Sandra Finley

Feb 142019
 
The rate of insect extinction is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles.
The rate of insect extinction is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles. Photograph: Courtesy of Entomologisher Verein Krefeld

The world’s insects are hurtling down the path to extinction, threatening a “catastrophic collapse of nature’s ecosystems”, according to the first global scientific review.

More than 40% of insect species are declining and a third are endangered, the analysis found. The rate of extinction is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles. The total mass of insects is falling by a precipitous 2.5% a year, according to the best data available, suggesting they could vanish within a century.

The planet is at the start of a sixth mass extinction in its history, with huge losses already reported in larger animals that are easier to study. But insects are by far the most varied and abundant animals, outweighing humanity by 17 times. They are “essential” for the proper functioning of all ecosystems, the researchers say, as food for other creatures, pollinators and recyclers of nutrients.

Insect population collapses have recently been reported in Germany and Puerto Rico, but the review strongly indicates the crisis is global. The researchers set out their conclusions in unusually forceful terms for a peer-reviewed scientific paper: “The [insect] trends confirm that the sixth major extinction event is profoundly impacting [on] life forms on our planet.

“Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades,” they write. “The repercussions this will have for the planet’s ecosystems are catastrophic to say the least.”

Scarce copper butterflies.
Scarce copper butterflies. Photograph: Marlene Finlayson/Alamy Stock Photo/Alamy
Quick guide

Insect collapse: the red flags

The analysis, published in the journal Biological Conservation, says intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines, particularly the heavy use of pesticides. Urbanisation and climate change are also significant factors.

“If insect species losses cannot be halted, this will have catastrophic consequences for both the planet’s ecosystems and for the survival of mankind,” said Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, at the University of Sydney, Australia, who wrote the review with Kris Wyckhuys at the China Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing.

The 2.5% rate of annual loss over the last 25-30 years is “shocking”, Sánchez-Bayo told the Guardian: “It is very rapid. In 10 years you will have a quarter less, in 50 years only half left and in 100 years you will have none.”

One of the biggest impacts of insect loss is on the many birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish that eat insects. “If this food source is taken away, all these animals starve to death,” he said. Such cascading effects have already been seen in Puerto Rico, where a recent study revealed a 98% fall in ground insects over 35 years.

The new analysis selected the 73 best studies done to date to assess the insect decline. Butterflies and moths are among the worst hit. For example, the number of widespread butterfly species fell by 58% on farmed land in England between 2000 and 2009. The UK has suffered the biggest recorded insect falls overall, though that is probably a result of being more intensely studied than most places.

Surveying butterflies in Maine, US.
Surveying butterflies in Maine, US. Photograph: Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Getty Images

Bees have also been seriously affected, with only half of the bumblebee species found in Oklahoma in the US in 1949 being present in 2013. The number of honeybee colonies in the US was 6 million in 1947, but 3.5 million have been lost since.

There are more than 350,000 species of beetle and many are thought to have declined, especially dung beetles. But there are also big gaps in knowledge, with very little known about many flies, ants, aphids, shield bugs and crickets. Experts say there is no reason to think they are faring any better than the studied species.

A small number of adaptable species are increasing in number, but not nearly enough to outweigh the big losses. “There are always some species that take advantage of vacuum left by the extinction of other species,” said Sanchez-Bayo. In the US, the common eastern bumblebee is increasing due to its tolerance of pesticides.

Most of the studies analysed were done in western Europe and the US, with a few ranging from Australia to China and Brazil to South Africa, but very few exist elsewhere.

“The main cause of the decline is agricultural intensification,” Sánchez-Bayo said. “That means the elimination of all trees and shrubs that normally surround the fields, so there are plain, bare fields that are treated with synthetic fertilisers and pesticides.” He said the demise of insects appears to have started at the dawn of the 20th century, accelerated during the 1950s and 1960s and reached “alarming proportions” over the last two decades.

He thinks new classes of insecticides introduced in the last 20 years, including neonicotinoids and fipronil, have been particularly damaging as they are used routinely and persist in the environment: “They sterilise the soil, killing all the grubs.” This has effects even in nature reserves nearby; the 75% insect losses recorded in Germany were in protected areas.

German conservation workers inspect an urban garden for insects.
German conservation workers inspect an urban garden for insects. Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

The world must change the way it produces food, Sánchez-Bayo said, noting that organic farms had more insects and that occasional pesticide use in the past did not cause the level of decline seen in recent decades. “Industrial-scale, intensive agriculture is the one that is killing the ecosystems,” he said.

In the tropics, where industrial agriculture is often not yet present, the rising temperatures due to climate change are thought to be a significant factor in the decline. The species there have adapted to very stable conditions and have little ability to change, as seen in Puerto Rico.

Sánchez-Bayo said the unusually strong language used in the review was not alarmist. “We wanted to really wake people up” and the reviewers and editor agreed, he said. “When you consider 80% of biomass of insects has disappeared in 25-30 years, it is a big concern.”

Other scientists agree that it is becoming clear that insect losses are now a serious global problem. “The evidence all points in the same direction,” said Prof Dave Goulson at the University of Sussex in the UK. “It should be of huge concern to all of us, for insects are at the heart of every food web, they pollinate the large majority of plant species, keep the soil healthy, recycle nutrients, control pests, and much more. Love them or loathe them, we humans cannot survive without insects.”

 

Matt Shardlow, at the conservation charity Buglife, said: “It is gravely sobering to see this collation of evidence that demonstrates the pitiful state of the world’s insect populations. It is increasingly obvious that the planet’s ecology is breaking and there is a need for an intense and global effort to halt and reverse these dreadful trends.” In his opinion, the review slightly overemphasises the role of pesticides and underplays global warming, though other unstudied factors such as light pollution might prove to be significant.

Prof Paul Ehrlich, at Stanford Universityin the US, has seen insects vanish first-hand, through his work on checkerspot butterflies on Stanford’s Jasper Ridge reserve. He first studied them in 1960 but they had all gone by 2000, largely due to climate change.

Ehrlich praised the review, saying: “It is extraordinary to have gone through all those studies and analysed them as well as they have.” He said the particularly large declines in aquatic insects were striking. “But they don’t mention that it is human overpopulation and overconsumption that is driving all the things [eradicating insects], including climate change,” he said.

Sánchez-Bayo said he had recently witnessed an insect crash himself. A recent family holiday involved a 400-mile (700km) drive across rural Australia, but he had not once had to clean the windscreen, he said. “Years ago you had to do this constantly.”

Feb 132019
 

Rich Coleman Fighting Order to Testify in TimberWest Trial

Coleman.jpg

Legislature ‘technically’ in session, so ex-minister can ignore subpoena, lawyer argues.

 Excerpts:

TimberWest’s donations to the BC Liberals included $44,685 in 2007, $14,738 in 2008 and $60,988 in 2009. . . .

TimberWest was eventually sold to two funds that manage pension money for public sector employees.

One was the B.C. Investment Management Corp., a provincial government agency that manages $136 billion for some 569,000 current and former public sector employees. . . .  (BCI)

The other buyer was the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, now known as PSP Investments, which manages pension money for members of the federal public service, the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces. . . .

Nor would they (the Govt) clarify whether Suntjens (a Govt lawyer) is acting on behalf of Coleman or the government.

In June, over objections from provincial government lawyer Suntjens, a judge ruled the plaintiffs had the right to examine Coleman under oath as part of their preparation for the trial.     (full article at Rich Coleman Fighting Order to Testify)

 

The article says to me:   NO WONDER stuff is happening  – – alarming destruction of forest (which others are working on), destruction of land and water.  All connected.

To my way of thinking, citizens can do all the petitioning, protesting, letters-to-editor, educating, they can muster.  On the surface, you will see some progress.  But it’s not real and will never be,  if the corruption runs deep.   Which it does.

Sappers facilitate the movement of the troops by clearing the way, removing obstacles that will prevent the troops from reaching their destination.  (Lack of information is an obstacle.  Corruption is an obstacle.)

= =   Corruption has to be addressed (but not necessarily by everyone),  along with everything else.

The Tyee article is a reminder that the big pension funds (including CPP) are vehicles sometimes used by Governments to direct money (capital) inappropriately.  The “Boards” that run the pension funds have people who come from large corporations, or who are connected with some industry.  They represent the interests of a corporation in the allocation of investment capital.  The people on “the Boards” are from a relatively small group of “influential”s.  You rub my back, I’ll rub yours.  It’s a “win-win” relationship.  Strategically, it was a smart move for monied interests to move onto these Boards.  There are hundreds of billions of dollars calling to their itchy fingers.

In the TimberWest case,  which is all too common – –  it was the same in the Fanny Bay water export and the Vander Zalm Government in the early nineties – – corruption is through contributions to Political Parties.  Not that you didn’t know that!   It’s a concrete reminder of how close to home and long-lived is corruption.

In Vancouver the vehicles for the corruption (casinos, housing market) are being outed.  What are the vehicles for the corruption in water (and forests)?

The problem is, we can’t go toe to toe with the particular industry unless we also tackle political corruption.

/Sandra

Feb 132019
 

PARIS (Reuters) – Bayer said on Wednesday that farmers in France and Germany were digging up thousands of hectares of rapeseed fields after traces of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) banned for cultivation were found in seeds sold by the company.

GMO crops are widely grown across the world, but they remain controversial in Europe, where very few varieties are authorized for growing and some countries like France have completely outlawed their cultivation, citing environmental risks.

Checks by the French authorities during the autumn showed minute quantities of GMO seeds, estimated at less than 0.005 percent of the volume, in three batches of rapeseed seeds sold under the Dekalb brand, Catherine Lamboley, Bayer’s chief operating officer for France, said.

Dekalb was previously a Monsanto brand before the U.S. company was taken over by Bayer last year.

The GMO found, which is a rapeseed variety grown in Canada, is not authorized for cultivation in Europe, although it is allowed in imports destined for food and animal feed, Lamboley said.

Bayer issued a product recall but some of the seed had already been sown, representing about 8,000 hectares in France and 2,500-3,000 hectares in Germany, which are in the process of being dug up, Bayer said.

It was not yet known what caused the contamination of the rapeseed seeds, produced in Argentina in a GMO-free area, Lamboley said.

“We decided to immediately stop all rapeseed seed production in Argentina,” she told Reuters in a phone interview.

Bayer’s Argentine rapeseed seeds were destined for the European market and represent 12 percent of its rapeseed supply for France, the company added.

Bayer declined to estimate the overall cost of the GMO contamination but said it will offer compensation of 2,000 euros ($2,277.80) per hectare to affected farmers, suggesting a payout of around 20 million euros in France and Germany.

The compensation reflected the loss of rapeseed fields this season and the fact farmers would not be able to grow the crop next either as a precaution to avoid re-emergence of the GMO strain, Lamboley added.

The order to destroy some crops is another blow for European rapeseed growers who had already cut sowings sharply due to dry weather.

However, the area is small compared to the total French winter rapeseed area, which the farm ministry in December forecast at 1.23 million hectares. The corresponding German crop area is seen at close to 1 million hectares.

 

($1 = 0.8780 euros)

Reporting by Sybille de La Hamaide; Additional reporting by Gus Trompiz and Valerie Parent; Editing by Jan Harvey

Feb 122019
 

By Ana Cristina Camacho

https://thesheaf.com/2019/01/24/concerns-on-transparency-and-sustainability-raised-at-university-council/

U of S President and Vice-Chancellor Peter Stoicheff asks council a question during a University Council Meeting in Room 241 of the Arts Building on Jan. 17, 2019.

 

Beginning by continuing a discussion from a meeting held on Dec. 20, 2018, retired English professor Len Findlay spoke to the council about his concern of redacting transcripts for freedom in information requests. The university has acted in non-compliance with the privacy commissioner’s informal ruling. The information in question is an audio recording of a by-invitation-only symposium held at the University of Saskatchewan in 2015. 

Findlay asked for more information to be released. He says that the recording of the symposium might be relevant to an upcoming investigation into the alleged interference of agricultural giant Monsanto in university affairs.

“Members of council may appear [to be] willing parties to a policy that masks the culture of secrecy within appeals to confidentiality,” Findlay said. “Another incentive for council to inform themselves about this matter comes in the form of an impending public disclosure by the CBC Radio Canada investigative team on the influence wielded by Monsanto on Canadian university campuses — and guess who’ll be starring in that piece.”

Findlay left after speaking. University President Peter Stoicheff speaks to Findlay’s concerns, reiterating the importance of freedom of discussion as a principle. 

“We do need to separate out the rather emotional aspects and important aspects of the Monsanto piece in all of this,” Stoicheff said. “I would encourage all of us to … move towards a position based on principles, not based on the circumstantial specifics of that particular meeting, so as to safeguard all of us in the future when we have all kinds of discussions, formal and informal.”

– – – – – – – – – – –  – –

Mike wrote:

Perhaps any of you who were in attendance could provide context to President Stoicheff’s response.  To me it is almost unintelligible.

Feb 082019
 

Return to INDEX

apluc response

Larry Barr                                                                                                             Feb. 1, 2019

Acting Regional Executive Director

West Coast Natural Resource Region

Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations

and Rural Development

 

Mr. Barr;

 

Re: French Creek Watershed Protection.

 

Thank you for your letter of Dec. 27, 2018 in response to our letter Dec. 6th, 2018.

 

We are concerned that the acts and regulations you have cited will not offer sufficient guarantees of ecological or drinking water protection for French Creek.

 

For example, with respect to the Water Sustainability Act it is unclear who establishes and monitors “Critical Environmental Flows” in BC waters. Can you clarify this for us? Can you also identify what streams and rivers have had critical environmental flows established? We are aware that a critical environmental flow had been set for French Creek some years ago (as described in a provincial document titled: “French Creek Watershed Study”), and that summer flows are typically below what has been set as a critical environmental flow volume. Although this environmental flow was established by an outdated method, we are nonetheless alarmed by this and we fear that logging in the upper watershed could exacerbate the low flow problem.

 

Suggestion:  French Creek flow monitoring should be implemented at a site immediately below the logging property so that specific effects of logging and other land altering activities can be identified. The installation of an automatic flow data logger at this location would make this task a relatively simple one. However, this activity is outside the scope and authority of APLUC and we seek your assistance in making this happen.

 

It seems that the Water Sustainability Act is concerned only with flows, and not water quality. Is this correct? Are there other provincial acts that deal with water quality for ecological protection? We’re certain that your ministry would agree that water quality is equally important as flows in ensuring the health of aquatic ecosystems.

 

We are aware of the work of the RDN’s Drinking Water and Watershed Protection Program in monitoring water quality in various rivers and streams in this part of Vancouver Island. Indeed, two of our affiliate organizations currently participate in this program by taking measurements and collecting water samples. However, this monitoring program may not be thorough enough to measure the specific effects of logging and other land altering activities in the upper watershed.

 

Suggestion: We ask the provincial government to work with the RDN in establishing a water quality monitoring station immediately downstream of the logging property, to measure logging effects on French Creek water quality. Monitoring should include a base-line condition (although some logging has already occurred), and frequent sampling for those parameters usually associated with logging. This would extend the scope of the DWWP Program.

 

We agree that ever-increasing demand for domestic and probably agricultural uses has decreased ground water aquifer levels within the French Creek watershed. This only heightens our concern that the French Creek flow regime may be altered by logging activities and thereby exacerbating this ground water problem for both domestic well uses and ultimately aquatic ecosystems.

 

Although the French Creek watershed has been designated as a “Community Watershed”, we are uncertain what particular protection measures are accorded to such watersheds. For example, does this designation provide for community input to resource extraction planning, such as logging? Should it? From a provincial regulation perspective, does this designation require a particular degree of caution in government decisions regarding the watersheds? For example, does it promote an enhanced interministerial exchange or referral of resource applications? Should it?

 

We are aware of the 2007 BC Supreme Court judgement against the Sunshine Coast Regional District which had sought a logging moratorium in its “Community Watershed” – Chapman Creek. We have made a similar suggestion for French Creek (see our earlier letter). But, if moratoria are not acceptable to the provincial government or the courts, what other avenues are open to communities or citizens who wish to protect their drinking water and ecosystems other than the Acts and regulations cited in your letter?

 

We note that the Sunshine Coast Regional District used measures in the provincial Health Act in their argument; which to the average citizen should be a strong enough instrument to use in advocating for watershed protection. Apparently not, although it seems an appeal to this ruling may be underway by the Regional District.

 

In a special investigation of community watersheds by the Forest Practices Board in 2014, deficiencies were found in both the management and assessment of these watersheds. Recommendations were made to, among other things, establish guidelines for an appropriate hydrologic assessment. We discovered a few weeks ago that the Association of BC Forest Professionals  and the Engineers and Geoscientists of BC have prepared a draft set of guidelines titled: “Draft Professional Practice Guidelines: Watershed Assessment and Management of Hydrologic and Geomorphic Risk in the Forest Sector”, which we understand is in its final review.  As far as we are aware the last hydrologic assessment of French Creek was done 18 years ago and may no longer be valid, given the number of changes in the watershed, global warming effects, etc. We have been advised that at least the larger forest companies commonly conduct hydrologic assessments, as has the company carrying out logging in the upper French Creek watershed, but this may be oriented more towards engineering requirements for such things as designing culvert sizes, than for an understanding of potential ecological effects or impacts on drinking water supply.

 

We would welcome your comments on our suggestions and views.

 

Respectfully,

 

Ross Peterson, on behalf of APLUC

 

  1. Honourable Doug Donaldson, Minister of Forest, Lands, Natural Resource Operationsapluc response and Rural Development.

Honourable John Horgan, Premier of B.C.

Feb 082019
 

Return to INDEX

https://www.change.org/p/stop-belfast-water-bottling

Cloud Ocean Water has bought land for a proposed second bottling plant, close to its current operations in Belfast.

The China-owned company could be eyeing up billions more litres of water from beneath Christchurch to bottle and sell overseas as part of a major expansion of its operations in Belfast, The Press reported.

At least eight bores with permission to take drinking water are on or next to the new site, and If the bottling company gains consent to use them, it could have access to another 7.5 billion litres of the city’s water – five times what it can already take – for export each year.

Cloud Ocean already has permission to take 1.57 billion litres annually from two bores at the old Kaputone wool scour site on Station Road, Belfast.

Whether water bottling actually occurs is uncertain, because the issue is at the centre of a High Court action over the ability of firms to rely on old industrial use consents.

Representatives of Cloud Ocean confirmed it had bought the new site at 55 Belfast Rd and has applied to the council for permission to build a neq facility.

The community of Christchurch has had no say in the decision-making process, which could in future, affect the City Council’s ability to supply drinking water to the public.

Cloud Ocean bought the land for its second site from Belfast Business Park and submitted a resource consent application to the city council to develop it just before Christmas.

The firm wants to build a 22,000-square-metre bottling plant and distribution centre, where it would also produce plastic bottles.

Cloud Ocean already owns a resource consent, currently inactive, for a 27m bore on the site, allowing it to extract 200 million litres a year.

One, which is active, allows almost 2.1 billion litres of water to be taken annually from three 120m bores. A second inactive consent allows 5.1 billion litres to be taken from four bores between 26m and 34m deep.

Cloud Ocean is currently turning the former wool scour on its current site, into a 22,000sqm bottling and production plant, with warehousing alongside it.

Aside from the cost of the Station Rd scour property and an adjacent old tannery, Cloud Ocean paid $2277 for its 1.57 billion litre annual water take.

Using a 20-year-old permit originally granted to the land’s former owner, Kaputone, Cloud Ocean is currently consented to take massive quantities of water, for next to no cost.

Rapaki Natural Resources, which owns the adjacent property, also plans to bottle water on its site.

Combined, these companies are set to uptake more than 24 million litres of water per day – every day, for bottling. And this is without taking into account, any expansions to operations.

Aquifer water is a precious resource.

Bottliing aquifer water is also a gross waste of such a vital resource – water is already limited within the Canterbury area.

As a nation, we need to care for, and conserve our water supplies as much as we can, not give it away. And with our oceans becoming more choked in plastic, aquifers are one of our remaining, reliable water resources.

This petition is to urge this government, to revoke these historic permits from the current land-occupiers, and alter the law accordingly.

Upholding these permits would not be acting in the best interest of the land, assets, or our people.

Water permits should be non-transferable.

New permits should only be granted as a strict case-by-case basis, with peer reviews in place to protect these resources, and should be publicly notifiable – with room for open, public debate.

Aotearoa Water Action is currently challenging these consents by High Court hearing.

Please help by donating to their costs.

Aotearoa Water Action Inc: 38 9019 053 0141 00

Feb 062019
 

Return to INDEX

Excellent letter!  A request to support the Strathcona Resolution

Offered for use as a Template.

AVICC-Qualicum

Many thanks to Julie:

Here is the letter that has gone out to QB, Parksville council and the RDN (Regional District Nanaimo) board.

If it can be passed onto other jurisdictions encouraging their local government to vote in favour of this resolution, that would be great.

Thanks,

Julie

Letter on behalf of APLUC  (Arrowsmith Parks & Land Use Council).

= = = = = = = =

UPDATE    Feb. 6/19:

JULIE WRITES:

I am getting feedback from some of the councillors/directors that the letter has been sent to.  So far, folks seem supportive.  I think from their perspective they want to know if this is a preventive measure motion or how it might affect operators in their jurisdictions.

I have been emphasizing that this motion speaks solely to operators that export their water internationally ie China, States and would not affect commercial operators that deliver bulk water to mostly local rural customers.  I have also stressed that local agri operators are very interested to see this motion approved.

If other folks send this out to their local reps they could add the above concepts to the letter  or put it in the body of the email that introduces the letter.

Thanks, Julie

– – – – –  – – –

CONVERSATION WITH BRENDA LEIGH:  

  • “Local Haulers” deliver bulk water to local people.   The water is from a tap, the municipal water supply.  The Resolution does not apply to local haulers.
  • The BACKGROUND for the Resolution, as submitted to AVICC is changed.  (The Resolution and supporting info is at (no password)  2019-01-24 The Strathcona Resolution.  The posting has the changed BACKGROUND.)

Feb 062019
 

Return to INDEX

 

The list below was started in 2019 during the first round of the battle over the Merville taking of groundwater.  And then stopped when the Union of BC Municipalities took a Resolution to the Provincial Govt – no to the taking of the water.

Please use the “Comments” at the bottom to add locations / information to the list.

We do not have the capacity to distinguish between bottling of groundwater versus surface water.

NESTLE

. . .  see also NESTLE in the main INDEX.   (News reports, etc.)

. . .  see also under LAWS & REGULATIONS in the main INDEX,   under “Ontario”

Aberfoyle, ON   . . .  Nestle,  Canadian headquarters.

Locations named in the article   2016-09-30   A Look into Nestle’s Controversial Water Bottling Business in Canada, from Vice.com

  • Kawkawa Lake, District of Hope, BC   . . .  more details below, under B.C. Locations.
  • Hillsburgh, Ontario  . . .  see below, under Ontario
  • Wellington, Ontario   . . .  same

B.C.,  LOCATIONS OF WATER BOTTLING PLANTS

Fanny Bay  . . .   (we have info,  just haven’t got it posted yet)

Harrison Mills . . .   Fraser Valley Regional District,   Christopher’s Spring Water,  FVRD Board approved in Feb 2015

2015-02-04  Rezoning approved for Harrison Mills water bottling plant, Agassiz Harrison Observer, Fraser Valley Regional District

http://christophersspringwater.com/ 

https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/report/data_availability_e.html?type=historical&station=08MF073&parameter_type=Level         

Data starts at 1938.  Last Date modified: 

Hope (Kawkawa Lake),  Nestle 

. . .  2016-09-19 & 2018-04-12 Chilliwack chapter (RE Hope, BC) wants
Nestle to “stop profiting from water; & Water campaigners hold action at Nestlé, the Hope Standard.

drought and forest fires intensified resistance to the taking of water.

TO DO: the URL tells how much water Nestle was taking, at no charge, for years.  Citizens had been protesting.  Government deaf.  Is there documentation to answer the question – – was it the intensification of resistance at Hope that brought about SOME change?     It appears to be very similar to what happened in Ontario.  With the exception that in Ontario a moratorium was implemented.  The moratorium has been extended to the end of 2019.

Merville, B.C., bottling  plant defeated . . .  see in main INDEX, at MERVILLE

Port Alberni . . .  (we have info.  Not yet posted.)

Rosewall Creek  . . .  see Fanny Bay

Strathcona Regional District (SRD)  . . .  passed the “Strathcona resolution” calling on the Province to stop the taking of water.  The Resolution was triggered by an attempt at Merville, outside the SRD.   Created confusion.  There isn’t a water bottling plant in Strathcona RD.    See in main INDEX, at STRATHCONA RESOLUTION.     

Union Bay . . . see Fanny Bay

 

ONTARIO, LOCATIONS OF WATER BOTTLING PLANTS

TO DO:   go to Rob Case ( see Wellington, below) for more info.  Aberfoyle is Nestle headquarters.   I think there is a plant there.   Are Hillsburgh and Wellington two OTHER locations?

Aberfoyle . . .  Nestle

Elora . . .  Nestle  (water group, very good blog.  Under “Organizations”.   Add the link here.)

Hillsburgh, ON . . .  Nestle

Wellington, ON . . .  Nestle

December 2018.  joked with Rob Case of the Wellington Water Watchers:  your wins in Ontario  (extension of the Provincial moratorium) will shift all of the water bottling industry to BC.   We’re set to supply 100% of the water for export!

Rob was very interested in what we are doing.  No surprise, they didn’t know about the role of the Federal Govt in the promotion of water bottling for export.   Information sent.

2018-11-24 Six Nations and Wellington Water Watchers join forces at Nestle protest, Guelph Today

EXCERPT:

“We’re going to greet them with love anyway because our relatives that make bad decisions need to be welcomed into the community that is making the right ones,” said indigenous activist Eryn Wise of Seeding Sovereignty.

“As indigenous peoples, even though we know it’s not our jobs to be emotional support folks for everyone else, we end up doing it because we are caretakers, we are land defenders and we are people that are going to save this planet,” Wise said.

Feb 062019
 
BETTMAN/GETTY IMAGES/courtesy of BERLIN film festival
Charles Ferguson on Nixon: “He was a complicated person, and there were parts of him that were very serious and even idealistic.”

Nine years after winning an Oscar for his financial crisis doc ‘Inside Job,’ documentarian Charles Ferguson lands in Berlin with a four-hour, two-part doc about an “out-of-control president” way before the current commander-in-chief took office.

After making a major splash with 2010’s Oscar-winning documentary Inside Job, tech millionaire turned filmmaker Charles Ferguson appeared to disappear, at least in the eyes of anyone eager to see what was next for the man who had dissected the 2008 global financial crisis with such surgical precision.

He would resurface five years later with the climate-change-focused Time to Choose, which garnered critical acclaim but failed to generate major ripples beyond the festival circuit. Now he returns with Watergate, an impressively epic, exhaustive exploration of Richard Nixon’s notorious scandal, spread over four-plus hours (handily cut into two parts) and undoubtedly among the lengthier titles at this year’s Berlin Film Festival.

But this wasn’t the original plan.

After Inside Job‘s success, it looked like Ferguson would be following the path of many Academy-endorsed doc-makers and shift the focus of his lens to even more ambitious subjects. But he kept hitting walls with the ones he tackled.

First came an HBO narrative feature about Julian Assange, a film that Ferguson says didn’t work — and was never completed — because of “death by a thousand cuts,” with several different versions of the script and nobody involved able to agree.

Then, in late 2012, he was hired by CNN to direct a documentary about Hillary Clinton. Less than a year later he called it off, citing insurmountable resistance from not just the Clintons and the Democratic Party, but the Republicans as well.

“Both sides made extremely aggressive attempts to interfere with the making of the film,” he says.

With Watergate, the first major documentary about the president-toppling scandal (something Ferguson says he finds “a little peculiar”), the director has a top-tier subject whose potential for feather-ruffling ended several decades ago. While the name of Donald Trump isn’t once mentioned in Watergate‘s 260 minutes (although the film’s subtitle, Or How We Learned to Stop an Out-of-Control President, offers a certain hat-tip), it’s nearly impossible to watch it without comparing Nixon’s grandiose, multilayered self-destruction with the current situation in the White House.

This affected Ferguson’s storytelling technique, which he initially had hoped could serve up “more of a political thriller” with “comedic and lighthearted” moments.

“It became clear that this was not going to be appropriate,” he says. “If this was going to be watched in the context of another potential presidential impeachment, then I had to be really careful.”

And in making Watergate while Trump’s presidency was in its chaotic infancy, Ferguson found himself softening somewhat toward Nixon — whose name remains synonymous with conspiracy and corruption. As for Trump, Ferguson is less forgiving.

“[Nixon] was a complicated person, and there were important parts of him that were very serious and even idealistic,” he says. “And he was also — without question — an extremely intelligent and intellectually sophisticated guy, in ways that Mr. Trump shows no sign of being.”

This story first appeared in the Jan. 30 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine.