Petroleum” with a green floral logo while decreasing investments in renewable energies and making inroads into the tar sands.

The problem runs deeper than an innocent fib: by allowing ecologically detrimental practises to continue unchecked, greenwashing undermines the credibility of organisations which genuinely improve their environmental performance. In the long run the widespread practice could fuel a backlash against green-branded products by tainting all as disingenuous.

The inception of a greenwash award this year was not surprising, as false claims of ecological credentials have risen in parallel with social awareness of climate change and other issues. But the selection of the UN CEO Water Mandate seems curious. Why criticize above others an organisation whose primary mandate is world peace and universal human rights? For many this strikes the same strange chord as the demonstrations against the UN talks on climate change in Copenhagen in December. The talks may not have been as effective as hoped, but at least the gathering acknowledged the need to address climate change. Was it deserving of the same fury as the World Trade Organisation in Seattle?

“Some of the worst corporate water barons have been blue-washing their bad practices through the CEO Mandate process – it is wonderful that the award has gone to the UN CEO Mandate and I congratulate the committee for having the courage to do this” says Maude Barlow, Senior Adviser on Water to the 63rd President of the United Nations General Assembly. ”There is a struggle for the soul of the UN taking place. Will it represent the peoples of the world through their governments or will it become a mouthpiece for the interests of private capital?”

The UN has changed over the past two decades, says Richard Girard of the Polaris Institute in Canada, who submitted the nomination.

“It is important to call out the increasing corporate infiltration of the UN on all levels – it has shifted from regulating corporations to partnering with them,” he says. “The problem is that the program has no third party verification. Coca Cola [a signatory of the mandate] may publish a sustainability report – but if you check the fine print the auditor only checked four out of hundreds of bottling facilities.”

Gavin Powers, Deputy Director of the United Nations Global Compact, declined requests for commentary and instead referred to the official UN response to the nomination.

The Mandate “is based on the conviction that the private sector can play a positive role,” it reads. “The Secretariat appreciates that there are differences of opinion with respect to the role of the private sector … [but a] fundamental belief in the key role businesses can and should play in advancing sustainable water management is the basis of the Mandate.”

Assisting both corporate businesses and governments is the academic Water Footprint Network, based out of the Netherlands. They aim to refine the scientific tools required to measure the precise amount of water needed to produce a consumer product, such as a glass of beer (140 litres) or a cotton t-shirt (2,700 litres). “We are non-partisan – we aim to make the data and methodology available to anyone who needs it in support of sustainable and equitable water use,” explains Derk Kuiper, executive director of the Water Footprint Network

So what does he make of the Public Eye Award?

“As an African saying goes, ‘when elephants fight, the grass suffers,’ and there is a real truth to that in Davos,” says Kuiper. “The million dollar question is if this really helps those that are in need of water, or just triggers more communications activity.”

“There is political polarisation of this issue – and as always there are two sides to the coin,” adds Professor Arjen Hoekstra, scientific director of the Water Footprint Network and originator of the concept. ”There is a lot of greenwashing, but at the same time many businesses are serious about water conservation. It’s not easy to say if the UN Mandate is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. The reality is much more nuanced.”

Politics and profits aside, the question is this: Do companies that sign up to the UN CEO Water Mandate actually reduce their water footprints?

“It is simply impossible to say yes or no definitely because there is no monitoring mechanism,” says Hoekstra.

The research, published in the scientific journal PlosOne on January 12, found that American men over 60 with the highest levels of BPA in their urine on average had a 45 per cent greater chance of developing cardiovascular disease than men with lower levels of the chemical.

This does not conclusively prove that BPA causes cardiovascular disease, says study author Dr. Tamara Galloway, Professor of Ecotoxicology at the University of Exeter, UK. The association could be influenced by other factors, such as a poor diet featuring large amounts of canned food, she said.

But the finding does add to more than 200 scientific studies that have linked the chemical to human health concerns, including diabetes, breast cancer, obesity, hyperactivity and behavioural problems, and early puberty. Of particular concern is the chemical’s potential to affect the development of infants and babies in the womb (it is also found in umbilical cord blood).

BPA is able to mimic the hormone estrogen (dubbed an “endocrine disruptor”) and numerous studies in lab animals have demonstrated effects at extremely low doses, such as changes to the development of mammary glands in mouse embryos exposed to levels equivalent to just 25 parts per trillion. The average level of BPA in the urine of people sampled in the newest study was 3.3 parts per billion.

Used to manufacture clear, polycarbonate plastic and the epoxy resins used in the lining of tin cans, BPA is found in many plastics that are labeled with the number seven (found in the triangular recycling symbol). It is used to make a wide variety of products including CDs, circuit boards, coffee makers, water cooler jugs, auto parts, sports equipment, cell phones, cameras, eyeglass lenses and medical equipment.

In 2008 Canada designated BPA “toxic” and became the first country to ban the sale and import of baby bottles containing it. The states of Connecticut and Massachussets have placed restrictions on the chemical, and several US senators are forwarding legislation to ban it from baby products. Many large brands and retailers such as Wal-Mart, Toys “R” Us, Playtex and Nalgene have pledged to phase out the chemical.

The newest study is particularly significant because “it is the first major epidemiological study to replicate an earlier finding – this brings a much higher level of confidence in the study’s validity,” says Professor Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri-Columbia. His own research has shown multiple effects on laboratory mice exposed to BPA, including developmental changes in the prostate glands, which he says suggest men exposed to the chemical before birth could be predisposed to develop prostate cancer later in life.

“It’s important to note that nobody claims any of the diseases BPA is related to are caused solely by this chemical, but that it could be an important contributing factor,” he says. Based on what we know, it is “lunacy” to allow BPA to be used in products that come into contact with food, he says.

The chemical poses more than just a risk to human health. “BPA is a huge environmental problem – it is estimated to contribute the highest level of estrogenicity released from landfills,” says Dr. Galloway.

Many other chemicals, such as phthalates (found in cosmetics, shampoos, soft plastics and clear plastic food wraps), flame retardants (used in many electronics), and other petrochemicals found in consumer products are also able to mimic hormones and can affect wildlife. BPA has been found to affect the development of snails, for example, at extremely low levels.

But the science isn’t all scary, says Dr. Galloway. BPA is rapidly broken down in the environment, unlike “persistent pollutants” like DDT, flame retardants and “non-stick” chemicals like Teflon, which will remain in the environment for decades. Children born today still carry PCBs in their blood, despite the fact that the chemical was broadly banned in the 1970s. On the other hand, BPA is broken down in the environment quickly.

Moreover, BPA is metabolised rapidly by the body compared to other chemicals, so people can quickly lower their blood levels. The newest study, based on a sample of the US population, shows a 30 per cent decline in average levels of the chemical in the US population since the last survey in 2003. “That’s really good news, and it happened without any legislation,” she comments, noting that public concern over the chemical could have led people to avoid canned food and drink and plastics known to contain BPA.

But many supposedly safe plastic products still contain the chemical. An analysis carried out by the government agency Health Canada in 2009 found that a number of baby bottle brands labeled “BPA-free” still contained trace amounts of the chemical. And a study commissioned by the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel in 2008 found that BPA leaches into food from plastics not typically thought to contain BPA, including Nos 1, 2 and 5.

And even switching entirely to glass containers from plastic still leaves other routes for exposure, as Rick Smith, executive director of the Canadian advocacy group Environmental Defence discovered. For his book Slow Death by Rubber Duck, Smith experimented on himself by eating food microwaved in plastic containers, drinking canned pop and doing everything he could to elevate his own levels, which instantly shot up.

He then stripped everything suspect out of his diet and saw his BPA levels quickly drop – though not entirely. Clearly, he says, BPA was still able to suffuse his body through other known sources such as newspaper inks, grocery store receipts, recycled paper products and trace amounts in drinking water.

But BPA is something we can feel positive about, he says. ”If we ceased production of this chemicals tomorrow it would literally disappear from our bodies and from virtually every part of the environment – it would fizzle out.” Already chemists are finding new ways to make hard plastics with less (or no) BPA.

“There is absolutely no question in my mind that we will see this chemical disappear,” he says, adding that he is certain the Canadian government will bring in a broader ban in the next decade reaching beyond baby products. ”You would be hard pressed to think of any other single action that should be taken to protect human health than to ban this product from items that come into contact with food and drink.”

Smith believes the US will soon follow Canada’s example, but Professor Patricia Hunt of Washington State University, who has been studying BPA and its effects on lab animals for the past 15 years, isn’t so convinced. “I think it will be a lot more difficult here than in Canada – for one because there aren’t any manufacturers of the chemical on Canadian soil,” she says.

But the shift in public awareness of the chemical over the past 10 years has been “just amazing,” says Prof Hunt. “It’s parents in particular who have been demanding BPA-free products. That’s where change will come from: not from legislation, but from industry bowing to consumer demands.”

On Friday the FDA in the US announced its new position on the chemical, stating that “on the basis of results from recent studies using novel approaches to test for subtle effects [the FDA has] some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children, [and will be conducting] in-depth studies to answer key questions and clarify uncertainties about the risks of BPA.” The agency has also ear marked $30 million to study the chemical for the next two years.

This is the first time the FDA has expressed concern over the safety of BPA. “This is huge,” says Prof vom Saal. “We finally have science overcoming politics in the US. Previously, under President Bush, the FDA behaved essentially like a public relations wing for the chemical industry.”

The American Chemistry Council, which represents companies that manufacture BPA, states that “consumer products made with BPA are safe for their intended uses and pose no known risks to human health.”

This position is unlikely to change soon, says consumer advocate Smith. “They are manning the barricades, and their game plan is clear: deny, deny, deny,” he says. “They are still fighting any increased regulation of BPA in any form. And based on the leaked minutes of their planning session last year, we know exactly how low they will stoop to maintain sales.”

While the chemical continues to cause controversy in America and Canada, where baby products are colourfully labeled “BPA-FREE”, it is considerably less visible in the UK and many other European countries.

“More attention is given by the media to our research on the other side of the Atlantic,” says Dr Galloway, who works in England. “There seems to be more of a public debate there.”

But what if you just don’t like the bloody thing?

Because not every woman does. “Publicists are always trying to get women’s magazine editors to jump on the diva cup bandwagon – but I’m so not there with it,” says Cathy Garrard, an editor and writer who has staffed at numerous publications including environmental magazine Plenty.

Many women won’t want to convert – try telling a woman with vulvodynia they should give it a whirl. Or a 13-year-old already suffering from the physical and psychological traumas of puberty.

The fact that the cup is not always a comfortable choice – despite the claims made by its manufacturers – could undermine ecologically-friendly products as a whole, which continue to be widely perceived as invariably “ugly” or “impractical.”

Full disclosure: I don’t like the cup. I tried. It wasn’t comfortable. Trying to get it out was far less easy than I was told it would be. A few days was enough before I quit – and it can take up to three months to grow comfortable with it. No thanks.

But less well-known are the equally ecologically and economically sound alternatives: re-usable cotton liners and lined underwear, such as Lunapads and Lunapanties.

Full disclosure: Lunapanties are my weapon of choice. They fit just as comfortably as normal undies, and are genuinely much more comfortable than synthetic maxi-pads, which bunch up and can be clammy (or damned cold in Canadian winters). Best of all: I haven’t had to buy anything in three years.

To be fair, most women who try the cup become devotees. My female friends are eager to endorse its virtues. Zuzia: “Love it.” Amy: “I’ve never had any problems with it – I often forget it’s even there.” Sarah: “I worry less than I did about pads leaking all over my clothes.” Rochelle: “They’re way more convenient.” Bethan: “It gives you freedom.” (Especially, as travelers will tell you, in remote locations.)

Jessie however shared my view: “Sounds good in theory, but I had a rather painful encounter with one of those things. The memory is still too vivid to try it again.”

Regardless what women choose the financial gains are indisputable and the ecological impact is considerable: each year in America alone an estimated 14 billion pads and seven billion tampons end up in sewers and landfills – or wash out to sea. Volunteers with the NGO Ocean Conservancy kindly gathered 17,239 tampons and applicators from beaches in the 2007 International Coastal Cleanup, just a tiny fraction of what remains out there.

But then – far more belittlingly – by our own Government when Prime Minister Stephen Harper single-handedly shut down Parliament on 30 December through a process known as proroguing. Ministers were to resume parliamentary proceedings on 25 January – now they will have to wait until 3 March.

The almost indisputable reason (certainly as speculated by every single newspaper in the country): because the Government wishes to evade allegations by Canadian diplomats of a cover-up of collusion in the torture of Afghan detainees. A topic the Government has been avoiding since November – and certainly not one they want tainting Canada’s international brand image while Vancouver plays host to the Olympics in February.

Proroguing, a constitutional measure that suspends proceedings in the House of Commons (and scuttles all bills under consideration), can be done at the whim of the Prime Minister without being put to a vote by the House (or even his own party). All that is required is that he kindly ask the Governor General for permission – and in this case, he did not even do so in person, phoning in the request instead.

And all this when the Conservative Party of Canada holds a minority government, and by a man elected by only 34 per cent of Canadians voters.

This strange artifact of the Canadian constitutional system has been wielded many times in the past, usually when all pending legislation has been dealt with and the Government has little to do. Harper claims to have prorogued Parliament in order to “focus on the economy” and thus described his motion as a “fairly standard procedure”. But absolutely nobody is convinced, from all the opposition political parties, to academic theorists across the country, to every single news outlet (including the right-wing press that has traditionally supported him).

The fact that the prorogue was announced the day before New Years Eve, while even the most media-attentive Canadians were taking a rest, and on the same day as the men’s Olympic hockey team squad was announced, has not gone unnoticed. Green Party leader Elizabeth May described it as a “mastery in political calculation”. The Globe and Mail has labelled this “an insult to Parliament”. The Economist calls it “little more than naked self interest”. Even the Calgary Herald – traditionally Harper’s most staunch supporter (and the site of his own riding) – calls it a “cynical political play”.

To add insult to injury, this is the second time PM Harper has prorogued parliament in just over a year – the last time was in October 2008, when opposition parties were set to hold a vote of no confidence, likely forcing a new election and possibly the defeat of the Conservatives.

Liberal Party of Canada leader Michael Ignatieff criticizes “the arrogance of a regime that thinks it can get away with just about anything”. The Conservatives, curiously, make no mention of the prorogue on their own website – but do “highlight Canada’s upcoming leadership of major international events in 2010, including the Olympic and Paralympic Games as well as the G-8 and G-20 Summits … we plan to use these two summits to continue playing a leadership role on issues of importance to Canadians”.

In Harper’s view, clearly, the Olympics are important to Canadians. And torture is not.

“This is a slimy, dishonest way to avoid criticism on such an important issue – it’s also a waste of our taxpayer money and our legislative time,” says Justin Arjoon, a Toronto university student who is co-organizing a rally to be held on the 23 January to demand that MPs return to work on 25 January. Other demonstrations will be held across the country, largely orchestrated through a Facebook group – now with more than 150,000 members.

“This makes me embarrassed – almost slightly ashamed to be Canadian,” says Arlene Decker, a Canadian living in London, England, who is trying to organize a rally on the same day for Canadian ex-pats in Britain.

Especially embarrassing, she says, after Canada was labelled the “Colossal Fossil” and cleverly pranked by the Yes Men in Copenhagen last month for coming to the negotiations with the weakest emission reduction plan of any nation.

“By any measure the performance of our federal government compared with other governments was miserable,”says Rick Smith, Executive Director of the Environmental Defence in Canada, who “felt schizophrenic” in Copenhagen.

Despite the failings of the Harper Government, he says, “I was really proud of many of our provinces and cities,”such as the Province of Ontario for the Green Energy Act and the City of Montreal for its public transport plans, which the Environmental Defence recognized with a gala event on 16 December in the Danish city. “Our point was to highlight the tremendous progress being made at the municipal level in Canada – progress that is being undermined by a federal government that is intent on doing as little as possible.”

“There were over 300 protests in Canada during Copenhagen and leading up to it, including the high-profile sit-ins at Ministerial offices – this was the most impressive display I’ve seen in my 30 years as an activist,” adds John Bennet, executive director of the Sierra Club, who was also in Copenhagen and was also “disappointed in a federal government that is not expending one iota of political pressure on this issue”.

But despite that show of activism, Canadians are still led by a Prime Minister (remember, elected by barely a third of the population) who can represent them at international negotiations with globally denounced proposals – and then shut down Parliament at whim whenever challenged.

“The media says that Canadians don’t care about climate change, or about our democratic process, that we suffer from an ingrained apathy – but I don’t think that’s actually true,” says Arjoon, one of the organizers of the Toronto rally. “It’s time we really started shaking down that assumption.”

At the vast Bella centre where the talks were held, sleep-deprived, jargon-fatigued, confused, and frequently demoralized politicians and reporters slogged late into the morning hours to forge a piece of paper that from the start had been labelled both as humanity’s last chance to save itself and a political sham. Working so hard on something potentially so meaningless must have been a strange experience.

For me the most surreal, unforgettable moment came not when the accord was signed, but when it wasn’t. I didn’t learn something eye-opening about climate change or about global politics, but about the most powerful news organization in the world and their endorsement of the political equivalent of a napkin to the entire world.

Sitting at the internet-equipped press table at the alternate Klimaforum09, I was thrashing out a piece on the tar sands while a gypsy folk band played in the main hall and people danced and drank the last night of the fortnight away.

Grumpy, tired, and focusing on an issue that can easily leave you feeling overwhelmed and depressed, I tried to shut out the sounds of the party. Its very existence utterly baffled me: what is there to celebrate? The deal hasn’t been signed, and even if it had, it is highly unlikely to satisfy anyone serious about tackling climate change in a socially just way. The juxtaposition between the gloomy news threads reporting continual deadlock at the Bella, the devastating images of the tar sands on my computer screen, and the uproarious music and cheers from downstairs was truly surreal.

My gloom was broken suddenly by shouting and cheers from a group of American members of NGOs sitting next to me: “There it is, there it is!”

“There’s what?”

“The deal – they signed the deal. This is fantastic, just fantastic Check out the New York Times.”

There it was, a New York Times piece: “President Obama announced here on Friday night that five major nations, including the United States, had together forged a climate deal.”

It seemed utterly improbable. How could something have been signed this early? Sceptical, I checked the news sites of several other main news organizations. Nothing. No pieces criticizing the “deal”, examining it – or even reporting its existence.

“It’s not perfect, but he did it, Obama broke the deadlock,” said one of the Americans, smiling broadly, and cheerfully scrolling through the piece. “We did it! This is so much better than I had hoped for. Just shows what perseverance can come to.” Two others high-fived.

As the deal was not the concern of the article I needed to finish, I decided to focus on my own work; I skimmed the piece, but kept several other mainstream news sites open and waited for their coverage. Curiously, nothing appeared on any of the websites I trust – most notably The Guardian’s – by the time I shut off my computer several hours later.

Published the next day, The Guardian’s first piece on the accord makes for an interesting comparison: “Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure” reads the headline.

Describing the “deal” that prompted such elation in my American neighbours the previous evening, The Guardian notes that the “weak outline of a global agreement” was only signed by five countries, would continue to be scrutinized and debated through the night, and “it was unclear whether it would be adopted by all 192 countries in the full plenary session.”

The final piece describing the accord in The Guardian – published a day later after more details (meagre as they were) had been worked out and more countries (few as there were) had signed – is headlined: “Copenhagen closes with weak deal that poor threaten to reject.”

The first sentence – the most important sentence in any piece, and the only one that very many readers will bother to read – from the main article in the Times of London, is markedly unoptimistic in comparison to the New York Times: “The United Nations climate change summit ended last night without setting any emission reduction targets.”

So what had happened? Why the publication in the New York Times so many hours before any other major news outlet – and why the optimism?

In short: negotiations were deadlocked. Obama came to the conference on the last day and selected four key countries – China, India, Brazil, and South Africa – for a conference. They agreed to a preliminary accord that featured no emission reduction targets, no specific details on finance, but merely a simple recognition of the fact that global temperature rise needs to be kept to 2C.

This “deal” was the political equivalent of a napkin. The napkin would then need to be debated, negotiated and signed by 190 other nations, and could change throughout.

Obama’s media team then held a press conference about this napkin, which the New York Times quickly noted would still be subject to scrutiny by the rest of the UN, but “might not need ratification by the entire conference.”

Analyses of the final “Copenhagen Accord” in The Guardian, the New York Times, and elsewhere all note that the treaty is non-legally binding, sets no specific emission reduction targets or timelines, is shady at best on financial details of transfer of technology and funds to developing countries, and dropped many of the most important clauses necessary to avoid “runaway” climate change, such as an 80 per cent overall drop in emissions by 2050. There is little reason to describe the conference and its conclusions as a success, and a thorough diary and analysis of COP15 in this publication as “appalling – not worth the paper it was hastily photocopied on.”

What I found fascinating from my last night in Copenhagen was not the length of the talks, nor the “weak” and “unfair” nature of the “accord.” It was that the most powerful and influential news organization in the world, in the race to be the first past the gate to publish (an unfortunate by-product of the transition to online publishing), reported on a napkin deemed by others to be too premature to be worth reporting.

And that they did so based first and foremost on a press conference held by the White House, rather than waiting to see how the rest of the world would respond.

And that this article – by the most powerful news organization in the world – conveyed an overriding sense of achievement, optimism, and American leadership. A typical reader, without the time or desire to read through an entire piece, could easily come away with the general impression that the deal was signed, that America had brokered it, and that it had been a success.

Granted, those sitting near me – and around the world, reading the most powerful news organization in the world – who were most excited by the initial accord may have waned in their enthusiasm over the coming days as the analyses showed the weakness of this document. But only those interested in taking the time to read through the sticky, mathematical and legal details.

But the fast and Whitehouse-friendly publication is interesting indeed. And it reminds me of other fast and Whitehouse-friendly publications: the premature assertion of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

I’m definitely not an a fan or advocate of conspiracy theories – I’m definitely not implying deliberate collusion or an attempt at confusion.

But I do find this interesting.

Aerial view of Syncrude upgrader and tailings pond in the Boreal forest north of Fort McMurray, northern Alberta, Canada, July 2009. Photo Credit: Jiri Rezac, Courtesy of Greenpeace

But even those who are aware of the size and scope of what is considered the largest industrial project in the world are still profoundly unable to grasp that they too contribute to it, in one way or another. It’s incredibly difficult to wrap one’s mind around.

In other words, one of the ultimate barriers is neither political, nor social, nor economic: it is psychological.

I am sitting in the Kilmaforum09 alternative climate conference in Copenhagen on Friday evening. I have just surveyed a dozen people sitting near me – activists, journalists, students, and representatives from NGOs. I questioned only Americans.

“Who do you think is America’s largest source of foreign oil? Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venequela, Mexico, or Canada?”

Not a single one got the answer right: Canada.

I was prompted to make the survey after an interesting conversation with the head of an American NGO. He had just returned from the Bella centre – the official UN conference that I had been unable to attend (like the overwhelming vast majority of journalists worldwide). Curious to know more about the atmosphere inside, I asked him about his day – and about Canada’s obstructions at the talks. He was aware of the tar sands, and their role in Canada’s economic and political policy.

“But as I understand it, they’re still a small portion of Canada’s emissions and energetic output, though, because it’s still such an expensive process,” he said.

But Canada is the largest supplier of foreign oil to the US, I pointed out.

“No, it’s not. It’s Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, but definitely not Canada,” he placidly said.

Certain I knew my facts – that Canada has been the largest supplier since 2007 – I looked it up. Here they are, the US Government’s own figures.

I then quizzed everyone with an American accent around me – people who, having come to Copenhagen, would be reasonably well-informed regarding climate and energy issues. But each was unaware, and each was surprised at the truth.

“But that’s because of the country’s proximity to the US – it’s just crude being pumped down from the Arctic, like we have in Alaska,” one volunteered.

No, I gently corrected, it’s largely because of the tar sands, and showed them a handful of photos from the world’s largest industrial project.

Suncor Millennium tailings pond and tarsands mining operations north of Fort McMurray, northern Alberta, Canada, July 2009. Photo Credit: Jiri Rezac, Courtesy of Greenpeace.

Photo Credit: Jiri Rezac, Courtesy of Greenpeace

Then I rattled off the basic statistics: Alberta boasts the world’s second largest reserve of oil – not liquid crude, but a mixture of bitumen and sand. This is difficult to extract, and uses four barrels of fresh water to produce one barrel of oil. This water is left irreparably contaminated with heavy metals and petrochemicals and collected in giant tailing ‘ponds’ – considered by some to be the largest man-made objects ever created.

Syncrude upgrader and tailings pond in the Boreal forest north of Fort McMurray, northern Alberta, Canada. Photo Credit: Jiri Rezac, Courtesy of Greenpeace.

The production of this oil releases up to five times more greenhouse gases per unit than conventional extraction, and is one of the main reasons that Canada sits almost 30 per cent above its 1990 emission levels (when Kyoto meant we should have at least achieved a six per cent reduction). And official government estimates of the emissions don’t include the fact that the boreal forest – a carbon sink – has to be removed to get at the sands.

Before - and after. Photo Credit: Jiri Rezac, Courtesy of Greenpeace.

Covering an area the size of England the tar sands, if fully developed, could be the factor that becomes ‘the tipping point’ for ‘runaway’ climate change.

“When I first heard about the tar sands in April, to be honest, I was sincerely embarrassed that I hadn’t heard about them,” says Jess Worth, founder of the UK Tar Sands Campaign.

But she needn’t have been embarrassed – this strange lack of awareness is a global norm. But that is slowly starting to change in the UK, where the UK Tar Sands Campaign is now staging protests against the Canadian High Commission and British financial institutions invested in the sands.

On December 15, during COP15 in Copenhagen, activists in London, England scaled the Canadian High Commission, dunked the Canadian flag in oil, and strung up a banner of their own. Photo Credit: Nick Cobbing

At a panel held at Klimaforum last week, Worth, Eriel Tchekwie Deranger, the Freedom from Oil Campaigner for the Rainforest Action Network (and from Fort Chipewyan, a community downstream of the sands), Clayton Thomas Muller of the Indigenous Environmental Network and Maude Barlow, Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, spoke about the scale of the tar sands, how political opposition can be leveraged in Canada, and how public campaigns in Britain could be replicated in other countries.

During the question and answer period a Canadian audience member asked why awareness of the tar sands seemed so much greater in Britain than in Canada.

I raised my hand – I felt this was the one point I could speak to best out of anyone in the room, being a Canadian environmental journalist and a resident of the UK for the past four years. I felt obliged to correct her.

I have spoken about the sands and their impacts at great length for the entire time I have lived in the UK, and no matter how many times I rattle off the statistics they almost always fail to have a lasting impact.

I am convinced that this is due to the way that Canada is perceived: we carry a reputation for being green, liberal, polite and peaceful. Liberalizers of marijuana rights, legalizers of gay marriage, founders of Greenpeace, stewards of the environment.

Canada in fact has an environmental track record far from boast-worthy. But our falsely ‘green’ reputation precedes us, allowing us to carry out destructive environmental practices – from uranium mining to over-fishing to the deployment of intensive mining operations worldwide.

For this reason it has been incredibly difficult for British people to appreciate the reality and scale of the tar sands project: a psychological set-point exists thanks to a false mythology that paints Canada as a clean, green nation of eco-minded liberals – a land of rivers, forests, wolves and hippies. Canada may have been awarded the Colossal Fossil award yet again this year, but China and its famous construction of two coal-fired plants a week still has a more predominant place in people’s minds.

This mythology of ecological enlightenment still persists among Canadians themselves. But self-identity and patriotism aside, most Canadians are certainly aware of the scale of the tar sand operations because it plays such a predominant role in the country’s economy and has such a highly visible presence in the mainstream media.

But even for those concerned about the impacts of the project – even for those saddened and angered by it – the sheer size of the operations is almost impossible to comprehend. Nothing like it has ever existed. It is without any historical precedent. It is, simply put, overwhelming.

Photo Credit: Jiri Rezac, Courtesy of Greenpeace

One could watch documentaries such as H2Oil and Petropolis over and over or scroll through aerial shots for hours on end (which I have), and still feel like one has no appreciation of the true scale of the operation – not simply its size, but also the causes, the effects, and its future.

Confronted with the unprecedented scope of the tar sands, most people’s minds simply switch off. It’s too big, too overwhelming, and – frankly – too depressing for most Canadians to think about.

And without psychological inspiration, nobody is motivated to take action.

There are political and legal means to challenge the tar sand operations – most of all, the treaty rights of the First Nations communities, as Thomas-Muller argues. “Not a single environmental victory in Canada in 30 years took place without the enforcement of the treaty rights of First Nations,” he said. But the psychological barriers continue to prevent most Canadians from being inspired to act.

However, as Deranger pointed out, the responsibility for the existence of the sands – and the ability to oppose them – lies not just with Canadians. Financial institutions and petrochemical companies the world over are invested in the sands. British tax payers, no matter whom they bank with, fuel the sands through nationalized banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland.

But moreover, purchasing the petroleum-derived products – which include polymer plastics, food grown with chemical fertilizers and pharmaceuticals as well as gasoline – manufactured by companies such as Shell, BP and other energy giants directly fuels projects in the sands.

“We are all contributing to this project because we are addicted to oil – because we don’t know how to move forward to renewable energies,” she pointed out.

Understanding that we each and everyone of us the world over play a small indirect part in the tar sands and the destruction of Alberta’s forests – and communities – through the complex carbon chains in our economy is even more staggeringly difficult to comprehend than merely the size of the project.

But until we are capable of appreciating this we will not move to oppose expansions in the tar sands – nor of making changes to our lifestyles and economy that underpin all of this.

It will prove noteworthy in an unprecedented fashion: it demonstrates unequivocally that climate change is an issue of social justice and human rights, and not merely a “scientific” or “environmental” concern.

The attempted disruption of the talks at the Bella Centre in Copenhagen today by thousands of protestors demanding “climate justice,” the indisputable brutality of the police, and the resignation of the Danish environment minister (presumed due to fury of developing nations over leaked drafts perceived to hand power to rich countries) demonstrated three key points:

1. Civil disobedience and grassroots uprisings can have an impact, even if only symbolic rather than constitutional. It is incredibly easy to believe that public demonstrations are utterly ineffective – especially after seeing the Iraq war marches come to nothing. But days like today remind us that they can be an effective tool to change public perception and to push issues onto the political agenda.

2. The UN climate negotiations are not going to work. They are stagnant in a political stalemate and absolutely nobody with a solid understanding of climate change science – such as James Hansen – believes the political process is capable of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to an effective degree.

3. Perhaps most importantly, that climate change – and all “environmental” matters – is an issue of human rights.

Ten years ago climate change was barely a concern for subversive activists, who from Seattle to Quebec City to Genoa campaigned primarily on issues of trade, finance, and social inequality. Certainly they were not unaware of climate change, but it was not perceived as a pressing concern nor as central to their humanistic agenda.

Now, when Copenhagen saw one of the largest gatherings of public demonstrators in recent history, climate change has become not just an issue, but the issue.

It encapsulates everything. It concerns not just topics that can be perceived as distant, abstract, or personally irrelevant, such as melting polar caps, changing weather patterns, and biodiversity loss. Ideas issues that can be misconstrued as “external” to our own lives or unimportant in practical terms.

Climate change – how we have caused it and how we propose to deal with it – is ultimately about resources, rights, and health.

It is about water. It is about food. It is about energy. It is about minerals, timber, and other natural goods and services.

It is ultimately about who has access to those things, who doesn’t, and why.

In other words: climate change is about humanity. It is about human rights, social egalitarianism, and – simply put – people.

This shift in psychology for the entire world will prove historic: for decades “environmental” issues have been perceived as secondary to “human” issues. Forests and whales and polar bears and bees are pretty, interesting and sometimes moving, but not as important as people, society, or “the economy.”

Now our collective thinking is finally shifting in a sense that cannot be underestimated in its importance: environmental and economic issues are one and the same.

It isn’t on the bargaining table in Copenhagen this week, but the world is facing a crisis of a different sort that affects (and is affected by) climate change and greenhouse gas emissions: water scarcity.

“I think on water, we are maybe four years behind where we are on climate change – it has not yet seeped down into the consciousness of the majority of people or our political leaders,” says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and Senior Adviser on Water to the 63rd President of the United Nations General Assembly, who spoke at the Kilmaforum09 alternate climate conference in Copenhagen yesterday.

Barlow, joined by eight scientists and water activists, spoke for three hours to demonstrate an incredibly unappreciated point: water is not simply affected by climate change, but the way we misuse it is in fact a major cause of climate change.

“We will not find a solution without including water in the solutions,” said Riccardo Petrella, founder of the International Committee for the Global Water Contract.

“This is not appreciated by the people in the negotiations, or even by most climate change scientists,” said Barlow. ”If we don’t include water in a climate change framework, we will never be able to prevent runaway climate change.”

Politicians, scientists, NGOs and policymakers widely appreciate that water is affected by climate change: higher temperatures and changing precipitation patterns (along with population growth, deforestation and diversion of water for dams, urbanization and industry) will mean that by 2025 more than two thirds of the world’s population will have to deal with chronic water shortages, according to the UN World Water Assessment Program. And – like climate change – water issues could worsen quicker than we think: already a third of the world’s population suffers from water scarcity, when less than a decade ago it was thought we wouldn’t reach that point until 2025.

But the way we use (and waste) water has a profound impact on climate change – so much so, the panel argued, that even if we take every measure to reduce our carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 (the level most scientists advocate), we could still see ourselves pushed into ‘runaway’ climate change by its effects.

“This is due to the fact that we move water around in the same way as we do oil and gas, but people are just not as aware of this,” says Barlow.

Simple example: Australia is suffering from chronic drought, which is typically attributed to climate change, but it could just as easily be attributed to water allocation. Shifting water from the river Darling to fields to grow cotton, wheat and wine (which is then exported, removing water from the continent) means there is less water in the river to evapo-transpirate and fall back to the continent as rain.

Drained marshes, overdrawn groundwater and depleted riversheds the world over reduce the ability of natural ‘carbon sinks’ – like forests, wetlands, and peat – to absorb carbon from the atmosphere as they grow. In fact, these carbon sinks can themselves turn into carbon sources if they become too dry – forest fires are an increasingly major contributor to the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and ultimately to climate change.

Moreover, many of the solutions being put forward to abate climate change themselves exacerbate water shortages: biofuels consume enormous quantities of fresh water to produce (and do not actually mitigate climate change – and by their profligate consumption of water, exacerbate climate change even more.

Products labelled with their carbon footprints are slowly making their way into the marketplace – for example, Timberland Co., a U.S. footwear maker, has identified the environmental impact of many of its shoe lines.

But imagine buying an apple with this label: It took 68 litres of water to produce this fruit.

Water footprints may soon be coming to a store near you.

As global leaders scramble to reach a deal on climate change this week in Copenhagen, environmentalists are hoping a topic that isn’t on the agenda – water scarcity – will be the next big issue to capture the world’s attention. For the consumer, that means pointing out just how much water is needed to produce items we use every day.

“I think personally that water footprints are much more tangible for people than the concept of a carbon footprint – it’s amazing to see people’s reactions when they see that 25,000 litres of water go into making a pair of shoes,” says Karen Kun, co-founder of Waterlution, a Toronto-based non-profit organization for water education.

“People would respond very well to products being clearly labelled with their water footprint – consumers are crying out for mainstream products to have the right information so they can make their own choices.”

The movement to label water footprints saw its first victory this year when Finnish food conglomerate Raisio launched the first voluntary example – 101 litres of water for each 100 grams of its oat flakes breakfast cereal.

And over the past few years, about 60 large companies have signed on to the United Nations’ CEO Water Mandate, an informal pledge to lower their water footprints. They include Coca-Cola, Bayer, Cadbury, Dow Chemical, Heineken, Unilever and Siemens.

“All over the world, we consume products that don’t include the cost of the water, and this needs to be changed,” says Arjen Hoekstra, creator of the water footprint concept. Dr. Hoekstra is a professor at the University of Twente in the Netherlands and scientific director of the Water Footprint Network.

“This is why the concept of a water footprint is useful, to try and show the link between consumption and the creation of those products, and show the consumer’s responsibility for the waste.”

Some surprising statistics: A cup of coffee typically needs more than 140 litres of water to produce. For one kilogram of beef, it’s about 15,150 litres.

Food usually accounts for about 70 per cent of each person’s total footprint, but consumer products, such as jeans, cellphones and eyeshadow, require far more water per purchase. A cotton T-shirt soaks up 2,700 litres of water, a microchip needs 30 litres and a car requires more than 150,000 litres.

Of course, footprints can vary from product to product. Beef from cattle raised on soy will carry a different water footprint than meat from cattle fed on grain, and leather jackets made by different designers will vary from one another, which is why many environmentalists are calling for the development of a standardized label.

Dr. Hoekstra is wary of all the corporate interest in the water footprint: “They are all embracing the concept of the water footprint for the same reason they embraced the carbon footprint – because there is a lot of money to be made, not because they are serious about water conservation,” he says. “There has been a great deal of hype made over carbon footprints, and you will see the same thing happen with the water footprint as it moves up the political agenda.”

In fact, experts say climate change and water scarcity are inextricably linked: Higher temperatures and changing precipitation patterns – along with population growth, deforestation and diversion of water for dams, urbanization and industry – will mean that by 2025, more than two-thirds of the world’s population will have to deal with chronic water shortages, according to the UN World Water Assessment Program.

According to the UN, one-third of the world’s population currently suffers from water scarcity, when less than a decade ago it was thought the world would not reach that point until 2025.

Dr. Hoekstra says he hopes a labelling standard for the water footprint will avoid the mistakes made with carbon footprints, which use language that makes it easy “to confuse people and for vested interests to appear as though they are doing something substantial when it is the least effort they could make.”

For instance, carbon offsets have been fraught with problems: Any individual, company or country can claim to be “carbon-neutral” by purchasing offsets rather than implementing carbon-reducing strategies first. And not all offsets are created equal. They vary widely in quality and impact – investment in renewable-energy projects in developing nations are considered superior to tree-planting schemes, for example.

“Already we are hearing people talk about water offsets – because it’s cheaper to spend the money on some nice project somewhere than on reducing the operation’s actual water footprint,” Dr. Hoekstra says.

Even so, helpful and clear water-footprint labels won’t tell the whole story. Listing the volume of water used to grow an orange doesn’t tell a consumer anything about the agricultural or water systems in the place where it was grown. For example, would an apple grown in rainy British Columbia carry as high an ecological price as one in an irrigated grove in California that piped water in and depleted groundwater sources hundreds of kilometres away?

And water footprints combined with carbon footprints could become even more confusing for harried shoppers: Which is more important?

“You cannot convey all information in a label about water and its complexities in an easy way,” Dr. Hoekstra concedes. So even the creator of the water footprint acknowledges that for consumers, it won’t be easy being blue.