The PenOpticon

Blogging has been sporadic for months — hey, I've got my reasons! — but I'm going to crank it up again. Feeling inspired tonight after the U.S election (though you wouldn't know it from the way I'm writing). Feeling inspired but a little rusty. In any case:

Obama's acceptance speech and McCain's concession speech were remarkable for different reasons. Obama is always very much aware of the arc of history and he has an uncanny ability to map paths along that arc for both himself and his audience. I envied the crowd in Chicago as tears of joy rolled down their cheeks in concert with his words.  MLK had a dream and now (finally!) Obama is living it and inviting the world to go along.

As for McCain, while he is not a particularly eloquent speaker, tonight he was gracious, transcendent and real. In fact, this was McCain's most presidential moment since the campaign began and it should be a harbinger of the attitude the Republicans must adopt if they hope to rebuild.

All in all, a truly remarkable evening.

And now, as a Canadian, I wonder how, and if, Stephen Harper can work with Obama. Tomorrow morning Harper may discover that he has gotten up on the wrong side of the ideological spectrum. We shall see. All I know I that I will soon have to change the PenOpticon banner. After all, Tony Blair is gone and Bush and Cheney are starting to pack up their stuff.  Can Harper be far behind?

It is amazing that Americans can shoehorn most of their political views into these two political parties, especially when much of the democratic world requires three, four, five or more parties. As Canada lurches forward with four national parties, it is obvious, that the change we need here is a proportional voting system that will enable these diverse voices to obtain seats in government and work together in a spirit of practical collaboration. Until that day comes, Canada will be cursed with a series of minority governments that will have a hard time getting the job done.

Congratulations President Obama! Now how can Canadians get the change we need?

 A short, but poignant talk by Mike Nickerson, author of Life, Money and Illusion :

Now that the moving vans have arrived to plunder the Dunlap Observatory, I'm reprising my original letter sent to U of T's Governing Council.  Recall, that U of T never once allowed anyone opposed to the sale to address the governing council. Remember that the university never once consulted with area residents over their plans. I briefly met a U of T librarian on the property this morning, but apart from her, the only official U of T representative I have seen in Richmond Hill since Oct 30, 2007 was a Cassels Brock lawyer at a Town Council meeting.

From Oct 30, 2007 Open letter to the Governing Council of the University of Toronto: 

This afternoon, the University of Toronto Governing Council will meet to decide the fate of the David Dunlap Observatory and its adjoining 189 acres of forests and meadows. This will be no ordinary meeting, and, if U of T's governing body decides to sell, it will be no ordinary sale. 

If these lands are permitted to be sold off and turned into houses and big box stores, it will require the consent and collusion of U of T’s governing council, the Town of Richmond Hill and the province.  In other words, the destruction of DDO forests and meadows will proceed only if the University declares the property to be surplus land, the Town of Richmond Hill council rezones it from institutional to residential/commercial, and the province (through Ontario Municipal Board hearings, if not ministerial intervention) allows bulldozers to begin scraping away the topsoil and trees. 

If these three entities collude to ensure the destruction of the largest remaining green space in the heart of Richmond Hill, it will demonstrate once and for all that our society has no interest in building sustainable communities or fixing the environmental mess we have gotten ourselves into.  It will show that despite the pretty words in a thousand press releases, no one really believes green space is important for the well-being of people and wildlife. 

After all, if one of Canada’s leading universities – an institution responsible for teaching conservation and sustainable development practices and for researching the social and environmental aspects of natural green space – is willing to sell the DDO to the highest bidder, what can we expect from rest of society? 

In fact, the sale of this land will undo much of the University’s institutional effort to become sustainable and environmentally sound.  The University of Toronto demonstrated leadership by opening a Sustainability Office in 2004.  Since then, it has launched numerous greening initiatives – from the LEED-certified Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre in Mississauga to extensive tree planting and naturalization projects on the St George campus. In an article on the University’s “Open Space Plan”, Mary Alice Thring writes “Trees are so integral to U of T that they appear in its crest and are invoked in its motto: Velut Arbor Aevo, which translates as ‘As a tree with the passage of time.’” She adds, “Trees are such a focus of all phases of the Open Space Plan that the landscape architects describe transforming the campus into an ‘urban forest’” (U of T Magazine, Spring 2004). 

Clearly, when it comes to its Toronto and Mississauga campuses, U of T’s administration understands the relationship between the environment and the health and well-being of people and all living things. 

But, will the greening of U of T’s 160-acre downtown campus mean anything if that institution sells off 189-acres of healthy forest and meadow lands in order to pay for future expansion projects? When the Dunlap property became part of the University in 1935, it was cultivated farmland. After seventy years of U of T’s stewardship, this land has been regenerated. It is now a crown of forest cover in the midst of Richmond Hill and a quiet haven for dozens of species of birds, deer, walkers – and astronomers. 

If the University proceeds with this sale, it will be in spite of the broad and deep environmental expertise of its own academics. A quick scan through the U of T undergraduate catalog turns up dozens of courses on the environment, forest ecology, conservation biology and other topics.  Dr. Mart Gross, for example, teaches courses which focus on “biodiversity; endangerment; habitat loss and fragmentation” as well as “moral philosophies, and political, economic and social justice issues surrounding biodiversity”.  In fact, U of T is home to Canada’s oldest forestry program and celebrated that Faculty’s centennial this month by hosting an international Congress to develop a “comprehensive Global Vision of Forestry in the 21^st Century”. 

What kind of “vision” will the sale and destruction of a major urban forest provide for the residents of Richmond Hill and their children? 

Given the repeated warnings of coming climate change and environmental degradation from UN panels such as the IPCC; given the fact that southern Ontario – and much of North America – is in the midst of a multi-year drought; given that Great Lakes water levels are at all-time lows and central plains aquifers are being depleted; given that our electrical grid has been pushed to the limit while geologists tell us that Peak Oil will occur – or has occurred – within our lifetime; we must ask whether now is the time to diminish our environment further by destroying the David Dunlap Observatory lands. 

Again, I would draw attention to the Spring 2004 edition of U of T Magazine: “People need trees, and lots of them. Each year, Toronto’s trees absorb roughly 28,000 tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of the output of thousands of cars. They also absorb about 1,500 tons of other pollutants, such as smog-causing nitrogen oxides. Not only do we need trees to maintain our health, we need them to nourish our souls.” 

Alumni and friends of the University of Toronto have responded generously to the University’s desire for trees.  By taking “minimum” donations of $750 per seedling, the University has planted hundreds of new trees on its downtown campus.  To celebrate U of T’s 175^th anniversary, for example, F. Ross and Susan L. Johnson made a gift of  175 trees and perennials along King’s College Road and the Sir Daniel Wilson and Knox College walkways.  Are not such wonderful gifts diminished if the University forges ahead with sale and destruction of the DDO property – a thriving urban forest that is considerably larger than the St. George campus? 

Over many decades, thousands of Richmond Hill students have paid millions of dollars in tuition fees to attend the University of Toronto. To this day, these students graduate with deep technical and critical thinking skills and a desire to build rich lives and communities. After 70years, it is unthinkable that the University would threaten the health of a vibrant community by removing the 189-acre heart that sits in the middle of it.

The fact that these healthy forests and meadows can be sold off for millions of dollars with out regard for, or consultation with, the people who live next to it is emblematic of many of our current social and environmental problems. The ability to speculate, to buy and sell remote tracts of land, mineral rights, water resources and currencies while remaining disconnected — or willfully ignorant of local consequences — explains a great deal about how we have moved close to the brink of our own destruction.

I do not see how the U of T Governing Council, the Town of Richmond Council and the Province can support the sale of David Dunlap Observatory.  There is time.  And the University should use it.

Sincerely,

Rod Potter

Member of the Richmond Hill Naturalists Executive and long-time Richmond Hill Resident

"Whenever we have an economic activity, we've got to do it in an environmentally friendly way". That's what Federal Environment Minister John Baird told the Globe and Mail yesterday when it reported that 500 birds were killed after landing in a toxic lake of "oily tailings". Baird added, "Something went wrong here. I'm not happy about it and I want to get to the bottom of it." Perhaps Mr. Baird should get to the bottom of Syncrude Canada's toxic lake and see if the sludge will stick to him.

Supposedly this tragedy happened because Syncrude had not yet deployed "noise cannons " around the lake to scare off the birds. I dunno — when I first saw similar cannons a few years ago, they were loud and obnoxious, but many birds simply ignored them and came and went as they pleased. I suspect that the tar sands tailing ponds, positioned in the middle of a migratory bird flyway are bound to attract and cause the death of hundreds, if not thousands of birds every year. The Federation of Alberta Naturalists has complained about the tailing ponds for years.

What's troubling (though not surprising) is that Baird is comfortable talking about open lakes of toxic sludge and environmentally friendly "economic activity" in the same breath. No wonder six Alberta conservation groups are suing Baird for failing to protect endangered bird habitat.

When will this "New" free-market, Conservative government start to encourage sustainable energy development and cancel all oil and gas subsidies.  It's tragic and immoral that tar sands development is causing the death of so much wildlife. The fact that Canadian taxpayers are helping to fund this carnage through billion-dollar subsidies is just plain stupid.

A response to Bob McDonald's April 18, 2008 blog about Black Holes, Dr. Tom Bolton and David Dunlap Observatory:

Thank you for bringing attention to the plight of the David Dunlap Observatory and the accomplishments of Dr. Tom Bolton.   The imminent sale of the Observatory and surrounding property has unlocked a complex set of issues that deserve to be fully examined by the people of Ontario.   As the Honourable Lincoln Alexander, Chair of Ontario Heritage Trust wrote in a February 8 letter to Richmond Hill Town Council , "the property possesses an exceptional range of heritage values and heritage significance including architectural, historical, scientific, landscape, natural and recreational."

Alexander adds: "The [Ontario Heritage] Trust supports the preservation and protection of the David Dunlap Observatory and Park for the benefit of present and future generations of the people of Ontario."

The David Dunlap Observatory was always intended to be used for three purposes:  public education, research and as public park. As the longest-running astronomy education facility in Ontario (if not Canada), the DDO has hosted thousands of school groups and adults at public lectures and tours of the telescope.  During the recent Earth Hour celebrations, some 500 guests visited the grounds. They were awed by the 74-inch telescope and inspired by the passion and knowledge of DDO astronomers and technicians.

When it comes to research, the DDO's international reputation is still well known and well-deserved.  It is true that the 74-inch telescope can not be used for cutting edge observation of extra-galactic objects, but the facility has worked well for resident astronomers, such as Dr. Slavek Rucinski's studies of close binary systems and continues to attract international observers for stellar spectroscopy projects.

So why is the University of Toronto so eager to close David Dunlap Observatory when American and European astronomers recognize the need to maintain small and medium aperture telescopes?  For instance, the NOAO ReSTAR Committee (Renewing Small Telescopes for Astronomical Research) states in their 2007 final report:  "The science to be done with small and mid-size telescopes remains compelling and competitive in the era of big telescopes. Small and mid-size telescopes continue to produce innovative science in themselves, and to provide precursor and follow-up observations that enhance the scientific productivity of larger telescopes. Small and mid-size telescopes also enable scientific investigations that are not possible on larger telescopes."

Despite the evidence that the DDO and other facilities in its class continue to produce quality science, we are told the University of Toronto is more interested in "big science" projects such as the Thirty Meter Telescope. This is understandable, even commendable.  However, the closure and sale of the Dunlap property will fetch only a pittance compared to the vast sums needed for the TMT.  Its sale will not solve U of T's funding issues – and it shouldn't.  Selling the land beneath our feet to fund public institutions is unsustainable and socially reprehensible.

As a "park", the Dunlap property has long been a hidden jewel in the middle of Richmond Hill.  Despite Jessie Dunlap's original intent, the DDO has never been actively presented as a public space, but it has been regularly used by DDO staff and by the wider Richmond Hill community since it first opened. For many years part of the property was also operated as research arboretum by the U of T faculty of forestry.  Over 75 years, the DDO has morphed from clear-cut farmland to a diverse mixture of forest and meadowlands that provide habitat for dozens of bird species and many large and small mammals. The result is a unique urban wilderness that Phil Goodwin, Chair of the Don Watershed Council, calls "a rarity within the urban landscape that should be respected and nurtured" [link ]

It is disheartening to think one of Canada's most respected universities is willing to sell off a 75-year-old legacy with no public debate and very little planning (only scant details of the new "Dunlap Institute" have been publicly announced).  

It is to be hoped that after reconsidering the value of small telescopes in general and the "sustainable science" the DDO produces just a few kilometers from U of T's main campus, along with its value for public education and as a green urban oasis, the University will decide to hold onto the DDO for many more years.

However, if the University is determined to dispense with 75 years of its own history, then it should work with the DDO astronomers, the people of Richmond Hill and the Canadian amateur astronomy community to transition the facility into a self-sustaining institution.  Such a process could take several years, but it would be worth it.  As we begin to understand the full range of consequences of climate change and other growth-related environmental problems, the rapacious era of "greenfield" development must come to an end.  Ironically, the University of Toronto is home to hundreds of academics that specialize in climate change, biodiversity, forest ecology, conservation biology and sustainability.  Let us hope the University listens to these experts and turns irony into action by refusing to sell the Dunlap property to developers.