• (Posted on behalf of the Taymouth Community Association)

    A Response to the New Brunswick Government’s White Paper on Recommendations
    To Govern the Development of Shale Gas From The Taymouth Community Association
    (Page 1 of 11)

    Forward
    We wish to make it clear at the start that we do not believe any regulation or current technology can make shale gas and oil extraction safe enough to justify its presence in New Brunswick, or elsewhere. Public consultation on the issue of shale gas extraction is critical, as the risks to health and economic and political well being touch every New Brunswicker.
    "We ask you to recognize us as the serious
    and intelligent citizens we are"
    Rural New Brunswickers who are careful observers of their surroundings provide useful perspectives on environmental health.Our proximity to Fredericton’s universities, government offices and scientific businesses means that we count among our residents highly qualified researchers in all the areas relevant to the issue of shale gas, including geologists, ecologists, hydrologists and more. Many, of course, have labored for us in anonymity, because of their fear that their jobs or businesses may suffer retribution.
    Our views have sometimes been characterized as mere ‘emotional’ responses. It is not the word ‘emotional’ that offends us, since one would be a fool not to have an emotional response to threats to one’s health, family, and way of life. It is the ‘mere’ part that is troubling our multigenerational experience with local land and water issues and the countless hours spent researching this issue by those of us with academic training. We ask you to recognize us as the serious and intelligent citizens we are. [...]

     
  • IMPORTANT: Please E-mail Your MLA To Release Dr. Cleary's Health Study On Shale Gas

    It has been learned that the NB Chief Medical Officer's health report on shale gas has been ready for about a week. The government appears to be delaying its release.

    Please find below the draft text of an e-mail YOU can send to your MLA!

     

    MLA email addresses at this link: http://www1.gnb.ca/legis/bios1/index-e.asp

    Members of the 57th Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick 

    (listed by riding in numerical order and e-mail address)

    Please forward wide and far to your friends.

     

    Thank you for your action!

     

    Contacts

    Mark D'Arcy Email markandcaroline@gmail.com 

     

    Terry Wishart Email t.wishart@banfrackingnb.ca

      

    ******************************************************************************************

    E-MAIL ADDRESSES OF YOUR MLA CAN BE FOUND HERE:

     

    http://www1.gnb.ca/legis/bios1/index-e.asp

     

    Members of the 57th Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick

     

    (listed by riding in numerical order + e-mail address)

     

     

    Dear _______________, MLA

      

    RE:  An Open Letter to MLAs for the Immediate Release of the Complete Health Study on Shale Gas Sector

      

    I just learned that the Health Study on Shale Gas has been completed by Dr. Eilish Cleary, the chief medical officer of health in New Brunswick.  It is my understanding that Dr. Cleary submitted her report to the Alward government about one week ago, and that the report was scheduled to be released in September 2012.

     

    The health implications of introducing shale gas development in this province is one of the most important issues facing New Brunswickers today.  I respectfully request the following:

     

    1.  The Alward government should take care to release the report immediately and to neither delay nor censor it.

     

    2.  The MLAs hold meaningful public consultation on whether to allow or disallow shale gas development in New Brunswick. This consultation should start with legislative hearings, and later include public meetings on the government's final recommendations.

     

    It will be very troubling to our democracy if either of these two steps is not forthcoming.

     

     

     

    All discussion and decisions on shale gas regulations are premature.  

     

     

     

    It is my understanding that the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Eilish Cleary, has developed recommendations on the shale gas industry "at preventing or mitigating potential adverse public health effects associated with the industry".

    In the CBC interview with Dr. Cleary (see reference below), she explained that the health study would document how the industry could impact human health, how to mitigate or prevent the risks, as well as how to measure the actual impact of the industry on the health of New Brunswickers if the shale gas industry was to proceed in this province.

    Dr. Cleary said she would make recommendations in each of the following 4 areas: (1) Physical risks; (2) Risks to the community and mental health; (3) Risks from exposure to environmental sources; and (4) Risks to the long-term health of the population.

     

    Furthermore, the public has not yet been consulted on whether or not the province should move forward with shale gas exploration and fracking. Dr. Louis LaPierre publicly admitted, at the shale gas regulations meeting in Norton, NB on July 04, 2012, that the mandate given to him by your government did not include the ability to recommend a moratorium or ban on shale gas development. 

     

    Lastly, during a speech delivered in Moncton last October, Premier David Alward advised that Members of the Legislative Assembly would be organizing town hall and information meetings later that month “to hear directly from their constituents on this important issue."

     

    We have a right to know and to be properly consulted. 

     

    I look forward to an honest and open discussion of all the health, environmental, and economic implications of shale gas development in New Brunswick. 

     

    Sincerely yours,

    [YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION HERE]

    cc:  Premier David Alward

     

    Minister Responsible for Citizen Engagement

     

    Province of New Brunswick

     

    E-mail: david.alward@gnb.ca

     

     

    References:

     

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2012/05/21/nb-shale-gas-health-study-445.html

     

    Health study may examine impact of shale gas sector

     

    Chief medical officer will issue recommendations in the summer - CBC News May 22, 2012

     

    Premier David Alward, October 3, 2011 - Speech to Moncton Rotary Club, Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise Greater Moncton

  • Biologist Rod Cumberland sent this letter to all members of the NB Legislative Assembly

    Dear NBMLA:

    I have just reviewed the 323 page Health Canada re-assessment of glyphosate. It was due in 2014 but was completed April 13, 2015.

    Rather than simply take whatever comes out of this process at face value, I believe you need to be informed of the pitfalls of this present review.

    It is VERY evident that there are huge problems with this process and I would like to make you aware of them before we blindly assume that this review is unbiased and "scientific". Please allow me to elaborate on my two main shortfalls of this review:

    First - There is an obvious lack of relevant research; and
    (Without recent and relevant research that CLEARLY reveals numerous health and wildlife hazards associated with glyphosate, the assumptions that it is safe are erroneous).

    Second - the inclusion of the economic and social benefits of glyphosate.
    This document presumes to use “a science-based approach”, therefore this is no place for economic and social benefits that have little relevance when considering the science behind the impacts and safety of a compound to human health.
    The shortcomings of this review are as follows:

    1. The Health Canada review of glyphosate has not considered the actual product sprayed and used across Canada with the adjuvants and emulsifiers that make it the effective product it is – If glyphosate was used by itself for the benefits purported in both agriculture and forest based applications, then a review considering the impacts of glyphosate alone may be appropriate. However, the effectiveness of this compound is only possible in formulation. It is therefore the FORMULATION that must be considered in the review of glyphosate because indeed, this is what is sprayed across the country, not glyphosate alone.

    2. This review has not included volumes of recent worldwide literature that reveals huge issues with glyphosate in formulation. In any scientific review, literature review or published paper, the strength of the paper is only as relevant as the research upon which it is based. In other words, using outdated and short-term studies on a compound that has been continually modified and that has long term consequences is either knowingly biasing the process and results, or worse, pleading ignorance to the advancement of science and emerging research. Neither is appropriate in this re-evaluation and this process relies on outdated, short-term research when long term and relevant research is readily available that shows markedly different results than they report.

    For example, 78% of all industry-supplied research is between 10 and 40 years outdated. Further, the majority of these (a full 80%) are more than 15 years removed from currently published material. I forwarded (and have appended here) over 30 papers published within the past 10 years on glyphosate and glyphosate formulations that suggest markedly different results and reveal glyphosate and its formulations are the cause of many modern human diseases, are carcinogenic and are the cause of cell malformations in numerous types of human and animal cells, but most problematic are its problems associated with gastrointestinal systems and reproductive cells specifically. And the review doesn’t even begin to address all the relevant research on GMO’s and their problems.

    Discouragingly, but likely explanatory to the present proposed conclusion is that a mere 9% of the papers used in the review are recent publications. I do not understand on such a controversial topic as glyphosate use and it’s proven health concerns why more effort was not expended to find current research from around the globe to give a much better review of this chemical. It would definitely impact this assessment. This very biased approach is clearly covered in Antoniou et.al 2012.

    I would also like to comment on several specific concerns within the document:

    a) On page 3 it states that “pesticides are registered for use in Canada only if the level of exposure does not cause any harmful effects”. Therefore, if there is current research that DOES show harmful effects, particularly of a chemical in the state it is sprayed in throughout the country, by their own admission it MUST NOT recommend it for use. I contend that the attached research is clear evidence that the decision must be reversed.

    b) Glyphosate formulations pose negligible risk to freshwater fish and amphibians. This conclusion has been proven incorrect by modern research (Annett et.al 2014, Vera et.al 2010). It shows harmful effects and would invoke a nation-wide ban on the use of glyphosate.

    c) Under 3.1 it is stated that studies were available to satisfy data requirements, yet it is not specified what these requirements are, nor what studies are applicable, when they were done, etc. to justify these statement. This is poor science and format for a review document with the intent of public review, unless of course the intent is to limit the amount of intelligent and scientific comment.

    d) Cardiovascular malformations are mentioned on page 14 as serious side effects in one study (again, no specifics) but regardless, how can it be concluded that glyphosate is safe? Once again, these results disagree with the suggestion that glyphosate “does not cause harmful effects” and would rather corroborate modern research linking glyphosate and its formulations to a huge list of environmental, human and wildlife ill effects (research attached).

    e) Dietary exposure can be mitigated by changes in use patterns. This begs two questions – if there are no harmful effects, why suggest mitigation? Next, mitigation is suggested, this implies harmful effects. More Problems are that this document does not suggest how these mitigative steps will be enforced to ensure compliance. Therefore, it is a hollow recommendation that affords NO protection of health.

    f) On page 29 “major incidents of human exposure” are reported, however, no qualification is provided for the word “major”. Further, these exposures to “Highly toxic ingredients” or the adjuvants and emulsifiers I suggest MUST be considered. This again highlights that some of their research, along with most modern research, that glyphosate in formulation is HIGHLY TOXIC. Back to point 1 – how can such a review conclude glyphosate does not cause harmful effects unless on the grounds of semantics by separating glyphosate from its formulations, a formulation that is rarely used commercially??

    g) On page 30 they reference common incidents in wild animals where these formulations cause death in wildlife. Once again, totally contradicting statements and research that suggests this assessment is incorrect and will jeopardize human, wildlife and environmental health and safety. How could a toxic substance causing death NOT warrant changes in labels at the least, or more responsibly a ban on the product?

    h) The statement “Glyphosate is rarely detected in drinking water” proves the weakness and ignorance of the process and data. I include papers that show glyphosate, even at residual levels, shows up in soil, water, human urine, cattle tissue, other cells, etc. Therefore, based on modern research the present suggested evaluation must be reconsidered in light of science.

    i) You assume “risk to mammals is low”. Again, research from Montana, Australia, Denmark, Germany and Egypt directly linked malformations in ungulates to the mineral chelating effect that glyphosate has and the resulting mineral deficiencies in their food and systems from the use of glyphosate; More erroneous data, more erroneous conclusions.

    j) This review states there is no reproductive risk to glyphosate. Current research again proves this point outdated and erroneous (see attached research).

    k) This review states glyphosate has no effect on fish. The appended research proves that herbicides are endocrine disruptors (which glyphosate is) and federal research scientists have proven they cause many problems in fish including high at-sea mortality.

    l) Quite disturbing is the assertion on page 42 that one of the benefits of glyphosate is its ability to be more effective when combined with other chemicals. It is hypocritical to in one breath dismiss the impacts of glyphosate in formation because only the compound glyphosate is being reviewed, yet when it’s convenient, this very argument is used to weigh the scales in favour of the compound.

    m) The wordsmithing in the section referencing OECD countries not prohibiting ALL uses of glyphosate is correct only grammatically. For the record, there are municipalities within Canada, Provinces within Canada and many countries that have prohibited the use of glyphosate (Columbia and Holland in the past few weeks) due to the health hazards and risks you purport are not present. Interesting play on words, but in no way reflects reality and concerns around this compound. Statements like these drip with bias, and ignorance – whether purposeful or not – to current research.

    n) Maximum levels in foods – this raises another point that MUST be considered by Health Canada. In light of emerging research and glyphosates link to modern disease, it is Health Canada’s responsibility to request labels on all foods that have been sprayed at one point or another in the growth process by glyphosate so the public can protect themselves from ingestion of this substance. If the use of this toxic chemical is not revoked, at the very least there must be a means by which the public can make informed decisions on the purchase of these contaminated foods.

    o) If the only change from Health Canada’s former review of glyphosate is several labeling changes, how does Health Canada ensure these label instructions are followed? What are the penalties for failure to heed them? Once again, this is a broken system and in NO WAY protects the health and welfare of humans, wildlife or the environment. These are serious deficiencies in this review and therefore, we cannot be expected to take this re-evaluation seriously.

    In closing, I was very disappointed with this re-assessment. This appears another bureaucratic process that only provides lip service and opportunity for input just to say it was done. I would hope and expect that the elected politicians of New Brunswick would take these comments seriously and ensure such a biased and ill-informed review in light of applicable and relevant literature of glyphosate’s great risk to public health, wildlife health and the environment would step up and demand a more rigorous approach.

    If NB companies, or the BNBDNR, NBAFA or other NB departments stand behind this biased and flawed review, you will be knowingly allowing the poisoning of New Brunswickers.

    In all sincerity,
    Rod E. Cumberland, CWB

  • "We've made a list and we're checking it twice"


    This campaign is to encourage people all across this province to e-mail and/or phone several MLAs and ask them to speak up publicly for Dr. Eilish Cleary to be reinstated.   People and groups are also encouraged to meet with their local MLA and ask them to speak up publicly to reinstate Dr. Cleary.  You can post on Facebookand Twitter (#BringBackCleary) the response from your MLA, whether positive or negative.    

    Campaign organizing groups (see sidebar) will be watching for MLAs who speak in public or release press statements that ask to reinstate Dr. Cleary.  The MLA Checklist (download below) will keep track of these MLAs and be regularly updated on this website.

    "Oh Cleary tree, oh Cleary tree."
    Cleary wreath2

    The campaign is calling for people across this province to decorate trees, wreaths, and other visible objects in your house and your community with the message "Bring Dr. Cleary Back for the Holidays". Have fun with it and use your imagination!
    • Use small recipe cards with the message written on it and affixed with a red or green ribbon
    • Tag your favourite natural wonder (e.g. forest, stream, river, wetland, bay) with objects that include the message "Bring Dr. Cleary Back for the Holidays"
    • Use aluminum foil to fashion small stethoscopes for decorations

    Then take a picture and post on Facebook and Twitter (#BringBackCleary) which will encourage others to do it in their community or favourite natural wonder. 


    Use the "Cleary cards" (download from below and print). 
    • Fill these out with your location, tie them up with a piece of green or red ribbon on a tree, wreath, community location, or favourite habitat and take a picture of it to post on Facebookor Twitter (#BringBackCleary)
    • Fill one out for your favourite animal, fish, bird, or tree that is threatened by our widespread clearcutting and spraying programs.  For example, "Doe Ramey" from "Durham, New Brunswick." 
    Have fun with it!

    FACEBOOK PAGE:  Reinstate Dr. Eilish Cleary
    HASHTAG:  #BringBackCleary

    Downloadable MLA check list and Cleary cards

  • If fracking for unconventional oil and gas is allowed to go ahead in this province, the health of children, adults, animals and the environment will be negatively impacted.
  • How many of our young children have been diagnosed with respiratory problems and how many more will follow if we don't put a stop to this poisonous environment? Toxins today lie in the water, in the air and in our foods. The time is long overdue to put government in its place which is so far down the ladder of priorities when it comes to the health of our innocent.
  • This is a timely and essential document that should help ensure the health of children and I support it strongly.
  • Good work!
  • Very well done.
  • I support this movement and draft proposal by the NBCEH Health Bill of Rights.
  • GROS MERCI! À toute l'équipe de travail pour cette importante initiative.
  • We sooooooooooo need this. Keep up the wonderful work!
  • We need to STOP Shale Gas to protect children now and in the future!!
  • We've needed this for a long long time. Thank you!
  • The forecast is dire — but the solutions we need to slow climate change will make us happier and healthier

    Flood 2019

    The sky is clear and the sun is punishing.

    A thick layer of ozone ripples above the pavement. No matter how much water you drink, you know you’re losing more through your pores whether you’re moving or not.

    And for a lot of New Brunswickers, a province with more folks over 65 years of age than any other province, activity is out of the question.

    It’s the fourth 30+ degree day in a row. You’re restless. Exhausted, despite having been shuttered inside, blinds drawn, melting in your chair, since the heat wave hit.

    You’ve weathered these days before, over the years. But never in such succession. Never so persistent.

    You feel depressed as you realize that there are fewer and fewer of those beautiful, tepid, liberating New Brunswick summer days, and it’s not going to get any better. 

    This is just life now.

    An (un)real scenario 

    But it doesn’t have to be this way. The scenario described above is a science-based snapshot of where life is headed in New Brunswick if governments, businesses and industries don’t take serious action to limit carbon pollution causing the climate crisis we’re already experiencing.

    How bad will it get? What will it mean for everyday life in New Brunswick? Who will suffer the most? Can we do anything about it?

    Healthy Climate Healthy New Brunswickers 1 1These questions are tackled in the Conservation Council’s new report from Dr. Louise Comeau,
    Healthy Climate, Healthy New Brunswickers: A proposal for New Brunswick that cuts pollution and protects health, released today (June 25).

    A spoiler for you: there is hope. There are concrete actions we can take to change the stark forecast described above and in the report. 

    But first, a look at what scientific research and health data in New Brunswick predicts about life in the picture province between 2021-2050.

    The bad news

    You may not think climate change is a public health issue. With the overwhelming focus on environmental degradation, species loss, and damage to public and private infrastructure, you could be forgiven. But when we combine existing research from sources such as the Canada Climate Atlas and New Brunswick Health Council’s community health profiles, among others, we get a sobering story indeed.

    This is what Dr. Comeau does in our report, the first comprehensive look at how climate change will affect the physical and mental health of all New Brunswickers, but particularly the very young, seniors, the isolated, and those living on low incomes.

    In the report, Dr, Comeau combines climate projections and existing community health profiles for 16 New Brunswick communities, including the Edmundston, Campbellton, Dalhousie, Bathurst, Caraquet, Miramichi, Moncton, Sackville, Sussex, Oromocto, Fredericton, Minto, Woodstock, Grand Falls, St. Stephen, and Saint John areas. 

    CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NB FREDERICTON FLOODING 19 of 34 720x480
    How’s the weather out there?

    New Brunswickers aren’t used to hot, 30+ degree days, let alone long stretches of them. But that’s what the data says is coming in the immediate- to medium-term.

    Comeau’s analysis shows that each of the communities listed above will experience between 122 to 300 per cent more 30+ degree days in the summer over the next 30 years if we don’t come together to eliminate the heat-trapping pollution causing global heating.

    Fredericton, for example, can expect at least 20 of these scorching days a summer, compared to the 1976-2005 average of eight — up 150 per cent. 

    Bathurst could experience at least 14 hot days by 2021 to 2050, up from an average of six. The Miramichi and Minto regions will have 20 scorchers, Oromocto will have 21 (up from 9), Woodstock will have 15 (up from six), St. Stephen will have 11 (up from 4) and the Sussex area will have 12 (up from 4), to name a few.

    This is a big departure from what is normal. Temperature influences natural cycles, our lifestyles and our physical and mental health. 

    We know heat waves, for example, can cause death in the elderly or sick as seen in recent years inEurope, theUnited States andQuébec. And then there’s the reality of hotter conditions exacerbating existing health conditions, or helping to cause them.

    Health researchers from around the world find that climatic changes affect and contribute to cardiovascular disease and respiratory conditions (more air pollution, greater frequency of and more extreme forest fires, droughts and dust storms), allergic reactions (especially ragweed), cancer, traumatic injuries, vector-borne illnesses (from disease-carrying insects; think black-legged ticks), food and water-borne illnesses (contaminated water, prime conditions for bacterial growth), malnutrition, and mental health (being displaced from your home, grief from losing cherished possessions and property, and extreme weather-induced stress, anxiety and depression). 

    More frost-free days — but don’t get excited yet

    Comeau’s analysis shows higher average temperatures, especially in spring and winter, increase the number of frost-free days per year. In New Brunswick, that means between 19-22 more frost-free days a year between 2021-2050, compared to the 1976-2005 average.

    But don’t get excited yet.

    Ice storm report shareable 2 1 718x480

    Warmer temperatures increase the risk of exposure to ticks carrying Lyme disease and pave the road for the expansion and establishment of othertick species and diseases. We’re seeing this already, especially in southern New Brunswick.  In 2017, there were 29 confirmed cases of Lyme disease in the province, up from eight cases reported the year before. 

    More intense rainfall events, more extreme floods

    Increases in temperature means more precipitation is forecast for New Brunswick in the coming decades. That’s because warmer air holds more moisture. Scientists calculate that for every one degree Celsius increase in temperature, the atmosphere can hold seven per cent more water. 

    What does this mean? Comeau’s analysis shows we are likely to experience less frequent but much more intense precipitation events, increasing the annual total volume of precipitation across the entire province.

    This will mean more intense rainfall, more snow, and increases tosnow depth — adding to spring freshet worries and flood risk.  It also means more freezing rain causing winter flooding and ice jams, and ice-on-snow cover making walking dangerous, especially for seniors.

    ArmyFlood4 737x480

    New Brunswick experienced record-breaking floods along the Wolastoq (St. John) River in 2018 and 2019, partly caused by above average snowpack and rain (at least partly due to our changing climate). There are, of course, other factors, such as land-and-forest use, and poor development planning in flood plains that, combined with natural variability and super-charging by climate change, increases the probability of extreme events, including flooding.

    Projections show we’re likely to see the amount of rain falling in spring increase seven to nine per cent in the immediate to medium-term, with the amount of snow, rain and freezing rain in winter increasing eight to 11 per cent (with the higher amounts in northern communities).

    Recently, University of Moncton hydrologistNassir El-Jabi told CBC he estimates frequent but minor floods could see water levels increase 30 to 55 per cent by 2100 in New Brunswick, and extreme floods like those in 2018 and 2019 could be 21 per cent bigger by 2100. 

    As Comeau writes in our report, “It is getting hotter, wetter, extreme, and less safe because greenhouse gas levels are not where they need to be and we are not changing the way we do things.”

    Feeling down and out

    We know young children and adults are increasingly anxious about climate change, as demonstrated by the global School Strike for Climate movement started by 16-year-old Greta Thunberg from Sweden. This winter and spring students in Fredericton, Moncton, Campbellton, Edmundston, Saint John and Sackvillejoined the movement, walking out of school to protest government and industry inaction on climate change.

    Mental health professionals are increasingly worried about the psychological effects of climate change. Research shows climate change effects such as flooding and extended power outages can undermine well-being and cause ecoanxiety, a “chronic fear of environmental doom.” 

    Beyond the immediate stress and anxiety of disasters fueled by climate change, the chronic mental health affects these events bring about is even more frightening.

    According to the American Psychology Association, these effects include post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, suicide, substance misuse, strained social relationships, aggression, violence, and feelings of helplessness, fear and fatalism — just to name a few.

    CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NB FREDERICTON FLOODING 1 of 34 720x480

    What’s this all mean?

    If you are a senior or single parent living on low income, in an under-insulated home with no air conditioning, you are more at risk from extreme heat and extreme weather events. You might not have a vehicle to leave home, or you may have fewer social contacts to reach out to if the power goes out.  

    A senior woman living alone on a low income, with one or more chronic health issues, and who has few social contacts is especially vulnerable to the mental and physical health effects of extreme events made worse by climate change. 

    A person with asthma is more at risk from hotter days and more smog (heart and lung-damaging ground-level ozone).

    New Brunswick generally has low levels of smog-related pollution. Communities like Saint John, Belledune and Edmundston, however, that house industrial operations (pulp and paper, coal-fired power, lead smelting, and oil refining), experience close to maximum levels for fine particulate matter and higher levels of smog.

    Katie Hayes, a leading researcher focused on the mental health effects of climate change, points out in herrecent paper that the mental health effects of climate change are accelerating, “resulting in a number of direct, indirect and overarching effects that disproportionately affect those who are most marginalized.”

    The good news — a better scenario 

    The sky is clear and the sun is punishing.

    The mercury has breached 30 degrees, and you remember, 20-odd years ago, reading about the dire forecast that these days would become more and more the norm. You’re grateful that action, from communities to the highest levels of government and industry, didn’t let things get that bad.

    All the same, on this day, you’re choosing to stay inside. You just can’t handle the heat like you could in your younger years.

    But it’s beautiful. Specialized doors and windows, combined with a super-insulated attic, basement and walls, means you are comfortable no matter how hot or cold it gets outside.

    You catch the glint of sunshine from the windshield of your electric car parked in the driveway. It’s charging from your rooftop solar panels and sleek battery bank on the wall, hidden by a painting from your favourite local artist.

    EcoTour2019 solar farm 2 Liane 768x409
    Even if you need more power than your panels and bank provide, you rest easy knowing it’s coming from a public utility powered entirely by renewable energy sources.

    The coal-and-gas-fired power plants of yesteryear have long been shuttered, their workers enjoying a new gig in booming cleaner energy and technology sectors.

    You hardly even think about air quality, not like you used to, then living next to Canada’s largest oil refinery in Saint John. 

    Cancer rates are down across the board, including places like the Port City, Edmundston and Belledune, once dogged by heavy, polluting industries.

    You get up, head to the kitchen, and make a sandwich for lunch from vegetables grown just one block away, at one of several community gardens dotting the landscape.

    You smile. This is just life now.

    A new way on

    There is no way around it — our lives depend on energy and always will. But we can control whether this energy comes from sources that pollute our climate and negatively affect our health, like coal, oil and gas, or sources that offer a much better balance with what our planet can sustain. This is a choice we can make. 

    Today, it’s a choice we must demand.

    IMG 20190315 133914 768x576
    The Conservation Council’s climate change and health report, along with our climate action plan released in 2016, provide a blueprint for achieving the healthier, happier scenario described in the section above. 

    Slowing climate change will in turn fix so many social, environmental, health and labour problems that we can’t just look at it as a crisis — but as a tremendous opportunity to get things right. 

    Yes, the science-based projections are dire. 

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we’ve got about 10 years to get serious about solving the problems of climate change. And, even then, we’ll still be dealing with some of the effects.

    But we can get it right, we can limit the suffering. We must not despair, and we must not be discouraged. 

    So what can you do right now?

    Talk about climate change. Read the recommendations in Dr. Comeau’s report and share them with everyone you know. 

    IMG 9078 600x800

    By all means, do what you can in your home, life and workspace to limit the carbon pollution you add to the atmosphere. But the changes we have to make are bigger than better insulation and energy efficient appliances. 

    Dr. Comeau’s report encourages everyone interested in protecting public health from the immediate and looming effects of climate change to speak out and demand action from politicians, businesses, and industry. 

    There is a better way forward. It’s going to be hard work, but together, we can get there. 

    ClimateLetterWideBanner.sml 768x402
    Click here to send your #climateaction letter

    Recommended links:

  • NBASGA supports Dr. Eilish Cleary and calls for her reinstatement
    Public Health needs autonomy and New Brunswicker’s need a voice they can trust

    MONCTON, NB (3 December 2013) - The New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance is greatly disturbed with recent news reports speculating that Dr. Eilish Cleary’s leave of absence may be related to her work.

    Yesterday, social media erupted with support and indignation when the story became public, and people immediately rushed to her defense, calling for her reinstatement.

    Dr. Cleary has won tremendous respect of the people of New Brunswick, who hold her in high standing for her honesty, forthrightness and integrity. And rightfully so.

    She has clearly proven herself as a dedicated doctor fulfilling the role of a true health officer, regardless of political influences.

    Dr. Cleary’s award-winning 2012 report on the health impacts of shale gas development was balanced and unbiased, her conclusions based on careful research and science. As a result of this, and her subsequent actions, she is held in high esteem among the citizenry, who appreciate her outspokenness in contrast to the undemocratic actions of the previous government, which attempted to hold back the report’s release.

    The enthusiastic response from her colleagues, the requests to have her speak on the subject - nationally and internationally - are evidence of the esteem she garnered in her field.

    She was awarded the Queens Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2013 for her services to the people of Canada and earlier this summer honoured with the Dr. Donald Morgan Service Award from the New Brunswick Medical Society. The award recognizes and celebrates the contribution made in education, research, health promotion or humanitarian service.

    The esteem with which she is recognized by her colleagues is articulated in this video with Dr. Cristin Muecke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiU29UvWds4

    And just weeks before her forced leave of absence, she was further recognized with a Paul Harris Fellowship by the Rotary Clubs of Fredericton for her positive impact.

    Dr. Cleary’s selfless and courageous travel to Africa during the Ebola crisis cast a warm light on all of New Brunswick; we were touched by her compassion and proud that ‘our’ CMHO was on the front lines helping others.

    Dr. Cleary’s demonstrated professionalism has elevated the entire office of the CHMO, and the hard work that is accomplished under her leadership has earned wide-spread respect. When public health is impacted, this is a department that needs autonomy and a strong voice that people trust.

    We were relieved that public health impacts were mentioned in the premier’s five conditions for lifting the moratorium and that she provided input during the recent interviews conducted by the Hydraulic Fracturing Commission.

    That people now fear her forced leave of absence is a pre-emptive strike - one that serves multiple interests - is clear evidence of the deep and growing distrust citizens have in the political processes of successive governments that have favoured industry needs above those of the populace. When public health and environmental protection are given precedence, it impacts industry’s bottom line.

    This rush of support, perhaps, is the subtext of the story: The way to win the hearts and loyalty of the people of New Brunswick is with consistently demonstrated acts of courage, openness, honesty, integrity and high ethical and moral standards.

    It would seem evident that those in government can take a lesson from this and we hold out hope this government will rise to that challenge.

    But we ultimately call for this issue to be quickly concluded in-house without further delay, and Dr. Cleary be placed back in her office, again serving her patients – the people of New Brunswick.

    Respectfully,

    The New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance Website: www.noshalegasnb.ca
    Email: shaleinfo.nb@gmail.com

    About NBASGA

    The New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance represents the interests of New Brunswickers opposed to unconventional gas and oil exploration and development, while promoting a future in clean energy alternatives.
  • For Immediate Release

     

    LaPierre’s report is opinion, not science

    Dr. Louis LaPierre’s report on public feedback about the New Brunswick government’s shale gas industry proposals was released on October 15th, and is already attracting comments and criticisms. A retired biologist, LaPierre was commissioned by the provincial government to hold public meetings and gather public reaction concerning the government’s 116 recommendations for regulating a potential shale gas industry. In his report, Dr. Lapierre wrote that there were few comments about the government’s regulations at those meetings. Instead, the public spoke mostly about matters concerning the environment, health, water, and so on. In the concluding remarks of his report, Dr. LaPierre makes recommendations about a moratorium, a phased-approach to development, and outlines a structure for managing gas distribution.

    Today, 18 community groups supported a statement suggesting that LaPierre’s recommendations and conclusions were based on opinion, not science.

    Dr. Jean Louis Deveau, a social scientist with the Fredericton Chapter of the Council of Canadians, says that while LaPierre’s report appears to contain a fairly accurate representation of the concerns expressed at the public meetings, the report’s conclusions and recommendations are unfounded.

    “Dr. LaPierre was directed to report on people’s concerns about the government’s recommendations for regulating the industry,” Deveau explains.

    “People spoke and wrote to him. Those words and textual submissions were his data. In a proper scientific analysis, his conclusions should have been derived from the actual data he received and might have read something like this: ’New Brunswickers were faced with too many unknowns about the shale gas industry to be in a position to provide meaningful input on the government’s recommendations for regulating the industry. Therefore, they chose to voice their concerns about water, the environment, health, and so on.’ However, instead of linking his conclusions to those data, Dr. LaPierre chose to debate the pros and cons of a moratorium, a phased approach to industry development, and a management structure for a future shale gas industry in New Brunswick. In short, there is nothing in his data to support any of those concluding remarks.”

    Deveau suggests that LaPierre has actually failed to follow the science-based approach advocated in his own report and that his report amounts to little more than an opinion piece.

    Conservation Council of New Brunswick—Stephanie Merrill

    Council of Canadians, Fredericton Chapter—Jean Louis Deveau

    Council of Canadians, Saint John Chapter—Carol Ring

    Darlings Island Fracking Intervention Naguwigewauk—Doug Foster

    Friends of UNB Woodlot—Mark D’Arcy

    Hampton Water First—Chris Rendell

    Harvey Environmental Action—Terry Wishart

    Memramcook Action—Patricia Leger

    Maliseet Grand Council—Alma Brooks

    New Brunswickers Against Fracking—Stan Donovan

    Our Environment, Our Choice—Mike McKinley

    Parents Against Everyday Poisons—Michael Stoneleigh

    Penniac Anti-Shale Gas Organization--Eric Hadley

    Quality of Life Initiative—Otty Forgrave

    Tantramar Alliance—Marilyn Lerch

    Upriver Environment Watch—Ann Pohl

    Upper Miramichi Stewardship Alliance—Brad Wood

    Water and Environmental Protection for Albert County—Deborah Carr

  • This is a critical step in establishing a healthy environment for today’s children and for children to come. Congratulations and thank you to everyone who worked on this!
  • Our children are our future... we need to keep them healthy!
  • Letterhead.png 

    PRESS RELEASE

    Swim Guide launches third version of water quality app

    July 6, 2017


    (FREDERICTON) -- Getting ready for beach time in New Brunswick? Before you go, download the brand-new version of the Swim Guide app.

    With over a million users worldwide, the popular (and free!) application gives beachgoers access to the latest water quality monitoring results for their favourite beaches, along with descriptions, photos, and directions.

    New in 2017

    The 2017 update means Swim Guide is now available in French, English and Spanish. It includes information for over 7,000 beaches in Canada, the United States, Mexico and New Zealand, and has individual entries for over two dozen New Brunswick beaches.

    What’s in it and Why is it Helpful?

    Swim Guide lets people browse the map or search for a beach by name.  Each beach has a description that list amenities, informs you about lifeguards, provides tips about where to park and other valuable information.

    If you don’t know your way to the beach, don’t worry, the app also provides directions whether you’re walking, cycling, driving, or taking transit.

    Using Swim Guide

    Every beach in Swim Guide is marked with an icon that easily lets you know if the water quality is safe for swimming.
    • Green means the beach’s most recent test results met relevant water quality standards.
    • Red means the beach’s most recent test results failed to meet water quality standards.
    • Grey means water quality information for the beach is too old (more than 7 days old) to be considered current, or that info is unavailable, or unreliable.
    The water quality data for NB destinations comes from the Department of Environment and Local Government’s website, and is uploaded to Swim Guide by the Conservation Council. Each beach has a “Source” section which details how the data was obtained.

    Quotes

    “Since launching Swim Guide in 2011 our goal has been to make water quality information simple to access and easy to understand, for as many people as possible. In addition to improving the search, design, and data presentation with this latest version of the iOS app, we are incredibly proud to be able to provide this service in multiple languages so that even more beach lovers can easily find all of the information they need to have a great day on the water.” - Mark Mattson, President, Swim Drink Fish Canada 

    “The new Swim Guide is timely and evidence-based. We hope NB citizens and visitors love it as much as we do. Its clear information about when and where our beaches are monitored will also help us identify sources of water pollution so that together we can act to protect healthy waters and sustainable communities.” Lois Corbett, Executive Director, Conservation Council of New Brunswick

    About Swim Guide

    Swim Guide was developed by Swim Drink Fish Canada (previously a project of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper), a non-profit organization based in Toronto, with the goal to ensure that 100 per cent of Canadians have access to basic data about the health of their watersheds. The group just released the first-ever Canada Beach Report, which was created in collaboration with Waterkeepers, Riverkeepers and Baykeepers across Canada, including the Conservation Council.

    For more information, see these resources:
    Want to check it out for yourself? Download the iOS version for your Apple product or the Android app for your smartphone.

    To arrange an interview, contact: Corey Robichaud, Communications Officer, corey.robichaud@conservationcouncil.ca506-458-8747.
 © 2018 NBEN / RENB