Currently, the main environmental threats to the Kananaskis region are expanding tourism and various development pressures, including resource extraction. The main area at risk is the Evan Thomas Provincial Recreation Area - the area surrounding Kananaskis village - because in spite of longstanding government promises, it still remains an unprotected area.
At the G8 site which the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society has set up (see: http://www.kananaskisg8.net/kissues.asp), we find that much of the Kananaskis area, particularly foothills areas, is still open to oil and gas development, logging, and grazing. Furthermore, we find that "the Forest Management Agreement (FMA) signed with Spray Lake Sawmills [on July 24, 2001] means that much of Kananaskis Country will be turned over to private control." This will increase the vulnerability of many areas to development; and at the very least, it will sanction and perpetuate the exploitation of the forested foothills. (see the March 28 action alert at: http://www.albertawilderness.ca/News/Alerts/Alerts2001.htm and http://www.nucleus.com/~bcec/newsSLSfma2.html for more in-depth information on this issue).
As mentioned before, the G8 meetings and the surrounding locale are smack in the middle of the Evan Thomas Provincial Recreation Area, an area which the government continues to refuse to make a protected area in spite of some sectors which are connected to crucial ecological habitats. The reason behind this resistance is pretty clear: this is also an area of considerable economic growth. As documented at the CPAWS site, the area is now seeing an influx of 1.4 million visitors annually, with an 8% annual growth rate. Clearly, interests such as the Delta hotel chain would like to capitalize on this boom and don't want 'protected status' getting in the way of plans to expand accommodations, to create new ski runs, etc. Environmentalists recently scored a victory against these interests when Kan-Alta Golf Management Ltd. finally backed down from plans to construct a golf course at the mouth of Evan Thomas Creek (see: http://www.nrcb.gov.ab.ca/kantoc.html for more info.). This victory, however, was the fruit of almost ten years of struggle, and the battle will continue to be uphill until the Evan Thomas area is granted full protected status. In fact, no sooner had the dust settled around the Kan-Alta project than a new project was unveiled by Three Sisters Golf Resorts Inc. At the CPAWS site there is a more general forecast of what might be looming on the development horizon in the area.
What about projected environmental impacts of G8 protests?
During the three days of the Summit, there won't be the usual tourists in the Evan Thomas area. These people would normally number at least 12,000 (may seem like a lot, but do the math... that's what it comes out to - conservatively). Thus, if 12,000 activists were to be randomly distributed around the recreational facilities (trails, golf course, etc.) in the Evan Thomas area, the 'human load factor' over the 3 days would be normal. Actually, one would assume that this number could easily be doubled or tripled and still be within normal limits, since visitor traffic must have its slow and busy periods (weekends, high season...).
Environmental overload only becomes a real worry when protesters are concentrated in large numbers, and those numbers converge on sensitive areas. This is not likely to happen if protesters proceed to convergence points in relatively small groups and convergence points are not in sensitive areas. An important area of discussion for organizers, therefore, is locating suitable convergence points.
The Summit itself will take place in Kananaskis Village, which is surrounded by two golf courses to the southeast and a ski resort (Nakiska) to the north. These areas may be well-groomed, but they don't represent 'pristine natural habitats'. The golf courses to the southeast, will probably not be accessible, however, because:
The other main possibility (as a convergence point) is upper part of the Nakiska ski area. This wouldn't be the first time that this has been a major convergence point. During the Calgary Olympics in 1988, 240,000 spectators flocked to Nakiska over 15 days to watch the alpine skiing events. By the time they arrived, environmental impacts had already become a moot point, since the eastern slopes of Olympic Mtn. had been largely razed to make way for ski hills and facilities. A convergence at Nakiska could actually be transformed into a two-pronged protest: against the liberal economic model of global development which the G8 promotes, and against profit-hungry tourism development in the Kananaskis. Activists should be aware that the proprietor of Nakiska, Charlie Locke - operating via his 'Resorts of the Canadian Rockies' (RCR) name - also happens to own the Lake Louise resort and many other prestigious resorts across the country, and including the Fernie Alpine Resort in B.C. where sewage effluent in the Elk River has become a major problem (see: http://www.city.fernie.bc.ca/Public%20Notices/2001/Resorts%20of%20Canadian%20Rockies.htm).
Regardless where people converge, it is impossible to imagine a few days of protest causing anything remotely close to the damage one bulldozer causes in an afternoon when it is unleashed on a pristine plot of wilderness. However for a world-scale threat to the environment, we can point directly to the G8, which will continue to promote global-scale resource exploitation, to undermine global environmental initiatives, and to expand militarism under the guise of the "war against terrorism". To prevent environmental degradation on a global scale, it is imperative to oppose the G8 and to prevent it from achieving its goal of using the summit as a legitimization exercise (see: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/g7/scholar/bailin/bailin2000.pdf in which the main purpose of G8 summits is seen as the effort to promote legitimacy in the eyes of the public).
Potential Environmental Impacts of Chemicals Used for Crowd Dispersal (teargas, etc.)
The dangerous effects of using CS gas and its solvents on people have been well-documented (see: http://monkeyfist.com/articles/765 and http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2001-05-17/news_story5.html ), and security forces should not be using these substances in the first place. But since it is unlikely that the police will back down in this regard, the following issue arises:
Protesters may be ready to risk exposure to CS, its solvents, and other agents - but what about potential effects on the Kananaskis environment? Is the threat significant enough that protesters should be considering backing down unilaterally from protest in the area for this reason?
To put this in context, keep in mind that the immediate vicinity of Kananaskis Village is no stranger to persistent organic pollutants (POPs). The two Kananaskis golf courses are heavy pesticide users (I checked and neither one is Audubon certified). According to "Golf War Syndrome" (by Elain Robbins, archived at the Utne Reader), "most U.S. courses use 1,500 pounds of pesticides a year; that's seven times the amount used by farmers" (per equivalent unit area). The usage in Kananaskis would presumeably be less, since they don't operate during the winter, but still, the equivalent of many tear gas canisters worth of chlorine-based chemicals are being dumped around K-Village periodically each summer.
Not that this resolves argument; it suggests, rather, that a better idea is needed of the substances and quantities involved so that relative impacts can be appraised and weighed.
Groups should therefore immediately demand that the government deliver information on the potential extent of deterrent-chemical use so that environmental risks can be ascertained.
We are told in official security reports that 5,148 tear gas canisters were deployed in Quebec City, (see: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/055_2001-05-04/han055_1110-e.htm), but we don't have clear information about the exact contents of those canisters. On May 4th, 2001, NDP MP Joe Comartin made a specific request in Parliament for a report on the "exact chemical composition of all chemical agents" (see previous link), but never received a reply from the government. Consequently, groups should ask that the government follow through on Comartin's demand (we need to know what chemicals are likely to be involved), and also, the government should also be asked - in writing - for information on how much of and what sort of chemicals have been ordered for use specifically in Kananaskis.
The question of environmental impacts of crowd-control chemicals is impossible to resolve without this type of info, and if the government refuses to divulge this information, it clearly bears the responsibility for any risks incurred.
There remains, also, the possibility of forest fires due to hot tear gas cylinders. Late last August, the Kananaskis area was on extreme fire alert, but it is unlikely that such conditions would occur much earlier in the summer. Nevertheless, this is one more reason why the government should not be considering the use of tear gas in the first place, and the fundamental point remains: it is the government's responsibility to be upfront with information so that informed decisions can be made.
No Talk Until the Right to Access Is Established
Clearly, Kananaskis is not the place to be hosting a highly contentious summit. In the face of immediate and widespread opposition, the government might have quickly solved everything by reversing its unwelcome decision, but instead, it has responded by throwing together a damage-control PR campaign (see: http://g8.gc.ca/faq-e.asp ). Aside from naming a special Summit Director for Environmental Affairs and promising to recycle, "as has been done for all major conferences since the G7 Summit in Halifax in1995," the campaign essentially offers nothing constructive. Instead, it states evasively that "the environmental sensitivity of Kananaskis Country ... will be a key element of our work and our continuing dialogue with interested groups and the public" and that "the security plan will be ... based on the risks identified as part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's (RCMP) assessment." Couched within the cautious language is the implication that the ability to minimize environmental impacts depends mainly on the willingness of anti-G8 protesters to hold demonstrations far off (where they can be ignored and/or whisked away by the police). Authorities have demurely suggested that Calgary (location of Calgary Correctional Centre, Calgary Remand Centre, Calgary Young Offenders Centre, etc.) be considered.
What the government communiqué studiously avoids is a recognition of the right of equal access to the Kananaskis area by both demonstrators and summiteers. Without this kind of recognition, any government initiative to 'dialogue about environmental concerns' can only amount, ultimately, to an underhanded way of keeping protests way off in the distance. Activist groups are thus advised to pursue their own environmental assessments independently, leaving any discussions with authorities contingent upon recognition of the aforesaid right of access.
For links to environmental groups involved in issues related to Kananaskis, and for other G8 protest resources, see: http://www.oocities.org/ericsquire/g8.htm