---

Wary of cheap heat
Weekend Yellowknifer - Friday, January 22, 2010

---

It must be awfully tempting right now for city council to jump headlong into a plan to extract heat from Con Mine and distribute it to the downtown core.

The federal government has announced it will contribute a minimum of $10 million towards the geothermal project, which the city now estimates will cost $32 million to build.

The initiative would require downtown buildings to acquire heat exchangers to connect with a network of some 3.7 km of pipes buried underground, which link to an energy centre with boilers and pumps drawing a mixture of water and glycol heated by water pumped from the underground workings at Con Mine.

Owners will be charged a $50,000 connection fee for an average downtown building measuring 5,000 square meters, which a consultant to the city says could be made affordable should the government subsidize the project.

The draft report presented to the city last summer by that consultant, Ottawa firm SAIC Canada, estimates the downtown properties hooked to this system will shave $63.3 million from heating bills over a 40-year period, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 327,000 tonnes.

It's all very impressive but like many capital projects the city has entertained in recent years - and there have been many, and more on the way, including ongoing construction of a $20 million water treatment plant - it will require substantial tax dollars even with federal help. And we all know how good of a job the city has done keeping construction costs under control. Just look at the overruns on the Fieldhouse and the Multiplex arena - fortunately Diavik jumped in to salvage the latter project affordably. The Fieldhouse is currently $1 million over budget.

Similarly, the $32 million price tag for the geothermal project the city is now pointing to was $6 million less in SAIC's draft report from last July.

Geothermal heating systems have been successfully used in many countries over the years, producing 28 billion watts of power around the world.

It could be a good fit for Yellowknife, but council must be mindful of the costs in implementing it, and whether downtown businesses will even support it. There is only so much of a tax base available to support this scheme, and when looking at the number of empty lots in the Engle Business District and Phase VII of Niven Lake, it does not appear to be growing right now.

This is not the time for satisfying idealistic fixations; a strong business case must be made before this project can proceed.

---

Charge on bags effects change
Editorial Comment
Roxanna Thompson
Deh Cho Drum - Thursday, January 21, 2010

---

January 14 was the last day that paper and plastic bags were a free item at grocery store check-out counters.

As of last Friday any shopper who needs something to carry their purchases in has had to shell out 25 cents per bag. The introduction of the environmental fee is part of the territorial government's Waste Reduction and Recovery Program expansion and is intended to reduce litter on the land and in communities.

According to the government, fees for single-use retail bags have consistently worked to reduce consumption of the bags in places that have implemented them.

A week in, it seems most shoppers in Fort Simpson at least are still getting used to the fees. A lot of people have comments about how they have reusable bags at home, but always seem to forget to take them to the store. It's also hard to have your own bag on hand for spur of the moment grocery store visits.

It will be interesting to see if the use of reusable bags increases in the Deh Cho as a result of the fees. Is the loss of 25 cents enough to give people a financial motivation to bring their own bags to the store?

A quarter isn't a lot and doesn't buy many things. On the other hand, if you're doing a major grocery store run the individual bag fees can soon add up. This will be especially true for residents of the Deh Cho's smaller communities who stock up on food items while in the larger centers.

Maybe it won't be the gentle tug on the pocketbook but rather the constant reminder that you're paying for the bags that will change shoppers' habits. If you are asked enough times by a grocery store clerk if you want to purchase bags, it makes you stop and wonder if you should.

Regardless of whether or not the motivating factor is financial or awareness based the environmental fee will be a success if the use of non-reusable bags drops.

The bags are a common litter item. They can often be seen blowing down streets like tumbleweed. Anyone who has participated in a community clean-up can attest to how difficult it is to extract bags from trees and bushes or to pick up all of the plastic pieces when they start to shred on places like river banks.

Fewer purchased bags means fewer eyesores and problems for the environment, and a possible stepping stone towards other greener changes.

As world leaders attend conferences like the one in Copenhagen to try and reach binding agreements for countries to follow, the ongoing message is that positive change can happen - one person at a time.

Using fewer plastic bags is one simple and effective way for people to contribute to a greener, more sustainable future, something that everybody wants.

---

A drop in the bucket
Editorial Comment
Andrew Rankin
Inuvik Drum - Thursday, January 21, 2010

---

I've got nothing against the territorial government's new 25 cent fee on plastic grocery bags, which was implemented on Jan. 15.

Whenever I go to the grocery store I usually take my cloth bag anyway. I don't consider myself an extreme environmentalist or a tree-hugger, I just think it's stupid to put a carton of milk in a bag and then before I know it my place is infested with these things.

But I like having a few around because they're convenient when used as little garbage bags.

The territorial government issued a press release the same day the fee was implemented. In it Michael Miltenberger, our minister of Environment and Natural Resources, talks highly about the purity of this land, referring to it as "beautiful and pristine." Then the release goes on to explain that the 25-cent environmental fee is part of the government's waste reduction and recovery program expansion.

We are assured the money will be put safely in the GNWT's "Environment Fund" to help pay for future waste reduction and recycling programs.

Meanwhile this fee doesn't apply to retail stores such as Home Hardware and NorthMart's retail outlet. I don't get that. Anyway, shouldn't the government be far more concerned about the hundreds of tin cans that are thrown away in Inuvik every day that go directly into the landfill, not to mention the countless other things that should be recycled.

Yes, I've heard the argument that the cost of transporting recyclables south are just too high and having a recycling facility here is out of the question.

Why couldn't the government start something small? I know that when the fruit man Bill Rutherford used to make his way to the Yukon from Inuvik in his tractor trailer, he'd bring with him a shipment of cardboard which would ultimately pay for his fuel down there. Why couldn't the territorial government ask him to do the same thing with tin cans or milk cartons or glass bottles. Ask him to drop the goods off at a recycling depot and give him a little cash for the trouble. He probably wouldn't mind. That would be a start.

The release also says it's the 16th legislative assembly's goal to have an environment that will sustain present and future generations. Maybe so, but I don't see much evidence of that around me. I don't see the territory investing in alternative energy in this town. All I see is a gas-guzzling power plant owned by a corporation that charges its customers five times the cost of electricity most customers to our south are paying.

Sure I agree it's a great idea to finally make a move to get rid of unsightly plastic bags that are a hazard to the environment. I just take issue with the foolish propaganda that the government is trying to feed residents. Let's see some real change that takes some backbone.

---

Minister's hot air
Yellowknifer - Wednesday, January 20, 2010

---

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is no small task. Our governments must have a sound knowledge of viable alternatives to oil and diesel, and a solid idea of costs, volumes, and other figures needed to come up with realistic targets.

Unfortunately Environment Minister Michael Miltenberger proved to be ignorant of such figures recently, when he told the public that the territory could, and should, reduce carbon emissions by 50 per cent. Such a reduction, he said, would be possible simply by supplying the diamond mines with hydro power from an expanded Taltson hydro power plant. The minister backed away from this target last week.

His words may have excited environmentalists but they weren't based in reality.

It turns out that the proposed expansion of the Taltson power plant, and supply of power to the mines would reduce NWT emissions by 15 per cent, not 50. Moreover, an Environment Canada report released last month showed the territory's industrial emissions increased from 2007 to 2008, unlike the two other territories and all but one province - British Columbia.

Decreasing emissions will be a harder task than the GNWT has let on. It could very well be that, contrary to what Miltenberger has said, the territory may not even be able to follow the federal government's target to reduce emissions to 20 per cent of 2006 levels by 2020. Is even that target feasible for a territory that intends to develop further, with the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline seen as the main avenue of development?

Our MLAs must be more realistic and informed when coming up with targets on greenhouse gas reductions.

---

Paying for bags - GNWT program will succeed
Yellowknifer - Wednesday, January 20, 2010

---

The GNWT's grocery bag levy, much like the beverage recycling program launched by the territorial government in 2005, will pay immediate dividends.

Fewer plastic bags means fewer unsightly bags blowing into trees and floating in rivers, plus fewer bags taking up space in landfills. Fewer paper bags means fewer trees need to be cut down to make them.

Now that plastic and paper bags at grocery stores cost 25 cents each, it won't be long before people are as accustomed to bringing cloth reusable bags on shopping trips as they are brushing their teeth in the morning.

There is no downside to this program other than people will have to start buying bags, preferably biodegradable ones, to pick up after their dogs. That hardly registers as a great concern.

In fact, we hope the government doesn't waste any more time imposing the bag levy on all retailers. Why, for example, is Wal-Mart still exempt?

Perhaps we should be thankful that this is one environmental program that didn't require spending thousands of dollars to send MLAs to Europe for useless fact-finding missions. But it would make sense to begin full implementation now.

---

Modern data for sale
Editorial Comment
Darrell Greer
Kivalliq News - Wednesday, January 20, 2010

---

The feelings of many people changed when a number of private emails between prominent scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at England's University of Angelia were leaked by a whistle blower late in 2009.

The leaked emails became known as Climategate after finding their way onto the Internet, and their contents, once again, cast a dark shadow over modern science and the methods used in the never-ending quest to secure funding dollars.

They've also gone a long way in showing why more and more people have lost faith in science.

It was Canadians Stephen McIntyre (a mining executive) and economist Ross McKitrick who first launched a damning attack on the infamous hockey stick graph, which showed global temperatures rising dramatically in the 20th century, and ignited the global warming panic we've all heard so much about.

The graph, once the primary weapon and chief source of evidence in support of global warming, has since faded into near obscurity.

Adding to the hyperbole is the fact a few lead scientists in support of the drastic effects of climate change/global warming (use the term of your choice) tried to sink a number of studies that contradicted their findings.

They were also a tad, shall we say, elusive in providing the full scope (or lack thereof) of their own datagathering techniques.

Sorry, but I know I put those files somewhere, just doesn't cut it.

That's not to mention the CRU threats, from its since suspended director no less, to delete certain files on raw weather data rather than turn them over to outside scrutiny.

Of course, all this came to light after hundreds of millions of dollars were made off public panic and the birth of the carbon credit industry.

You remember that big Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen?

Well, the Sunday Telegraph reported there were more than 1,200 limousines commissioned for the event and well over 100 private jets flew important people in and out.

And please don't forget the daily flights to deliver fish, fruits and vegetables in the name of maximum freshness.

Suddenly my fancy new light bulb has lost a bit of its glow!

As a global society, we should all do what we can to reduce our overall carbon emissions as a matter of common sense.

But much of what we've heard from experts such as Al Gore, and a relatively small group of powerful scientists who bullied those who opposed their views, was aimed at warming something other than the Earth - their bank accounts.

Really, it's the same type of successful public relations campaign that led to a European ban on seal products and the U.S. wanting to ban polar bear products worldwide.

Whether it's Greenland talking about its incredibly large seal population, or Inuit hunters reporting large numbers of polar bears in their regions - it doesn't matter once the giant PR machine has done its job and convinced the masses who simply don't know any better.

And still they wonder why so many have lost their faith in modern science or, in this day and age, the industry of manipulated data for sale.

---

Outfitters must adapt
NWT News/North - Monday, January 18, 2010

---

Whether big game hunting outfitters agree with the government's decision to restrict, and in some areas, ban caribou hunting has essentially become a moot point.

A number of aboriginal groups are either solidly behind the move or are not expressing opposition to it. The Dene and Metis who have been challenging the restrictions are fighting for aboriginal harvesting rights, not for commercial hunts.

So for outfitters to dwell on the past will only ensure their businesses' extinction.

It's undeniable that sport hunting for caribou is big money in the NWT -- contributing approximately $4 million to our economy annually and supplies a handful of jobs for local guides. But, as with any natural resource when not managed properly, supplies run dry. When that happens, the financial ramifications should be outweighed by the environmental concerns.

Policy is in place. Although outfitters do have the democratic right to protest or even sue the government if they believe the GNWT's decision-making is flawed and based on inaccurate information, standing on the soapbox in the meantime will not save their businesses.

Programs have been put in place to assist outfitters in marketing themselves for alternative big-game hunts or eco-tourism ventures.

We also encourage the government to maintain its insurance program that offers compensation to clients who pay deposits to outfitting businesses that may go bankrupt.

It could be argued that those programs alone are not enough, do not offer enough money and will never compensate for government policy that takes away a profitable area of business.

But outfitters cannot blame all their financial woes on the government.

Big-game hunting is becoming a risky business. Growing environmental pressure has eliminated a number of markets for various Northern animals.

The U.S. market for polar bear hunts was destroyed when our southern neighbours banned the imports of polar bear parts. Financial gain among seal hunts has diminished since the European Union banned the import of parts harvested by commercial hunters.

The caribou hunting restrictions are the latest blow to outfitters, but no one can say the writing wasn't on the wall.

For nearly five years, report after report has foreshadowed the need to strengthen caribou management policies. Outfitters were not oblivious to this fact and led a campaign to refute many of those reports knowing they threatened their businesses.

Good business sense should have dictated that while the outfitters fought to save their franchises, they should have also begun strategizing alternative business models.

Ecotourism is not a stable industry, especially with environmental crusaders who don't want anyone to tread on preserved lands, but it is still an industry with much potential, especially in North with its vast amount of untouched wilderness.

It's time the government and the outfitters began working together. The NWT needs money generated by tourism and the jobs provided by businesses such as the outfitters. The outfitters need to find ways to survive and need government support to make the transition.

---

Follow the rules
Nunavut News/North - Monday, January 18, 2010

---

In 2008 Uravan Minerals Inc., a uranium mining company, moved garbage, construction materials and barrels of fuel from its Garry Lake location to a site at Sand Lake for which it had no land-use permit or water licence.

This wasn't discovered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) until August 2009, when an inspector visiting the site found close to 1,000 litres of fuel had leaked onto the tundra from 13 of the barrels. He ordered the company to clean up the site by Sept. 30, 2009, but Uravan has applied for and received an extension to May 2010.

Uravan's CEO Larry Lahusen acknowledged the violation of regulations in an e-mail to INAC but stated it was done without "malicious or flagrant intent." No charges have been laid and no fines have been imposed.

It can be argued that Nunavut's regulatory regime is slow and complex, making it difficult for mining companies to attain all the required paperwork while still developing their projects in a timely and cost-effective manner. Balancing the demands of investors versus the demands of land claim beneficiaries is certainly a tricky magic act.

However, polluting land without even having permission to be there is not the way to foster a good working relationship with Nunavummiut.

Furthermore, the ability of a company to pollute land without having permission to be there and yet not be charged or fined by INAC sends other mining firms the message that this is an acceptable way of doing business in the North, which it is not.

If this business can ignore the rules, and regulatory bodies fail to censure it properly, what confidence can Nunavummiut have that land, water and wildlife will be protected in the face of increased mineral exploration?

It's incumbent on companies keen to harness Nunavut's mineral resources to prove they will respect the land and its people, and that means following the rules.

Careless actions such as Uravan's will make it difficult for other companies to gain the trust of Nunavummiut, but not impossible. We must pay close attention to mining activities and stay informed about potential projects by attending the many public forums companies hold as part of the regulatory process. After all, we have the most at stake in what projects are approved and how they are carried out.