YVR continues to experience growth in the number of flights departing from or arriving at the airport (Photo by Kim Nursall)

Asat Bidu stood in line at Vancouver International Airport (YVR) one afternoon in late March, waiting to check in to her flight to India. She makes the trip with her husband and son every couple of years, transferring through cities like Los Angeles, Hong Kong and Manila along the way.

Bidu and her family are just three of the millions of passengers who will travel to or from YVR this year. Despite a dip in traffic following the 2008 financial meltdown, Vancouver’s airport continues to experience steady growth, in both the number of flights that it offers and destinations that it serves.

Bidu’s husband, Biju, thinks that flying should be convenient, but that YVR and the aircraft industry need to maintain a balance between growth and environmental sustainability.

“We want to keep it clean,” he said, adding, “but we definitely want airplanes.”

Vancouver Airport Authority (VAA), which manages YVR, actually considers itself a trendsetter when it comes to environmental management. But although it’s identified emissions and air quality as priorities in its 2009-13 Environmental Management Plan, the emissions from airplanes are largely outside of its control. That’s because the design and operation of airplanes, the worst offenders when it comes to carbon emissions, generally fall outside of the influence of airports.

As Kathryn Harrison, a University of British Columbia political science professor who specializes in climate change policy and believes that YVR’s environmental programs are valuable, noted, “The biggest issue with airline travel is that it’s extremely fossil fuel-intensive to get people from one place to another in an airplane.

“And that’s the part we don’t talk about.”

In the meantime, worldwide demand for air travel is expected to triple by 2025, according to a 2008 report by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. In light of the increasing pressure on airports and airlines to expand services, scientists, the aviation community and governments continue to debate what should be done to reduce the aircraft industry’s environmental impact.

Expansion vs. the environment at YVR

YVR’s plans for expansion were given a boost by the British Columbia budget back in February. Finance Minister Kevin Falcon announced a tax exemption for jet fuel used on international flights, which include those originating from or travelling to the United States.

At least 8,000 new international flights are expected to be added to YVR's arrivals and departures over the next five years (Photo by Kim Nursall)

VAA’s director of aviation marketing, John Korenic, said that 22 airlines have agreed to expand their service as a result of the fuel cost savings, in addition to other incentives offered by the airport. Over the next five years, approximately 8,000 new international flights are expected to be added to the list of YVR arrivals and departures on an annual basis.

Korenic said the fuel tax exemption will help YVR “enhance [its] competitive position vs. other gateways,” primarily airports located along the U.S. West Coast and in Alberta.

But 8,000 new flights a year will produce approximately 6,074 tonnes of CO2 in and around Sea Island alone, which will likely mean an increase to the 78 per cent of CO2 emissions in the area already directly associated with airplanes.

Toni Frisby, YVR’s manager of environment, said that nationwide, a number of projects are helping to reduce airplane emissions.

“Modernization of the fleet goes a huge distance in terms of reducing the emissions,” she said, because as a result, aircraft “are so much more efficient.” Additionally, the “load factors” of airplanes have increased, which means airplanes are “flying fuller,” thus producing fewer emissions per passenger.

And at YVR, Frisby and the energy reduction team oversee a wide array of environmental programs that target the impact of the non-aircraft vehicles used to service airplanes as well as the airport building itself.

Projects include a solar-powered water heating system that provides 80 per cent of the water to the domestic and international terminals, and a building and lighting system designed so that daylight is utilized as the primary lighting source as much as possible.

YVR prides itself on its environmental programs, including this indoor garden and aquarium in the international terminal (Photo courtesy of Vancouver Airport Authority)

“We’re always willing to stick our nose out and try stuff,” Frisby said.

Since the energy reduction team was introduced in 1999, the airport has saved 24 gigawatt-hours of power, or enough energy to power 2,400 homes for a year.

“Certainly we’re in the lead, in the front of the pack,” when comparing YVR’s environmental track record to other airports, Frisby said.

Global efforts to curb aviation’s environmental impact

In other areas of the world, it’s not airport authorities that are spearheading the effort to reduce the environmental impact of the airline industry, but governmental organizations.

The European Union has drawn the ire of many countries and airlines with the imposition of a carbon tax that specifically targets airplane emissions as of Jan. 1, 2012. India and China have even banned their airlines from paying the tax.

“I think it’s a bold move by the EU, because those emissions are big, and an argument can be made…that somebody needs to be responsible for those emissions,” said UBC’s Harrison, adding that part of the challenge is that emissions are “difficult to regulate” because they take place between countries and jurisdictions.

“I wouldn’t expect the Canadian government to go after those — they’re not even going after the much bigger sources within Canada.”

Beyond taxing emissions, another way to reduce the environmental impact of airplanes would be the adoption of biofuels.

But as YVR’s Frisby noted, currently no airplanes fly in or out of that airport using alternative fuel. The U.S.-based Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative is hoping to change that.

By 2014-15, approximately 1 per cent of all jet fuel used to fly planes will be made from biofuels (Photo courtesy of Flickr user angeloangelo)

Executive Director Richard Altman said he expects that by 2014-15, approximately 1 per cent of all commercial airplanes will be flown using biofuels, with a very good chance that number will grow to 5 per cent by 2020.

If 5 per cent is achieved, it will mean that commercial aviation can likely “meet the goal of carbon-neutral growth,” Altman said, “which means there will be no more carbon added to the atmosphere.”

Altman said two alternative fuels that are much better than traditional jet fuel in terms of their carbon footprint have been approved in the U.S. and are currently being used to fly on a trial basis. However, barriers to adoption, including low supply and the significantly higher cost of biofuels, continue to hinder growth of the industry.

Back at YVR, Frisby said there are even more technical issues to consider, among them managing which airlines would get to use alternative fuels that may be brought to Sea Island.

The low scientific understanding of the impact of aviation

According to University of Colorado professor Darin Toohey, beyond CO2 emissions, the impact of aviation on the environment is not well understood.

“We have a broad understanding of the kinds of things we can expect from the aircraft, but I wouldn’t say we have a consensus on the specifics at all,” he said.

The specifics include how emissions like water vapour, nitrogen oxides, soot and sulfur oxides affect the atmosphere, especially when they interact with the intensely cold environment planes fly in at high altitudes.

“It’s a very difficult measurement to make at -80 degrees centigrade,” Toohey said. “Pretty much everything related to aircraft (studies) needs work.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Aviation and Climate Change Research Initiative in the U.S. have both produced scientific papers on the impact of aviation. They attempt to summarize what we know about the subject, but they’re mostly guides for future research.

Given this low level of understanding, Toohey said, it’s very difficult to develop effective policies that target aircraft emissions.

Aviation vs. other emitters

Moreover, YVR’s Frisby thinks that the focus on aviation is somewhat misplaced. As she pointed out, the transportation industry is responsible for approximately 23 per cent of Canada’s CO2 emissions — of which just 5 per cent comes from aviation.

The source of most transportation-derived emissions falls under a category Frisby refers to as “the big elephant in that room”: public vehicles. “There are more opportunities to use alternatives for [those vehicles] than there are for aircraft.”

Prof. Harrison, however, doesn’t believe such stats should lessen the effort to reduce aviation’s environmental footprint.

“Every 30 per cent is made up of a whole bunch of 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 per cents,” she said.

“When we talk about the need to reduce our emissions by 50 per cent or 80 per cent or 90 per cent by 2050, no one’s off the hook.”

Protester at the 'No Tanker Rally' held on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery on March 26, 2012

On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground off the coast of Alaska, resulting in the one of the worst ecological disasters in history.

The 23rd anniversary of the spill was marked by the gathering of hundreds of people at the Vancouver Art Gallery who, at the same time, voiced their opposition to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project, which would carry oil from Northern Alberta to the west coast of British Columbia.

But lost in the shadow of the Enbridge debate are plans for the expansion of a different pipeline that has received comparatively little media attention.

Kinder Morgan (KMI) wants to “twin” — essentially construct a new pipe next to the existing one — its Trans Mountain oil pipeline, which runs from Edmonton, Alta. to Burnaby, B.C. Should the company’s proposal be accepted, the Trans Mountain pipeline’s transport capacity of tar sands crude to the West Coast would double to an estimated 700,000 barrels per day.

The expanded pipeline would subsequently mean roughly double the number of oil tankers would pass through the Port of Vancouver, much to the dismay of environmental groups and First Nations whose traditional territories are located in the region.

Economic incentives

There is strong economic incentive to expand access to Canadian oil on the west coast of B.C., according to Juan Plessis, a pipeline and power analyst at Canaccord Genuity. Currently, a shortage of capacity to transport crude oil out of Alberta is depressing prices for Canadian oil producers and reducing tax revenues for both the province and the country.

Trans Mountain pipeline terminus at Kinder Morgan's Westbridge Terminal

According the Government of Alberta, the oil sands currently produce approximately 1.3 million barrels per day. The inability to ship much of that oil, due to pipeline bottlenecks, is causing Albertan crude prices to trade at discounts of almost $35 per barrel to international oil prices, said Werner Antweiler, professor of empirical economics at the Sauder School of Business.

“Canadian producers are losing in the magnitude of $18 billion dollars a year because they can’t get their oil to market,” said Antweiler.

“Building a new pipeline that will facilitate exports will benefit  [Canadian producers] economically, and there is quite a lot of money on the table. The only solution is to build more pipeline.”

Safety concerns

The Trans Mountain pipeline began operations in 1953 and was sold to Kinder Morgan in 2005. The company notes that it’s “the only pipeline system in North America that transports both crude oil and refined products to the west coast.”

The idea to twin the Trans Mountain pipeline has local environmental groups concerned. “Oil spills are a regular occurrence; the risk goes up the more tankers [you've] got,” said Ben West, a campaigner from the Wilderness Committee, a environmental advocacy group.

“So if you are talking about reducing the likelihood of a spill, the obvious thing to do is not increase the amount of [tanker] traffic,” said West.

Ben West, campaigner from the Wilderness Committee on Tsleil-Waututh land, across from Westbridge Terminal

Since Kinder Morgan purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline in 2005, the company’s facilities in both B.C. and Alta. have had several oil spills, all of them on land. On July 24, 2007, workers digging in Burnaby punctured the pipeline, which, according to a Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigation, released almost 1,500 barrels of oil into the surrounding neighbourhood.

On May 7, 2009, a storage tank at Kinder Morgan’s Westridge Terminal in Burnaby, leaked more than 1,900 barrels of crude. On April 23, 2011, the Trans Mountain pipeline released 70 barrels of oil near Chip Lake, Alta.

Another spill occurred on Jan. 24, 2012, when a storage tank in Abbotsford, B.C., released approximately 70 barrels of crude oil.

Andrew Galarnyk, director of external relations for Kinder Morgan Canada, asserted the company’s positive safety record.

“We place the highest priority on safety and environmental responsibility,” wrote Galarnyk in an emailed statement. “The Trans Mountain pipeline has a safe and efficient track record.”

Assurances from Kinder Morgan about the safety of its operations are no consolation to the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation (TWN). Situated directly across Burrard Inlet from Kinder Morgan’s Westridge Terminal, where the crude oil is loaded onto tankers for export, TWN worries about recent increases in oil tanker traffic.

“I grew up on that inlet and the waters have always been important to me. I have had nightmares of a ship turning over and all that oil coming towards us,” said Tsleil-Waututh Elder Amy George.

Barbara Joy Kinsella, spokeswoman for Port Metro Vancouver (PMV), said, “Vancouver has never had a navigational issue with an oil tanker. All oil tankers [arriving] in Vancouver are doubled hulled and subject to strict international, national and Port Authority standards.”

Kinder Morgan, for its part, is aware of the safety concerns surrounding its plans to twin the Trans Mountain pipeline. “We know that many residents of B.C. have questions about our proposed expansion plans,” said company spokeswoman Lexa Hobenshield.

“We will undertake extensive environmental, socio-economic and other assessments and an open and thorough engagement process with communities along the pipeline route and the marine corridor as well as First Nations, industry, governments, and non-government organizations.”

Economics vs. Safety

An oil tanker at Kinder Morgan's Westridge Terminal in Burnaby, B.C.

Kinder Morgan has yet to submit its application to twin the pipeline to the National Energy Board of Canada, the regulatory body responsible for approving the pipeline proposal. On January 19, it completed tendering an “open season process,” aimed at assessing the interest in the pipeline on the part of other companies. It plans to turn in its formal application within the next 18 to 24 months.

Until then, Kinder Morgan is not obliged to provide any definitive answers to the public, said Carol Leger-Kubeczek of the National Energy Board of Canada.

Still, said Kubeczek, “People want to know [about Kinder Morgan’s plan].” Given the current public discussion about pipelines, “It is the right time to get the information out about KMI’s expansion plans,” she said. “But it is still too early for answers.”

One way or another, the debate over the Trans Mountain pipeline production is expected to be a big one.

“Depending on who you talk to, you get very different opinions,” said Sauder’s Antweiler. “The oil people say all the environmentalists are out to lunch, [that] they don’t understand the issues. They’re worried about tanker traffic. If you talk to the environmentalists, they think we’re going have another Exxon Valdez every other day. Basically, you get both extremes.”

And Antweiler’s take? “I’m sitting somewhere in the middle.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Dr. Antweiler discusses the economic benefits of expanding pipeline capacity to the west coast of B.C.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Ben West discusses the dangers of expanding pipeline capacity to the west coast of B.C.

Overview of Iona Island treatment plant (Image courtesy of Metro Vancouver)

On a stormy day, angry surf crashes against the Iona Island jetty with enough force to shake its foundations. The jetty is a 4-kilometre needle of land that sticks out into the Strait of Georgia, exposure that ensures it’s in need of constant repair.

It costs the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) up to $2.5 million annually to keep the jetty from washing away, but it’s money well spent. The jetty’s rocks protect a 7.5-kilometre-long deep sea pipe that disposes approximately 500 million litres of treated sewage from the Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant each day.

But the plant, and the pipe attached to it, are two pieces of Metro Vancouver infrastructure most vulnerable to climate change. And the money spent by the GVRD to shore up the Iona Island jetty represents a small foretaste of the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be needed to protect the city’s sewer system in coming years.

Iona plant at risk

The Iona Island plant, built in 1963, treats the waste of more than 600,000 Metro Vancouver residents, representing a major piece of infrastructure. But like many wastewater treatment plants in coastal cities, it was built near the water, where gravity, and proximity to the plant’s disposal point — the ocean — would help save money.

Iona’s location at the mouth of the Fraser River puts it “front and centre” of Metro Vancouver’s efforts to deal with increased storms and rising sea levels, said John Clague, a Simon Fraser University (SFU) geoscientist and research chair of SFU’s Centre for Natural Hazards Research.

Now, however, the plant’s convenient location is proving its Achilles’ heel, for with climate change comes rising oceans, increased rainfall and more intense storms which, when combined, risk flooding the plant.

“It’s not the gradual rise in sea level; it’s the severe storm that works on the ocean when it’s at a higher level that raises the likelihood that waters will over-top the dyke,” said Clague. “They’re not designed for water levels that are 70 centimetres higher than they are today.”

Clague also spoke on sea level rise for the North-Eastern Pacific ocean during the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science conference, hosted in Vancouver this February. He provided revised statistics on sea level rise that showed past projections, such as those provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had been conservative.

The West Coast should expect an average sea level rise of 70 cm to over a metre by the end of the century, said Clague. For Iona, however, that rise in sea level is paired with subsidence of the land it rests on.  Iona Island, like much of the Fraser River delta, is slowly sinking at a rate of one to two millimetres each year.

“That plant isn’t designed to sit in standing water,” said Clague.

The confluence of sea level rise and sinking land are what make Iona so vulnerable.  A 2008 report for the GVRD said the two forces left “very little margin… available in the future” for the Iona Island plant. The 2008 report’s projections were based on an average sea-level rise of 50 cm.

Brent Burton, a senior engineer for the GVRD, said the plant faces a host of problems brought by climate change. The jetty is at risk of being eroded by higher, stormier seas, and the island’s dykes will need to be raised, too.

Rising water tables pose another risk by putting more pressure on building foundations, said Burton, and an increase in rainstorms could overwhelm the plant. Indeed, in December 2009, heavy rains and severe weather caused Iona to lose power and discharge 116 million litres of under-treated sewage into the ocean.

Paying for new sewerage

The spectre of climate change comes as the Iona plant’s operators and owners, the GVRD, intend to replace the old plant in order to fix its dirty reputation.

The GVRD plans to spend $1 billion to build a new secondary treatment plant at Iona by 2030 and possibly as early as 2022-24, said Burton.

He said a small portion of the total sum will be needed to shore up Iona from climate change. The money will be used to ensure the plant lasts until 2100, when it is scheduled to be retired.

But a far pricier problem for municipal wallets will come from fixing sewers. Currently, Vancouver’s combined sewer system channels excess storm water from city streets into the Iona plant. The City of Vancouver has pledged to segregate its sewers by 2050 in part to reduce the stress on Iona.

A 2012 administrative report by the city found the tab for replacing aging pipes will be expensive. Current sewerage costs of roughly $45 million a year are estimated to increase beyond $160 million annually by 2030, which will translate into raised sewerage rates for Vancouver homeowners.

The price of climate change

Sewerage, nonetheless, represents just a fraction of a far greater problem.

A 2009 study conducted by the United Kingdom-based Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research concluded that a sea level rise of 0.5 metres by 2050 would put $28 trillion (U.S.) worth of assets in 136 major coastal cities under threat. If that’s the case, Metro Vancouver ports and the Tsawassen ferry terminal would have to be reinforced against rising seas. And according to Clague, Richmond and Delta would need to raise their dykes, which would cost some $200 million.

Sewerage, out of sight beneath city streets, is where the costs of climate change will be felt first, and the cost of maintaining sewerage will only grow in coming years.

The sooner municipalities can act, “the less [they're] going to have to take out of the bank later on,” said David Flanders. He works on Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP), a University of British Columbia (UBC) project that provides B.C. communities with 3D visualizations for climate change adaptation strategies.

“The place to start would be locally and very, very small,” he said.

Protecting Iona

There are a number of ways that the pressure on the Iona plant and Vancouver sewage system could be relieved that would be cost effective and have additional environmental benefits.

Some solutions are simple. For example, a 2008 Metro Vancouver report found that the impact of increased heavy rainfalls could be reduced by installing green infrastructure such as porous pavement, rain gardens, green roofs, and rain barrels to capture extra water. That stored water, in turn, could be used to irrigate lawns and gardens during hot summer months.

A far more labour-intensive solution for protecting the plant would involve rejigging how the Metro Vancouver wastewater system works. Part of that solution involves segregating sewers, which the City of Vancouver has pledged to do.

But Christianne Wilhelmson, executive director of the Georgia Strait Alliance, said the GVRD’s plans to replace the old Iona plant also provide an opportunity to innovate on how we deal with wastewater.

Iona and the Lions Gate wastewater treatment plants — which only offer primary treatment of sewage — have been in the crosshairs of environmental groups for a decade. Wilhelmson said she was involved in litigation against the two plants for failing monthly toxicity tests mandated by the federal Fisheries Act.

The new Iona plant can’t “be like we built it 40 years ago,” she said.

She recommended a system of smaller, distributed wastewater treatment plants — rather than a single, centralized one — as a way to assist or replace Iona.

A 2008 Capital Region District (CRD) report on Victoria sewerage recommended a distributed system of smaller plants as an alternative to installing a large secondary treatment plant. The report found smaller plants could cut CRD infrastructure greenhouse gas emissions by a quarter and help save $6 million in annual energy costs.

As an added benefit, smaller plants could be located in neighbourhoods away from rising seas, said Wilhelmson.

“I don’t think people understand how things have changed; they still have a view of wastewater treatment plants as being stinky and horrible,” she said.

Burton said the GVRD is currently drafting a report, due out in 2014, that will name specifics on the budget and strategies for protecting the Iona plant from the effects of climate change. Installing distributed plants is one item being considered, he said.

In other words, the threat climate change poses to sewerage, and the coming environmental and fiscal costs, has opened a space for a quiet meeting of minds between environmentalists and city engineers.

View Metro Vancouver wastewater treatment plants in a larger map

The Vancouver Convention Centre seen at low tide with the top bench of the habitat skirt visible (Photo by Lindsay Sample)

Long before it became the ‘condo city,’ the prized waterfront real estate of Vancouver was home to towering kelp forests, roaming herds of sea urchins and beaches blanketed with shellfish. The creatures that depend on those staples as food — like salmon, sea otters, seals and even whales — were abundant in Vancouver’s waters.

Many species have since left Burrard Inlet and False Creek, but it was not the crippling housing prices that forced them out. Constructing a world-class waterfront requires destroying shoreline to build popular features like seawalls, marinas and commercial ports. As the skyline continues to expand, fewer and fewer refuges remain for marine life to call home.

Can’t handle the stress

Eighty per cent of Vancouver’s natural coast has been converted into man-made shoreline over the last century. Jamie Slogan, a marine ecologist who has worked all over the world and is now based in Vancouver, says many marine species “just can’t handle the stress we put on them” by abruptly altering their natural environments.

Slogan is the lead researcher on a groundbreaking project at the Vancouver Convention Center (VCC). The project is renewing habitat for nearly 100 species displaced by shoreline change in Burrard Inlet. It has transformed an industrially polluted section of coast into a thriving marine ecosystem and offers hope for the future of biodiversity on Vancouver’s shores.

“The new convention centre extends about 50 metres on to the ocean,” Slogan explains. “They’re required by law, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to compensate for habitat damaged by the construction. The amount of new habitat had to equal the habitat that was lost.”

Waterfront developments, like the VCC, require destroying gradually sloping shorelines in favour of vertical walls that prevent buildings from falling into the sea. Seaweed and shellfish vital to ecosystems have difficulty attaching to smooth vertical walls.

A century ago, entire beaches, like this boulder on the North Shore of Burrard Inlet, were covered in mats of shellfish (Photo by Lucas Powers)

There is a struggle between what architects and biologists want on shorelines, says Cristina Bump, a Boston-based architect who is re-thinking urban waterfronts to promote biodiversity on seawalls.

“There’s obviously a stark contrast between something that is not touched by man. It’s wild, there’s nooks and crannies, there’s lots of different tide level depths, and then we come in and we make these vertical seawalls, and we basically make everything sleek,” says Bump.

“Things like that don’t provide anything for marine wildlife to grow on,” and she hopes to change that.

World’s first habitat skirt

Compensation efforts to make up for a loss of a gradual slope usually means dumping large rock piles, meant to act as shallow reefs, on to the ocean floor adjacent to the shore. But the new VCC juts out over water that is too deep for this conventional method to work, so the developers needed an innovative solution to meet the DFO’s standards.

Slogan’s employer, an environmental engineering firm called EBA Tetra Tech, got the contract.

“We came up with the idea of suspending an artificial habitat structure right off the building in the tidal range, rather than building it up from the seafloor,” says Rick Hoos, a senior marine biologist at EBA who oversaw the project.

“All the other potential options were just not feasible, outrageously expensive or both.”

The design they created is called a ‘habitat skirt.’ It’s the first of its kind anywhere in the world.

The structure mimics the rocky shorelines common to British Columbia, extending for 477 metres around the convention centre’s waterfront façade. It provides familiar habitat for species that live in the intertidal zone.

Creatures moved in to the area quickly. Now, after three years, the skirt supports more species than a natural site just downshore, according to Slogan.

He recently submitted his research to the DFO for approval. He insists the most vital function of the skirt is that it fills gaps in the natural shoreline. Migrating salmon need consistency in the coastline to successfully make it to the open ocean.

“A primary objective was to create an artificial shoreline for juvenile salmonids to follow because they like to follow shorelines on their journey out of the rivers,” he explains.

“If you go down there right now, you’ll see thousands of juvenile salmon swimming past on their way out to the ocean.”

Natural rocky shorelines, like this outcrop near Third Beach in Vancouver's Stanley Park, allow for tidal pools to form at low tide (Photo by Lucas Powers)

A  habitat skirt is not the only way to bring back marine life to urban shores. Researchers on Vancouver’s North Shore and as far away as Sydney and Seattle have shown that minor modifications to existing seawalls can have major impacts on coastal biodiversity.

Listen: Marine biologist Scott Christie on West Vancouver’s shoreline rehabilitation efforts (1:12)

Biologists believe this should be the norm, but they also know that legislation has helped to make it a reality.

Possible legislation change creates a doubtful future

The VCC habitat restoration project is a result of the Fisheries Act. It dates back to the repatriation of the constitution in 1982. The Fisheries Act gives the federal government the power necessary to ensure the conservation of Canada’s aquatic resources.

Under Section 35, whenever structures that may harm fish habitat are built on water — like the VCC — the developer must compensate with an equal amount of new artificial habitat. The compensation must be reviewed and accepted by the DFO.

“It’s a strong piece of legislation,” says Mark Hume, a national columnist for the Globe and Mail who focuses on issues in B.C. “Probably the most powerful piece of environmental protection legislation in the country.”

Critics of the Fisheries Act have argued that it is too powerful, placing unnecessary delays on waterfront projects and protecting habitat even where there are no fish.

In mid-March a document leaked from Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield’s office that suggests major changes intended to restrict the act’s power could be coming. Ashfield hopes to amend the act to limit its protection to “economically valuable” fish species.

“The amendments are intended to make it more reasonable,” says Hoos. “Depending on how it is interpreted by the DFO, it can be almost impossible to meet the requirements.”

The proposed changes have caused an outcry.

“Groups nation-wide representing tens of thousands of Canadians are on record urging the federal government to re-think its plan to eliminate longstanding environmental protections,” says Jessica Clogg, executive director of West Coast Environmental Law.

“If these changes go ahead as proposed, it will make it ineffective. It just won’t have any impact,” says Hume. “Why would a developer spend more money than they have to?”

Slogan points out that the habitat skirt project may never have happened if it wasn’t required by law.

“It cost around $8 million to do, and that’s a lot. But it was worth it because of the things we have managed to do in terms of species,” he says.

If you build it, they will come

• The habitat skirt unexpectedly became a nursery for thousands of Dungeness crabs attracted to food sources, like seaweeds, that have colonized the skirt.
• Ling cod and rock fish, predatory fish species with very limited habitat in Burrard Inlet, have returned.
• Dense forests of bull kelp have become established all around the skirt.
• Sea urchins have taken to feeding on the algae on the lower benches. “The increase in predators is a strong indicator that the habitat skirt is effectively functioning in the manger of a typical intertidal habitat,” writes Slogan in his 2012 report on the project.

According to a statement by Environment Minister Peter Kent on Environment Canada’s website, the accord “is not the path forward for a global solution to climate change; instead, it is an impediment.”

The world consensus through the International Panel for Climate Change reports that climate change is caused by human activities and is one of the greatest environmental threats we face today.

Canada, meanwhile, is one of the largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the world, according to the Conference Board of Canada.

With the government decision to withdraw from Kyoto, what is Canada doing to fight climate change?

A view of the earth from space (Image courtesy of NASA)

Keurig supplies an endless supply of coffee choices and an endless stream of plastic waste (Photo by Jennifer Giesbrecht)

Adrienne McShane considers herself to be a very lucky legal assistant. She and her colleagues no longer have to share the same pot of coffee that’s been congealing all day long on a burner in their Vancouver office.

Now, she simply reaches up and grabs one of the multiple varieties of single-serve coffee packs neatly lining the kitchen shelf, pops it into a state-of-the-art Keurig coffee brewer, pulls down on the ergonomic handle — and voilà — a fresh, personalized, no-mess cup of coffee.

“And there’s, like, a trillion more flavours at London Drugs,” says McShane.

In recent years, the single-cup coffee brewer has evolved from a charming toy for wealthy patrons of European hotels to a global home and office phenomenon. In North America, business is booming, particularly for Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, maker of the Keurig brewing systems.

Yet while families and office workers around the world revel in its caffeinated convenience, the single-serve sensation is also clogging landfills with billions of non-recyclable plastic pods.

Any hopes that the coffee-spouting contraption would only be a passing fad were dashed this month by Starbucks’ announcement that it would be releasing its own ramped-up version of the single-cup brewer.

A buildup of brewers

Nestle’s Nespresso machine has been providing well-to-do Europeans with “the perfect cup of espresso coffee” since the mid-eighties. But it wasn’t until Green Mountain brought a less expensive drip version to North American homes that the single-cup brewer industry started making headlines.

Hailed as a revolutionary business model, the ultra-convenient Keurig coffee machines guaranteed loyalty by forcing consumers to continuously purchase machine-specific coffee packs.

Green Mountain said net sales more than doubled in the first quarter of fiscal 2012, driven by “strong holiday sales,” some 90 per cent of which it attributed to the Keurig brewing systems.

Keurig’s single-serve coffee pack, the K-Cup, consists of a small plastic cup, an interior filter containing ground coffee and a foil seal — none of which are recyclable.

In Green Mountain’s 2011 financial reports, the company did not include the number of K-cups sold, but did note that the number of brewing machines sold was 5.8 million.

In the first quarter of 2012 alone, it sold 4.2 million brewing machines.

Earlier this month, Starbucks, which had for the past year only been producing a line of specialty K-Cups for Keurig, said it would come out with its own single-cup coffee brewer.

Contrary to popular opinion, the plastic K-Cup enclosures are not recyclable (Photo by Jennifer Giesbrecht)

The announcement, which hinted the machine would appear “just in time for the holidays,” sent Starbucks’ shares to their highest level in 52 weeks. Shares of Green Mountain, meanwhile, dove 16 per cent that day.

Starbucks’ new high-pressure machine, the Verismo System, will feature single-use pods for both coffee and milk, allowing customers to create “Starbucks-quality beverages” without ever setting foot in a Starbucks shop.

The company made no mention in its press release as to whether the Verismo pods would be recyclable and has not responded to multiple requests for clarification.

Despite the new competition from Starbucks, Green Mountain’s sales are still projected to more than double this year, bringing the estimated K-Cup count to over 10 billion for 2012. Add to this a new selection of plastic pods from the world’s most recognized coffee brand and the numbers are sure to continue their exponential growth.

Climbing the mountain

Green Mountain Coffee began in 1981 as a small Vermont café. As the company grew, it came to offer some of America’s first fair trade and environmentally sustainable coffee to a generation that was beginning to shun corporate greed and irresponsibility.

Under the slogan “Brewing a better world,” the company continues to play a significant role in the development of sustainable growing methods and the promotion of Fair Trade and Farm Identified coffee. Green Mountain also adheres to industry-leading labour, safety and environmental guidelines at its Latin American farms and Chinese factories, and funds a number of non-profit assistance groups that work closely with these communities.

In 2006, Green Mountain acquired Massachusetts-based coffee machine manufacturer Keurig (from the Dutch for “neat”), a company that had mastered the industrial single-serve coffee maker but was looking to enter the home appliance market.

Amidst doubts that consumers would ever pay $200 to $300 (US) for an otherwise $40 coffee maker, the Keurig home model was a runaway success. Before long, Green Mountain found itself at the top of a worldwide coffee empire built on piles of disposable cups.

With yearly growth now in the high 90 per cent-range, and with 84 per cent of net sales now attributed to the Keurig brewers and K-Cups, Green Mountain’s label of “fair trade pioneer” is quickly giving way to one of “capitalist mastermind.”

A swear word

“It’s already pretty darn convenient to make a cup of coffee, if you think about it,” says Taina Uitto, a Vancouver-based marine conservationist and environmental blogger.

Since 2010, Uitto has been living her life, to the best of her ability, without using any plastic at all.

Uitto says she is familiar with the Keurig brewing systems, but stresses that even if the notorious K-Cups were recyclable, it wouldn’t solve the greater problem: our addiction to convenience.

“Convenience should be a swear word,” says Uitto.

She even believes that certain attitudes toward recycling can work to perpetuate our disposable culture. “We’re so proud of our recycling these days, it doesn’t matter how overflowing our recycling bins are.”

“Plastic isn’t even recyclable, in the true sense of the word,” says Uitto, instead referring to the process as “downcycling” — a term that illustrates more accurately that a plastic product can only be re-formed once in its lifetime, not in a perpetual cycle as the symbol on the box suggests.

After that, just like any other waste, recycled plastic products ends up in a landfill, or — as is increasingly the case — in the ocean.

Out of sight

Another advantage McShane sees in her office’s industrial Keurig brewer is that it automatically deposits the hot, used K-Cup into an internal compartment, saving her from having to remove it manually. These are then emptied into a designated bin, which is hauled off on a regular basis by coffee service provider Van Houtte.

When asked her opinion on the K-Cup waste, McShane turned to her coworker and asked, “Don’t we recycle these?”

Starbucks hopes you will say "happy holidays" with a single-cup brewer (Photo courtesy of Starbucks)

According to the Recycling Council of B.C., if the piece of plastic isn’t labeled as type #1, #2, #4 or #5, it has to go in the garbage.

The Keurig K-Cups display no recycling symbol at all.

Morten Schroder, vice president of Pacific Region operations at Coquitlam-based Van Houtte Coffee Services, confirms that the company does offer the removal of used K-Cups as part of their service package, but they do not advise clients that the cups are getting recycled.

Van Houtte’s website also acknowledges that K-Cups are not recyclable.

Schroder says that the used K-Cups are brought to a local incinerator facility (PDF) where they are used in the generation of steam power for the community.

“It’s not a perfect solution,” says Schroder, “but they’re not going into a landfill.”

Another issue that Uitto considers to be a problem is greenwashing: when a company broadly paints their product as “eco-friendly” in order to ease the environmental conscience of their clients while ensuring that cash continues to flow.

“Soon you’ll see some kind of eco-K-Cup out there,” she says, “and the company will win some kind of stupid award for it…but then everybody will have to get a new coffee maker to match the new container.”

In fact, last month Green Mountain introduced a new brewing system called Vue. It uses a K-Cup made of polypropylene #5 plastic, which, by the company’s estimate, is accepted for recycling in “about half” of the communities in the United States.

The new cup is incompatible with the original Keurig machines.

Recipe for ruin

Many environmentalists like Uitto cling to hopes that the single-serve coffee brewer may be just another as-seen-on TV plastic fad, soon to go the way of the vacuum food sealer or electric food dehydrator.

These hopes faded significantly with the Verismo System announcement by Starbucks, a global coffee giant already responsible for billions of discarded paper cups each year.

But even if future single-serve coffee packs are made recyclable or even biodegradable, Uitto says a significant amount of damage has already been done, and very little will improve as long as both companies and consumers continue to put convenience before responsibility.

It might already be too late. According to Uitto, “It would take a big, big turnaround to get things right in the short enough amount of time before we screw things up really big.”

POKING FUN AT PLASTIC

Will the Keurig brewer go the way of these plastic fantastic fads?

Let George Clooney charm you into buying the first single-cup brewer

Werner Herzog brings people closer to their plastic bags

Charging stations can be found outside Edible Canada on Granville Island

Dealerships across the lower mainland began to sell Canada’s first widely available electric car models this fall.

On Nov. 5, the provincial government followed the path of Ontario and Quebec by announcing a point-of-sale incentive program which could save consumers up to $5,000 on the purchase of electric vehicles and $500 on the purchase and installation of charging stations.

The B.C. Government’s incentive program is set to begin on Dec. 1.

Related:Toronto and Montreal miles ahead on EVs

Charging stations are more powerful than standard 110-volt outlets and can provide a full charge in less than 4 hours, making EVs a viable alternative for drivers commuting to work or running errands.

The City of Vancouver currently requires that all new multi-unit residential buildings have at least 20 per cent of parking stalls equipped with charging infrastructure.

Incumbent Vision candidate Andrea Reimer says this is one of the highest bars set in North America.

“We’ve been doing it since before electric vehicles were commercially available in Vancouver, so it’s challenging. There’s not a demand yet for it,” said Reimer.

“But our argument has been that the only way to have a demand is to also have a supply – people aren’t going to buy cars they can’t charge.”

Green infrastructure

The municipal initiative for Vancouver to become the greenest city in the world calls for 15 per cent of all new vehicles to be electric by 2020.

According to Eric Pateman, founder and president of Edible Canada, the cars will only find mainstream acceptance if owners have access to public charging stations.

“For electric vehicles to become more widely adopted there’s going to have to be the infrastructure there for people to drive and charge,” said Pateman, “because if you can’t, it’s fairly limiting.”

Pateman was one of the first local businesses owners to install dedicated electric vehicle (EV) stations for customers, which can be seen outside of his restaurant on Granville Island.

The City of Vancouver has installed charging stations at Olympic Village, Sunset Community Centre and City Hall. Stations can also be found outside a number of local businesses, including Edible Canada and the downtown Fairmont.

The Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association (VEVA) says that both government and the developers of charging stations need to recognize the unique needs of electric vehicles.

“Charging for EVs is not the same as pumping gasoline, and we have to stop thinking in terms of the last century’s conventional gas stations,” said VEVA spokesperson John Stonier, in a statement released after the provincial government’s funding announcement.

Questioning the charging station strategy

Non-Partisan Association council candidate Ken Charko says the city has a mandate to ensure charging infrastructure is in place. However, he believes that this is best accomplished through easing regulation and providing incentives to private firms interested in installing charging stations.

“What’s really wrong with the green movement, what’s really wrong with environmentalism right now is that people say: ‘if it’s green, let’s do it,’ and they don’t understand the difficulties that have to go with that,” said Charko, who was has been outspoken on the issue of seasonal bike lanes.

While the incumbent Vision council has implemented residential bylaws requiring charging infrastructure, Charko believes the city should primarily provide guidance for entrepreneurs and developers.

“The city shouldn’t do much, but what it should do is should provide the direction for those that know what they’re doing,” he said.

Appeal of green cars

City of Vancouver EV Fleet Vehicle, City Hall

Coalition of Progressive Electors’ (COPE) council candidate RJ Aquino says that he supports electric vehicles but that public transit is the most efficient, environmentally friendly way to travel.

“Many residents of Vancouver realize that we need to do our part for the environment and a big part of that is how we get around. Driving around in a car by yourself isn’t the most sustainable way to get around the city,” said Aquino.

Vision candidate Reimer agrees, saying that electric cars are exciting to some Vancouver residents but that their appeal is still somewhat narrow.

“We know not everyone’s going to get out of their vehicle in the next 10 years,” she said, “but we want to make sure that you have a way to do that that isn’t harmful to the environment or other people.”

According to Sean Allan, project engineer with BC Hydro subsidiary Powertech, the province is ready for electric cars to enter the mainstream.

“Electric vehicles in British Columbia make a lot of sense because we have some of the cheapest electricity on the planet,” said Allan, adding that most of the province’s power comes from hydroelectric generation.

“It doesn’t make any sense if you’re burning coal to make electricity to put into cars.”

EV parking spot in downtown Toronto, Flickr (Neal Jennings)

Sean Allan, an engineer for BC Hydro subsidiary Powertech, said prior to the province’s announcement that he believed that BC might be playing catch up with other provinces.

Related: First electric cars generate charging buzz

“The cars are definitely coming, but is the world ready for them yet?” asked Allan, “I think that British Columbia is possibly less ready than some other provinces.”

Montreal’s ‘Electric Circuit’

Hydro Quebec has been actively lobbying businesses to install charging stations for plug-in electric vehicles, including RONA hardware stores and the Metro grocery chain.

Throughout 2012, over 100 stations will be rolled out in store lots across Montreal and Quebec City. This “Electric Circuit” is being described as the country’s first charging network for EVs.

The program is also unique in that Hydro Quebec has implemented a $2 flat rate for each charge.

Most other public charging stations have either given away the electricity for free (like Edible Canada) or included it with their parking fee (like EasyPark lots).

Toronto links transit and charging stations

The province of Ontario made headlines late this summer when it announced a $430 million partnership with Magna International to develop and research electric vehicle technology.

The province will kick in $48 million to various research projects, helping to create an estimated 728 jobs in an industry hit hard by the recent economic turmoil.

The Greater Toronto Area has also taken steps to link electric car infrastructure with the existing GO Transit system. Between now and 2014, 10 communities with GO Train stations will have charging infrastructure installed in the existing train station parkades.

The historic logging boomtown of Port Renfrew is redefining its relationship with old trees.

Nestled on the southwest coast of Vancouver Island, the town’s livelihood and identity grew out of logging old-growth forests for most of the 20th century. Mechanization of the logging industry in the 1980s led to significant job loss, which forced the town to find new ways to thrive.

The community of less than 300 residents now relies on tourist dollars attracted partly by the allure of its remaining tall trees.

“We’re calling ourselves ‘a tall tree town’ now because I think it works,” said Rose Betsworth, president of the Port Renfrew Chamber of Commerce.

The chamber forged a new partnership with the Ancient Forest Alliance in 2009 after the Victoria based environmental group discovered an old-growth forest 15 minutes north of Port Renfrew.

Together they are pushing for full legislative protection of the 40 hectares of ancient forest, which the alliance named Avatar Grove in reference to the blockbuster movie with the conservationist tilt.

“We’re edging very close to protection status for Avatar Grove,” said Betsworth. “And if that happens it means all these other old growth have a chance. We want to showcase Port Renfrew and our old growth.”

Betsworth explains that the site of the future tourist information centre is a beautiful spot.

A joint fundraiser between the chamber and the AFA raised more than $6,000 for a new tourist centre in Port Renfrew scheduled to open in May.

“We’re a tourist community. We rely on tourist dollars,” Betsworth said. “We’ve forgotten about the logging part of it now.”

The value of old wood

Old-growth forests, with towering trees typically 250 to a 1,000 years old, provide homes for unique ecosystems.

More than 73 per cent of productive old-growth forests on Vancouver Island have been logged, according to the AFA website.

Worth more than $100,000 per log in the 1990s, old-growth trees fueled profits for British Columbia’s forest industry.

The industry continues to target old, large trees because they tend to be stronger than younger, smaller trees.

The coastal old-growth forests of B.C. absorb large amounts of water. That enables them to resist pests and forest fires and to grow up to 70 metres high. Their slow growth produces tighter growth rings and a higher quality of wood less susceptible to warping.

Dan Kuzman, a longtime resident of Port Renfrew, said that these old durable trees are important in the manufacturing of wood products.

This red cedar, at least 250 years old, was cut down less than one kilometre away from Avatar Grove.

“Normally you wouldn’t see an old-growth tree made into two-by-fours and two-by-sixes,” Kuzman said. “It would be large beams or good plywood…Window sills, door jams, that kind of stuff. It’s all old-growth.”

Specialty items such as guitars and marine lumber are often by-products of the ancient giants, said Kuzman.

Preservation of some of the old forests is important, he said, but he questioned to what extent.

“I don’t see why you can’t keep some of them,” Kuzman said. “But saving them for the sake of saving them is not enough.

“Having the province, or the people of the province, not being able to benefit from [old-growth] from the economic part of it is probably wrong, more wrong than taking it from the people who are looking at it.”

The value of old forests

Mark Haddock, an attorney with the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria, said that B.C. has predominantly valued old-growth forests for their economic value.

“We’ve tended to view it historically just as a resource for lumber extraction, not really seeing the connections between the sorts of ecosystems that are represented by those forests and the animals that depend on them,” he said.

Species such as Roosevelt elk and northern spotted owls rely on the mix of new, old and decaying trees found in old-growth forests for food and shelter. The logging of B.C.’s pristine forests endangers these species as clear cutting continues.

Keeping old forests intact also does more to mitigate climate change than planting new trees. More carbon can be stored in the soil of an undisturbed ancient forest.

“I think the conservation biology is pretty sound,” Haddock said. “I think it makes a pretty persuasive case to me as a British Columbian that there’s real merit in protecting old-growth forests. Now that we are aware of these ecological values, how do we act?”

Current provincial protection for old growth forests is a matter of discretion by the government, Haddock said.

“There are rules that can and do protect old-growth,” Haddock said. “It’s just that the amount of old-growth, that is protected is not stated in any mandatory way. It’s a discretionary decision by the government.”

Watt overlooks clear cuts surrounding Port Renfrew.

The discovery of Avatar Grove by TJ Watt, cofounder of the alliance, and the subsequent barrage of media coverage triggered a public outcry to protect the remaining old-growth forests on the south of Vancouver Island.

Former Vancouver Island MP Keith Martin recently called for the creation of a national park reserve that would encompass the southern portion of the island and include Avatar Grove, which is only 25 per cent protected.

Companies continue to log giant cedars a kilometre away from the grove, Watt said, questioning how long the logging of old-growth forests can last.

“If they don’t have a plan and it’s not considered, what are they gonna do in a couple decades when they finish it?” he said.

“It’s not if, it’s when.”

By Lena Smirnova and Carrie Swiggum