Connect with us

Headlines

Canada’s forests actually emit more carbon than they absorb — despite what you’ve heard on Facebook

Editor

Published

on

[ad_1]

You might have heard that Canada’s forests are an immense carbon sink, sucking up all sorts of CO2 — more than we produce — so we don’t have to worry about our greenhouse gas emissions.

This claim has been circulated on social media and repeated by pundits and politicians.

This would be convenient for our country, if it were real. Hitting our emissions-reduction targets would be a breeze. But, like most things that sound too good to be true, this one is false.

That’s because trees don’t just absorb carbon when they grow, they emit it when they die and decompose, or burn.

When you add up both the absorption and emission, Canada’s forests haven’t been a net carbon sink since 2001. Due largely to forest fires and insect infestations, the trees have actually added to our country’s greenhouse gas emissions for each of the past 15 years on record.

Not surprisingly, then, Canada has historically excluded its forests when accounting for its total greenhouse emissions to the rest of the world. We had that option, under international agreements, and it was in our interest to leave the trees out of the total tabulation, since they would have boosted our overall emissions.

But, just in the past couple of years, we have taken a different approach. We are now making the case to the United Nations that things like forest fires and pine beetle infestations shouldn’t count against us, and that only human-related changes to our forests should be included when doing the calculations that matter to our emission-reduction targets.

By that accounting method, Canada’s forestry activities would indeed count as a net carbon sink each year. But even then, they wouldn’t cancel out our emissions from other sources. Not even close.

To understand why, we have to do a wee bit of math.

‘More of a source than a sink’

First, the baseline. Our annual emissions.

Canada emits roughly 700 megatonnes of CO2 each year.

This does not include any impacts from forests or other parts of our landscape, such as wetlands and farmland. Canada has historically excluded land-use-related emissions and absorptions in its official accounting, and with good reason, if the goal is to reduce emissions on paper.

A wildfire burns on a logging road approximately 20 kilometres southwest of Fort St. James, B.C., on Aug. 15, 2018. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

That’s because our trees, in particular, have actually hurt our bottom line.

For the past 15 years, they’ve been “more of a source than a sink,” said Dominique Blain, a director in the science and technology branch of Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Canada’s managed forests were a net contributor of roughly 78 megatonnes of emissions in 2016, the most recent year on record.

Canada’s ‘managed forest’ includes all forests under direct human influence, covering about 226 million hectares in total, or 65% of Canada’s total forest area. (Natural Resources Canada)

This includes all areas that are managed for harvesting, subject to fire or insect management, or protected as part of a park or other designation. It covers some 226 million hectares and accounts for 65 per cent of Canada’s total forest area.

In 2015, largely due to raging wildfires, these forests kicked a whopping 237 more megatonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they absorbed.

But when you exclude natural disturbances like fires and insect infestations and look only at the areas directly impacted by human forestry activity, the picture changes.

It’s these areas where forests act as a net carbon sink, year after year.

The “sink” effect is largely the result of new trees being planted and growing, after mature ones are cut down.

The harvested lumber, meanwhile, releases its carbon to the atmosphere more slowly. The eventual decomposition of lumber products is actually included as part of our greenhouse-gas accounting, Blain said, with scientists estimating the related carbon emissions over a period of decades.

On average, areas subject to forestry activity have been a net sink of roughly 26 megatonnes annually since 2001.

Now, remember, our annual emissions total around 700 megatonnes.

So, even with this favourable accounting, our forestry practices would only negate roughly three to four per cent of our greenhouse-gas output each year.

That’s a far cry from the carbon-neutral — or even carbon-negative — claims that have been made about Canada and its forests.

Still, it’s not negligible. And there is a case to be made for using forests — and other biomass — as a part of our climate-change strategy.

‘Anthropogenic’ activity

Mark Cameron is a former policy adviser to prime minister Stephen Harper and now runs Canadians for Clean Prosperity, a non-partisan group that promotes “market-based policies that generate growth while conserving our environment.”

He says effective management of trees and other biomass still has some value in fighting climate change — even if it’s not the “get out of jail free card” or “magic bullet” that some people make it out to be.

“I hear this frequently from people who don’t want to take additional climate action, arguing that Canada really doesn’t have to because we have such great forests,” Cameron said.

“Canada should do as much as we can to sequester carbon naturally. We should take advantage of our forests, our wetlands … but it doesn’t mean that, because we have a lot of forest, we don’t have to worry about carbon emissions, which is often the line that people use.”

When you factor in other types of biomass with forestry activity — wetlands, farmland and the like — the potential for carbon sequestration grows further.

Together, these carbon sinks totalled 28 megatonnes in 2016 and would decrease our total greenhouse gas emissions for the year by four per cent, according to Canada’s latest inventory report.

Depending on the practices in any given year, these land-use activities have the potential to be even larger sinks. Applied in 1990, for instance, they decrease Canada’s greenhouse-gas output that year by 11 per cent.

How these sinks are measured and accounted for, however, is a matter of ongoing debate — and revision.

International credit, ‘even if emissions don’t change’

In its 2017 revised submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the federal government indicated how it plans to re-evaluate its accounting of biomass.

“Canada is examining its approach to accounting in the land use, land-use change and forestry sector,” the submission reads.

As part of this process, Canada will “exclude the impacts of natural disturbances and focus on anthropogenic emissions and removals.”

In other words: Don’t count our wildfires or the devastation from our pine beetles, but do count our forestry and farming practices.

This aerial photograph shows a forest infested by the mountain pine beetle in Alberta. (Government of Alberta)

This approach, Cameron says, would go a long way toward helping Canada meet its emission-reduction targets under the Paris Agreement.

“We are currently projected to fall 232 megatonnes short in 2030,” he wrote last year. “By switching to one of the alternative accounting methodologies for emissions from land use, forestry and forest products allowed under the framework, Canada could narrow the gap — perhaps by as much as 63 or 126 megatonnes — even if our actual emissions don’t change.”

The bottom line is that our trees — along with our other, plentiful sources of biomass — could be part of the solution in meeting our international agreements on climate change, but that’s more a question of accounting than of actual emissions.

As for the claims that Canada’s natural landscape makes us carbon neutral — or even carbon negative — already?

“I don’t think that they they would stand scientific scrutiny,” said Blain.

[ad_2]

Source link

قالب وردپرس

Headlines

Grocery wars intensify anew as Whole Foods to cut prices on hundreds of items by 20% starting tomorrow

Editor

Published

on

By

Whole Foods, the high-end grocery store bought by Amazon in 2017, plans to cut prices on hundreds of items by as much as 20 per cent as of Wednesday, including at locations in Canada.

Amazon says most of the cuts will come in produce and other fresh items and will amount, on average, to about 20 per cent in savings where they are in effect.

It’s the third such round of widespread cost cutting since Amazon bought the chain in the fall of 2017.

The takeover at the time came as a bit of a surprise, since it was the marriage of two companies with vastly different strategies and markets.

Amazon started as an online bookstore and soon grew to become the largest online retailer of just about everything else by focusing on cutting costs while expanding selection and offering delivery speeds that other sellers struggled to match.

Its Amazon Prime service, where customers can get same-day delivery on millions of products for an annual fee in Canada of $79, has helped them cement customer loyalty even more.

Whole Foods, meanwhile, began as a health food store in Austin, Texas, in 1980 that steadily grew across the U.S. and then into Canada by catering to health-conscious shoppers who didn’t mind paying more for items they deemed to be healthier.

When Amazon bought the chain, many wondered what the long-term plan was, and Wednesday’s move seems to suggest the company may bring its ruthless approach to cost cutting to the bricks-and-mortar world of retail. And the company claims it can do that without sacrificing the quality that won the grocer fans in the first place.

“Whole Foods Market continues to maintain the high-quality standards that we’ve championed for nearly 40 years, and with Amazon, we will lower more prices in the future, building on the positive momentum from previous price investments,” Whole Foods co-founder and CEO John Mackey said. “We will continue to focus on both lowering prices and bringing customers the quality they trust and the innovative assortment they expect from our brand.”

‘Seismic impact’

Whole Foods has about 300 U.S. locations and 14 in Canada — mainly in and around Toronto and Vancouver, but also one location in Victoria and one in Ottawa.

Strategy adviser Mark Satov, with Satov Consultants, says it’s less likely the decision will kick off a move to turn Whole Foods into a discount grocery chain, and more likely Amazon is simply using the chain to figure out how a new business works. “They bought it to learn how to be in the food business,” he said.

“I think they’re just experimenting and marketing to draw a few more people into the store,” he added. The store’s price point is still out of reach for most Canadians, but by targeting items that people tend to benchmark prices on — things like fresh vegetables — the chain is hoping to win a few more customers for its more expensive items, too.

“Once you are inside the store, a couple of things happen,” Satov said. “You go and say the milk is $3.69 … I can afford that, and then you’ll buy the freshly ground peanut butter for $18 a tub.”

Whole Foods currently has more than a dozen locations across Canada. (Lynne Sladky/Associated Press)

But Bruce Winder, co-founder and partner at Retail Advisors Network, says the move is a much bigger deal for the hyper-competitive world of Canadian grocery.

“It’s going to cause a fairly seismic impact,” he said in an interview. While he acknowledges the Whole Foods footprint is relatively small in Canada, “it fires a shot over the bow of traditional grocery,” he said.

The move likely won’t cause a flood of people to change their grocery store, he said, but “it’s going to wake up some people to consider a switch.”

If it gets enough of them through the door — and possibly buying new Prime memberships — Winder says it’s worth it.

That’s because most people shop one or two times a week, “and if they can get that customer coming in, invite them into the ecosystem, get them to use Prime — and suddenly you’ve got a strong rewards system there that keeps the customer within the Amazon world,” he said.

And ultimately, anything that causes the rest of the industry to take a look at its own businesses is a good thing for everyone.

“The consumer wins,” Winder said.

Continue Reading

Headlines

What I Learned at the Opening of Toronto’s First Legal Weed Store

Editor

Published

on

By

Perhaps it was fitting that Ontario’s weed stores finally opened their doors on April Fool’s day—because the province’s retail rollout has arguably been a joke.

In the end, only ten of the 25 private cannabis retail operators selected via lottery were able to open Monday. There was one store open in Toronto, a city of 2.6 million, where more than 100 illicit dispensaries were in operation prior to legalization.

VICE visited the Toronto store, called The Hunny Pot, located downtown near Queen Street and University Ave. Here are a few key takeaways from the experience:

People give a shit

When we showed up at 8:45 AM—about 15 minutes before The Hunny Pot opened, there were dozens of people already in line. This despite temperatures being below 0 degrees Celsius [32 degrees Fahrenheit] and the fact that you can order weed online. Cannabis lawyer Caryma Sa’d and a few others parked a tent in front of The Hunny Pot at 10 AM Sunday to ensure they’d be first in line. Sa’d told VICE she can’t order weed through the Ontario Cannabis Store website because it doesn’t accept Visa debit cards, so she wasn’t able to buy weed on October 17. “Obviously Ontario has been extremely slow to open brick and mortar stores and it was something of a second chance to be first.” The line only got busier as the day progressed, and the three levels of the store’s interior were jammed the entire time we were there.

The owner doesn’t smoke weed

The Hunny Pot owner Hunny Gawri is a real estate agent who told VICE he has consumed cannabis only on rare occasions. He has, however, run a bunch of different types of shops, including cell phone stores and an indoor kids’ playground.

“I think I might be able to speak more for people who haven’t tried it and are curious now that it’s legal,” he said, noting he wants more education on the effects various strains will have on him. “There’s a lot of enthusiasts out there and I’m looking forward to understanding it more, learning more about it as we go through the process.” Advertisement

Gawri said his retail experience is what allowed him to build the store in a short period of time. He said he was in part attracted to selling weed because it’s “definitely going to be a lucrative industry,” especially given Ontario’s population. Many of the other weed operator lottery winners in Ontario have partnered with larger retailers in licensing deals, but The Hunny Pot is independent.

People are pissed about this tone-deaf shirt

Staff at The Hunny Pot were outfitted with uniforms that had jokey slogans on the back, including “baked fresh daily,” and “I’m high on life.” However one of the staffers—a white woman—wore a shirt that said “I run on weed & gangsta rap.” People were not amused when I tweeted a photo of it. That’s because it seemed a little tone deaf, considering that black people are disproportionately arrested for weed crimes, and vastly underrepresented in the legal weed industry.

“There are about 500,000 Canadians w/ marijuana convictions on their record. Black folks were targeted for these offenses & are wildly over-represented in that number. But YUK YUK isn’t this tee so cute? Everybody wanna be Black but nobody wanna be Black,” tweeted Jared A. Walker, a Toronto-based writer and communications consultant. Yeah, might be a good idea to pull that shirt out of the rotation.

golden-joint

A golden joint (left) and a “CBD dominant” strain (right). Photos by the author

The weed isn’t cheap

I paid $51 [$38 USD] for 3.5 grams of San Rafael Pink Kush—an indica containing 21 percent THC. Online, that quantity is priced at $42.85 [$32.08 USD] plus a $5 [$3.75 USD] shipping fee, though it’s sold out currently. Owner Gawri told VICE grams at his store range from $9.50 [$7.11 USD] to $22 [$16.47 USD]. It goes without saying that black market weed is still cheaper, especially if you buy weed in larger quantities. But being the only legal weed store in Toronto, The Hunny Pot is still going to get a lot of traffic.

There’s an Apple Store vibe

The Hunny Pot is aesthetically very sleek. It’s 3,500 square feet with a lobby area, and three levels where cannabis is displayed in sensory jars that allow you to smell the various strains and examine them through a magnifying glass. Each customer is greeted by a budtender who walks them through their options and then places orders through an iPad. Once you’re done placing your order you wait in a line to pay and pick up the weed at the cashier.

There was a Christian man protesting weed

After spending a few hours at the store, we walked outside to find a protester across the street holding up a sign that said “there’s no hope in the dope. John 8:36.”

It turns out that’s not actually what that bible verse says. The guy was shouting “it’s corrupt, it’s dirty, it’s vile, it’s not God’s will” into a microphone. And I took that as my cue to go home.

Continue Reading

Headlines

Two Ontario pot shops appear to be violating building code and accessibility laws

Editor

Published

on

By

Toronto’s only licensed, up-and-running, brick-and-mortar cannabis store was open for business on April 1. But some customers with disabilities encountered difficulties when attempting to access the Hunny Pot Cannabis Co. near Queen Street West and University Avenue—there was no ramp to facilitate access for users of mobility devices such as wheelchairs and walkers.

Global News reports that Jordan Dragiz went to the Hunny Pot on Monday to pick up a few cannabis products. After a long wait in line, Dragiz arrived at the front–only to realize that there was no ramp to the front door. In order to be served, Dragiz was forced to leave his wheelchair sitting on the sidewalk and had to be brought in and out of the shop without the device, via staff assistance.

“I wasn’t shocked. I was kind of expecting this. But I wasn’t sure if there’s going to be a ramp or not. I’m more shocked they don’t have a ramp,” Dragiz told Global News. “All these buildings are pretty old … I was wondering what I was going to do, how I was going to get in. But good thing they were nice enough to help me in.”

Staff at the Hunny Pot Cannabis Co. went on the defensive when asked by Global News to explain the lack of accessibility.

“We fully accommodated those individuals. Today, up to four individuals came through with accessibility needs including wheelchair and each were able to purchase product,” Kate Johnny informed Global News in a statement on Monday night. Johnny added that the shop’s owner is working with consultants to identify and correct accessibility issues.

“We do have a temporary ramp that we can bring in to let them come into the store and the ability for our budtenders to bring the point-of-sale and products directly to the individual who currently cannot access the third and fourth floor retail spaces,” says Johnny.

Global reports that upon attending the store on Monday to view the temporary ramp, a rep informed them that the store could not display the ramp due to the influx of clients.

The Hunny Pot Cannabis Co. appears to be in violation of the Ontario Building Code and accessibility laws.

1a Fire Flower 0378 e1554218398428 Two Ontario pot shops appear to be violating building code and accessibility laws
Ottawa’s Fire & Flower is also currently inaccessible to potential clients with mobility issues. Wayne Cuddington/ Postmedia

“I can tell you that all businesses need to adhere to the Ontario Building Code, which says that any new or considerably renovated building needs to be accessible for people with disabilities,” Minister for Seniors and Accessibility Raymond Cho said in a statement.

“I am reviewing the matter immediately and will be working very closely with my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as well as my other colleagues who are engaged on this issue on ensuring that we take a full government approach to accessibility.”

Hunny Pot is not the only Ontario dispensary catching criticism for a lack of accessibility. Ottawa’s Fire & Flower is also currently inaccessible to potential clients with mobility issues, although Ottawans have other options at their disposal that are accessible such as Hobo and Superette.

Global reports Fire & Flower spokesperson Nathan Mison says that a “wheelchair ramp, a chair lift, a wider front doorway and wider hallways” were originally planned as part of the store. Because the shop is located in a heritage building, he says, any major renovations would require municipal approval.

As a result, plans to make the store accessible to all clients had to be delayed in order to open by April 1. Because of that, and the tight timeline the company faced before opening day, plans to make the building fully accessible had to be delayed, says Mison, who claims Fire & Flower is working with the city of Ottawa and hopes to have changes implemented over the next few months.

“It’s still in process and we’re still working that through,” he said.

It is unclear whether Hunny Pot or Fire & Flower will face repercussions for flouting provincial disability laws.

Want to keep up to date on what’s happening in the world of cannabis?  Subscribe to the Cannabis Post newsletter for weekly insights into the industry, what insiders will be talking about and content from across the Postmedia Network.

Continue Reading

Chat

Trending