Original PDF Our Environment A Canadian Perspective 5th Canadian Edition PDF

(Original PDF) Our Environment A
Canadian Perspective 5th Canadian

Edition
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/original-pdf-our-environment-a-canadian-perspecti
ve-5th-canadian-edition/
CHAPTER 17 Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592
CHAPTER 18 The Way Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654
vi BRIEF CONTENTS NEL

Copyright 2017 Nelson Education Ltd. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
PART 1: Our Environment . . . . 1

Age Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
CHAPTER 1 Environmental Change . . . . . . . 2
Future World Population Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Demographic Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Assessing Human Impacts on the Environment . . . . . 49
The Anthropocene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Carrying Capacity and the Ecological Footprint . 49
Accelerating Rate of Environmental Change . . . . . . . 4
A Question of Balance: Recognizing Our
Exploring Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Dependence on Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Awakening Environmental Concern . . . . . . . . . . 7
Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Development Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chapter Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Rio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
After Rio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CHAPTER 3 Science and Environment . . . . 58
Pathways to a Sustainable Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Sustainability Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Knowledge Systems: Multiple Ways of Knowing . . . 60
Personalizing Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Environmental Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Chapter Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Disciplines and Interdisciplinarity . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
CHAPTER 2 Human Relationships with

Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Critical Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
World Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Early Human Culture and an
Agrarian World View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Religion and Environmental Attitudes . . . . . . . . . 26
Expansionist and Ecologic World Views . . . . . . . 28
Environmental Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Pavel Cheiko/Shutterstock
Science in Environmental Decision Making . . . . . 36

Integrated Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Unintended Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Population Growth and Environmental Impact . . . . 39
Population Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
NEL vii
How Science Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Scientific Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Symbiosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Scientific Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Environmental Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . 69 Energy Flow in Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Meta-analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Nutrient Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Alternatives to Reductionist Science . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Responses to Environmental Stress . . . . . . . . . . 120
Weight of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Humans in Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Earth System Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Working with Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Complex Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
How Research Becomes Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Chapter Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Peer Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Choosing a Journal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 CHAPTER 5 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Journal and Author Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Open Access Journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Misunderstandings about Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Canada’s Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Use of Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Canada’s Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
False Equivalency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Canadian Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Canada’s Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Chapter Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Indigenous People of Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 First Nations Early History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
CHAPTER 4 Our Planet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 First Nations Post-Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Inuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Métis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Matter and Energy: Basic Building Blocks of Nature . . 94 Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Matter and Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Constitutional Federalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Energy Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Environmental Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
The Law of Conservation of Matter . . . . . . . . . . 96 Fiscal Federalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
First and Second Laws of Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Thermodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Chapter Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Formation of Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Calculating the Age of Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Earth’s Structure and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Earth’s Major Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
PART 2: Ecological
Atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Lithosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 CHAPTER 6 Managing Ecological
Hydrosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Biosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
The Biosphere: A Complex System . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Classifying Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Development of Resource Management . . . . . . . . 178
Organisms in Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Environmental Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
viii CONTENTS NEL

Habitat Alteration Due to Human Activities . . . . 214
Habitat Alteration Due to Competition
from Non-native Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Habitat Alteration Due to Harvesting . . . . . . . . 218
Habitat Alteration Due to Toxic Contaminants . . 218
Habitat Alteration Due to Urbanization . . . . . . 219
Habitat Alteration Due to Cumulative
Agents of Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Species at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
In Situ Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
saul landell/mex/Getty Images
Ex-Situ Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

International Strategies to Protect Biodiversity . . . . 234
Canadian Law, Policy, and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Protecting Canadian Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Future Challenges and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . 241
Environmental Performance Indicator:
Biodiversity and Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Ecosystem Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Origins of Ecosystem Management . . . . . . . . . 184
Co-management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Assessing Ecological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 CHAPTER 8 Agroecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Traditional Ecological Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . 191 Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Life-Cycle Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Placing an Economic Value on Nature . . . . . . . . . 193 Importance of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Environmental Performance Indicator: Canada’s Agricultural Land Base . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Canada and the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Canada’s Agricultural Production . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Agri-Food Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Chapter Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Biofuels: Non-Food Agricultural Production . . . . 255
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Agricultural Activities and their Effects . . . . . . . . . 260
CHAPTER 7 Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Effects on Soil Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Effects on Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Responses to Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . 285
International Assessment of Biodiversity . . . . . . . . 204 International Policy Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Scientific Approaches to Understanding Canada’s Agricultural Policy Framework . . . . . 287
Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Nontraditional Agricultural Activities . . . . . . . . 289
Defining Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Future Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
Measuring Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Environmental Performance Indicator:
Patterns of Biodiversity Across Space and Time . . . 209 Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
The Importance of Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
Canada’s Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Chapter Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Human Activities and Impacts on Biodiversity . . . . 213 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
NEL CONTENTS ix
CHAPTER 9 Fresh Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 Fish Stock Assessment: How Many Fish Should
Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Be Harvested? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Collapse of the Northern Cod Fishery . . . . . . . 354
Canada’s Freshwater Environments . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Wild Pacific Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
Freshwater Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Future Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 Environmental Performance Indicator:

Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
The Freshwater Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Earth’s Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 CHAPTER 11 Forests and Forestry . . . . . . . 372
Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 The Earth’s Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
Other Important Water Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Global Distribution of Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
Water as a Source of Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Drivers of Deforestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
Water as a Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 Old-Growth Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
Water for Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 Tropical Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
Water Legislation and Policy Temperate Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Boreal Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
Making a Difference Locally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 Harvesting Canadian Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
Future Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 Forest Ownership and Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . 383
Environmental Performance Indicator: Forestry Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
Water and Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 Forestry Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 The Need for Change in Forestry . . . . . . . . . . 397
Chapter Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Environmental and Social Sustainability of Forest
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
Standards and Codes of Practice . . . . . . . . . . 402
CHAPTER 10 Oceans and Fisheries . . . . . 328
High Conservation Value and Community
Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Integrating Values into Sustainable Forest
Canada’s Marine Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 Management: British Columbia’s Forest Practices
Canada’s Arctic Ocean Environment . . . . . . . . 330 Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
Canada’s Pacific Ocean Environment . . . . . . . 340 Forestry and Canada’s Aboriginal
Canada’s Atlantic Ocean Environment . . . . . . . 346 People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
Summary of Concerns Facing Canada’s Future Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
Ocean Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 Environmental Performance Indicator: Forests . . 413
Harvesting the Oceans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
Canada’s Fishing Fleet: The Early History . . . . . 350 Chapter Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
Era of Big Fishing Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
x CONTENTS NEL
Air Quality Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
Tropospheric Ozone and Smog . . . . . . . . . . . 458
The Acid Rain Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
Challenges and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
CHAPTER 13 Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468

Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
Energy Supply and Demand in Canada . . . . . . . . 470
Uses of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
Associated Press
Energy Resources and Environmental Impacts . . . . 472
Fossil Fuels: Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473
Fossil Fuels: Heavy Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
Fossil Fuels: Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
Fossil Fuels: Natural Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
PART 3: Commonly Held and Hydroelectricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
Legacy Resources: Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
The Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 419 Responses to Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . 486

Emerging Energy Resources and
CHAPTER 12 Atmosphere and Climate . . . 420 Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486
Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 Incentives for Emerging Energy Resources . . . . 490
Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 Energy Efficiency and Conservation . . . . . . . . . 491
Earth’s Natural Climate System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 Our Energy Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
Electromagnetic Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423 Environmental Performance Indicator: Energy . . 493
Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling: Teleconnections . 429 Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 Chapter Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
Factors Involved in Climate Change . . . . . . . . . 431 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
Evidence of Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
CHAPTER 14 Minerals and Mining . . . . . . 500
Significant Elements of Our Changing Climate . 434
Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions . . . . . . . 435
Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
Predicting the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
Mineral Resource Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
Climate Change Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
Mineral Resources in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
Threats and Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
Value of Canada’s Mineral Production . . . . . . . 505
Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation . . . . . 444
Historical Overview of Mining in Canada . . . . 507
Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
Canada’s First Diamond Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
Environmental Impacts of Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
Stratospheric Ozone (O3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
Mineral Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518
Changes in the Ozone Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
Mine Development and Mineral Extraction . . . . 518
Tropospheric Air Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
Processing of Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
NEL CONTENTS xi
Mine Closure and Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . 520 Chapter Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558
Responses to Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . 523 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558
Partnerships for Environmental Sustainability . . . 523 CHAPTER 16 Environmental Hazards and
Stewardship and Reducing Waste . . . . . . . . . . 525 Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
Future Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
Further Sites of Mineral Extraction . . . . . . . . . . 528 Ways of Thinking about Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562
Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531 Social Determinants of Human Health . . . . . . . . . 562
Chapter Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531 Types of Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531 Non-communicable Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563
Communicable Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564
Chemical Threats to Our Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576
PART 4: Getting to Tomorrow:
Air Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576
The Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 535 Toxic Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577
CHAPTER 15 Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536 Chemical Management in Canada . . . . . . . . . 580
Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 Risk Assessment for Toxic Chemicals . . . . . . . . 580
Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 Risk Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
Canada’s Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 Chapter Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
Waste Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
Air Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
CHAPTER 17 Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592
Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593
Emerging Substances of Concern (ESOC) . . . . . 552
Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593
Global Context of Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554
An Urbanizing Globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594
Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558
Environment and Urbanization in Historical
Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595
The Rise of Megacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597
Urban Environmental Conditions and Trends . . . . . 598
The City and Food Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599
Atmosphere and Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601
Water Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604
Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609
Sustainable Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610
Used Materials and Abandoned Sites . . . . . . . 613
Green Space in the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614
Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616
jaroslava V/Shutterstock
Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620
xii CONTENTS NEL

CHAPTER 18 The Way Forward . . . . . . . . . 624 Toward Shared Governance for
Chapter Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625 Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634
Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625 The Importance of Individuals and

Collectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634
Toward Sustainable Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . 626
Taking Action: Canadian Models of Sustainability . . 638
Those Left Behind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
Now for the Long Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629
If Not Business as Usual, What? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644
Reconceptualizing Environmental Challenges . . . . 631
Measuring, Monitoring, and Reporting on
Environmental Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645
Science, Values, and Policy-Making . . . . . . . . . 632 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654
NEL CONTENTS xiii

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
the next decade focused on both basic and applied research

in Ontario lakes. The issue of acid rain quickly brought home
to me the interdisciplinary nature of this environmental issue.
My broadening interest in environment—writ larger than I
had previously recognized—brought me into contact with col-
Dianne Draper leagues in departments as diverse as philosophy, economics,
and sociology, in addition to the science departments in our
University of Calgary
faculty, and with individuals in the faculties of medicine, applied
Dianne Draper is a full professor in the department of geography sciences, forestry, and architecture.
at the University of Calgary, Alberta. She is the founding author The university was recognizing the desirability of finding
of Our Environment: A Canadian Perspective. She is r ecognized ways to work collaboratively across the disciplines inter-
for her research in sustainable tourism, ecotourism, and tourism ested in environment and I had the opportunity to work with
growth management, as well as planning and policy in water numerous colleagues as the founding director of the Division
resources and coastal zone management. Her current research of the Environment, a unit that has subsequently morphed into
focuses on governance and quality of life issues in tourism and the university’s School of Environment. One of the courses I had
other communities as they work toward sustainability, and on already developed—ENV200 or Global Change: Science and
managing growth and its impacts on communities, including Environment—became the introductory course for the divi-
wildlife, water resources, and parks and protected areas. sion’s B.A. program. I was also able to contribute to ENV234:
Environmental Science, the foundation course for our B.Sc.
Ann Zimmerman program.
These experiences culminated in my last administra-
University of Toronto
tive position at the university: founding director of our newly
I started my academic career at the University of Toronto in acquired research centre: the Koffler Scientific Reserve at Jokers
1976 in what was then the Department of Zoology. My first Hill. I retired after my term there but remain engaged with the
assignment was to teach ZOO471: Limnology or the physics, academic community as Professor Emerita, a position that has
chemistry, and biology of freshwater ecosystems. The depart- afforded me the luxury of time to contribute to this edition of
ment was an epicentre of freshwater research and I was soon Our Environment.
invited to join the Lake Ecosystems Working Group, which over
xiv NEL
PREFACE
The fifth edition of this book represents something of a depar-

ture from previous editions. I began using Our Environment in
my Global Change course in 1998, the first year it was published.
I had been relying on U.S. environmental texts up until then, and
while the science may be the same, the issues and our approaches
culminating in the way forward. Detailed information on all the
to them differ from those of our southern neighbours. I have
chapters is included in the following section on Organization.
used all four editions since, and when I was presented with the
There are some new features in each chapter as well. Offsets,
opportunity to collaborate with Dianne on this fifth edition, I
quotations or explanations relevant to the chapter material, are
could not pass up the opportunity to tweak the text to better
clearly demarked with a coloured stripe and a distinct typeface.
serve my students—students interested in the environment, but
The Chapter Debate asks students to think about a controversial
not intending to pursue environmental science.
issue attendant to the chapter’s topic. Why It Matters encapsulates
Environmental problems are often first identified by sci-
important questions characterizing a particular topic and why we
entists who provide the data that can guide environmental
need to understand it. More information is available in the section
policy/management, so this fifth edition expands its coverage
entitled ‘New in the Fifth Edition’.
of the scientific evidence underpinning environmental issues.
Nevertheless, a long time may elapse between the first obser-
vations of an issue and the emergence of an effective political
Features
response. Consequently, the text continues to provide exam- Our Environment, fifth edition, contains several special fea-
ples of successes and still covers barriers to effective policy tures to help students. Each chapter begins with a list of
implementation. Chapter Learning Outcomes so that students are aware of the
Sometimes issues are resolved relatively quickly—removal of concepts they will come to understand as they read and study
phosphorus from various detergents or replacements for chlo- the chapter. Why It Matters raises important questions about
rofluorocarbons, for example. Other issues such as acid rain can chapter topics and why we need to understand them. Offsets
take a decade or more to address. Highly complex issues—loss appear throughout the chapters to provide additional explana-
of global biodiversity or global environmental change—remain tions or quotations relevant to the material. Key terms appear
unresolved. Important in moving these issues forward has been in bold throughout the text; definitions for these terms are
and will continue to be both environmental professionals and found in the Glossary. Our Environment and the EnviroFocus
an informed public. boxes identify a range of personal interest/impact issues, from
This book is intended as an introduction. Whether students a list of Canada’s special places to proposals to re-wild North
are taking only one general course on environmental issues or American ecosystems, the challenges in managing the dis-
intend to specialize in this area, my hope is that you will find charge of municipal sewage, our ocean environment, and the
this text helpful. competition between wild species and humans for habitat.
In addition to a richer explanation of the science that under- Each chapter ends with a Making a Difference case study that
pins many environmental issues, this edition adds a chapter on provides not only real illustrations of environmental problems but
Canada as well as chapters on managing resources, waste man- also demonstrates how people have applied the principles and
agement, health and risk, and re-arranges others. Instructors will concepts discussed in the text to the resolution of environmental
note that there are now 18 shorter chapters organized into four issues at various geographic scales. These cases are intended to
sections. Part I includes five chapters: Environmental Change, help students understand how economic, social, political, and
Human Relationships with Nature, Science and Environment, environmental elements interconnect, and how they relate to our
Our Planet, and the new chapter on Canada. This new chapter scientific and traditional ways of understanding our environment.
includes information on our geography, geology, and climate; Finally, they graphically illustrate that individual actions matter.
our governance structure and its implications for environmental Chapter Debates at the end of Chapters 2 through 18 ask students
responsibilities; and examples of special places in our country. to think critically about issues related to the chapter, and the
Part II contains six chapters on resources, including biodiver- Chapter Questions at the end of each chapter will engage students
sity. Part III deals with legacy and common pool resources: while developing observational and critical thinking skills. A list
atmosphere, climate, energy, and mining. Part IV looks to the of References containing research sources also appears at the end
future: managing wastes, hazards and health, and urbanization, of each chapter.
NEL xv
Organization Chapter 4, Our Planet, discusses matter and energy and
Earth’s formation. It then discusses Earth’s major compart-
Part I: Our Environment ments: the atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and bio-
Here we introduce the key concepts and processes funda- sphere. The chapter includes energy flow, nutrient cycles, and
mental to understanding our environment. stress responses and introduces concepts of evolution, adap-
Chapter 1: Environmental Change discusses the accelerating tation, natural selection, speciation, and extinction. It closes
rate of environmental change and the important concept of with a section on working with nature. Making a Difference 4
sustainability. It introduces students to the concept of the features Buzz Holling and his work on adaptive management
Anthropocene, Paul Crutzen’s popularization of an approach and ecosystem resilience. EnviroFocus 4 discusses the role of
that discriminates between the early Holocene’s human patch dynamics in ecological restoration. The Chapter Debate
impacts—small scale and local—and the more recent massive asks whether the expense and risks from sudden sea level rise
impacts of industrialized society. It discusses the differences warrant a more aggressive response than seen previously.
in Earth’s recovery from natural as opposed to anthropogenic Chapter 5, Canada, is a new chapter. It opens with a discus-
impacts. It then turns to a discussion of the nuances of “sus- sion of Canada’s climate, geology, and geography, and how our
tainable development.” It starts with a history of awakening current boundaries came to be established. This is followed by a
environmental concerns, highlighting Canadian perspec- section highlighting special ecosystems from each province and
tives—particularly our critical roles at the 1992 Earth Summit territory (EnviroFocus 5). It ends with a discussion of Canadian
and the opening of divergent perspectives among Canadians governance structures, constitutional federalism, Indigenous
by the time we reach Rio +20. Making a Difference 1 is a tribute rights, environmental protection, and fiscal federalism, and
to the late Bob Hunter, a founding member and first president of their impact on the environmental responsibilities of different
Greenpeace. EnviroFocus 1 proposes the need for a transforma- levels of government. Making a Difference 5 features the work of
tion of society, echoing ecotheologian Wendell Barry’s observa- the Group of Seven and its influence on development of a new
tion that you can’t have healthy humans on a sick planet. paradigm for Canadian art. The Chapter Debate asks how we
Chapter 2, Human Relationships with Nature, suggests ways should proceed with exploitation of shale gas.
humans are both a part of and apart from nature. It introduces
the concept of critical thinking, expands on world views, and dis- Part II: Ecological Resources
cusses environmental decision making with its attendant risks Here we introduce populations, habitats, their relationships to
of unintended consequences. This chapter now also includes an each other, and the environment.
updated human demography section. EnviroFocus 2 addresses Chapter 6, Managing Ecological Resources, is a new chapter
the Earth Charter, while Making a Difference 2 features the work that focuses on the assessment and sustainable management
of citizens’ panels. The Chapter Debate asks how environmental of resources. It covers the history of resource management and
policy and management are affected by world views. environmental assessment, including the implications of the
Chapter 3, Science and Environment, discusses various “ways status of the previous government’s changes to the Canadian
of knowing.” It explains the positivist epistemology of science Environmental Assessment Act. (It is important to note that
and the misunderstandings that can occur when the differences the 2015 federal election came toward the end of the writing
among the operational protocols of various disciplines are not of this fifth edition. Some things have already changed under
recognized. It briefly introduces Thomas Kuhn and the con- the new government and more changes will occur. Check out
cept of the scientific paradigm along with Karl Popper and the the Twitter feed [https://twitter.com/DrZ_environment or @
falsifiable hypothesis. Other topics include scientific measure- DrZ_environment] for updates.) The chapter introduces the
ment, statistical significance, significant figures, and inductive concept of environmental risk assessment, ecosystem-based
and deductive reasoning. There are sections on meta-analysis, management, and the increasing use of co-management and
weight of evidence, and the precautionary principle. The reliance on traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). Concepts
chapter introduces complexity and general systems theory, non- such as life-cycle assessment, economic valuation of nature,
linearity, and chaos. It includes a section on how research and environmental performance indicators are also discussed.
becomes knowledge: choosing a journal, peer review, open Making a Difference 6 features Professor Emeritus Henry
access journals, and journal and author impacts. It closes with a Regier, a central figure in the development of ecosystem man-
section on misunderstandings about science—particularly the agement. EnviroFocus 6 outlines the adoption of ecosystem
issue of false equivalency in the media. Making a Difference 3 management for the Great Bear Rain Forest. The Chapter
features the partnership between David Suzuki and the NHL’s Debate asks whether we should place economic valuation on
Andrew Ference on energy conservation. EnviroFocus 3 dis- ecosystem services.
cusses the value of long-term research. The Chapter Debate asks Chapter 7, Biodiversity, covers both international and Canadian
about the balance between individual and group rights with biodiversity issues, discusses how biodiversity is assessed and
respect to voluntary versus mandatory vaccination. measured, and why it is important. It covers how humans impact
xvi PREFACE NEL

biodiversity and approaches to protecting it, both internationally hemp as a sustainable alternative to wood. Making a Difference
and specifically in the Canadian context. EnviroFocus 7 covers 11 highlights Merv Wilkinson and his stewardship of Wildwood
Pleistocene re-wilding or the value in replacing the ecological Forest, an internationally recognized model of sustainable for-
roles of long extinct species. Making a Difference 7 features the estry. The Chapter Debate features perspectives on managing
Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding. The Chapter Debate asks the boreal forest.
about the ethics of removing feral species from ecosystems.
Chapter 8, Agroecosystems, discusses Canada’s agricultural Part III: Commonly Held and Legacy Resources:
land base and agricultural food and non-food production (e.g., The Overview
biofuels). It covers the environmental impacts of conventional Here we introduce issues around our atmosphere and climate,
agriculture, international and Canadian policy responses to energy, and mining. While different from the ecological systems
those environmental impacts, and what is needed to move of Part II, each is nevertheless associated with significant envi-
agriculture to a more sustainable basis. Making a Difference ronmental issues, many of which are linked.
8 features the Canadian Young Farmers Forum (CYFF). Chapter 12, Atmosphere and Climate, explains the organi-
EnviroFocus 8 talks about genetically modified organisms zation and behaviour of the atmosphere, human impacts on
(GMOs). The Chapter Debate discusses the environmental it (climate change, loss of stratospheric ozone, gains in tropo-
dilemma of locally versus globally sourced foods. spheric ozone, and acid precipitation), and Canadian as well
Chapter 9, Fresh Water, discusses the ecological behaviour and as international responses to protect it. EnviroFocus 12 deals
natural capital value of freshwater ecosystems: lakes, rivers, wet- with the implications of climate change for Canada’s Arctic.
lands, and groundwater, as well as freshwater fisheries. It then Making a Difference 12 features Kali Taylor and the organiza-
moves to a discussion of fresh water as a resource: water supply, tion StudentEnergy. The Chapter Debate asks whether geoengi-
usage, quality, quantity, and management. The chapter closes with neering the climate is a good policy choice, given the apparent
a discussion of other important water issues: water as a source of intractability of mitigation strategies.
conflict, water as a hazard, and water for recreation. EnviroFocus Chapter 13, Energy, was written by Dr. Lucy Sportza,
9 features the rehabilitation of the Sydney, Nova Scotia, tar ponds. Universities of Guelph and Toronto. It covers fossil fuels and
Making a Difference 9 features Dr. David Manz, inventor of the their environmental impacts, nuclear energy and its issues,
BioSand Water Filter (BSF). The Chapter Debate discusses how and hydro power. It then turns to new, renewable technologies
scarce freshwater resources might be allocated. and incentives for their adoption. Our Environment 13-2 is a
Chapter 10, Oceans and Fisheries, covers Canada’s three snapshot of energy in Canada and around the world. Making a
marine environments—Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific oceans— Difference 13 features Thomas Berger and the MacKenzie River
as well as issues particular to each system and Canada’s rights Pipeline Inquiry. The Chapter Debate asks whether we should be
and responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic.
the Law of the Sea. It then turns to marine fisheries, in both Chapter 14, Minerals and Mining, was also written by
international and Canadian contexts, and further highlights sig- Dr. Sportza. The chapter covers the nature and distribution
nificant environmental issues impacting ocean environments. of Canada’s non-fuel mineral resources, the impacts of their
Our Environment 10-11 highlights Ron Sparrow and his ulti- extraction on the environment, current international and
mately successful fight in the Supreme Court for recognition of Canadian responses to these impacts, and the challenges of
Aboriginal rights. The Sparrow decision means Aboriginal rights developing a sustainable approach to mining. EnviroFocus 14
with respect to natural resources supersede those of the prov- discusses underground gardening in exhausted mineshafts.
inces, territories, and the federal government. EnviroFocus 10 Making a Difference 14 f eatures MiningWatch Canada, an ENGO
discusses the Franklin Expedition and its implications for the dedicated to ensuring mining practices support both sustain-
sovereignty of the Northwest Passage. Making a Difference 10 able communities and the health of ecosystems. The Chapter
features Professor Daniel Pauly and his Sea Around Us Project, Debate asks whether mining is a net benefit or loss for the
which offers solutions to stakeholders on addressing the impact Northwest Territories.
of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. The Chapter Debate
asks whether we should eat farmed salmon. The issue of the Part IV: Getting to Tomorrow: The Overview
recent approval of GMO salmon—the first genetically modified In this last part of the book, we look toward the future.
animal—can be accessed at the Twitter feed: https://twitter. Chapter 15, Waste, is a new chapter that discusses Canadian
com/DrZ_environment or @DrZ_environment. waste streams and their management. Given that everything
Chapter 11, Forests and Forestry, discusses the status of global in nature is a resource for something else, the chapter asks
as well as Canadian forests and the importance of the natural how humans could move to a zero waste society. EnviroFocus
capital value of forests over and above timber harvest. It then 15 describes how Nova Scotia attained a waste diversion rate
turns to forest harvest practices and the development of sus- more than twice the national average. Making a Difference 15
tainable approaches to that harvest. EnviroFocus 11 presents highlights Nova Scotia and its energy reduction program, which
NEL PREFACE xvii

is almost twice that of other provinces. The Chapter Debate asks questions about the chapter topics and why we need to under-
whether landfills or energy to waste incinerators are a better stand them. Offsets offer explanations or quotations relevant to
choice for dealing with waste. the material under discussion, and the Chapter Debates at the end
Chapter 16, Environmental Hazards and Human Health, is of the chapters ask students to think about a controversial issue
also a new chapter. It introduces the social determinants of related to chapter topics. Finally, the fifth edition contains all
health, causes of illness, acute and chronic disease, morbidity, new critical thinking Chapter Questions at the end of each chapter.
and mortality. It also addresses the health risks from exposure The Twitter feed hopes to keep students up to date.
to toxic chemicals and introduces the concepts of risk: assess- The following list of specific chapter changes highlights some
ment, management, and perception. EnviroFocus 16 highlights of the new key and updated topics and examples that have been
the emerging issue of Lyme disease. Making a Difference 16 included in the fifth edition.
profiles Pierre Gosselin, lead author on the first Canadian
study of the health impacts of climate change. The Chapter Part I: Our Environment
Debate asks whether actuarial risk assessment or risk percep-
Chapter 1 Environmental Change
tion lie at the heart of the failure to adopt the GMO golden rice.
Chapter 17, Cities, discusses our urbanizing world, its • New coverage of the Anthropocene, the rate of environ-
environmental conditions and trends, and the implications mental change, sustainable development, Rio, and pathways
for cities as models of sustainability. EnviroFocus 17 fea- to a sustainable future.
tures urban agriculture. Making a Difference 17 profiles Peter • Added boxed features include the International Union for
Halsall, CEO of the Canadian Urban Institute, and a leader the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Rio+10 the Kingston
in the development of more sustainable urban environ- Declaration, and a profile of Bob Hunter.
ments. The Chapter Debate asks whether the “smart” city is Chapter 2 Human Relationships with Nature
an over-hyped concept driven by our appetite for big data
• New boxed features cover topics including land banking,
and technology vendors with deliberate or unacknowledged/ Europe’s old-age dependency and immigration, the Earth
unknown biases, or a better approach to engaging citizens Charter, and citizens’ panels.
and managing issues like resource consumption, health care,
water, waste management, and transportation. Chapter 3 Science and Environment
Chapter 18, The Way Forward, asks what kind of a world we want • New coverage of alternatives to reductionist science, Earth
to leave to future generations and how we get there. EnviroFocus system science (complex systems, feedback, non-linearity,
18 discusses the Talloires Declaration and its implication for the emergence, chaos), and research and knowledge (peer
role of universities in environmental education, research, policy review, choosing a journal, journal and author impact, and
formation, and information exchange necessary to reach that open-access journals).
future world. Making a Difference 18 highlights the Co-operators • Added boxed features include Aldo Leopold’s “Land Ethic”;
Youth Program for Sustainable Leadership and its goal of empow- Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper on the falsifiable hypoth-
ering university and college students across Canada to be effective esis and scientific prediction; Canadian Roger Tomlinson,
agents for change. The Chapter Debate focuses on approaches to inventor of GIS; the acquisition of scientific knowledge; and
systems thinking.
sustainable management of common pool resources.
Chapter 4 Our Planet
New in the Fifth Edition • New coverage of the formation of Earth (age calculation,
structure, and processes).
The fifth edition of Our Environment contains significant changes
and updates throughout. This edition contains enhanced • Addition of numerous figures to illustrate the rock cycle,
coverage of the science that underpins many environmental mid-Atlantic Ridge, tectonic changes, compartments of the
hydrologic cycle, radiation budget, trophic pyramid, and
issues. Often the historical backdrop to issues is included to help
cladogram.
students appreciate the political machinations that complicate
or even obstruct resolution of environmental issues. The text • New boxed features include entropy and time, a discus-
sion of Earth’s timeline, the Keystone Species concept, and
now has 18 shorter chapters, grouped into four parts, including
the biosphere.
four new chapters: Canada (Chapter 5), Managing Ecological
Resources (Chapter 6), Waste (Chapter 15), and Environmental Chapter 5 Canada
Hazards and Human Health (Chapter 16). • New dedicated chapter covering Canada’s climate physiog-
In addition to updating every chapter with current topics raphy and special ecosystems in each province and territory.
and information, several new features have been added to help It also discusses Canada’s Indigenous peoples, governance,
students actively engage in their studies. The Why It Matters and resource revenues, as well as the role of the Supreme
section at the beginning of every chapter summarizes important Court in environmental issues.
xviii PREFACE NEL

• Hot topics such as the issue of exploitation of shale gas are Chapter 11 Forests and Forestry
discussed in the Chapter Debate.
• New boxed features highlight important topics, including
• New boxed features cover the Canadian court system, justi- temperate rainforests and the Acadian forest and private
ciable issues and environmental law, and offshore resource woodlots in the Atlantic provinces.
issues in Newfoundland and Labrador as precursors to the
Atlantic Accord. • New section covering Forest 2020 and tree planta-
tions discusses the issue of meeting the world’s need
Part II: Ecological Resources for wood and simultaneously managing forests for
ecological sustainability.
Chapter 6 Managing Ecological Resources
• Several new or updated tables, including estimated defor-
• This new chapter focuses on the assessment and sustainable estation in Canada by sector, harvested and regenerated
management of resources. It covers important and timely (2009–2011); Canada’s participation in international
topics including environmental assessments, environmental and national forestry initiatives; and Canada’s EPI
risk assessment, ecosystem management, co-management, performance.
stewardship, assessing ecological resources, traditional eco- • New maps and photos of tropical and temperate
logical knowledge (TEK), and life-cycle analysis. rainforests, temperate deciduous forest and taiga forest,
the provincial and territorial forested areas, and the
Chapter 7 Biodiversity Carolinian Forest.
• This chapter is now earlier in the book and includes new
sections covering species at risk (in situ and ex situ conser- Part III: Commonly Held and Legacy Resources: The
vation), international strategies to protect biodiversity, and Overview
Canadian law, policy, and practice. It discusses how humans
impact biodiversity and Canadian and international Chapter 12 Atmosphere and Climate
approaches to protecting it. • More comprehensive coverage of the atmosphere,
Chapter 8 Agroecosystems human impacts on it (climate change, loss of
stratospheric ozone, gains in troposphere ozone, and
• New Our Environment boxes highlight important topics and acid precipitation), and Canadian as well as international
issues such the life-cycle analysis of corn ethanol, wind erosion, responses to protect it.
dust bowls and Badlands, integrated pest management (IPM), • Added boxes on hot topics such as implications of
lab-cultured meat, prairie and heritage conservation areas, the climate change for Canada’s Arctic and the Chapter Debate
World Trade Organization, and agricultural reform. asking whether geoengineering the climate is a good
Chapter 9 Fresh Water policy choice.
• New figures and illustrations include estimates for seven
• Expanded and updated coverage of ecological behaviour
climatic forcing functions, Earth’s weather and climate, and
and natural capital value of fresh water ecosystems and
GHG emissions in Canada.
important water issues related to water as a source of con-
flict, water as a hazard, and water for recreation. • Added maps of drought levels in B.C., world rainfall levels,
and air pollution issues.
• New maps of Canada’s heritage rivers, Canada’s five major
drainage systems, and the watershed of the Great Lakes and Chapter 13 Energy
the areas of concern.
• New sections on offshore and northern oil and gas devel-
• Updated figures of global sectoral trends in water use and opment, fossil fuels and their environmental impacts, and
annual water use by country. limited pipeline infrastructure in Canada including two
Chapter 10 Oceans and Fisheries controversial proposals: Keystone Pipeline System and the
Energy East Pipeline. A new map of Canada’s oil and gas
• Expanded and updated coverage throughout the chapter of transportation infrastructure is also provided.
Canada’s three marine environments and the environmental
issues impacting ocean environments. Chapter 14 Minerals and Mining
• New coverage of ocean geography, sewage treatment, • Updated coverage of the International Council on Mining
by-catch, the Pacific halibut fishery and ITQs, and the and Metals (ICMM) report outlining the issues the industry
Marine Stewardship Council can be found in the Our Envi- must address in order to adapt to climate change.
ronment boxed features. • Expanded coverage of the impacts of Canada’s mineral
• New figures illustrate the principle of maximum sustain- extraction on the environment and the associated futures
able yield, arrival of factory ships off the Grand Banks and challenges of developing a sustainable approach to mining.
increased cod harvest, voluntary NAFO quotas for cod, and Making a Difference 14 discusses MiningWatch Canada,
the commercial extinction of the cod fishery. an ENGO dedicated to ensuring mining practices support
NEL PREFACE xix

both sustainable communities and the health of ecosys- Instructor Resources
tems. The Chapter Debate asks whether mining is a net ben-
efit or loss for the Northwest Territories. The Nelson Education Teaching Advantage (NETA)
• New maps and photos of clusters in the Canadian Mining program delivers research-based instructor resources that

Industry, Slave Geological Province, and the Ring of Fire promote student engagement and higher-order thinking to
mineral belts. enable the success of Canadian students and educators. Visit
Nelson Education’s Inspired Instruction website at http://
Part IV: Getting to Tomorrow: The Overview www.nelson.com/inspired/ to find out more about NETA.
Chapter 15 Waste The following instructor resources have been created for Our
• New chapter that discusses Canadian waste streams and Environment: A Canadian Perspective, fifth edition. Access these
their management and how humans could move to a zero ultimate tools for customizing lectures and presentations at
waste society. www.nelson.com/instructor.
• Our Environment boxed features cover hot topics such as NETA Test Bank
landfills, zero waste, electricity generation and waste water,
microbeads, the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), This includes over 600 multiple-choice questions written
e-waste, mercury poisoning, and dangerous dumpsites. Other according to NETA guidelines for effective construction and
important topics covered include Nova Scotia’s waste diver- development of higher-order questions. Also included are
sion rate and how the province’s successful energy reduction true/false, completion, and short answer questions.
program made it by far the most successful in Canada.
The NETA Test Bank is available in a new,
Chapter 16 Environmental Hazards and Human Health cloud-based platform. Nelson Testing Powered by Cognero® is
• New chapter covering the social determinants of health, a secure online testing system that allows instructors to author,
causes of illness, acute and chronic disease, morbidity, edit, and manage test bank content from anywhere Internet
and mortality. Other important topics discussed are the access is available. No special installations or downloads are
health risks from exposure to toxic chemicals; vacci- needed, and the desktop-inspired interface, with its drop-down
nations; cholera; ecological medicine; risk assessment, menus and familiar, intuitive tools, allows instructors to create
management, and perception; and Lyme disease. and manage tests with ease. Multiple test versions can be cre-
• Important coverage of the first Canadian study by Pierre ated in an instant, and content can be imported or exported into
Gosselin of the health impacts of climate change. other systems. Tests can be delivered from a learning manage-
ment system, the classroom, or wherever an instructor chooses.
Chapter 17 Cities
Nelson Testing Powered by Cognero for Our Environment can be
• Expanded and updated discussion of urban environmental accessed through www.nelson.com/instructor.
conditions and trends, including topics such as 3D printers,
robots, and urban agriculture. NETA PowerPoint
• New coverage profiling Peter Halsall, CEO of the Canadian Microsoft® PowerPoint® lecture slides for every chapter have
Urban Institute, and leader in the development of sustain- been created by Silvija Stefanovic, University of Toronto. There
able urban environments. The Chapter Debate asks whether is an average of 35 slides per chapter, many featuring key figures,
the “smart” city is an over-hyped concept driven by tech- tables, and photographs from Our Environment. NETA princi-
nology vendors.
ples of clear design and engaging content have been incorpo-
Chapter 18 The Way Forward rated throughout, making it simple for instructors to customize
the deck for their courses.
• Current coverage of important issues such as the need
to reconceptualize environmental challenges, the deficit Image Library
equilibrium, sustainable communities, and the challenges
to sustainability. This resource consists of digital copies of figures, short tables,
and photographs used in the book. Instructors may use these
• Updated coverage of the Talloires Declaration and its
implication for the role of universities in the education, jpegs to customize the NETA PowerPoint or create their own
research, policy formation, and information exchange, PowerPoint presentations.
and new coverage of the four Es that foster sustainable
development.
Videos
• New boxed features include discussions of Co-operators Instructors can enhance the classroom experience with the
Youth Program for Sustainable Leadership, the deficit exciting and relevant videos provided directly to students
equilibrium, the bottom billion, and challenges through MindTap. These videos have been selected to accom-
to sustainability. pany Our Environment.
xx PREFACE NEL
MindTap Ian Dawe, Lorn Fitch, Dave Irvine-Halliday, Wil Holden,
Lawrence Nkemdirim, and Kees Vanderheyden kindly took
Offering personalized paths of dynamic assignments and
the time to write specific materials for this edition; thank you
applications, MindTap is a digital learning solution that turns
for your willingness to contribute your expertise. Many people
cookie-cutter into cutting-edge, apathy into engagement, and
responded to requests for information and photographs and we
memorizers into higher-level thinkers. MindTap enables stu-
thank you for your contributions.
dents to analyze and apply chapter concepts within relevant
We are very grateful for the assistance of the talented mem-
assignments, and allows instructors to measure skills and
bers of the editorial and production team at Nelson Education.
promote better outcomes with ease. A fully online learning
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Jackie Wood,
solution, MindTap combines all student learning tools—
Elke Price, Christine Gilbert, Carolyn Jongeward, and Bob Saigh.
readings, multimedia, activities, and assessments—into a single
Others helped in other ways, and we would like to thank them,
Learning Path that guides the student through the curriculum.
too: Deborah Crowle and the CrowleArt Group, Dave McKay,
Instructors personalize the experience by customizing the pre-
and Ann Sanderson. We would like to acknowledge many others
sentation of these learning tools to their students, even seam-
who assisted in reviewing earlier editions of this textbook and
lessly introducing their own content into the Learning Path.
made important suggestions for improvements in this book.
Although remaining errors and deficiencies are ours, we extend
Student Resources our thanks to the following for their useful suggestions and
thoughtful comments, which helped to shape this edition:
MindTap
Stay organized and efficient with MindTap—a single destina- Darren R. Bardati, Bishop’s University
tion with all the course material and study aids you need to suc- Ben Bradshaw, University of Guelph
ceed. Built-in apps leverage social media and the latest learning H. Carolyn Peach Brown, University of Prince Edward Island
technology. For example: John Buschek, Carleton University
• ReadSpeaker will read the text to you. Tim Green, Georgian College
Lorelei Hanson, Athabasca University
• Flashcards are pre-populated to provide you with a jump
start for review—or you can create your own. Mark Hanson, University of Manitoba
Maxwell Ofosuhene, Trinity Western University
• You can highlight text and make notes in your MindTap
Michael Pidwirny, University of British Columbia
Reader. Your notes will flow into Evernote, the electronic
notebook app that you can access anywhere when it’s time Roxanne Richardson, Saint Mary’s University
to study for the exam. Silvija Stefanovic, University of Toronto
Barry Weaver, Camosun College
• Self-quizzing allows you to assess your understanding.
Michael Wilson, Douglas College.
• Videos provide additional insights to topics discussed in the
textbook
Finally, we thank our families for the commitment and sup-
Visit http://www.nelson.com/student to start using port they have given us during this project. We would like to
MindTap. Enter the Online Access Code from the card included dedicate this edition to all who have nurtured our love for this
with your text. If a code card is not provided, you can purchase Earth and our place within it. We also would like to challenge
instant access at NELSONbrain.com. ourselves, and every reader of Our Environment, to examine our
motivations, beliefs, and behaviours with respect to the environ-
Acknowledgments ments within which we live our everyday lives, and to take those
actions we can in moving our society and environment toward
The authors have benefited greatly from the assistance of many
a sustainable future.
people in preparing this edition of Our Environment. We would
like to extend special thanks to Vicky Falk and Kim Sanderson, Dianne Draper
who provided effective research assistance on previous editions. Calgary, Alberta
In particular, we acknowledge the essential research and writ-
ing contributions of Sharla Daviduik in bringing to fruition the Ann Zimmerman
“Making a Difference” component. Toronto, Ontario
NEL PREFACE xxi

PART I
Our Environment
The five chapters in Part I of this book introduce the key concepts
and processes fundamental to understanding our environment.
Chapter 1 discusses the accelerating rate of environmental
change and the important concept of sustainability. Chapter 2
examines world views with respect to the relationship of humans
and nature, and also human population growth and Earth’s
carrying capacity. Understanding environment means learning
about science and its protocols for discovering new knowledge,
the subject of Chapter 3. Chapter 4 discusses the building
blocks of nature, the complex system of the biosphere, and
ecosystem responses to stress. In Chapter 5, the focus is on
Canadian issues with relevance to the environment.
Muskoka Stock Photos / Shutterstock.com
NEL 1
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
such grants should be valid only when there had been a “Yes”
evoked from three fourths of those conventions. If we would realize
the amazing ignorance, during the last five years, shown on these
matters, we must continue the tale of the proposed new Article.
Before the proposed Article had left the Senate for the first time,
what we now call Section 2 read, “The Congress shall have power to
enforce this Article by appropriate legislation.” With the section in
that language, the Joint Resolution was passed and sent to the
House of Representatives on August 1, 1917. (Congressional
Record, Vol. 55, p. 5666.) It was reported out of the Judiciary
Committee and taken up by the House on December 17, with the
proposed Section 2 reading, “The Congress and the several states
shall have concurrent power to enforce this Article by appropriate
legislation.”
Somewhat educated with those Americans whose experience
made them better acquainted with the science of government than
any other people in the world, we realize that only Mark Twain could
do full justice to the nature of this alteration to the proposed Section
2. It was not enough that Congress, because it did not have the
power to make a certain command to its own citizens, should ask
inferior governments, which are not the government of the American
citizens, to make that command. It was not enough that the
American Congress, when asking these inferior governments to
make that command, should ask them to give Congress a future
ability to make commands on that subject on which the citizens of
America had never given any government or governments ability to
make any commands to the citizens of America. The House
alteration in the second suggestion from the Senate would indicate
that the House became jealous of the Senate ignorance of
fundamentals in the relations of governments to one another in
America and in the relation of all governments in America to the
individual American. It is difficult otherwise to explain the House
alteration in the Section 2 of the Amendment which came from the
Senate. As the House reported the two sections back to the Senate,
this is what the two sections proposed. Section 1 embodied a
command (to be made by the inferior state legislatures) which
directly interferes with the individual freedom of the American
citizens on a subject not enumerated in their First Article. Section 2
embodied a grant of future ability to make similar commands on the
same subject, and the grant was to be from the state legislatures to
the Congress and to the very state legislatures who were supposed
to make the grant itself and the command of the First Section.
This is exactly the form in which the Second Section of the
supposed new Amendment was later ratified by these very state
legislatures. That Second Section has been the subject of unlimited
discussion for the past five years. Every one seems to have given it
whatever meaning pleased him at some particular moment. When
the House Chairman of the Judiciary Committee reported this
Section to the House he frankly stated that “We thought it wise to
give both the Congress and the several states concurrent power to
enforce this Article and let that power be set forth and granted in the
Article we propose to submit.” (Congressional Record, Vol. 56, p.
424.) But when Wheeler, counsel for a political organization which
dictated that governments constitute this new government of men,
wrote his briefs to uphold the validity of the new Article which Webb
championed in the House, he explained that this Webb Second
Section “does not add to the power already conferred upon
Congress by Section 1” but that “it does, however, make clear that
the power is reserved to the states to pass legislation in aid of the
acts of Congress.” As in most matters, the various champions of the
supposed Eighteenth Amendment are unable to understand and
agree upon the meaning of plain English. From time to time, in our
education, it will be clear that they do not know and understand what
the American people did in 1788 in their “conventions” but that, while
flatly contradicting one another, they are all satisfied that the
American citizens did give the state legislatures unlimited ability to
interfere with individual freedom of the American citizen. It seems
natural, therefore, to find Webb and Wheeler flatly contradicting one
another as to the plain meaning of Section 2 of the Eighteenth
Amendment. Despite the absurdity of the concept, Section 2 means
exactly what Webb stated it to mean when he brought it from the
House Judiciary Committee which had written it. It means, in the
plainest English, that the state legislatures grant to themselves (as
well as to Congress) ability to make commands of the very same
kind as the same state legislatures make, without the grant, in the
First Section. And it is a remarkable fact that, in all the comment on
that Section 2 for five years, no word has been spoken about this
ridiculous proposal that the state legislatures make a certain
command and then grant themselves the power to make such
commands. However, the absence of such comment has been quite
in keeping with the fact that our modern leaders and lawyers, during
the same five years, have never known or commented upon the fact
that the Eighteenth Amendment depends for its existence upon the
similar and equally absurd concept that the Fifth Article is a grant
from the “conventions” to the “conventions” as well as to the state
legislatures.
By reason of our education, we have many natural questions to
ask about that Section 2 and the unique House addition to its
supposed grant. While some of those questions may be academic,
inasmuch as we know that the new Article is not in the Constitution,
the thoughts which suggest the questions are strikingly pertinent to
our general query, “Citizen or Subject?”
In the first place, we recall the opening words of Section 4 of the
Fourth Article of the Constitution. Those words are, “The United
States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of Government.” These words immediately precede the Fifth
Article. Moreover, the Supreme Court has decided that it is the
particular duty of Congress to see that this particular guarantee of
the Fourth Article is strictly fulfilled. (Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1;
Pacific Telephone Company v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118.) In the light of
these facts, we wish to know whether the Congress, which proposed
the change in Section 2, so that state governments outside a
particular state might give to the state government of that state new
power to interfere with its citizens, understood that the Fifth Article
was meant to enable Congress to originate any desired breach of
the guarantee in the Fourth Article. From our education, we know
that, so long as any state has a republican form of government, its
legislature can have no power to interfere with the individual freedom
of the citizens of a state except by the grant and continued consent
of those citizens themselves. We know that the citizens of each
state, in 1776, gave its legislature power to interfere with their
freedom in the matter which is the subject of the Eighteenth
Amendment. We know that, then or at any time since then and now,
the citizens of each state could take back that power so given. But, if
the governments of thirty-six states outside any given state, by the
Second Section of the Eighteenth Amendment, have granted the
legislature of that particular state a new and second power to
interfere with the individual freedom of the citizens of that state, in
the matter which is the subject of the Eighteenth Amendment, what
has become of the republican form of government in that state? No
republican form of government ever exists where governments,
outside a state, give to its legislature any power to interfere with the
individual freedom of its citizens.
The case of Rhode Island or Connecticut makes our point clear,
although the question is equally apt for any state, if the Eighteenth
Amendment is in the Constitution. Neither the American citizens in
Rhode Island nor the legislature of Rhode Island, which speaks only
for its citizens and not for any citizens of America, have ever said
“Yes” to the grant to the legislature of Rhode Island of this new
power to interfere with the individual human freedom of the citizens
of Rhode Island. The other power to interfere with that freedom, on
the same subject, which the citizens of Rhode Island gave to their
legislature, is a power which the citizens of Rhode Island can take
back from that legislature at any time. But, if the Eighteenth
Amendment is in the Constitution, the legislature of Rhode Island
has a power to interfere with the citizens of Rhode Island in the
exercise of their human freedom, which power has been granted by
governments outside of Rhode Island, and which power cannot be
taken away from that legislature by the citizens of Rhode Island.
We average Americans again ask whether the Congress, chosen
to fulfill the guarantee of the Fourth Article, understood the meaning
of the Fifth Article to be that it could suggest and originate any
desired breach of that guarantee?
In the second place, we would like to ask another question of the
Congress which proposed that Second Section and of all who uphold
the validity and the sanity of the Eighteenth Amendment. This other
question is about the two distinct powers, in relation to Prohibition,
which the legislature of every state must have, if the Amendment is
in the Constitution? The question is simple. When such legislature
passes an act like the Mullan-Gage Law in New York, who
determines which of the two distinct powers the state legislature
exercises? Is it the power granted by the citizens of that state and
revocable by them? Or is it the power granted by governments
outside that state, over which the citizens of that state have not the
slightest control? The query is a pertinent one. It is not beyond
reasonable assumption that the citizens of New York may amend
their state constitution and forbid their legislature to enact any
statutes interfering with the freedom of the citizens of New York, in
any way, on the matter which is the subject of the Eighteenth
Amendment. Such a step on the part of the citizens of New York
would be absolutely valid. It is not forbidden even by the remarkable
Eighteenth Amendment. Such a step would immediately deprive the
legislature of the State of New York of any power from New York
citizens to pass such law. Moreover, it would end that Law itself, if
that Law was passed in the exercise of the power, in such matters,
granted by the citizens of New York. If it were determined, however,
that the Mullan-Gage Law had been passed by the New York
legislature in the exercise of power delegated to it by governments
outside of New York, the Mullan-Gage Law would still remain a valid
statute. This would mean, of course, that the republican form of
government guaranteed to the citizens of New York, by the Fourth
Article, had come absolutely to an end. Our particular query, at this
point, is obviously one of considerable importance to us American
citizens, each of whom happens to be also a citizen of some state to
which the citizens of America made the guarantee of the Fourth
Article and imposed on the very Congress, which originated the
Eighteenth Amendment, the duty of having that guarantee fulfilled.
There are other equally pertinent questions which we might ask
about this unique Section 2 of the Eighteenth Amendment. We will
leave them for the present, so that we may continue the story of the
travel of the proposed new Article through the two Houses of the
Congress which suggested that governments exercise and give
government ability to exercise this new power over American
citizens, not enumerated in the First Article. We come now to the
days on which the House of Representatives and the Senate
discussed the Joint Resolution. In the recorded eloquence of the
advocates of the proposal, we shall find much to remind us of the
prevailing attitude in the British Parliament toward us in 1775. But, in
that eloquence, we shall look in vain for any echo of the Philadelphia
of 1787 or of the “conventions” in which Americans once assembled
and gave their only government its only enumerated powers to
interfere with their individual freedom.
CHAPTER XVII
THE TORY IN THE HOUSE
“Let facts be submitted to a candid world.” They have “combined

with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution
and unacknowledged by our laws; giving” their “assent to their acts
of pretended legislation;. .. For. .. declaring themselves invested with
power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”
It is doubtful if our Congress of 1917 ever read the above
language. It is certain that such Congress, reading those words,
would heed them just as little as all advocates of the supposed
Eighteenth Amendment have heeded the express commands of the
Americans who uttered those words.
For the information of those who think that governments in
America can validly make grants of national power, like those in the
First Article and the Eighteenth Amendment, we state that the
quoted words are from the complaint of the American people against
their British Government on July 4, 1776. For their information, we
also state that, on that famous July day, all Americans ceased
forever to be “subjects” of any government or governments in the
world. For their information, we also state that it will require more
than a combination of our American government and the state
governments to subject us American citizens to a jurisdiction foreign
to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, the jurisdiction
of the state governments, none of which has aught to do with the
citizens of America.
It is a known legal fact, decisively settled in the Supreme Court,
that the jurisdiction of the American government over the American
citizen and the jurisdiction of the state government over the state
citizen are as distinct and foreign to each other as if the two citizens
were two human beings and the territory of the state were outside of
America.
We have in our political system a government of the United
States and a government of each of the several states. Each
one of these governments is distinct from the other and has
citizens of its own who owe it allegiance and whose rights,
within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may
be, at the same time, a citizen of the United States and a
citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of
these governments will be different from those he has under
the other. (Justice Waite in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.
S. 542.)
The two governments in each state stand in their respective
spheres of action, in the same independent relation to each
other, except in one particular, that they would if their authority
embraced distinct territory. That particular consists in the
supremacy of the authority of the United States where any
conflict arises between the two governments. (Justice Field in
Tarble’s Case, 13 Wall. 397.)
In our Constitution all power ever granted to interfere with the
individual freedom of American citizens is vested in our only
legislature, the Congress. That is the opening statement of that
Constitution in its First Article, which enumerates all powers of that
kind ever validly granted to that legislature.
In our Constitution no power whatever over the citizens of America
was ever granted to the states singly or collectively, or to the
governments of the states singly or collectively. That all governments
in America, including the Congress of 1917, might know that settled
fact, it was stated with the utmost clarity in the Tenth Amendment to
that Constitution. That Amendment, repeatedly held by the Supreme
Court to be part of the original Constitution, is the clear declaration
that no power of any kind over us, the citizens of America, is granted
in that Constitution to any government save the government of
America, and to it only the enumerated powers of that kind in the
First Article. It is also the clear declaration that all powers to interfere
with individual freedom, except the powers granted in the First Article
to the American government and powers reserved to the citizens of
each state respectively, to govern themselves, are reserved to the
American citizens.
Wherefore, now educated in the experience of the Americans who
insisted on that declaration, we make exactly the same charge,
against the Congress of 1917 and all advocates of the Eighteenth
Amendment, that was made by those Americans against their king
who insisted that they were “subjects” of an omnipotent legislature.
In December, 1917, the Congress knew that it could not make, to
the citizens of America, the command which is Section 1 of the
Eighteenth Amendment. By reason of that knowledge, that
legislature—the only American one—paid its tribute to the state
legislative governments as collectively a supreme American
Parliament with exactly the same omnipotence over all Americans
“as subjects” which the Americans of 1776 denied to the British
Parliament.
Congress ought to have known that no government except
Congress can make any command on any subject to American
citizens. It did know that Congress could not make the command of
the new article to the American citizen. Therefore it paid its tribute to
the state governments. It asked them, as competent grantors, to give
it a new enumerated power to interfere with the individual freedom of
the American citizen.
It is history that those state governments, each with no jurisdiction
whatever except over the citizens of its own state, went through the
farce of signing the requested grant in the name of the citizens of
America. It is law that those state governments are not the attorneys
in fact of the citizens in America for any purpose whatever. It is law
that no governments have any power of attorney from the citizens of
America to grant to any government a new enumerated ability to
interfere with the individual freedom of the American citizens. For
which simple legal reason, the supposed grant of such a power, by
government to government, in Section 2 of the Eighteenth
Amendment, is a forgery.
The supposed Volstead Act was enacted under this grant. It has
met with the severest criticism. No one, however, has yet pointed out
one particular fact to the careful thought of every average citizen of
America. There are thousands of laws, interfering with individual
freedom, in the statute books of the American nation and of the
respective states. In one respect, however, this Volstead Act is
absolutely unique among statutes in America. It is the one law in
America of that kind, the kind interfering with individual freedom,
which does not even pretend to be founded on a grant of authority
directly from its citizens to the government which passed it. It is the
only law in America, directly interfering with human freedom, which
was enacted under a grant of power made by government to
government. It does not detract from this unique distinction that the
American government requested the grant, and the state
governments made it, and the American government acted under it,
by passing the Volstead Act, all being carefully planned and
accomplished while millions of Americans were preparing to give and
thousands of them did give their lives for the avowed purpose of
securing human liberty from the oppression of government.
When, in 1787, Americans at Philadelphia had worded our
Constitution, Gerry, opening the short discussion of its Fifth Article,
made this important and accurate statement of fact: “This
constitution is to be paramount to the state constitutions.” All
American citizens know that each state legislature is the creature of
its state constitution and absolutely subject to that constitution. We
thus have clearly established that the American Constitution is
paramount to all the state constitutions and that each state
constitution is respectively paramount to the state legislature which it
creates and controls. It remained for the Congress of 1917 and all
advocates of the Eighteenth Amendment to acquire and state and
act upon the remarkable “knowledge” that those same state
legislatures are paramount to everything in America, including the
American Constitution, which is paramount to the state constitutions
which created these very legislatures. That such was the unique
knowledge of the Congress of 1917 is made clear by its request to
those state governments to make the command of Section 1 to the
citizens of America and to make the grant of Section 2 of power over
the citizens of America.
“We thought it wise to give both the Congress and the several
states concurrent power to enforce this Article and let that power be
set forth and granted in the Article we propose to submit.”
So spoke Congressman Webb, introducing the proposed
Eighteenth Amendment, exactly as it now reads, to the House of
Representatives, on December 17, 1917. This was the day on which
that House discussed and passed the Senate Joint Resolution 17,
which proposed that Amendment and submitted it to governments to
make it. Webb was a lawyer of renown and chairman of the Judiciary
Committee and had entire charge of the passage of the Resolution in
the House on behalf of those who had ordered the American
Congress to pass that Resolution.
From one instance alone, we may immediately glean how clearly
Webb and all leading supporters of the Eighteenth Amendment, in
and out of Congress during the past five years, have shown an
accurate “knowledge” of the basic principles of all government in
America. We realize that such knowledge, if human liberty is to
remain secure, is an essential qualification of leaders of a people
once “better acquainted with the science of government than any
other people in the world.”
No sooner had Webb read the Section 2 and made his quoted
statement of its purpose than he was asked a pertinent and
important question. The query was whether, if Congress and a state
government each passed a law and they flatly conflicted, which law
would control? Webb had made long preparation to carry out his
purpose that the Eighteenth Amendment be inserted in the
Constitution by government. He was prepared with his immediate
response to that ignorant question. His prompt answer was: “The
one getting jurisdiction first, because both powers would be supreme
and one supreme power would have no right to take the case away
from another supreme power.” (Congressional Record, Vol. 56, p.
424.) It is sad to relate that this lucid explanation of the manner in
which two distinct supreme powers dictate to one “subject,” the
American citizen, elicited the next query, “Does the gentleman say
that as a lawyer?” With the charity that real intelligence displays to
ignorance, Webb again explained the simple proposition of two
distinct and supreme powers to command on exactly the same
matter. We commend Webb’s American mental attitude, without the
slightest Tory taint, and his mastery of American law, to all who ever
wish to dictate to human beings as “subjects.”
Fresh from our education in the experience of the earlier real
Americans, we deem it proper to dwell for a moment further on that
opening statement of Webb: “We thought it wise to give both the
Congress and the several states concurrent power to enforce this
Article and let that power be set forth and granted in the Article we
propose to submit” to the state governments.
We recall vividly the statement of Lloyd George made only last
year in the British Legislature. He was speaking of the proposed
treaty with Ireland, then before that Legislature, and this is what he
said, in substance. “The Parliament at Westminster [legislative
government, not the people of the British Empire] is the source of
every power in the British Empire.” It is our just tribute to Webb and
every American who believes that the Eighteenth Amendment is in
the Constitution, that they understand that the American nation is
founded and exists on exactly the same principle. They have all
acted upon the one conviction that the state governments collectively
are exactly the same as the Parliament at Westminster, are above
the American Constitution and need obey no command in it, and are
the legitimate source of any power to interfere with the individual
freedom of the American citizen, on any matter whatsoever.
On our part, probably blinded by our own education with the earlier
Americans, we still believe that Webb and all who think with him are
hopelessly ignorant of American law. We believe that they do not
understand in the least the vital change in the status of the American
individual, from “subject” to “citizen,” on July 4, 1776.
We remember Marshall’s clear statement, in the Supreme Court,
that, in the days when Americans “were better acquainted with the
science of government than any other people in the world” and the
First Article grants of power over them were requested, the legal
“necessity of deriving those powers from them was felt and
acknowledged by all.” We know that they made no change in the
imperative nature of that necessity. We do not understand how that
legal necessity, during the past five years, has not been known to
Webb and those of his Tory faith.
We remember Marshall’s equally clear statement, again in the
Supreme Court, that, when new grants of such power are wanted
from its citizens by the American government, there is only one way,
in which those grants can be validly or “effectively” made, namely, by
those citizens themselves, assembled in their “conventions.” It is
true, the American citizens assembled in those conventions in their
several states. “No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of
breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of
compounding the American people into one common mass” and of
compelling them to assemble in one “convention,” when it is
necessary for them to act, as possessors of exclusive ability to vest
national power over them.
Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But
the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be
measures of the people themselves, or become the measures
of the state governments. (M’Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat.
316.)
We do not understand how Webb and those of his Tory faith have
forgotten this legal fact, possibly the most important in America to
the liberty of its citizens.
We remember how well this legal fact was once known to all
Americans, how clearly the Americans in Virginia expressed it as the
then knowledge of all Americans and their leaders. “The powers
granted under the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people,
and every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their
will.” (Resolution of the Americans in Virginia, ratifying the
Constitution and making the grants of its First Article, 3 Ell. Deb.
653.) We do not understand how Webb and those of his Tory faith,
speaking the language of Lord North in 1775 and of Lloyd George in
1922 as to the British Government of “subjects,” should translate the
quoted accurate statement of American law into, “The powers
granted under the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people,
but every power not granted therein remains with the collective state
legislative governments and can be granted by those governments,
without any action by the citizens of America themselves.”
We know that the Supreme Court, in 1907, did not so understand.
The powers the people have given to the General
Government are named in the Constitution, [all in the First
Article] and all not there named, either expressly or by
implication, are reserved to the people and can be exercised
only by them, or upon further grant from them. (Justice
Brewer in Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279.)
We do not understand how Webb and those of his Tory faith could
believe that one of those reserved powers could be exercised by the
collective state governments, Section 1 of the new Amendment, or
could be granted by those governments, Section 2.
We remember that Madison, who worded the Fifth Article, and
Hamilton, who seconded it at Philadelphia, did not so believe but
knew that such belief came in direct conflict with basic American law.
“As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is
from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several
branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly
consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original
authority [the people themselves in “conventions”] whenever it may
be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the
government.” (Hamilton in The Federalist, No. 49.) “The fabric of
American Empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of
the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately
from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” (Hamilton
in The Federalist, No. 22.) “The express authority of the people
alone could give due validity to the Constitution.” (Madison in The
Federalist, No. 43.) “It is indispensable that the new Constitution
should be ratified in the most unexceptionable form, by the supreme
authority of the people themselves.” (Madison, at Philadelphia, 5 Ell.
Deb. 158.) “The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on
one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people,
etc.” (Madison in The Federalist, No. 37.) and “There is certainly
great force in this reasoning, and it must be allowed to prove that a
constitutional road to the decision of the people ought to be marked
out and kept open, for certain great and extraordinary occasions.”
(Madison or Hamilton in The Federalist, No. 49.)
We average Americans know that, in the Fifth Article, there is
“marked out and kept open, for certain great and extraordinary
occasions a constitutional road to the decision of the people” when
their own exclusive ability is alone competent to do what is deemed
wise to be done. We know that the direct command to American
citizens, interfering with their individual freedom and contained in
Section 1 of the new Amendment, was the first direct command of
that kind ever attempted to be put in our Constitution. We know that
the grant of power to make such commands, which is the grant of
the second section of that Amendment, is the first and only grant of
that kind ever supposedly made since 1788. Knowing these
undoubted facts, we cannot understand why Webb and those of his
Tory faith did not know that the request for the command of Section 1
and for the grant of Section 2 was “a great and extraordinary” event,
and that only through the “constitutional road for the decision of the
people” themselves, “marked and kept open” in the Fifth Article, the
assembling of the people themselves in their “conventions,” could a
valid command and a valid grant be achieved.
The more we average Americans consider, however, the
Congressional record of 1917 and the story of the subsequent five
years, the more do we understand the curious mental attitude which
has led Webb and those of his Tory faith, who believe that the new
Amendment is in the Constitution, to think that governments could
make that command to and that grant of power over the citizens of
America. Our consideration leads us to think that none of these men
have ever read or grasped the meaning of the words expressing a
knowledge so often shown by our Supreme Court:
The people who adopted the Constitution knew that in the
nature of things they could not foresee all the questions which
might arise in the future, all the circumstances which might
call for the exercise of further national powers than those
granted to the United States, and after making provision for
an Amendment to the Constitution by which any needed
additional powers would be granted, they reserved to
themselves all powers not so delegated. (Justice Brewer,
Kansas v. Colorado, 206, U. S. 46 at p. 90.)
We are sorely afraid that Webb and the Congress of 1917 and all
upholders of the new Amendment have made exactly the same vital
mistake which had been made, in that reported case, by the counsel
who there represented the very same government which repeated
the mistake in 1917.
That counsel had contended for the proposition that there are
“legislative powers affecting the nation as a whole [the citizens of
America] which belong to, although not expressed in the grant of
powers” in the First Article. The answer of the Supreme Court was
decisive on the mistake of that counsel and the mistake of the 1917
request from Congress to the state governments. The answer was
that the proposition
is in direct conflict with the doctrine that this is a
government of enumerated powers. That this is such a
government clearly appears from the Constitution,
independently of the Amendments, for otherwise there would
be an instrument granting certain specified things made
operative to grant other and distinct things. This natural
construction of the original body of the Constitution is made
absolutely certain by the Tenth Amendment. This
Amendment, which was seemingly adopted with prescience
of just such contention as the present, disclosed the wide-
spread fear that the National Government might, under the
pressure of a supposed general welfare, attempt to exercise
powers which had not been granted. With equal determination
the framers intended that no such assumption should ever
find justification in the organic act, and that if in the future
further powers seemed necessary, they should be granted by
the people in the manner they had provided for amending that
act. It reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The
argument of counsel ignores the principal factor in this Article,
to wit, “the people.” Its principal purpose was not a
distribution of power between the United States and the
States, but a reservation to the people of all powers not
granted. The preamble of the Constitution declares who
framed it,—“We, the people of the United States,” not the
people of one State, but the people of all the States; and
Article X reserves to the people of all the States the powers
not delegated to the United States. The powers affecting the
internal affairs of the States not granted to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, and all powers of a
national character which are not delegated to the National
Government by the Constitution are reserved to the people of
the United States. (206 U. S. at p. 89.)
We average Americans know, and Webb and those of his Tory
faith cannot deny, that the power to make the command of Section 1,
the power purported to be granted in Section 2, are among the
powers of which the Supreme Court speaks as reserved, not to the
states, but to the people of America. We also know, and again they
cannot deny, that only those, who have, can give, or grant. For which
reason, we ask that they answer this question: How can the state
governments exercise or grant a power which was not reserved to
the states but was reserved by the citizens of America to
themselves?
In asking this question we but echo the learned Pendleton’s
question, in the Virginia convention of 1788: “Who but the people
can delegate powers?... What have the state governments to do with
it?” (3 Ell. Deb. 37.) And we also but echo the question of Wilson, in
the Pennsylvania convention of 1787: “How comes it, sir, that these
state governments dictate to their superiors—to the majesty of the
people?” (2 Ell. Deb. 444.)
But we, the citizens of America, have a further charge, at this
point, to make against Webb and all who claim that the new
Amendment is in the Constitution or that any governments could put
it there. In the case of Kansas v. Colorado, supra, counsel for the
government of America made a monumental error by displaying his
ignorance of the most important factor in the Tenth Amendment, “the
people” of America. By reason of that particular ignorance, he
assumed that all power to interfere with the individual freedom of
Americans, on every subject, must be vested in some government or
governments. This was the Tory concept, accurately rebuked by the
supreme judicial tribunal, knowing only American law based on the
American concept of the relation of “citizens” to their servant
government and not on the Tory concept of the relation of the master
government to its “subjects.” He did not know what Cooley knew
when he made his accurate statement that “There never was a
written republican constitution which delegated to functionaries all
the latent powers which lie dormant in every nation and are
boundless in extent and incapable of definition,” (Constitutional
Limitations, 7th Ed., 1903, p. 69.) By reason of his ignorance, he
contended that government could command American citizens by
interfering with their individual freedom on a matter not enumerated
in the First Article. His particular error, in that respect, is repeated by
Webb and all who uphold the validity of the command made in
Section 1 of the new supposed Amendment.
But they were not content with repeating his one monumental
error. They have not only ignored the most important factor in the
Tenth Amendment, “the people.” They have also wholly ignored the
most important factor in the Fifth Article, the mention of the way in
which the citizens of America made their only valid grants of power
to interfere with their individual human freedom, the mention of the
only way in which new grants of power of that kind can ever be
constitutionally made, the assembling of those citizens in their
“conventions” in their several states. So assembled in such
“conventions,” they made all their grants in the First Article and then,
in their Fifth Article, mentioned their own assembling in exactly
similar conventions in the future and prescribed that a “Yes” from
three fourths of those conventions would be the only valid signature
of the citizens of America to any new grant of a further enumerated
power to interfere with their individual freedom.
There never has been any other possible meaning to those words
in the Fifth Article, “or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” To the
Americans who worded that Article at Philadelphia and to the
Americans who made that Article, assembled in just such
“conventions” as are mentioned in words therein, that quoted phrase
was the most important factor in the Fifth Article. To them, those
quoted words therein were the complement of their most important
factor in the Tenth Amendment, the reservation to themselves (“the
people” or citizens of America) of every national power not delegated
in the First Article. Together, the two important factors were the
command of the citizens of America that all national powers so
reserved to themselves could be delegated only by themselves,
assembled in their “conventions” —“by conventions in three fourths
of” their states. We, who have lived through their education with
them, realize this with certainty. Webb and those who believe with
him know nothing about it.
Recognizing that Congress had been given no power to make the
command which is Section 1 of the new Amendment, they first asked
the state governments to make that command to the citizens of
America. This was an exact repetition of the error made by counsel
in Kansas v. Colorado, supra. This was their ignoring of the most
important factor in the Tenth Amendment. Then, that the display of
their own ignorance should contain something original, they ignored
the most important factor in the Fifth Article and requested that a
new power, reserved by the citizens of America to themselves,
should be granted by the state governments. Everything that they
have said or done, during the last five years, is based on that
ignoring of that most important factor in that particular Article.
Indeed Webb himself made this very clear at the very opening of
his appeal that Senate Resolution Number 17 be passed in the
House on December 17, 1917. He merely paused to make the lucid
explanation of how two supreme powers act, and then went on to
read the Fifth Article as it appears in his expurgated edition of our
Constitution. This is the Fifth Article he read to our only legislature:
“that Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall
deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this
Constitution ... which ... shall be valid to all intents and
purposes as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the
legislatures of three fourths of the several states.”
It is clear to us, who have followed the framing of that Article in
Philadelphia in 1787, that the Americans who framed it there and the
Americans who made it, in their later “conventions,” would not
recognize their Fifth Article. In the expurgated edition, the most
important factor in the real Fifth Article is not only ignored but is
entirely missing. It has been stricken from the Article. We do not
know who ordered that it be stricken out. We recall with interest that,
on September 15, 1787, at Philadelphia, Gerry, always a consistent
Tory in mental attitude, moved that it be stricken out of the Article.
We recall that his motion was defeated by a vote of 10 to 1.
Nevertheless, when we come to read that Article, as Webb and his
colleagues for the new Amendment know it, we find that they must
have some other record of the vote on that old September 15, 1787,
and of the later votes in the “conventions” of the citizens of America.
We find that in the Fifth Article, as Webb and his colleagues know it,
there are no words “by conventions in three fourths of” the several
states. We realize that this reading of his Fifth Article and the
absence of those important words from it was no mere inadvertence
on the part of Webb. Clearly those words are not in his Fifth Article.
Only a few moments after his reading of it, on December 17, 1917,
he quoted with approval a statement, by some former Senator, that
the American people have a “right to be heard in the forum of the
state legislatures, where alone the question can be decided whether
the national Constitution shall be amended.”
In view of these facts, we educated citizens of America have no
difficulty in grasping the Tory mental attitude of Webb (and his
colleagues for the new Amendment) that all constitutional protection
for our individual freedom may be legally dispensed with at any time
by government, if governments only get together and act jointly, as in
the proposal and supposed adoption of the new Amendment entirely
by governments. For the edification of Webb and those of his faith in

Original PDF Our Environment A Canadian Perspective 5th Canadian Edition PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Original PDF Our Environment A Canadian Perspective 5th Canadian Edition PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Original PDF) Our Environment A

Canadian Perspective 5th Canadian

CHAPTER 18 The Way Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624

vi BRIEF CONTENTS NEL

PART 1: Our Environment . . . . 1

CHAPTER 2 Human Relationships with

Science in Environmental Decision Making . . . . . 36

viii CONTENTS NEL

Ex-Situ Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Collapse of the Northern Cod Fishery . . . . . . . 354

Canada’s Freshwater Environments . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Wild Pacific Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

Freshwater Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Future Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365

Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 Environmental Performance Indicator:

CHAPTER 13 Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468

The Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 419 Responses to Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . 486

Chapter Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619

xii CONTENTS NEL

Why It Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625 The Importance of Individuals and

NEL CONTENTS xiii

the next decade focused on both basic and applied research

The fifth edition of this book represents something of a depar-

xvi PREFACE NEL

NEL PREFACE xvii

xviii PREFACE NEL

NEL PREFACE xix

NEL PREFACE xxi

“Let facts be submitted to a candid world.” They have “combined

You might also like