EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Canada's Forests Key to Earth’s Water: Report
OTTAWA — Canada must limit large-scale industrial activity in its boreal forest, the world's largest intact timberland, to preserve millions of lakes and rivers critical to forming Arctic sea ice, a new report said Wednesday.
Canada must limit large-scale industrial activity in its boreal forest, the world's largest intact timberland, to preserve millions of lakes and rivers critical to forming Arctic sea ice, a new report said Wednesday. The first of its kind study by the Pew Environment Group shows Canada's boreal forest contains more unfrozen freshwater than any other ecosystem, totaling more than 197 million acres of surface freshwater.
"When you look at a color-coded map of the world's (unspoiled) freshwater reserves (marked in blue), it's just shocking to see all the blue in Canada," the study's lead author Jeffrey Wells told AFP.
Canada's boreal forest possesses one quarter of the planet's wetlands, half the world's lakes larger than one square kilometer in size, five of the 50 largest rivers and the single largest remaining unpolluted fresh water body, Great Bear Lake.
Maintaining its flows, which contribute a majority of the freshwater input into the Arctic Ocean, is critical to forming Arctic ice as they decrease the salinity of the sea water, allowing it to freeze more quickly and easily.
But forestry, oil and gas extraction, mining and hydropower generation, the study warned, is rapidly increasing and negatively impacting the boreal water quality and quantity, as well as the surrounding ecosystems.
Lakes have been drained to access minerals underneath or to dispose of tailings and other mine waste. Erosion after logging is increasing amounts of silt and water flowing into rivers, and on a large scale can reduce regional precipitation. Construction of hydroelectric dams also has destroyed or degraded wetlands.
The boreal development footprint is currently 728,000 square kilometers (180 million acres).
Canada has already set aside 185 million acres from development, including key wetland and river areas, representing more than 12 percent of the 1.2 billion-acre forest.
But, the report concludes that governments should protect entire river, lake and wetland ecosystems by preserving intact at least 50 percent of Canada's boreal forest.
It also demands adherence to "sustainable" development in the rest of the vast northern forest.
In eastern Canada, most of the boreal rivers and lakes drain into the immense Hudson and James bays before the water is carried northward to the Labrador Current and flows south into the North Atlantic.
In western Canada, the flow from the Mackenzie River influences the strength and movement of major currents including the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift, which carries cold, less-salty polar waters south into the deepwater North Atlantic Conveyor and back to the tropics.
Freshwater from the Yukon River flowing into the Bering Sea similarly contributes to the extensive sea ice of the Bering Sea before continuing north, eventually contributing to the North Pacific Current that rushes through the Bering Strait into the Arctic Ocean.
Stemming these flows would result in less seasonal Arctic sea ice which could hasten the rise in average temperatures worldwide.
Unchecked, warming in turn could lead to decreased precipitation in areas of the boreal forest, drying lakes and ponds that risk becoming so low that they no longer have outflow, the study said.
The Canadian boreal lakes and river delta sediment, peatlands and wetlands are also the largest on-land carbon storehouse in the world, storing more than 400 trillion pounds of carbon, it noted.
The analysis is the first compilation of decades of research on Canadian boreal water reserves from more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies, government reports and other sources.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

26 Comments so far
Show AllAll forests are critical contributers to a healthy biosphere.
Too true. It is *terrifying* to see how casually they're destroyed.
I can only hope that enough of us humans will wise up soon enough to save and repopulate the forests before their destruction tips us over into the final deathspiral.
Once the human virus is removed by Mother Nature, balance and harmony will be restored. Of course, a few of the Two leggeds (those who can live in harmony with the planet) will be left to sing the songs, and tell the mythos again to a new generation...
Mama's aim isn't that good. There's no guarantee whatsoever that the decent people (I include all species whose individual members have discernable personalities) would be the ones left alive, and considerable evidence that it would instead be the roaches both 2- and 6-legged.
If we want a better world, we'd better get up off our arses and do the making of it ourselves.
I agree, Mairead. This is what infuriates me whenever I see people glibly talking about "humanity" as a whole and almost wishing for the disappearance of this species. Why should those people who consume so little, as to leave a very small ecological footprint, also have to disappear due to the actions of others? What is the guarantee that the criminals who are causing this destruction won't be around when all hell breaks loose, and worse, lording over the remaining, desperate human population simply because the criminals would have the weapons and would live on high ground, with security guards and all that? So wishing for humanity to disappear is pure nonsense and stupid. The only option is to do everything possible to change course and avert disaster.
And what I find obnoxious is anthropcentric hegemony which results in the egergious suffering of other speiices to feed the two leggeds. Have you ever observed the killing of cattle or the production of chickens to feed the fat asses world wide?
ekobe, I became a vegetarian 25+ years ago and have been practically a vegan for the most part. I read John Robbins's book "Diet for a New America" in 1989. Although I was a vegetarian by then, it was an eye-opener. Then I've seen some pictures and videos, and I know it's a needless cruelty. I also know there is NO humane way to produce meat especially if meat is going to be a regular part of people's diet, and not just reserved for special occasions as in the past, and as in many countries even today.
This is why I keep referring to the conquest of the "New World", because, without that, there is simply ***no way*** for so many people to eat so much meat. Today, meat produced in the conquered lands goes on to feed the consumption by people in other countries in Europe and Asia as well.
Even many of the so-called progressives and conservationists are not honest and courageous enough to face the numbers here - of what it takes to eat higher up the food chain and what it does to the environment. Even though humans have always eaten meat, it is not really "natural" as per the anatomy and physiology, which are so much closer to those of herbivores than to omnivores or carnivores. Humans are, at best, "opportunistic meat eaters" like some animals are - in times of scarcity of plant food. So, yes, there is a lot of needless cruelty and taking this simple step - of giving up meat - is so powerful and with profound implications when done on a large-scale, that I wish more people would wake up to this "solution" that is within their power. Mind you, we are not even talking about the destruction of the rainforest to feed the meat-eating habit of humans and everything else that implies.
Contrary to your opening volley, I was not painting with a broad brush or summarizing humanity under the rubrick of carte blanche destruction (although in re reading it, I can see how you drew that conclusion). I was referring to the undercurrent of assumptions which guide personal choices geared toward the values of consumption. And in this regard, liberals share the same norms and values as any Republican. They have no sense that their gas guzzlers or eating habits undermine the earth community of beings. Thomas Berry noted that, "The biosphere is not a collection of inert and determinate objects, but an ongoing communion of living subjects." When are the liberals going to get it?
I applaud your vegenism. If more people followed through, the world would be a better place.
Actually, ekobe, I sort of realized what you had meant, because you did talk of "those who can live in harmony with the planet" as being those that might be spared. But if only...My comment was a venting of a general frustration I feel whenever I hear of people talking of "humanity" in general in this context. It's almost as if they're being too clever there, completely glossing over individual and national ecological footprints.
Your point about liberals sharing the same norms as Republicans is absolutely right and most relevant here. The "left" is supposedly more concerned about issues of equity and justice. Where is the equity and and where is justice when our own lifestyle and consumption are threatening the livelihoods and lives of other people?
And then there are those that take exception to any talk of change at the personal level as if that somehow excludes or precludes collective action. They fail to see that collective action will be that much more effective when there are a large number of people who also try to practice what they preach. Thanks for this exchange :)
Nicely stated. I shoot from the hip a little too much on this forum, but I do walk my talk. I use public transportation, eat one vegetarian meal a day and juice twice more daily. Spent twenty plus years as an activist, but now work in the healing arts. Best.
chris
ekobe, let me see if I understood your post correctly: Do you mean, you eat just one meal a day (veg.) and have only juice a couple more times, and that's it? The reason I ask this is that I've seen a few people who can get by with one meal and they always amaze me. And they are reasonably active in their everyday life, too.
Alcyon, yes. I juice a green food super blend with three beets, 5 carrots, and one grapefruit, which fills me up for at least five hours. I am very active in both life and my profession which is as a bodyworker. The only reason Ive listed personal info is that this conversation dropped off the radar screen, and you and I are most likely the only two people reading this. I am not noting it as a form of hubris, but I am tired of liberals (and I am not speaking about you) of pretending to be in the Left wing movement in any real way. As ive noted, they have proven again and again, that they are married to the same corporate nexus power elites, with the same materialistic values as the neo conservatives. To simplify one's life (I believe) can lead to radical freedom. But few people if any venture forth into this experiment on self-relience. Have you ever read Voluntary Simpicity by Duane Elgin?
Thanks for that info, ekobe. I haven't read the book "Voluntary Simpicity" (will check it out), but the concept itself makes a great deal of sense to me, from a lot of different points of view: environmental, equity, social justice and sustainability. Frankly, I think there is nothing really to argue against that concept, except out of some kind of misunderstanding of what it implies. A major, major misunderstanding I run into is this opposition to any talk of change at the personal level. My experience has given rise to a suspicion that this opposition and misunderstanding are based on some other ideology. It's so easy to get carried away by certain memes when packaged as part of an ideology.
I think Gandhi's adoption of voluntary simplicity was based at first on a sense of shock and guilt when he encountered such utter poverty in parts of India where livelihoods had been devastated due to British imports and other taxation policies. This also played into Gandhi's vision for the future where he wanted everyone to have their basic needs met first, in a manner that is not degrading to their dignity. While Gandhi might have limited his personal belongings, he was by no means idle or passive in fighting against injustice - both by the foreigner as well as by his fellow Indians. I have no doubt that voluntary simplicity need not be removed from any other kind of activism. On the contrary, it will only increase the legitimacy of any such activism that supposedly fights for justice and equity.
Obviously, you get it when you note authentic transformitive outcomes will only come about - first and foremost - by engaging these issues at the personal level. But before that happens, a lot of people need to grow spiritually.
And, just for the record, like Alcyon I too am a longtime veg and a supporter of near-human rights for non-human people.
Who is it that would rape GAIA and leave the many innocent creatures with nary a way, a mode to sustain what the Creator deems as life and not existence:?
Would any that profess life for the many, and not just for self, see that the befouling of GAIA leads to a hell for all and no escape?
Where is this gene, this molecule, this atom and where does it reside in the body of humans; in the heart, the mind, the ass: this "thing" called greed?
The spiril downward is steep and picking up speed. Tony
If we mess with the boreal forests, we're really speeding up the doomsday clock. What a beautiful earth this is, and we humans are seriously messing up those forces that keep the web of life intact. Mercy.
You can forget about it. There's oil in the sand under those trees. So long as the US needs oil, Canada will continue to expand the biggest pigsty in the world to provide it. Canada is always open for business -- like a brothel -- and any American oil company that wants to help expand that pigsty and pollute more northern waters is more than welcome to invest.
The so called pigsty is part of the development footprint mentioned in the article. There are 1.2 billion acres of forest and a 170 million acre footprint. There is no need to increase the footprint. As old development meets the end of its useful lifecycle it will be remediated and returned to its natural condition, then new development can take place so that the original footprint never changes in size.
Great idea.
Too bad a lot of that forest is going to be going to Japan for reconstruction. The forestry industry in Canada is not one to let a good disaster go to waste.
The more I read articles like this, the more I realize how important it is that we need to modify the capitalist system we now have. There are people and groups who are "thinking outside the box", who realize that our free market system is nothing more than an excuse to have a "free-for-all" limited to the wealthiest among us. These people are focusing on communities, on how to develop an economy that will respect the resources we all share. Among these people, "privatization" is a dirty word. Air, water, the internet, our DNA, the airwaves, public education, the oceans - all are among the things that people are beginning to refer to as "the commons" - those things in which we all share and which we need to keep out of the hands of profiteers. This does not mean a destruction of capitalism, but a modification of it. Within the context of community (shared) wealth private industry will still flourish. Private property will still be held. I'm a beginner at trying to explain this, but, for anyone who is interested, I would recommend reading a recently-published book by Jay Walljasper, "All That We Share - A Field Guide to the Commons". Easy reading. Full of reminders of what we have given up in the name of the economy we have now and how we can regain that which we have lost and are still losing.
Happy reading.
Diane
needlefoot, the destruction has its roots in the murderous conquest of the "New World". So people should first realize and admit at a very deep level that we are beneficiaries of ill-gotten wealth based on murder and genocide. And then try to imagine what life would have been like, back in Europe, if so many Europeans had not crossed over or shipped over. Or, if the Native Americans, due to some twist of history, were militarily advanced, and were organized enough to defend themselves, and wise enough to see the agenda of the Europeans arriving on their shores, and had decided to let them in only on their terms, as "immigrants" - not as conquerors.
What this would mean is cutting out a lot of non-essential consumption and questioning so many things that we take for granted as "progress". And embarking on a major conservation effort, with drastic changes in lifestyle. Capitalism as it exists today was **preceded** by greed, violence and a distinct lack of moral compunction about killing and conquest, and therefore that is where one must start.
Thanks for that book reference.
What's the betting we cut it all down!
But, but, but there's OIL under all those trees and lakes!
Ah ... but, but, but there's WATER on top of all that oil.
Or, to paraphrase the Dick: "In Canada you’ve got a nation that’s got the largest water reserves in the world, second to nobody."
And when the money boys find out the Canucks are sitting on top of water that rightfully should go to the U.S., well ...
Too late. Mountain Pine Beetles have taken out 30 million acres of trees in B.C. alone. Wait till you see that fire.