[PHOTO] Downtown Toronto, as seen looking east from the Bathurst Street Bridge

[LINK] "Iron-fertilizing experiment took place in worst possible spot: scientists"

More on the attempted geoengineering that occurred off the British Columbia coast earlier this year. Zoe McKnight's Vancouver Sun article observes that, in terms of location alone, if you want to alter the global climate by dumping large amounts of iron dust in the ocean, a location off the Haida Gwaii islands is one of the worse places to do it, or at least one of the worse places to find proof that the dumping actually worked.

[O]ver the summer, 100 tonnes of iron sulphate and 20 tonnes of iron oxide were scattered 370 kilometres off the coast of Haida Gwaii, right in the path of the Haida eddies, during the first and only project undertaken by the Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. The $2.5-million exercise was a purported attempt to measure how the iron — which is water-soluble — added to the ocean could enhance declining salmon stocks.

The Haida eddies, clockwise-rotating areas of water up to 300 kilometres in diameter, are known to carry iron-rich coastal water out to sea, where there is less iron and therefore less ocean life. The eddies form off the southern tip of the island and become highly concentrated with phytoplankton and chlorophyll, which is readily visible as a “bloom” from satellites as they travel through the northeast Pacific.

The iron fertilization project garnered worldwide attention and criticism from the scientific community. Scientists from around the world have studied the ocean currents near the archipelago, and many expressed concern over the environmental effects on what is considered pristine water.

But experts also say adding iron to this particular ocean region would obscure any data collected by the salmon restoration company because it would be impossible to tell if any growth in fish food — plankton — was a result of added iron or the eddies.

“If you were going to plan to do an experiment to demonstrate the impact of iron fertilization, you wouldn’t dump it into a Haida eddy, I don’t think,” said Jay Cullen, an ocean scientist who runs a lab at the University of Victoria that studies chemicals and trace metals in marine environments.

“If a group were to fertilize such a feature with iron, it would be next to impossible to determine how productivity and phytoplankton biomass was influenced by the treatment,” he said, calling it “bad scientific design.”

A well-designed experiment would include a way to distinguish between water with iron added and water without, to isolate the impact of adding the iron by using a control water sample. Outside the eddies, iron concentration offshore is low because its source is land and the northeast Pacific is anemic compared to coastal water.

[LINK] "Russia and Japan try again for rapprochement"

At Asia Times one Stephen Blank has a column up arguing that, notwithstanding the Russo-Japanese standoff over the Kuril Islands, each country's fear of isolation in Asia and their mutual desire in developing Japan as a market for Russian natural gas might lead to a breakthrough.

First, China's overweening pressure on Japan since 2010 may certainly be driving Tokyo to look for new support, particularly as Russia is regarded as one of the countries with a large supply of rare earth minerals, which China has attempted to block Japan from buying. Second, China's growing propensity to attempt to intimidate its neighbors over maritime boundaries and other issues has drawn quiet but visible Russian resistance in Southeast Asia, and Moscow certainly would not view a Sino-Japanese clash with equanimity.

Third, Russian elites still believe that Japan and Russia are complementary economies and that Japan seeks greater access to Russian energy despite Russia's terrible commercial record as well as the Kurile Islands obstacle. The strong demand for Russian energy that Moscow imputes to Tokyo is only partially true. However, Russia realizes it must sell energy to multiple Asian partners, not just China, to be taken seriously in its high-priority quest for great power status in Asia.

Accordingly both sides have indicated their desire to negotiate on outstanding issues. Most recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that Russia was prepared to discuss a peace treaty with Japan on the basis of the UN charter. Lavrov also simultaneously indicated Russia's willingness to discuss "any matters" that are of interest to Japan - ie the Kurile Islands and China - and to seek an agreement on the disputed islands that is mutually acceptable.

At the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum summit in Vladivostok, Japan and Russia signed a series of agreements as part of a meeting between Prime Minister Noda Yoshihiko and President Vladimir Putin. These accords deal with fish and seafood poaching in territorial waters, a locally important issue; a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Gazprom and Japan's Ministry for Natural Resources and Energy; as well as a contract to build a large timber complex in the Krasnoyarsk area.

[. . . F]or the moment, despite much talk about rapprochement and investments, there is as yet nothing tangible to speak of other than atmospherics. But as time goes by, and if Chinese pressure on either or both countries becomes too overbearing, we may yet see some positive developments either in energy or in a broader geopolitical settlement between Russia and Japan.

[URBAN NOTE] Three lines on the new TTC studies

Torontoist's Hamutal Dotan "TTC Backs Downtown Relief Line, Reopens Sheppard and Scarborough Subway Debates" provided a good critical overview of the matter.

Plans for a new subway in Toronto are—as they ever were—still just lines on paper, but a renewed push to realize them is gaining steam at City Hall. Last week TTC staff released a report on what is being called (to the frustration of many) the Downtown Relief Line, a new subway loop that could, in its most ambitious version, start at Eglinton Avenue East, go down through Pape station and south to Queen or King and the financial district, and then extend west as far as Roncesvalles. That report recommends the TTC proceed with detailed studies of what it would take to get such a subway line built, and that both Toronto and Metrolinx make constructing it a high priority.

Today, the TTC board endorsed that report, which will now go to city council for further debate.

The subway line in question has a troubled history: generations of residents and planners have said it’s a good idea, but nobody has managed to come up with a plan to pay for it—at least, not one politicians are willing to stake their reelection chances on. It’s further complicated by current political divides at City Hall, where the downtown vs. suburbs rhetoric continues to rage. This is why the proposed line’s name bothers some: “Downtown Relief Line” implies a nice cushy ride for those latte-sipping denizens south of Bloor, while the rest of the city suffers, without relief, in slow-moving buses.

As was made clear by TTC staff today, nothing could be further from the truth. Subways are the busiest south of Bloor, but that’s not because downtown residents are riding them—it’s the population from outside the core which needs higher order transit, to get to work and school and to entertainment destinations downtown. The TTC’s manager of service planning, Bill Dawson, summarized it this way: by 2031 staff are projecting that there will be a 51 per cent growth of travel to downtown and 83 per cent of that increase will be from outside Toronto. GO Rail-originating journeys, which currently make up 34 per cent of inbound TTC trips, are expected to increase to 49 per cent. The Yonge line is nearing its maximum capacity, and the DRL is meant to target our most urgent transit infrastructure needs, as determined by projected growth in density, ridership, and employment patterns.

[. . .]

Complicating all this—or at least the public’s perception thereof—is the fact that immediately after endorsing this report and declaring the DRL a priority that needs our urgent attention, the TTC board also green lit two feasibility studies that would reopen the debates about whether or not to extend the Sheppard subway—a campaign promise by Mayor Rob Ford and moved today by Peter Milczyn (Ward 5, Etobicoke-Lakeshore)—and whether to convert the Scarborough RT to a subway rather than to an LRT, moved by Glenn De Baeremaeker (Ward 38, Scarborough-Centre). Council fought bitterly about similar proposals less than a year ago, and decided after heated debated to restore the original light rail plans. The TTC is close to signing a master agreement governing those light rail plans with the provincial government (which is picking up the tab) and once those agreements are signed—which might be as soon as the next few days, TTC CEO Andy Byford told reporters today—we are legally locked into the LRT plans.

Essentially, commissioners voted to study something there’s no reasonable prospect they’ll build, and which council as a whole rejected just a few months ago. (“Stupid, stupid” declared councillor and TTC commissioner John Parker, who was out of the room for the vote.) This is sure to suck up headlines, and to reinforce the concerns that Toronto city councillors are unable to summon the fortitude to make a transit plan based on evidence (rather than political interests) and stick to it for more than ten minutes at a time.

The title of Steve Munro's post, "TTC Madness: A Subway for Everyone", caught my attention.

Today’s meeting of the transit commission was expected to be a modest affair with approval of the Downtown Relief Line study’s recommendations, and a few other housekeeping items. What happened was a complete upending of the transit expansion policies we thought were put in place by the Karen Stintz coup d’état that bounced Rob Ford’s crew off of the TTC board back in the spring. Stintz herself didn’t even have the nerve to stand up to the runaway proposals from her fellow members preferring to keep peace, for now at least.

[. . .]

As if all this isn’t bad enough, the Commission has asked for these analyses to be available for its January 2013 meeting even though staff will be pre-occupied with major work on the 2013 budget for the next few months. The date may slip, but what is clearly going on is that somebody wants information for use in a coming provincial election campaign.

What we see here is a Commission that claims to understand the limits of spending, that claims it should focus on subways where they are really needed, but which insists on revisiting LRT proposals over and over in the hope that they can be upgraded. Saying “no” is very hard for a politician to do, especially when constituents have been convinced that LRT is a distant second class option.

[. . .]

“Irresponsible” does not begin to describe my feeling about this vote, one which proved that the current Commission, given half a chance, will be just as irresponsible about the subway/LRT debate as the Ford-friendly crew they replaced. It is not enough to say that we are getting more information for a better debate. We have had this debate, and only people with a distaste for the hard truths about subway costs can pretend that this option is viable.

At NOW Toronto, Ben Spurr's "Commission confusion" contained vivid descriptions of the reactions of individual councillors.

Councillor John Parker, who sits on the commission board, was livid after the meeting. He was out of the room when the votes took place, but as the meeting broke up he berated his colleagues for undermining the DRL decision by reviving the prospect of a Scarborough subway.

“You just diluted the impact of a good decision by – at the same meeting – passing a stupid decision. I don’t know how you could do it! I don’t know how you could do it!” Parker shouted at de Baeremaeker.

“It’s a stupid, stupid irresponsible [decision], and you shouldn’t have done it… You just undercut our credibility.”

But de Baeremaeker, who represents the Scarborough Centre ward where the proposed subway would run, said the project is worth looking into because it would only cost $500 million more than the LRT that Metrolinx has agreed to build on the route.

“I think it’s a subway system in Scarborough that we can afford,” he told reporters, adding that the extra $500 million could possibly be found by dipping into the city’s year-end surpluses.

De Baeremaeker denied the suggestion that he was pursuing an improbable transit project in order to appease voters in his ward.

“I think my voters in Scarborough are very happy with me, I work very hard,” he said. “Voters will decide in the next election, based on the subway and many other issues.”

Stintz played down the impact of the reports, saying that work for the LRT lines will go ahead, and “nothing that the commission did today changes that decision.”

She did predict that TTC staff would conclude that extending the Boor-Danforth subway east from Kennedy makes more sense than replacing the Scarborough RT with light rail. But she acknowledged it may not be financially feasible.

“Asking for a feasibility study is well within our rights and, I think, valuable information for the public,” she said.