Nouvelles des groupes
- Détails
- Affichages : 8819
Le 4 juin 2015
Pour diffusion immédiate
Lancement de l’Éco-bottin du N-B en l’honneur de la Journée mondiale de l’environnement
Moncton – À l’occasion de la Journée mondiale de l’environnement, le Réseau environnemental du Nouveau-Brunswick (RENB) lance l’Éco-bottin, un bottin consultable en ligne regroupant plus de 80 groupes environnementaux sans but lucratif du Nouveau-Brunswick.
« L’Éco-bottin est un « Qui est qui » des enjeux environnementaux au Nouveau-Brunswick. Ce bottin permet à la population de toute la province de se connecter avec les groupes environnementaux de leur région, » déclare Raïssa Marks, directrice générale du RENB. « Nous lançons ce bottin durant la Journée mondiale de l’environnement pour inviter tous les Néobrunswickois à faire un pas en avant et à joindre un groupe de leur région. »
On peut trouver des groupes environnementaux fondés dans leurs collectivités partout dans la province. Ces groupes travaillent fort pour protéger et restaurer l’environnement, et pour former la population, mais aussi pour avoir du plaisir dans la nature et partager cette joie. « On peut retrouver huit clubs affiliés à Nature NB dans la province, » fait remarquer Vanessa Roy-MacDougall de Nature NB, un groupe membre du réseau environnemental, » et l’Éco-bottin va aider la population à s’engager avec nous. »
« L’Éco-bottin va se révéler très utiles pour les jeunes comme moi qui s’intéressent aux enjeux environnementaux, » ajoute Chloé Mélanson de Vertige, un groupe environnemental d’élèves de l’école secondaire Mathieu-Martin. « Ce sera maintenant tellement facile de trouver un groupe pour faire du bénévolat et participer à ses activités.
« L’Éco-bottin va aider les individus à s’impliquer davantage dans les enjeux environnementaux, et ce dans leur collectivité locale, » souligne Amanda Marlin de EOS Éco-Énergie de la région de Tantramar. « Quels que soient leurs intérêts environnementaux et quel que soit l’endroit où ils se trouvent, les Néobrunswickois sont maintenant capables de trouver un groupe qui leur convient. »
« Il est surprenant de trouver plus de 80 groupes environnementaux fondés dans leur collectivité dans une petite province comme la nôtre. À mon avis, c’est parce que nous sommes essentiellement une province rurale et les gens y développent des liens profonds avec la terre et leur collectivité; ils veulent tous les préserver et les protéger. Pour le RENB, appuyer ce mouvement pour préserver et protéger la nature est l’essence de notre mission, » précise Marks. « L’Éco-bottin va fournir un lien significatif. Quel enjeu vous tient à cœur? Utiliser l’Éco-bottin pour trouver d’autres personnes qui pensent comme vous. »
L’Éco-bottin est consultable par nom d’organisation ou acronyme, par enjeu environnemental abordé, par localité et par étendue géographique et langue de service. Pour chacun des groupes, on retrouve des renseignements pour les contacter, ainsi que leurs buts, leurs activités et les services qu’ils offrent au public. On retrouve l’Éco-bottin au http://db.nben.ca/fr/.
Le Réseau environnemental du Nouveau-Brunswick, fondé en 1991, est un réseau de communication composé d’organisations à but non lucratif et en environnement au Nouveau-Brunswick. Sa mission est d’encourager et faciliter le maillage et la communication entre les groupes membres afin de faire avancer leurs efforts de protection de la Terre et de promouvoir des modes de vie écologiquement sains et renforcer le mouvement écologique au Nouveau-Brunswick.
— 30 —
Contact:
Raissa Marks, Réseau environnemental du Nouveau-Brunswick, bureau : 506-855-4144, cellulaire : 506-588-2980
- Détails
- Publié par : Terry Wishart
- Affichages : 14352
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
- Détails
- Publié par : Marie-Pierre Poirier
- Affichages : 7346
L’évènement a attiré des représentants de 24 groupes sur les bassins versants et de sept autres organismes environnementaux. Ceci représente 75% des groupes sur les bassins versants dans la province. Ils ont identifié quatre domaines prioritaires sur lesquels ils aimeraient travailler ensemble:
· Stratégie de communication efficiente et efficace;
· Stratégie de financement à long terme;
· Coordination des données receuillies et surveillance;
· Encourager l’achèvement du cadre de la politique des eaux au Nouveau-Brunswick (y inclus la règlementation de la classification des eaux.)
Un gros merci à tous participants ainsi qu'à Small Change Fund pour avoir rendu cet évènement possible. Il y a du travail intéressant à l'horizon!
Bonne lecture.
- Détails
- Publié par : Terry Wishart
- Affichages : 9144
Water Declaration
Peace and Friendship Alliance, Red Head 2015
We, the members of the Alliance, recognize the Nation-to-Nation Peace and Friendship Treaties as the basis of our common ground, defining our responsibilities to the water and to each other, down through the generations.
We affirm that Water is the dynamic and creative element that sustains all life. Water moves and flows through deep aquifers, springs, bogs, brooks, marshes, lakes, rivers and into the ocean tides throughout Wabanaki territory, to be drawn up into the clouds and fall as rain, returning to the land.
In this constant ebb & flow, Water nourishes & cleanses the entire world. It makes up who we are, as well as the other living beings. We live, grow, play, work, wash, cook, drink, rest, pray and celebrate with the waters. What we do to the Water, we do to ourselves.
Water is limited, and it is vulnerable. It needs to be protected, and shared freely and fairly. Water is not a commodity or merely a resource. It is a unique condition, a life giver, a right, and water is a dynamic being with a creative power of its own unlike any other in the natural world, and the human family.
We see the destruction of the environment as the destruction of ourselves. We see that any assault on the good and well-being of our relations in the natural world, upon our lands and our waters as an act of aggression against us.
Today, we recognize and resist the extensive abuses to Water that resource industries and governments are unleashing, directly assaulting Water.
These threats include:
● fracking ● tar sands pipelines ● mining ● industrial wastewater dumping ● privatizing water services ● clear cut & spraying in the forest ● industrial farming ● river dams ● coastal inundation and flash flooding from severe storms and climate change ● nuclear power generation ● salmon farm mismanagement ● government inaction
These abuses render water toxic, diverted, substandard, unreliable and unavailable. All of these assaults on Water are abusive to the web of life which our societies are embedded in and depend upon to survive and thrive for the next seven generations. Our children and grandchildren deserve better and need to be protected from harm.
The Peace and Friendship Alliance opposes these abuses. We are committed to restoring balance to our relationship with the water, thereby renewing our treaty responsibilities to each other as distinct Nations. When we care for the water, we care for each other.
We will care for the water by building a sustainable economy that rapidly transitions away from fossil-fuels to renewables, restores our forests, reduces the carbon footprint, decentralizes energy supply, and builds food security through a regional biodiverse farming sector.
We call on governments to amend our laws and regulations to accommodate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. lThese laws and regulations must take into account sovereign aboriginal title of Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet), Passamaquoddy and Mi’kmaq, involving their inherent and inalienable rights, including among others their right to exercise free, prior, and informed consent and their right to participate in economic development that affects the waters in their lands. These laws and regulations must also take into account the balance of interests involving the farming sector, forestry sector, renewable energy sector, manufacturing sector, as well as health services and tourism industries among others.
We the Alliance invite you to join in our movement – our shared consciousness - to reconnect in a sacred manner to the natural world. Our Nations will stand shoulder-to- shoulder to protect the water and secure a future for our children and our grandchildren.
This Water Declaration is declared in Peace and Friendship, on the 30th of May, 2015, at the mouth of the Wolastoq (Saint John River) and the shore of the Bay of Fundy.
The Peace and Friendship Alliance
woliwon - wela’lin - thank you - merci
Visit http://www.noenergyeastnb.ca/
- Détails
- Publié par : Marie-Pierre Poirier
- Affichages : 8164
Les subventions de projets du Fonds en fiducie pour l'Environnement sont annoncées!
http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/env/pdf/FFEProjetsApprouves.pdf
On se croise les doigts pour vous!
L'équipe du RENB
- Détails
- Publié par : Conservation Council of New Brunswick
- Affichages : 8347
Provinces take lead on climate protection
FREDERICTON — The declaration from premiers at the Quebec Summit on Climate Change puts momentum behind the effort to protect our climate and reduce carbon pollution, says the Executive Director of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick.
Yesterday the premiers released a declaration containing several commitments for greater cooperation and meaningful action to curb climate change. The 12-point declaration included commitments from premiers to transition to a lower-carbon economy, noting that could involve carbon pricing, and putting policies in place to reduce climate change-causing pollution, such as increasing energy efficiency and conservation and using clean and renewable energy.
“Tuesday’s announcement from our premiers is the type of leadership on climate that Canadians have been looking for,” said Lois Corbett, Executive Director of the Conservation Council. "Of course, now they have to take action at home to reduce pollution — actions that their citizens support and will create jobs."
In the declaration, the premiers said they recognize the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of acting on climate protection, and that the fight against climate change would create sustainable, long-term jobs, especially in areas such as renewable energy and energy efficiency.
The document comes just one day after Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne announced her province would enter into a cap and trade system with Quebec and California as a means to control carbon pollution, and following this weekend’s massive march in Quebec City where 25,000 people called on leaders to act now on climate protection.
“To me, this is our premiers saying to the Canadian people: message received. Our provinces are now empowered to act, and we expect that they will,” added Corbett, who attended the climate march and presented at an Act On Climate Forum in Quebec City over the weekend.
Corbett said the commitments contained in the declaration meant good things for New Brunswick, noting efforts to reduce carbon pollution - such as investments in energy conservation, renewable energy projects, putting a price on carbon and phasing out coal - will create good jobs for New Brunswickers and make our communities healthier places to live.
The climate summit was hosted in Quebec City and attended by eight provincial premiers, including New Brunswick Premier Brian Gallant. Gallant led a New Brunswick delegation which included Environment and Local Government Minister Brian Kenny and Fredericton South MLA David Coon.
Read the declaration from premiers.
